1
   

How Republicans are Bad For a Good Economy

 
 
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 09:52 am
How Republicans Have Proven Themselves to Be Bad For a Good Economy
By JOHN W. DEAN
Find Law
Friday, Feb. 08, 2008

Our country's best and brightest economists have, for over a decade now, been traveling the land to warn of the coming economic crisis. Championing this cause are a number of former government officials, both Republicans and Democrats, who have gathered at the Concord Coalition. Former senators Sam Nunn and Warren Rudman, former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, former Secretary of the Treasury (during the Clinton Administration) Bob Rubin, and former Secretary of Commerce (during the Nixon Administration) Peter Peterson together constitute the bipartisan coalition.

Peterson, a founding partner in the Blackstone Group, which manages some $80 billion dollars for investors, started the Concord Coalition in 1992. He knows his way around the economy, and since the Reagan and Bush I years, he has been expressing his concern about the way Republicans have handled it.

Peterson's most recent book, Running On Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It (2005), along with the reports that are regularly issued by the Concord Coalition, give the distinct impression that the Republicans have not been good for our economy. While this material tries to be evenhanded in its critique, there is no escaping the fact that the Republicans have become fiscally irresponsible.

Peterson's Running On Empty

Peterson's book is a good read, if you want to learn the bad news. Like many savvy businesspeople and economists, he worries particularly about the excessive debt and deficits Republicans have created. (His principal criticism of Democrats, in contrast, is their refusal to end entitlements -- not that Republicans have done so, either.) As a Republican, he was proud of the long tradition of fiscal responsibility, for they once had no hesitation to cut spending or hike taxes, since the party abhorred deficits that burdened future generations.

Fiscal responsibility, however, is no longer the guiding conviction of Republican leaders. For the last quarter century, since Ronald Reagan arrived in the White House, Peterson writes, Republican leaders have been oblivious to the devastation that deficits bring. "Deficits have become like aspirin," he explains of their thinking, "a sort of fiscal wonder drug. We should take them regularly just to stay healthy and take lots of them whenever we're feeling out of sorts." (Peterson doesn't say it, but while aspirin is not lethal, it can be deadly when you are bleeding badly, as is our economy.)

Peterson devotes a chapter to explaining "How the Republicans Got Us Much Deeper [With Democratic Help]" - with their tax-cutting mania and undisciplined spending. And he finds George W. Bush's performance "breathtaking" in his ability to turn what was a projected federal surplus of $5.6 trillion, when he arrived, upside down and into an even greater deficit. It is not easy to dispose of over $10 trillion. As Peterson also notes, hard accounting numbers would show that, in fact, the deficit is even greater than Bush projects, and the problems created by excessive government debt are exacerbated by the failure of Americans generally to save, rather to opt for personal debt.

Where is all this going? Peterson's title makes it clear that unless business as usual is changed, our nation will ultimately become bankrupt. He offers solutions and suggestions, but he reports, "I have spoken with a large number of senior leaders, both public and private. And I'm alarmed by the number who tell me, 'Pete, I really believe it will take a palpable crisis to get us to act.'" To avoid that alarming potential, Peterson and others are trying to warn us all.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 824 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 10:11 am
"Peterson's most recent book, Running On Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It (2005)"

Why not tell the entire truth.

Government is bad for a good economy.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 01:50 pm
Quote:
Government is bad for a good economy.


Absolutely. It's why the western nations have faired so poorly economically compared to fascist dictatorships in the third world.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 02:33 pm
Too much government, way too fat.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 02:35 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Government is bad for a good economy.


Absolutely. It's why the western nations have faired so poorly economically compared to fascist dictatorships in the third world.
Well no Bernie, actually the only thing has has saved the free world is the invention of the hula hoop and successful marketing by WhamO. Government would have strangled our society by overloading it with police, firemen, teachers, sanitation engineers and, yes, even liberals. Sad but true, WhamO saved our asses while Eisenhower played golf and Nixon made friends in South America. If Norman Rockwell were still alive none of us would even need to lock our doors at night.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Feb, 2008 09:21 am
BBB
dyslexia wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Government is bad for a good economy.


