The word is grim out of the economist circles. New reports have big names like Greenspan forecasting dark days ahead. In a new article on Salon, there is downright doom and gloom talk from several economists. Here is a sample:
Consider the following extraordinary commentary: Alan Greenspan saying, "The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the second world war." Former Reagan economic advisor Martin Feldstein saying, "Could this become the worst recession we have seen in the postwar period? I think the answer is yes."
Things are not looking good as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted:
Paul Krugman writing that the current situation "looks increasingly like one of history's great financial crises."
Don't forget Captain Obvious had something to add:
Even George Bush concedes that we face "challenging times,"
Well Mr. President, maybe if you did not continue the principles of Reagan conservatism we would not be in such financial dire straights. You know the kind of conservatism that does not curb spending, only reallocates it from social programs and infrastructure building to defense and wars. Hell you even started a war and cut taxes at the same time. Only thing is the tax cuts really only helped those you affectionately called "my base".
I think a post outlining the failures of modern republican policy is in order. If this recession is as bad as liberals, scratch that, economists like Alan Greenspan say, we can thank the same party that gave us the great depression.
Are you seriously blaming a political party for a recession?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure giving tax breaks only to the super-rich and refusing to increase the minimum wage to something livable and being in bed with the Saudis and their oil had nothing to do with our current economic crisis.
ReplyDeleteSo, it's not really the party- just George and his politics.
Interesting. Well, in that case, since George and his friends got us into it, I will sleep better tonight knowing that Hillary and her friends(or Barack and his) will therefore get us out of it. Sounds good to me!
ReplyDeleteThe Bush administration has helped to squash legislation in 49 states that would have enforced tighter controls on predatory loans.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush administration buried their head in the sand when economists were warning about the credit bubble we were riding.
The Bush administration has raised our defecit to insane levels, by wasting money on Iraq, which has weakened the dollar in your pocket.
The tax burden has been shifted dwonward under the Bush administration, squeezing the middle class, contributing to the endless credit cycle so mmny are caught in.
Yes I blame Bush and the Republicans that enable him for the recession.
You blame Bush and the Republicans.I realize that.
ReplyDeleteI will now adopt your attractively simplistic philosophy and fully expect a new President and a Democratic congress to be the sole entities that will pull us out of this recession. Hey, if one party got us into it -- i.e. fully controlled the ups and downs of a free market when and however it wanted to -- then another one can get us out, right? I am freaking pumped!!! Bring on the Democrats!!!
Will Democrats also stop hurricanes and keep people from taking up two parking spots? Sounds, grrrrreat!
No, but we can fix our trade laws, fix our tax policy, eliminate corporate welfare, find a reasonable answer to immigration, balance the budget, change our broken energy policy, fix our broken food policy, and many other measures that will undo the harm the GOP has done. They have tilted the game towards the haves, surely you can see that.
ReplyDelete"Tilting the game towards the haves."
ReplyDeleteTo me, this has several interpretations:
1)Shrinking the size of government to encourage the individual to make decisions instead of the government doing it for him or her.
2)Lowering taxes so that the employers who provide jobs can reinvest, grow, and therefore provide more jobs without forcing the consumer to pay more for the already expensive goods they provide.
3)Making it harder for a mom-and-pop company to get sued out of existence because of frivolous litigation.
So, yes, I guess I do see that.
1) How does shrinking governmen t help when people need health care, need access to better education, need oversight of corporations who are robbing us blind? The modern Republicasn idea of small government means less investment in the human capital through needed educational, social,and helth care programs, but more investment in defense and wars. So the net result is the people see less return for their tax dlooar.
ReplyDelete2) There has been zero coorelation between our tax rate and our productivity as a nation. The Bush tax cuts have allowed the rich to maintain a larger share of our national treasure. In 1980 the top 1% possessed 8% of our nation's wealth. Today that number is over 20%, thanks to the regressive tax policies instituted by Reagan and the Bush's.
3) There has to be balance found where we do not take the ability of an oridinary citizen to strike a larger entity when they have been wronged. No one supports frivolous lawsuits.
