Doing Fine?
An incident that happened on Friday displays the nature of America’s current political climate.
In a major economic policy statement as part of a press conference (watch the statement here; go ahead, I’ll wait), President Obama chided Congressional Republicans for declining to move forward on job creation. Republicans in the House and Senate, and Mitt Romney on the campaign trail, responded by misrepresenting the President’s words (that is, by lying about what he said), and so refused to address the underlying issues.
The statement is just over seven minutes long. The President spent the first half discussing Europe’s economic situation, and Greece’s possible exit from the Eurozone. He touched on how this might affect America, and on how Europeans are starting to realize that it’s hard to climb out of an economic slump if a nation’s economy isn’t growing.
The President then went on to describe how America is doing. After nearly two years of bleeding jobs,we’ve now had twenty-seven consecutive months of private-sector job growth. State and local governments, however, have defunded over 450,000 pubic sector jobs. The President pushed for federal assistance to rehire police and fire fighters and teachers, to engage in infrastructure repair, to assist homeowners having trouble with their mortgages, and to give small businesses a tax break for hiring more workers.
He went on to point out that, although we’ve created 4.3 million jobs in the last twenty-seven months, the recovery is not moving fast enough. The President proposed the American Jobs Act last fall, but Republicans blocked most of it. We need more action, we need more jobs, and we need them now.
It was a call and a challenge, an acknowledgement of how far we’ve come, and how far we have yet to go. It also was an indictment of Republican obstructionism, underlining the Republican commitment to doing nothing in the face of the ongoing recovery efforts.
In answer to a reporter’s question, President Obama said,
The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.
The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they’re promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the — to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.
Amazingly, this answer furnished a soundbite to Republicans, allowing them to change the subject, and to attack the President. Take six words out of context, and the purpose and thrust and meaning of the President’s statement, his press conference, and the issue of the day, is utterly changed:
“The private sector is doing fine.”
Clearly, the President was telling us that the recovery is happening — but not fast enough, not far enough, and we need to do more. But Republican spin is consuming the media, and the pretense is on.
“Where we are seeing weaknesses in our economy, had to do with state and local government, often times cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal Government, and who don’t have the same flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in,”
The only thing Republicans heard (or so they claim) is, “The private sector is doing fine.”
Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said:
Today, President Obama inexplicably claimed that ‘the private sector is doing fine.’ But the 23 million Americans who are struggling for work are not ‘doing fine.’ Job creators and small businesses are not ‘doing fine.’ The middle class is not ‘doing fine.’ There is no denying that President Obama has been fundamentally hostile to job creators and his policies have prevented our economy from rebounding. America needs a president who understands the economy and knows how to get our country back on track.
Mitt Romney asked, “Is he really that out of touch?” He went on to say the President was “defining what it means to be detached and out of touch with the American people.” He said the comment “is going to go down in history as an extraordinary miscalculation and misunderstanding.” John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and others, have also weighed in, accusing the President of being “out of touch” and of not realizing that people out of work are not “doing just fine.”
The President has had to “clarify”, and has even been said to be “backtracking” on his original remark.
Have you caught what’s going on? We aren’t talking about how Republicans are preventing the creation of new jobs. By taking six words out of context, and by pretending that was all President Obama said, Republicans have effectively changed the subject.
But let’s take them at their word. Let’s pretend Republicans really are so stupid that their attention span lasts six words. They’re complaining that the President, not understanding that there are still people out of work, isn’t doing anything to help them.
For instance, we need a jobs plan. Like the one Republicans refused to enact last fall.
Apparently, professional Republicans are hoping Americans are also stupid enough to have an attention span that lasts six words. They hope we won’t understand that the message the President gave on Friday was the opposite of what Romney and Boehner and Cantor are claiming. They hope we won’t notice that the people who are standing in the way of faster recovery — the people who threw 450,000 public employees out of work — the people who refuse to discuss ways of actually creating more jobs — are the Republicans.
On the one hand, we have a President who is desperately trying to put Americans back to work, and who is pointing out how far we’ve come, and how far we have left to go, and what we have to do to get there. On the other hand is an opposition party addicted to half-truths, outright falsehoods, and doing anything in their power to play political games rather than do anything that would help the nation.
What happened Friday displays the nature of America’s current political climate.
Related articles
President Barack Obama: “Private Sector is Doing Fine”(newstalkcleveland.com)
Shock: House Republicans and Mitt Romney would rather take Obama out of context than create jobs(dailykos.com)
Obama gets grief for saying private sector ‘fine’ — Boston.com(boston.com)
Obama says it’s clear US economy ‘not doing fine’ — Reuters(reuters.com)

This entry was posted by dcpetterson on June 10, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
#102 written by GROG 11 months ago
Max,
In real dollars, public debt was $908B at the start of Reagan’s term; at the end, he handed Bush I a public debt of $2.7 T. Now 2700⁄908 = 2.97357. Not EXACTLY 3 times, but pretty goddamned close. So you wish to argue over 0.02643? Now THAT is ridiculous. Because 2.97357 is A LOT closer to 3.0 than 2.97357 is to 2.0!!!
Umm, yes. On that. You need to adjust for inflation. When you do, that national debt just over doubled. Unless you think 1981 dollars were same as 1988 dollars?
Micheal,When the economy is healthy, the debt should be paid down, period.
Then why didn’t Democrats pay down the debt?
The prices dropped because of sharply decreased demand, coupled with a sharp increase in production by non-OPEC countries other than the United States.
And because price controls were lifted, ending that disasterous policy put in place by Nixon.
