Trains

We know that Democrats like light rail.

Here is another sort of train that their policies and bills produce:  train wreck.

Comments

[Greg]

Interesting paragraph, but David Leonhardt has a nice article breaking down the sources of the growth in the budget deficit.

America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp

The first Category: the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing.”

The Second Category:: Bush-era legislation "like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, that not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt."

The Third Category: "Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000 20 percent of the swing."

The Fourth Category: "About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February."

The Fifth Category:"only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas."

In other words, the very high deficits are not Obama’s fault according to any normal way of assessing political blame. That said, large deficits aren’t a moral failing that we need to hold someone accountable for. Rather, they’re a potential future practical problem that will have to be solved. Doing that will probably require a mixture of higher taxes, somewhat more hard-core health care reform that is likely to pass in 2009, and reductions in defense and possibly Social Security outlays. I don’t really find it especially surprising or alarming that nobody wants to vote for any of those things in 2009. After all, nobody who has to stand for election really wants to do any of that stuff. And the deficit isn’t a problem in 2009 and almost certainly won’t be in 2010. The main issue is whether Congress will be prepared to take tough measures when and if doing so actually proves necessary. Meanwhile, the health reforms being debated in congress will get us some of the way to where we need to be, and also hopefully lay the groundwork for further measures if the best hopes about what’s currently on the table don’t wind up materializing. The simple fact of the matter, after all, is that nobody really knows what the impact of something like comparative effectiveness research will be. It could save a lot of money, or it might not—we might just get healthier while spending a similar amount of money. But if we get it in place sooner rather than later, we’ll know and be in a position to act.

[Peg]

"Only 3% comes from Mr. Obama's agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas"????? Greg - your author is doing some serious drugs!

Even the Blue Dog Democrats are worried:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6522304.html

[Greg]

Nice try, you go with the spin, I will stick with the numbers and the facts. Those were numbers coming straight from the CBO, did you bother to read the link?

As I have in the asked in the past, could you please point to any Republican Administration that any sane individual would think was anywhere near fiscally responsible?

I have also posted in the past, and you have never been able to factually dispute that if you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level has change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.

Why stop when now when I am having a good time destroying Republican fiscal responsibility myths, lies, distortions, or propaganda.

Since 1776 the US has accumulated a national debt of $9 trillion. Over HALF of which was incurred when a Bush was on watch! What a family legacy. If you throw in Reagan, fully 70% of the national debt was created under just three Republican presidents! What's more, they didn't even try to restrain spending. Out of 19 submitted budgets, (by Republicans) only 2 were balanced.

I will take your Blue Dog Democrats and raise you one Conservative Think Tank.

"The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending,"
The Conservative Cato Institute

The GOP Is Not Serious about Cutting Down Spending
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/06/04/the-gop-not-serious-about-spending-cuts/

[Peg]

The GOP has been terrible in recent years vis a vis fiscal conservatism and responsibility.

This administration and this Congress is worse.

Unless you'd like to find some stats stating that we have ever seen deficits or spending like this - OR if you want to argue that the Democrats aren't securely in power right now!

[Greg]

Peg,

My central point is that the Republicans have never been fiscally responsible. This notion of yours

"The GOP has been terrible in recent years vis a vis fiscal conservatism and responsibility."

ignores the facts, and ignores history. The fact that you cannot point to any Republican Administration that has been fiscally responsible is apparent, so you avoid pointing to any Administration that has been fiscally responsible.

Now if you still want to continue to believe they are the party of fiscally conservative and prudent, then that is your choice. You have people who believe in all sort of things, it is just the facts do nto back you up on this, so you are pretty much just swinging wildly and making stuff up.

Now you ask this question

"Unless you'd like to find some stats stating that we have ever seen deficits or spending like this"

The question I thought has been answered.

Since 1776 the US has accumulated a national debt of $9 trillion. Over HALF of which was incurred when a Bush was on watch! If you throw in Reagan, fully 70% of the national debt was created under just three Republican presidents!

So you have the last 3 Republican presidents presiding over 70% of the United States debt, and the new Administration is left cleaning up this mess. Here is another gem for you.

Republicans create unemployment, Democrats solve it.

01/53 End of the Truman Administration, unemployment = 2.9% (D)

01/61 End of the Eisenhower Administration, unemployment = 6.6% (R)

01/69 End of Kennedy/LBJ Administration, unemployment = 3.4% (D)

01/77 End of Nixon/Ford Administration, unemployment = 7.5% (R)

01/81 End of the Carter Administration, unemployment = 7.5% (D)

01/89 End of Reagan Administration, unemployment = 5.4% (R)

01/93 End of Bush(41) Administration, unemployment = 7.3% (R)

01/2001 End of Clinton Administration, unemployment = 4.2% (D)

01/2009 End of Bush(43) Administration, unemployment = 7.6% (R)

See a trend?
http://www.bls.gov/

But let us get for real. We are facing what many believe is the worse financial meltdown since the Great Depression. Do you have any clue as to what that might mean? Here is a clue as to what this might mean:

It means that the economy will NOT be fixed really, really quickly.

It means that six months is not going to do it.

It means that we have to be grown up about this and understand that President Obama doesn't "do" magic.

It means that there will be no instant fix to this large problem, and job will continue to be lost, and there will be no perfect instant recovery.

It means that we will likely suffer, and that no one is exempt.

It means that President Obama was right when he said it would be tough, hard and long.

It means that we don't get our Pony just because we were patient for a whole six months.

In case you were not listening, here is what the President has been saying.

Obama's speech: times still tough; need patience to rebuild economy on solid foundation.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/04/obamas_speech_times_still_toug.html

WASHINGTON--President Obama delivers a major economic speech Tuesday morning where he injects enough optimism to hopefully keep the markets from diving while reminding folks--in case they don't see it all around themselves--times are still tough. The president urges patience--not instant gratification--because short term solutions don't work.

Guess you missed the press conference 2 weeks ago when he stressed the same points.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/23/politics/main5107407.shtml