How is Hillary going to pay Africa to educate every child from birth on? I read her quote in Vanity Far.
ReplyDeletepussycat
A post outlining the failures of the modern Republican party would be very long indeed. Better make it a series. Or better yet, a book.
ReplyDeleteContrary to what some people say when the economy starts to tank, the executive branch does have some power over the economy. It controls lots of agencies and, you know, presses for policies and issues signing statements and appoints regulatory officials and stuff like that.
It's true that the president can't just throw a switch and break (or fix) the economy. But it's silly to argue that an administration that's been in power for more than seven years and has spent a lot of its time making economic policies doesn't bear any responsibility for what the economy looks like after seven years of those polices. Kind of like saying that if I spend seven years tinkering with the engine of my truck, I'm not responsible for the fact that after seven years of my tinkering, the truck won't go any more.
Also, I find it very interesting that Eliot Spitzer wrote an article in the WaPo on Feb. 14 about the administration squashing those efforts to eliminate predatory lending. Not saying he didn't deserve to be prosecuted for what was obviously a crime. Just think it's interesting that he writes this article and then the Justice Department leaks all that information about the investigation and tells him he might catch a break if he resigns. Even more interesting when I consider all the domestic surveillance and the well-documented case of Don Siegelman in Alabama. And what about the other eight johns? Haven't heard much about them.
Surely, Spitzer is not the man all the big Wall Street guys would want to have in the governor's mansion once the financial crisis gets to the point where people are being hauled in front of grand juries.
Pussycat, I have no idea what you are referring to but I would wager it could be paid for with about two weeks worth of Iraq spending.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, geneo, as it is silly to argue that an administration has no control over the economy, it is just as silly to argue that a president and his friends (as Jeff and countless others argue) can have sole and complete control over the economy.
ReplyDeletePeck,
ReplyDeleteI really don't get the idea that Jeff or Jake were arguing that the administration or the Republicans have sole and complete control over the economy. I even went back and re-read the post and thread a second time to make sure. I thought Jeff did a good job of raising some questions about Reaganomics in the post. I think Jeff and Jake do a very good job in their comments of forcefully, but politely, pointing out some of the things that the administration has, indeed, had control of -- and which have contributed significantly to our current economic predicament.
I did, however, interpret your comments as attempting to minimize the influence of the administration on the economy. In your second comment on this thread, you take a sort of sarcastic jab at the Dem candidates without really engaging any of the questions that are being raised here.
Your third comment on the thread is even less useful, since the only substantive claims that I can find in it are based on the fantasy that we have a free market in this country. When the Fed can absorb hundreds of billions of dollars in bad debts by "loaning" money that will never be paid back to a failing investment firm and accepting worthless paper as "collateral," it ain't a free market. In a free market environment, the Fed would stick to monetary policy and let that firm fail.
Your next comment amuses me. You quote Jeff on "tilting the game toward the haves" and then offer three "interpretations" which are nothing more than arguments people use when they're trying to fall back on the free market fiction to avoid dealing with the very real issues Jeff is highlighting.
So, if you'd like your objections to be taken seriously, here's a modest and simple suggestion. Defend the administration's record on the economy with some facts instead of lobbing water balloons at the Dem candidates and regurgitating pseudoeconomic talking points from the 80s. :)
And I'll add that "smaller government" and "limited government" are not synonymous. I point this out just in case anyone who reads this thread gets the idea that "shrinking" government somehow equates to defending liberty. It doesn't. Defending liberty is about limiting power. You don't limit government power by reducing the payroll. You do it by maintaining the rule of law, something the Bush Administration and its apologists have failed to do with their reckless disregard for Constitution, Statute, and Congress since the day he was sworn in.
My sarcasm gets the best of me in my posts, but overall, I'll let economists (who have degrees in that sort of thing) decide who's fault it is. However, Bush has done absolutely nothing to prevent or fix the current problems.
ReplyDeleteamen,brother.
ReplyDeleteKeep saying that part about "absolutely nothing to prevent or fix" until the election. It's fair, and true, and completely definsible, IMO.