-
Roughly 80% of our national debt was accumulated under Reagan, Bush, and Bush. Bush 2 left us with a structural annual deficit of about $1 trillion — two unfiunded wars, an unfunded giveaway to drug and insurance companies, unfunded tax kickbacks to the very welathy, and a collapsed economy, all due to Bush’s policies.
Conservatives don’t have any excuse to talk about the economy at all. They destroyed it, and the current recommendations from Ryan and Romney will double down on the same destructive nonsense. Obama’s success in turning us around will be reversed by these bozi. Let’s not do that.
-
When you do, that national debt just over doubled.
Let’s accept your numbers. Reagan somewhere between doubled and tripled the national debt. You’re defending that?
More — you’re claiming Reagan’s immense spending (when we didn’t need it) isn’t the main reason the economy grew? Try to remember that government spending is part of GDP. Every dollar government spending grows will increase GDP by at least that amount — more, depending on whether it is, say, infrastructure spedning or consumables or whatever.
Reaganomics started us down a course of reversing the strategies that brought America outr of the Great Depression, paid off the WW2 debt, educated millions of Americans, and let us reach for the Mo0n. Reaganomics, continued for thirty years — deficits, deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, letting infrastructure crumble, declining investment in education – led to the Second Republican Great Recession of 2008–2009. We can only escape from this Reagan sinkhole by returning to the policies of the pre-Reagan era — or by moving forward on the path President Obama has set out, away from Republican attempts to double down on Bush’s policies.
What were Bush’s policies? Darth Ceney — “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Unfunded wars, unfunded giveaways to the wealthy, unfinded tax cuts for the wealthy, declining investments, deregulation. The Ryan plan.
-
-
#106 written by Max 11 months ago
GROG,
I don’t give a damn about whether 1981 dollars are the same as 1988 dollars!!! All I want is consistency from you and the other folk!
I’m GLAD you are willing to admit that everything ain’t always equal! And just as inflation makes the use of real dollars possibly pertinent in comparisons, so does initial boundary conditions and current events play a role in evaluating the spending of another administration. I have posed the question previously: What if the debt crowd had demanded that the government stop spending because the debt/GDP exceeded 100% in 1943? Obviously, one cannot compare going into debt during WWII with doing so in, say, during Eisenhower’s terms!
Most, by a very wide margin, economists subscribe to Keynesian monetary policy. Very simply put: Countercyclical spending, and tax cuts, during economic downturns driving up debt, but paying down that debt, and using tax increases, post-recovery. Reagan used the first half of the equation in the early 80’s, but failed to begin paying back, as ALL his predecessors had done for 40 years, the latter half of his term. The result, was increasing debt (as % of GDP) in the recovery period. Nor did taxes rise enough because he did not follow “the rules”. Clinton DID. He curtailed spending and government employment AND raised taxes, and the result was decreased debt and surpluses. Bush II DID NOT and subsequently built SEVERAL HUNDRED BILLION of annual structural deficit into the equation. Taxes have now reached an historic low, compared to necessary revenue, compounding and contributing to that structural deficit and prevent the use of tax cutting now.
Ignoring the fact, pretending it is non-existent, that serious economic downturns can be as serious to a nation’s citizens, if not it’s survival, as a war can be is foolish. Would you, personally, complain about the deficits under Obama if we were involved in a shooting war? And NONE of the Obama deficit additions are contributing to that structural deficit, but will disappear post-recovery. For the vast bulk of economists and “lefties”, the seriousness of the 2007 Great Recession is equivalent to that of a war. The health, if not the survival, of the citizens’ economic condition has been at stake, and extraordinary measures have been needed, as for a war. -
Again, endearing as it is lol ie grog’s unwavering devotion to Dutch w/all his shortcomings, it’s interesting grog never talks about Bush41/43 and mittens.
grog likes indeed he insists on talkin’ about the supposed conservatives golden age of the ‘80s when income inequality in America increased exponentially er trickle down/voodoo economics!
-
Would you, personally, complain about the deficits under Obama if we were involved in a shooting war?
I think I can confidantly answer for Grog (and all other Republican partisans) on this.
Yes. Yes they would.
First, modern “conservatives” (they’re not actually conservatives — they’re reactionaries) will complain about anything having to do with Obama, even things they used to support. I can prove that. Ask them how many support the health care individual mandate? Ask them how many think it’s okay to use the Senate Reconciliation process to avoid a cloture vote? Republicans used to support these things, but not since Obama was in the White House.
But there’s another way to prove my answer. We are involved in a shooting war (Afghanistan), and Republcians still complain about deficits. When there was a Republican in the White House, we were told it was unpatriotic, maybe even treasonous, to criticise a wartime president. Now, we’re being told it is nearly treasonous not to.
There simply is no depths to which Republicans will not go, in their drive to unseat a black Democrat in the White House. Hypocrisy is small potatoes.
-
GROG,
Then why didn’t Democrats pay down the debt?
Others have answered this, but I want to be clear that I don’t care what party someone is. I care about their actions. The Reagan economy consisted of significant Keynesian stimulus, which was appropriate up to 1984. It was inappropriate from 1985 to 1991 (and may have contributed to the recession that was triggered by the spike in oil prices that came from the Gulf War).
And because price controls were lifted, ending that disasterous policy put in place by Nixon.
While I agree that the Nixon policy was disasterous, I’d like to hear your explanation as to why you think that the price controls had anything more than a tiny marginal impact on oil prices compared to the other changes that occurred in the 1980s.
