The GOP's Misplaced Rage. by Bruce Bartlett

[MarcATL]

Dunno if you guys frown on quoting articles without the OP's own editorial on it, so I'm just giving a lil input. The following article, I think, pretty much details what the EFF is wrong with the Republican party today. Read it and weep...if you're so inclined:

Leading conservative economist Bruce Bartlett writes that the
Obama-hating town-hall mobs have it wrong—the person they
should be angry with left the White House seven months ago.

by Bruce Bartlett

Where is the evidence that everything would be better if
Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy
would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower
today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no
economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean
liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product
and the level of employment would be pretty much the same
today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since
Barack Obama’s inauguration.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a
deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office,
with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large
extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482
billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last
summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset
Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress
in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the
vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion
deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.

I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent,
Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not
to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can
be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the
election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as
most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he
did, McCain would have won easily.

The GOP's Misplaced Rage - Page 1 - The Daily Beast

 

[Toro]

This was my favorite passage.

Conservatives delude themselves that the Bush tax cuts worked and that the best medicine for America’s economic woes is more tax cuts; at a minimum, any tax increase would be economic poison. They forget that Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year. Indeed, one could easily argue that the enactment of that legislation was a critical prerequisite to recovery because it led to a decline in interest rates. The same could be said of Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which many conservatives predicted would cause a recession but led to one of the biggest economic booms in history.

According to the CBO, federal taxes will amount to just 15.5 percent of GDP this year. That’s 2.2 percent of GDP less than last year, 3.3 percent less than in 2007, and 1.8 percent less than the lowest percentage recorded during the Reagan years. If conservatives really believe their own rhetoric, they should be congratulating Obama for being one of the greatest tax cutters in history.

Obama the tax cutter!

 

[xsited1]

He's right on the money with this:

On this basis, we see that Bush’s tax cuts were pretty much the opposite of what supply-side economics would recommend. The vast bulk of his tax cuts involved tax rebates—which failed in 2001 and again in 2008, because the vast bulk of the money was saved—or tax credits that had no incentive effects. While marginal rates were cut slightly—the top rate fell from 39.6 percent to 35 percent—it was phased in slowly and never made permanent. Neither were Bush’s cuts in capital gains and dividend taxes.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats these days, and a complete absence of Conservatives. I guess that's by design.

 

[MarcATL]

It's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats these days, and a complete absence of Conservatives. I guess that's by design.

I think this is now a false myth at this point.

The article points out that under Democrats, Clinton, the country experience at least twice as much more financial prosperity in every sector.

Myself, I remember that everyone I knew was doing well when Clinton was in office, I was in high school and in college during Clinton years. Graduated just in time to feel the pain and misery that the Bush years ushered in.

Here more...

To the extent that there were mistakes in housing policy that contributed to the recession, those were necessarily committed by Bush political appointees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other agencies. To the extent that banks and other financial institutions made mistakes or engaged in fraudulent activity, it was either overlooked or sanctioned by Bush appointees at the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and elsewhere.

But in a larger sense, the extremely poor economic performance of the Bush years really set the stage for the current recession. This is apparent when we compare Bush’s two terms to Bill Clinton’s eight years. Since both took office close to a business cycle trough and left office close to a cyclical peak, this is a reasonable comparison.

Throughout the Bush years, many conservative economists, including CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, extravagantly extolled Bush’s economic policies. As late as December 21, 2007, after the recession already began, he wrote in National Review: “the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.” In a column on May 2, 2008, almost six months into the recession, Kudlow praised Bush for having prevented a recession.

But the truth was always that the economy performed very, very badly under Bush, and the best efforts of his cheerleaders cannot change that fact because the data don’t lie. Consider these comparisons between Bush and Clinton:

• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much.

• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected.

• Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s.

• During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office.

• Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.

Conservatives delude themselves that the Bush tax cuts worked and that the best medicine for America’s economic woes is more tax cuts; at a minimum, any tax increase would be economic poison. They forget that Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year. Indeed, one could easily argue that the enactment of that legislation was a critical prerequisite to recovery because it led to a decline in interest rates. The same could be said of Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which many conservatives predicted would cause a recession but led to one of the biggest economic booms in history.

 

[MarcATL]

Damn near posted the entire articl in the thread, but this is just too good...