Absolutely. It's why the western nations have faired so poorly economically compared to fascist dictatorships in the third world.
Well no Bernie, actually the only thing has has saved the free world is the invention of the hula hoop and successful marketing by WhamO. Government would have strangled our society by overloading it with police, firemen, teachers, sanitation engineers and, yes, even liberals. Sad but true, WhamO saved our asses while Eisenhower played golf and Nixon made friends in South America. If Norman Rockwell were still alive none of us would even need to lock our doors at night.


I suspect Dyslexia is the only A2K member whose job required him to report directly to a state governor. Dys knows government; how to work with it and how to tell it to piss off and quit his job in protest

BBB
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Feb, 2008 09:47 am
How much new spending to implement Hillary's or Obama's nationalization of the health care industry?

And if nationalizing one industry for the benefit of all is A-OK, why not another?

The agriculture industry has NEVER guaranteed us that folks would be adequately fed.

Seems like if they won't do their duty, someone should do it for them.

Call your senator and representative and tell them you want a single payer system to feed us all.

It's the right thing to do, isn't it? It's for our children.
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Feb, 2008 12:44 pm
When you strip away the cosmetics, there is no real tangible difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They are BOTH bad for the economy, and BOTH bad for all of us.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Feb, 2008 12:52 pm
Jim wrote:
When you strip away the cosmetics, there is no real tangible difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They are BOTH bad for the economy, and BOTH bad for all of us.


Yup. And that's why America is so uniquely poor, unhealthy, unhappy and just generally the shithole of the planet...because they have politicians and a government. That's the ticket.
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Feb, 2008 03:56 pm
blatham wrote:
Jim wrote:
When you strip away the cosmetics, there is no real tangible difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They are BOTH bad for the economy, and BOTH bad for all of us.


Yup. And that's why America is so uniquely poor, unhealthy, unhappy and just generally the shithole of the planet...because they have politicians and a government. That's the ticket.


Blatham my friend, you are half right. We still have a decent standard of living today, not because of the government, but in spite of it. And because of our government's policies, we have been merrily eating our seed corn for the past few decades. The next act will be for us to begin to experience the consequences of these actions, and then many of us will become very visably "poor, unhealthy unhappy".
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Feb, 2008 04:08 pm
Sorry, jim, but I don't accept (I don't even come anywhere near to accepting) the fundamental premise you seem to be working from...government is bad, no government is good.
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Feb, 2008 04:30 pm
blatham wrote:
Sorry, jim, but I don't accept (I don't even come anywhere near to accepting) the fundamental premise you seem to be working from...government is bad, no government is good.


No Blatham, I don't believe I ever said that all government is bad. And I certainly wouldn't want to live without government (I believe that is by definition called "anarchy").

What is bad, however, is a government that is approaching 50% of the economy (the combination of national, state and local governments), is demonstratably incapable of doing anything right (for example, maintaining dikes around New Orleans, and then the recovery after the inevitable flooding), and just can't wait to grab even more power and a greater share of the economy (their insistance on taking over health care).

But instead of just sniping at me, why don't you specifically post what you believe?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Feb, 2008 07:03 pm
Well, for one thing, government isn't insisting on taking over medical delivery or insurance programs, rather your population is telling them (it's a constant in polling results) that's what they themselves want. If you look at all the other advanced nations in the west, all but the US have government administered medical programs and have had them for a long time. And nowhere, that's nowhere, do those citizens vote to move to private programs. That level of satisfaction elsewhere, contrasted with dissatisfaction in the American population with what they have, ought to tell you something. Further, though your rightwing politicians claim that the US has the best medical system in the world, many statistics do not bear out that claim.

Writing out a full philosophy of government would take rather more time and effort than I'm willing to invest here. Human societies organize themselves in heirarchies of power and priviledge and the folks who end up on top usually go to a lot of trouble to make sure you don't present a threat to their dominance. Elected, representative governance (with laws and institutions) provides a necessary bulwark against the oppression of the many by the few.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How Republicans are Bad For a Good Economy
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 12:28:03