-
#110 written by rgbact 11 months ago
-
#111 written by GROG 11 months ago
Max,
Countercyclical spending, and tax cuts, during economic downturns driving up debt, but paying down that debt, and using tax increases, post-recovery. Reagan used the first half of the equation in the early 80’s, but failed to begin paying back, as ALL his predecessors had done for 40 years, the latter half of his term.
Then why didn’t the Democrats attempt to pay down the debt? They controlled the purse strings. I know know the liberal reaction of a leftist is to always make excuses and blame someone else, but why didn’t they attempt to pay down the debt? Why are all Obama’s failures the fault of those rascally Republican obstructionists, but no Democrat who controlled spending in the 80’s was repsonsible for anything?
I don’t give a damn about whether 1981 dollars are the same as 1988 dollars!!!
You should give a damn. It’s misleading and intellectually dishonest to say that Reagan “tripled the national debt”.
DC,Reaganomics started us down a course of reversing the strategies that brought America outr of the Great Depression, paid off the WW2 debt, educated millions of Americans, and let us reach for the Mo0n.
We were able to do those things because we had just gotten done blowing up the rest of the civilized world. Do you understand that things had changed by the 80’s? Or do you not see that?
Then why didn’t Democrats pay down the debt?
Clinton did. He ran a surplus for four years.
First of all, Clinton was President during the Clinton administration, not during the Reagan admimistration. . Secondly, Clinton ran surpluses because of Republicans in Congress.
Michael,I’d like to hear your explanation as to why you think that the price controls had anything more than a tiny marginal impact on oil prices compared to the other changes that occurred in the 1980s.
Prices fell almost immediately after Reagan ended the price controls because it led to a boom in domestic drilling. Gasoline lines and fuel shortages ended even though demand increased.
-
-
First of all, Clinton was President during the Clinton administration, not during the Reagan admimistration.
You are aware that the President proposes a budget, and gets to veto anything he doesn’t like … right?
Tell me .. .were you politically aware in the 1980’s? Do you recall how much Reagan and his Republican cronies controlled the agenda?
Or are you willing instead to credit the suposed “Reagan boom” to Democrats in Congress?
Which is it? You claim that the economy was good in the 80’s. Is that the Democrats’ doing? Or are you going to blame Reagan for the historic deficits?
Your choice. Tell me which you’re going with.
-
First of all, Clinton was President during the Clinton administration, not during the Reagan admimistration. . Secondly, Clinton ran surpluses because of Republicans in Congress.
I love it. Republicans in Congress were responsible for the Clinton economy. But Reagan was responsible for the Reagan economy. Except for the Reagan deficit. Democrats in Congress were responsible for that.
But neither Republicans in Congress nor Republicans in the White House were responsible for deficits — like when Republicans controlled both it he Bush years.
Fact is, Republican presidents run deficits (Reagan did, both Bushes did), regardless of whether the Congress is Republcian or Democratic. Democratic presidents reduce the deficit (Clinton did, Obama did) regardless of who controls Congress.
If you want the “Reagan boom” to go to Republican policies, then the Reagan deficits (and the Bush deficits) do too. If you want the Reagan deficits to go to a Democratic Congress, then so does the Keyensian stimulus that led to it. Period.
-
GROG,
Prices fell almost immediately after Reagan ended the price controls because it led to a boom in domestic drilling.
First of all, drilling doesn’t equal production. Secondly, the price controls applied only to existing wells; new drilling was explicitly exempt from the price controls. Third, United States oil production continued to fall after the price controls ended, aside from a brief jump in 1984 and 1985.
Would you care to restate your theory?
-
#116 written by Max 11 months ago
dc,
I agree totally. It’s OK for rgbact to use real vs nominal when whining about Obama, and all the other about the Presidents and Congress.
Pure bullshit by the rightie mouthpieces.Michael, He can’t without either ignoring reality or spooning out more BS.
Think I’ll retire for the evening as I can open a window and smell a better grade on the breeze.
Best, all. -
rgbact,
Roughly 80% of our national debt was accumulated under Reagan, Bush, and Bush.
That seems impossible since its at $15T
In real 2005 dollars, the national debt was $1.9T when Reagan took office. When Bush I left office, it was $5.6T. That’s $3.7T accumulated by Reagan and Bush I. When Clinton left office, it had grown to $6.3T, an accumulation of $1.7T. When Bush II left office, it was $10.8T, an accumulation of $4.5T.
This means that Reagan and the two Bushes were President for $8.2T. That’s about 80% of the national debt as of the end of W’s Presidency, not of the current national debt.
-
#118 written by rgbact 11 months ago
-
-
#120 written by Max 11 months ago
Ah, thanks for the explanation and correction. Of course, there was a GOP Prez for 20 of those 28 years or 71%. DC,DC, I’ll have to start calling you Mitt Jr. soon.
For what reason?
rgbact, what with his inability to cogitate without sound bites from the right, does not understand several points from the “explanation” inherent in the entire debate over Reagan, and GOP actual governing versus rhetoric, and data analysis.
The GOP rhetorically claims to be the “party of financial responsibility”. The very data: 71% of the time in office but 80% of the accumulated debt, demonstrates the falsity of that rhetoric when they actually have the reins of power.
Financial responsibility means that one pays for what they get. When they must go into debt, for a car or for spending for a national emergency, they then begin to pay off that debt, NOT go further into debt unnecessarily.
dc has pointed out the Constitutional structure of our government of the checks and balances of power between the Executive and Legislative. That FACT precludes the EXCUSES made that “it was Congress’ fault the debt built” as the “check” against legislative excess is the executive veto. Which Reagan and the Bush’s DID NOT use on budget bills. Thus, Constitutionally, those executives have the ultimate responsibility for what occurred.
rgbact does not want to admit the truth staring him in the face, because it does not fit his ideological mindset, so he MUST strike out and blame dc for pointing out the truth that he cannot accept. We saw the same in GROG’s earlier “jump” from Reagan’s debt increase to mentioning the mid-term (2-year mark) level of the debt under Clinton (in spite of GROG demand for “fair” comparisons), ignoring that Clinton actually brought the debt/GDP down 7% from when HE took office.