According to the CBO, federal taxes will amount to just 15.5 percent of GDP this year. That’s 2.2 percent of GDP less than last year, 3.3 percent less than in 2007, and 1.8 percent less than the lowest percentage recorded during the Reagan years. If conservatives really believe their own rhetoric, they should be congratulating Obama for being one of the greatest tax cutters in history.

Conservatives will respond that some tax cuts are good while others are not. Determining which is which is based on something called supply-side economics. Because I was among those who developed it, I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject. According to the supply-side view, temporary tax cuts and tax credits are economically valueless. Only permanent cuts in marginal tax rates will significantly raise growth.

On this basis, we see that Bush’s tax cuts were pretty much the opposite of what supply-side economics would recommend. The vast bulk of his tax cuts involved tax rebates—which failed in 2001 and again in 2008, because the vast bulk of the money was saved—or tax credits that had no incentive effects. While marginal rates were cut slightly—the top rate fell from 39.6 percent to 35 percent—it was phased in slowly and never made permanent. Neither were Bush’s cuts in capital gains and dividend taxes.

I could go on to discuss other Bush mistakes that had negative economic consequences, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed a massive regulatory burden on corporations without doing anything to prevent corporate misconduct, and starting unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will burden the economy for decades to come in the form of veterans’ benefits.

But there is yet another dimension to Bush’s failures—the things he didn’t do. In this category I would put a health-care overhaul. Budget experts have known for years that Medicare was on an unsustainable financial path. It is impossible to pay all the benefits that have been promised because spending has been rising faster than GDP.

In 2003, the Bush administration repeatedly lied about the cost of the drug benefit to get it passed, and Bush himself heavily pressured reluctant conservatives to vote for the program.

Because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan. By not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan. Instead, Republicans have opposed Obama's initiative while proposing nothing themselves.

In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto.

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting.

Bruce Bartlett was one of the original supply-siders, helping draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, he was a leading Republican economist. He now considers himself to be a political independent. He is the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy . His latest book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, will be published by Palgrave Macmillan in October.

 

[xsited1]

It's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats these days, and a complete absence of Conservatives. I guess that's by design.

I think this is now a false myth at this point.

The article points out that under Democrats, Clinton, the country experience at least twice as much more financial prosperity in every sector.

...

The President proposes the budget, but it's Congress who controls the spending. Clinton didn't start wars and the Republicans acted like real conservatives during his administration. That's why.

Now we have Obama which looks a lot like Bush-III. No, it is not a myth. They just want you to think it's a myth.

 

[Maple]

You can only hope that what you state is true. That hope is running out, and it's your guys that totally control the congress, the senate and the presidency, and if it's not true, you will be out in a very, very short time. The sunami is coming in 2010.

 

[Toro]

I think this is now a false myth at this point.

The article points out that under Democrats, Clinton, the country experience at least twice as much more financial prosperity in every sector.

Myself, I remember that everyone I knew was doing well when Clinton was in office, I was in high school and in college during Clinton years. Graduated just in time to feel the pain and misery that the Bush years ushered in.

Bush was not responsible for the after-math of the Tech Bubble, which was a big reason for the final years of the Clinton prosperity, and was the primary reason for the sluggish growth after the Tech Bubble collapsed.

It is my opinion that Clinton was a better steward of the economy than Bush and the Republicans. However, Clinton was also a big benefactor of circumstances whereas Bush happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, just as today's hard times are not the fault of Obama. Republican policies of financial deregulation played a part in the financial collapse last year, but in truth, the main drivers behind the collapse lay outside the political arena.

 

[Avatar4321]

We dont feel rage toward obama, so how can it be misplaced?

We simply dont like people trying to take away our freedom, spend our money, and violate the Constitution. And we would feel like that no matter what party was in office and what person.

 

[MarcATL]

We dont feel rage toward obama, so how can it be misplaced?

We simply dont like people trying to take away our freedom, spend our money, and violate the Constitution. And we would feel like that no matter what party was in office and what person.

Keep telling that to yourself. Perhaps if you repeat a good 3 or 4 thousand times you might actually start to believe it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Keep telling that to yourself. Perhaps if you repeat a good 3 or 4 thousand times you might actually start to believe it.

What makes you think I dont believe it? Why would I say it if i didnt?

Do you lie so much that you simply assume that others do?