Seems that the right has an overwhelming tendency to fight fact with dishonesty.
My earlier call for consistency from the right was obviously not baseless. -
This means that Reagan and the two Bushes were President for $8.2T. That’s about 80% of the national debt as of the end of W’s Presidency, not of the current national debt.
The debt since Obama took office is almost entirely due to 1) two unfunded Bush wars, 2) Bush’s unfunded Medicare Part D, 3) the Bush tax cuts, and 4) reduced revenues due to the Bush recession. There also was the spending associated with ARRA, which was used to recover from Bush’s presidency.
When Obama came into office, there was an annual $1 trillion deficit as part of the structure of the federal budget. So at least $3 trillion of additional debt since Obama took office (more, if you include ARRA) is also attributable to Bush 2.
-
Of course, there was a GOP Prez for 20 of those 28 years or 71%.
The problem with that thinking is — Michael’s numbers included the accumulated debt from the previous 200 years of America, which amounted to $1.9T when Reagan took office.
So, as of FY 2009, after roughly 225 years of America, the 20 years of Reagan-Bush-Bush accounted for over 80% of the total accumulated American debt. That is, less than 9% of the time accounts for 80%+ of the debt.
If you want to only talk about the 28 years from 1981 to 2009, you have to subtract out the 1.9T that Reagan started with. That means, a total of $8,9T was accumulated during those 28 years, of which $8.2T was from Reagan/Bush/Bush. That means 92% of the debt accumulated in those 20 years was from Republican presidents, who were in office 72% of the time. Only 9% was from the Democratic president, who was in office 28% of the time, and who left office with the largest surpluses in history.
Any way you look at it, Republican presidents are awful for the economy. Democrats clean up all the elephant dung they get saddled with.
-
#123 written by Max 11 months ago
The chart on this page shows what would have happened had the three GOP presidents simply balanced their budgets and demonstrated the “fiscal responsibility” that they talk about but never actually do!
Oh, and of their 20 years of the 28 in the White House, the GOP controlled at least one house of Congress more than 50% of the time, 12 years. -
-
And for those people who want to blame Congress for budget deficits, look here.
The argument that a Democratic Congress is responsible for Reagan’s deficits is laughable. It’s absurd, but it’s the only defense modern Republicans have against the reality, that their demigod and His Followers are responsible for our nation’s debt crisis.
Three Republican Presidents are responsible for the mountain of debt that Republicans today pretend to complain about, and two of them modeled themelves on the first one.
That’s the reality of it.
-
I’m going to quote from the article I linked:
From the G. W. Bush White House: The Reagan-Bush Debt Explained
“The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan’s first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.” [emphasis added]
-
#127 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
#130 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
#131 written by shortchain 11 months ago
GROG,
From wikipedia: “After 1980, oil prices began a 20-year decline down to a 60 percent price drop in the 1990s. Oil exporters such as Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela expanded production ; USSR became the first world producer, and North Sea and Alaskan oil flooded onto the market.“
Sure, credit it all to Reagan. Selective perception is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
-
#132 written by Max 11 months ago
Our good friend GROG, unable to defend or rationalize the Reagan deficits and accumulated debt, now wants to credit the Gipper with fallen oil prices. (Completely ignoring that oil is, and has been for 40 years, a WORLD commodity!) OK, let’s look:
“In April 1979 Jimmy Carter signed an executive order which was to remove market controls from petroleum products by October 1981, so that prices would be wholly determined by the free market. Ronald Reagan signed an executive order on January 28, 1981 which enacted this reform immediately So, Carter had skunked Reagan on the idea by TWO years! Reagan just moved the date up by 9 months!shortchain’s citation on the world oil glut shows, quite conclusively GROG, that the glut had NOTHING to do with US domestic production, but the combination of decreased demand (expected due to the increased price spikes in 73 and 79, simple economics) and non-OPEC increases in production (also expected, same reason, simple economics. you know, shifts along and of that big “X” on a price/quantity chart)
Perhaps our friend GROG has some quantitative data he could supplement his assertions? No? Well.
So, another Reagan wet dream awakened from.
Sorry GROG
-
GROG,
Domestic oil production spiked when Reagan ended the price controls and it lasted until the mid 80’s.
Domestic oil production also spiked when the hostages were released from Iran. So what?
Look more closely at the graph. Domestic oil production rose more in the last three years of the 1970s, when the price controls were fully in place, than they did in first six years of the 1980s, when the price controls were removed.
There is one factor that accounts for the increase in production between 1977 and 1985. Compare the earlier graph to this one and you’ll see what I mean. It was all about the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. A pipeline that was authorized during the Nixon administration due to the 1973 oil crisis, and came online in 1977. Removal of the price controls had nothing to do with that.
I remind you that you have yet to explain how new sources of oil (i.e., drilling), which were exempt from price controls, were somehow stifled by the existence of those price controls.
Incidentally, the biggest impact on oil prices in the US came, not from increased production, but from decreased consumption. Feel free to doubt me on this; I have plenty to back it up. This is a topic I’ve investigated very thoroughly.
-
#134 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
GROG,
Is it your argument then that ending the price controls accomplished nothing and that Reagan should have left them in place?
No. It is my argument that you are connecting the price controls with the wrong effects. You want to credit Reagan’s ending of the price controls with the early 1980s drop in oil prices, but both the timing and mechanisms point to it not being connected.
-
-
#137 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
GROG,
If ending the price controls didn’t end gas lines, didn’t end shortages, and had no affect on prices, why do you think he should have ended them? What was the benefit?
Primarily, I don’t like government regulations that don’t produce the intended results. And it might have been possible for the end of price controls to have had an impact on the downstream prices, but not any sooner than about 1985 or so. It’s just the nature of the long lead times needed for production shifts in the petroleum industry.
As it turned out, the removal of price controls didn’t have an appreciable impact on US production.
-
#139 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
Grog,
So Reagan was right to end the price controls but it had no appreciable impact on anything?
It does appear that whatever effect ending price controls had, the effect was not to end gasoline shortages or to lower prices. If there was a noticeable effect, it would have been longer-term or of a different kind.
In a similar way, opening ANWR for drilling wil have no effect ehatever on short-term oil prices of gasoline supplies — because it will take many years for oil from there to be discovered and captured, refined and distributed. It may or may not be a good idea to open ANWR for drilling — but it has no short-term effect.
Likewise, lifting price controls may or may not have had desireable long-term effects — or may even have desiraeable short-term effects. But some short-term effects it would not have is to increase the production of oil, or to alter the availability of gasoline at the pump.
-
-
GROG,
So why should he have lifted the price controls?
Asked and answered, your honor. It had the potential to increase production (though not until the mid 80s), and didn’t really have any downside. The price controls did not produce the desired results, so there wasn’t any point in keeping them around.
-
#145 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
-
#148 written by Max 11 months ago
*GROG,
You understand, just as in 2008 and 2012, the high gas prices at the pump in 1973, caused an outcry for the president to “Do something!”. Nixon responded to the calls by the public. He asked for, and received legislation, The Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, which he signed into law in November. That was extended by “The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975″ under Gerald Ford.
So when you hear people of either ideological bend complaining about the president and action about gas prices, remember this lesson.
And how you applauded Reagan for the return of the status quo of “nothing”.
And never let us hear you complain, comment or otherwise bloviate on any comparison of prices and President Obama.
-
Max,
You understand, just as in 2008 and 2012, the high gas prices at the pump in 1973, caused an outcry for the president to “Do something!”. Nixon responded to the calls by the public.
Yup. That’s it in a nutshell. Pandering to the extreme. And wholly ineffective.
And check out how US oil consumption changed over time. Much of the drop from 1979 to 1983 was from the recession, of course, but we also did a remarkable job in increasing our energy efficiency. It’s the latter change that allowed our oil consumption to remain below 1979 levels for twenty years. This in spite of having an amazing level of economic growth (not to mention many more people driving many more miles per person). It’s a significant benefit of conservation that is lost on most Americans, because the payback has such a large time horizon.
-
Michael,
This seems vital to our current energy policy. You seem to be saying that Nixon’s imposition of price controls (which was done because Americans demanded he “do something” about gas prices) had no effect (at least, it didn’t have the effect desired). Reagan’s removal of price controls, therefore, also had no effect. This implies that the President can’t have much impact on gas prices.
On the other hand, what does seem to have had a long-term impact, is the imposition of efficiency standards. This not only helped reduce consumption, but also helped to reduce prices at the pump.
Regulation of efficiency standards worked. Imposition of price controls didn’t. Further, the prce controls didn’t seem to impact production either positively or negatively.
This may, or may not, have implications for other sectors of the economy. The data so dar applies only to oil production. But it does imply that calls for President Obama do “do something” about gas prices are misplaced (at least, as far as it may apply to price controls). One may reasonable theorize that changes to drilling permits also would have no short-term effect, since it takes many years for such a change to result in an alteration of the amount of oil available at a local service station.
Do I have this right?
-
#151 written by Max 11 months ago
*Pretty much the only “something” that the right really wants is a decrease in regulation and an easier permitting process that, will only achieve an effect some number of years in the future, not helping today’s pricing “crisis”.
But that route has a much harder to define cost, in terms of environmental impact, health and lives, and usually on a shorter time frame, than paying $2.99/gal.
-
#152 written by GROG 11 months ago
Max,
Our good friend GROG, unable to defend or rationalize the Reagan deficits and accumulated debt,
That’s probably because I haven’t even attempted to defend or rationalize what you call “the Reagan deficits”. I think it’s the greatest failure of the Reagan presidency.
With that said, I don’t know how smart people can be so ignorant as to say things like “the Reagan deficits”, or the “Clinton surpluses”, or the “Obama debt”. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to tax and spend. A President cannot spend one dime that Congress does not first appropriate. Credit or blame, whether it’s a balanced budget, budget surplus, budget deficit or national debt, lies with the U.S. Congress.
The only explanation I can come up with is willful deception. It’s as willfully deceptive as pretending the 50’s and 60’s were no different than the 80’s and therefore debt as a percent of GDP should have been reduced to zero if Reagan were not such a derelect. It’s naïve and dangerous to spew such nonsense.
-
I don’t know how smart people can be so ignorant as to say things like “the Reagan deficits”, or the “Clinton surpluses”, or the “Obama debt”. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to tax and spend. A President cannot spend one dime that Congress does not first appropriate. Credit or blame, whether it’s a balanced budget, budget surplus, budget deficit or national debt, lies with the U.S. Congress.
Then clearly, you don’t hold President Obama responsible for the current deficits. And in fact, any discussion about debt and deficits by any presidential candidate is nonsense, and they should stop talking about it immediately. You are claiming that presidents are irrelevant to spending or taxation or anything else having to do with the federal budget. Right?
By the way — you are aware, aren’t you, that the President proposes a budget, which Congress uses to set priorities, and then the President can veto any spending or tax bills that Congress actually enacts. You knew that, right? That none of this can become law unless the President says it can become law?
This right-wing meme — that Reagan had nothing to do with the Reagan deficits — is ridiculous, as has been shown by the graphs and articles that were linked right here a couple of days ago. Congress gave Reagan nearly everything he wanted — and, in fact, in 5 of his 8 years, Congress enacted budgets that had deficits SMALLER than Reagan wanted.
But no — presidential candidates should stop talking about the deficit, because presidents are just helpless observers, like the rest of us, and have nothing whatever to do with federal taxing or spending.
sheesh. Really?
debt as a percent of GDP should have been reduced to zero if Reagan were not such a derelect.
See, that’s what happens when the debt is paid off rather than when it increases. If it’s paid off, it goes to zero.
-
#154 written by GROG 11 months ago
This right-wing meme — that Reagan had nothing to do with the Reagan deficits.
What part of “I think it’s the greatest failure of the Reagan presidency”, don’t you understand?
See, that’s what happens when the debt is paid off rather than when it increases. If it’s paid off, it goes to zero.
Do you honestly believe that every few decades we should spend heavily on military, blow up the rest of the civilzed world, and then use our advantage as the only nation left standing to payoff our debt? Because that’s what happened in the 50’s and 60’s. Or do you realize that’s probably not a sane choice?
-
What part of “I think it’s the greatest failure of the Reagan presidency”, don’t you understand?
The part where you said
I don’t know how smart people can be so ignorant as to say things like “the Reagan deficits”, or the “Clinton surpluses”, or the “Obama debt”. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to tax and spend. A President cannot spend one dime that Congress does not first appropriate. Credit or blame, whether it’s a balanced budget, budget surplus, budget deficit or national debt, lies with the U.S. Congress.
Is there some cognitive dissonance there?
Do you honestly believe that every few decades we should spend heavily on military, blow up the rest of the civilzed world, and then use our advantage as the only nation left standing to payoff our debt?
No. I think we should avoid wars, and avoid overspending on the military in peacetime — and avoid enormous cripppling tax cuts for the obscenely rich — then we wouldn’t have to worry about paying off war debts.
Reagan ran up his debt in peacetime, without any sort of war, and without “blowing up the world.” He simply 1) overspent on the military, without 2) bothering to pay for it. Both parts of that are stoopid, and he shouldn’t have done either.
Clinton managed to turn Reagan’s deficits — at that time, the biggest in hsitory — into the biggest surpluses in history, without having to “blow up the rest of the civilzed world, and then use our advantage as the only nation left standing to payoff our debt.” Intelligent Keyensian countercyclical spending and aprpopriate tax levels seem to do just fine.
Bush 2 managed to create even larger deficits, by enacting a huge unfunded tax cut, enacing a huge unfunded givaway to drug comapnies and insurance companies, engaging in two unncessary brush wars that included historic levels of war profiteering, and then tanking the economy. He didn’t have to blow up the rest of the world to create deficits.
So, no, I disagree with all parts of the prescription you suggest.
-
GROG,
Do you honestly believe that every few decades we should spend heavily on military, blow up the rest of the civilzed world, and then use our advantage as the only nation left standing to payoff our debt?
Is it your assertion that the only way to achieve federal budgetary surpluses is to first destroy the rest of the world’s manufacturing capacity?
-
#157 written by Max 11 months ago
GROG,
The problem is that you CANNOT have it BOTH WAYS!!
1) You cannot brag and gush about the successful Reagan prosperity, economy and jobs, his “defeat” of the Soviet Union “without a shot being fired”, and;
2) Complain about the deficit spending that underwrote a sizable chunk of it!
You must accept that, since Reagan did NOT tax sufficiently to raise the revenue to pay for those things, the debt incurred contributed mightily to those “successes”. That, like it or not, call it what you will, it was, in fact, deficit spending that did the job.
There are no two ways about it!
-
#158 written by GROG 11 months ago
Is there some cognitive dissonance there?
Nope. But when you say…
By the way — you are aware, aren’t you, that the President proposes a budget, which Congress uses to set priorities, and then the President can veto any spending or tax bills that Congress actually enacts. You knew that, right? That none of this can become law unless the President says it can become law?
…it shows how you lack the understanding of the basics of the U.S. Constitution. Your last sentence is completely false. Congress has the power to overide a presidential veto, that’ why I said, ” Credit or blame, whether it’s a balanced budget, budget surplus, budget deficit or national debt, lies with the U.S. Congress.”
Reagan ran up his debt in peacetime
No, ultimately Congress did. Plus, it was done with the purposes of ending the Cold War, which it did.
Clinton managed to turn Reagan’s deficits — at that time, the biggest in hsitory — into the biggest surpluses in history,
Actually, Congress managed to turn Congress’s deficits into surpluses.
Btw, all this talk about “unfunded wars” — what wars have we fought that were “funded”?
-
#159 written by Max 11 months ago
GROG
…it shows how you lack the understanding of the basics of the U.S. Constitution. Your last sentence is completely false. Congress has the power to overide a presidential veto, ”
Perhaps you will be so kind as to inform us of the years that Congress overrode a Reagan budget veto. Otherwise that statement of yours is a deflection from the truth of what occurred those years. IOW, you deliberately insulted without cause and tossed in a load of bullshit.
You seriously need to stop that “Congress did it” bullshit. It is false, since Congress NEVER overrode a Presidential veto of a “Congressional” budget, thus the Executive is fully culpable as the other branch. YOU, my friend, need to read AND UNDERSTAND the Constitution and the checks and balances therein. It make you appear ignorant and calls your credibility into question.
-
#160 written by GROG 11 months ago
Michael,
Is it your assertion that the only way to achieve federal budgetary surpluses is to first destroy the rest of the world’s manufacturing capacity?
Not at all. DC always says we should pay off debt with high taxes like we did after WW2. We cannot pay off our debt “like we did after WW2” unless we destroy the rest of the world’s manufacturing capacity because that’s how we did it after WW2.
-
#161 written by shortchain 11 months ago
-
GROG,
DC always says we should pay off debt with high taxes like we did after WW2. We cannot pay off our debt “like we did after WW2” unless we destroy the rest of the world’s manufacturing capacity because that’s how we did it after WW2.
I doubt he was being as pedantic as that. Do you think we should or should not pay off our debt during good economic times?
-
GROG,
Reagan ran up his debt in peacetime
No, ultimately Congress did.
Did Reagan sign the budgets? If so, they’re as much his debt as they belong to any member of Congress that voted for them. Moreover, if you’re going to give Reagan credit for the benefits that arose from those budgets (which you have), then you need to give him the blame as well.
-
#164 written by GROG 11 months ago
Michael,
I think you’re exactly right. That’s why I said “I think it’s the greatest failure of the Reagan presidency”. But I certainly don’t see anyone saying “Congress’ deficits” or “Congress’ debt”. I only hear “Reagan’s debt” and Reagan’s deficits”.
Do you not think members of Congress deserve any credit or blame for debt and deficits?
-
Congress has the power to overide a presidential veto
How many times during the eight years of Reagan did Congress override Reagan’s veto of a budget or a major spending bill?
How many times during the eight years of Reagan did Reagan sign a budget or a major spending bill he received from Congress?
How close were the budgets and spending bills that Congress passed (and Reagan signed) to the ones that Reagan requested?
If you answer these three questions honestly, you’ll see that Reagan was teh archetect of, and approved of, the deficits that occurred during the eight years of Reagan.
-
-
#167 written by GROG 11 months ago
Micheal,
“Did Reagan sign the budgets? If so, they’re as much his debt as they belong to any member of Congress that voted for them. Moreover, if you’re going to give Reagan credit for the benefits that arose from those budgets (which you have), then you need to give him the blame as well.”
The far left blame financial deregulation and the Gramm-Leach-Billey for the Great Recession. Did Clinton sign it? If so, he must be responsible for the Great Recession, right? But I’m sure there is some kind liberal excuse for why that was not Clinton’s fault.
-
#168 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
#169 written by Max 11 months ago
GROG,
On the budget appropriation Acts and Congress and the President:
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2: “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections. . .”
And Section 7.2 continues: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it,”. Do you have ANY proof that Reagan allowed any of the 8 budget bills to become law by this clause? If not, Reagan APPROVED them.
Not only did Reagan NOT veto any budget bill presented to him, he APPROVED and SIGNED them all. Once he put his name on it, he took ownership.
End of story.
-
GROG,
The far left blame financial deregulation and the Gramm-Leach-Billey for the Great Recession.
It’s partly responsible, yes.
Did Clinton sign it?
Yes, he did.
If so, he must be responsible for the Great Recession, right?
To the extent that G-L-B is, Clinton holds some responsibility, yes. I don’t hold him harmless for the Great Recession. His overall culpability is lower than many other players, but it’s not zero.
-
GROG,
In fact, they outspent Reagan’s budgets.
Before you draw that conclusion, you might want to look here Across Reagan’s eight years, Congress allocated less than requested. To the extent that there are differences between the requested amount and the allocated amount, they’re pretty small anyway.
The key point, lest it be lost, is that Reagan was not a man of fiscal responsibility, period.
-
#172 written by shortchain 11 months ago
Hmmm. Mistakes by presidents. Yes, basically every president has made mistakes — and quite a few of the more honest ones have acknowledged their mistakes (like Clinton has said that signing the Gramm-Leach act was a mistake on his part). Of course, Reagan never admitted that running huge deficits was a mistake.
I would suggest that, if you are seriously concerned about whether the president during 2013–2017 makes some bad mistakes, you might want to think about which candidate of those available has a history of doing things which he later has decided he opposes.
-
-
#174 written by shortchain 11 months ago
Michael,
Hey, I like the new graphical editor. The thing I like best about it is that I can click on the little “<>” symbol (second from the right on the menu bar) and it goes right to HTML. (Better than the old one, where you got a pop-up.)
If GROG were to click on that symbol, and then insert a blockquote tag (put less than and greater than symbols around it), paste in the quote and close the tag (same as the original tag, except /blockquote between the less than and greater than symbols) it would clean up his comments nicely.
Here’s what a block quote would look like.
.Then click on the little “<>” symbol again, and you get the WYSIWYG of the comment.
-
#175 written by Max 11 months ago
-
shortchain,
I like the new graphical editor.
Overall, I do too. But it’s too wide for the column it’s in, and I need to be able to customize the buttons on it. I haven’t had time yet to see if either is feasible without getting out the major powertools. But, yes, it’s easy to hand-code the HTML in it.
-
#177 written by GROG 11 months ago
-
-
If you can find where I’ve ever blamed Obama for the debt mess, I’ll never post another comment on Logarchism again.
grog’s deflection notwithstanding, regardless Obama’s federal spending is basically flat lined compared to Bush’s last year. grog can look it up.
Of course, the deficit keeps increasing for several reasons, including re-authorizing Bush’s tax cuts. And as dc constantly mentions
1⁄3 of Obama’s stimulus was tax cuts.>
re: format/HTML, it’s about the same before the recent whatever. If one is conscientious re: their posts, there are workarounds to correct one’s mess!
>
grog appears to want someone to do the necessary legwork to give him a reason to stop posting lol.
>
btw, Dutch and mittens are kinda the same ie Reagan went from Dem to Rep, whereas Willard still hasn’t decided if he’s liberal or conservative.
ok, ok, mittens doesn’t really compare to anyone, eh.
>
If anyone can find where I’ve said something nice about Romney, I’ll stop posting. Hey, I may have lied previously …
-
-
#182 written by Max 11 months ago
GROG,
You are missing one of the fundamental points of our Constitution and our form of government. (Remember my challenge to you a few weeks ago, where if you would provide your points and citations on the issue of weak vs strong government and I would write an article on why they actually founded a weak government? Still waiting!) These inane statements (I won’t even call them assertions) on who’s to blame for debt demonstrate that somewhere, somehow, something didn’t sink in on exactly HOW our government actually works. Not in theory, but in fact and according to the Constitution.
Take us up on the challenge and I will be glad to demonstrate.
-
The most amusing thing about this discussion, for me, is that I still have vivid memories of the Reagan era. Politicians of all stripes — and news commentators — were amazed at Reagan’s ability to get what he wanted from Congress. Republicans prety much voted in a block, as they do today, but Reagan was always able to strip off enough conservative Democrats to get his stuff enacted.
There was no question at the time that the budgetary deficits were Reagan’s doing. Reagan kept feigning amazement that there were deficits at the end of the year — but he kept submitting budgets that were increasingly unbalanced. Democrats kept trying to trim his spending excesses — as Michael points, out, not by much, only by token amounts, but even that was more than Reagan could take. Reagan threatened a veto a couple of times, and the furor was nearly as great as what we saw in the debt ceiling debate. There was hushed and fearful talk of shutting down the federal government — because Reagan wanted to have his way on spending. Democrats finally caved, and Reagan’s immense deficits continued.
There was a lot of discussion over whether Reagan was intentionally runing up the deficit, in an effort to squeeze out domestic spending, under the assumption that if the debt ran too high, we’d be able to afford military programs and very little else. Years later, one of his economic advisors admitted this was true.
Grog does had a point, that a spineless Congress deserve blame for giving Reagan what he wanted. But to pretend Reagan was an innocent bystander — or, worse, that it hapened over his objections, as some modern revisionists like to do — is a denial of actual events.
-
#184 written by Max 11 months ago
-
#185 written by Max 11 months ago
BTW, GROG, since you probably forgot the specifics, I had asked that you provide a complete definition of what you considered to be a “weak” government. Perhaps you could even give some empirical examples of “weak” and “strong” governments from history as part of the citations.
I’m ready to write that article as soon as I understand exactly what you mean when you use the term.
-
#186 written by Max 11 months ago
Grog does had a point, that a spineless Congress deserve blame for giving Reagan what he wanted
But GROG wants to burn his candle at both ends by praising the RESULTS of those deficits! He’s like one who rails against the lottery, but buys a winning ticket anyway and happily spends the proceeds.
-
Max, I also recall Johnson and Kennedy, and vaguely Eisenhower. Johnson was almost as good at manipulating Congress as Reagan was. Presidents have a lot more influence than this modern Republican meme gives them credit for.
It is true that Congress should be a bit more independent — but then, we are seeing today what that means. Congress is doing nothing, even in the face of overwheling crises. Republicans are opposing the President simply for the sake of opposing the President, with no reason or thought behind it other than to oppose, and they have virtually shut down the functions of Congress. If this is the alternative then I’ll take coöperation instead.
-
Mentioned this at 538.com ~ I recall the “pundits” sayin’ it would be hard for Reps to recover after LBJ’s ’64 landslide … Nixon elected in ’68 w/43.4, after receiving 49.5% in 1960 ie not exactly a comeback lol, but a win is a win is a win is a win, I digress.
And of course after Nixon’s ’72 landslide, those same overpaid pundits said it would be hard for Dems to recover … Carter elected in ’76.
The yin and yang of turdblossom’s math.
>
Also recall Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald on live tv. So in a sense, the media hasn’t progressed much since Nov. 1963 …
-
#189 written by Max 11 months ago
GROG,
Please allow me to correct the term I used in #185 of “weak”. You had been arguing “very limited” and I had mistakenly inferred the term “weak”.
So perhaps you will define exactly what it is you mean when you use the term “very limited” as to the actual powers of the national government and give comparisons.
Thanks
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
Didn't find any related posts :(
About dcpetterson (186 posts)
D. C. Petterson is a novelist and a software consultant in Minnesota who has been writing science fiction since the age of six. He is the author of A Melancholy Humour, Rune Song and Still Life. He lives with his wife, two dogs, two cats, and a lizard, and insists that grandchildren are the reward for having survived teenagers. When not writing stories or software, he plays guitar and piano, engages in political debate, and reads a lot of history and physics texts—for fun. Follow on Twitter @dcpetterson






MW,
Our good friends on the right DO find magic in using that metric as it does not show the very real tripling of the debt under Reagan. Conversely, they LOVE to to use real dollars in talking about Obama’s addition to the debt, even going so far, as Romney did, in erroneously claiming that the President “almost doubling” the debt!
It’s why I was so critical of GROG’s (mis)use of data in, once again, not dealing with the Reagan debt!!