[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

By the same reasoning Bush's first year, which you call an abnormality in the higher spending curve, was a budget set by Clinton in 2000. So the "abnormality," by your reasoning, is due to Clinton, not to Bush. And the trajectory of Obama's first year, which you claim was a continuation of the Bush trajectory, actually contained about $200 billion in added spending above the Bush budget due to Obama's stimulus bill, and to it was added the spending that occurred in the last 3 months of the year after the Bush budget expired. So the steeper trajectory of spending was not due to the Bush budget and was not a continuation of it.

Spending under Bush rose dramatically during his entire tenure, not just in the first year. Certainly there's a big jump in 2009, but most of these appropriations were set before Obama was sworn in. I've seen the "extra" that Obama could take credit for around 140-200B and most of this was the Stimulus.

This "inherited" crap must either be applied equally to all presidents or it will just be cover for one president's malfeasance in blaming it on another. Bush, as well as Obama, "inherited" some pretty bad stuff such as Osama Bin Ladin and the burst Dot.com Bubble economy.

I see, so the actions of a previous President are off limits in political discussions? Good, now everybody can stop blaming Clinton for the housing bubble

During his administration, the economy recovered from the dot.com recession and the cost of wars so that it grew at a much higher rate in less time than Obama's "recovery," which still lingers at a much slower pace.

Gross oversimplification, almost recklessly so. Very, very different situations.

Yes both presidents, as well as most before them all the way back to Hoover, were, in some degree, progressives. And as such they expanded the size of government and increased spending that was not "legitimate." We have to go all the way back to Coolidge to find a fully constitutional, not a progressive, president. And the national debt decreased under Coolidge.

How long does some of this progressiveness have to stand before it's regarded as having durability?

It is a wonder that the DOW can go through the roof while the "economy" drags. Isn't it amazing how that sector whose wealth in large doses is accessible to the top percent, many of whom do not "pay their fair share" of taxes, does so well while the bottom 40 to 50% go begging?

And, perhaps the recession was not so much worse than many other recessions, but made to appear so due to a recovery that is slower than other recoveries. It is beginning to look like the depression recovery, both in length of time and in the massive spending and regulation and growth of government which may be the real reason the recession appears to be much worse.

I think it was worse in that the recovery was stalled because unemployment. Some of this is simply a global correction, companies who had to cut back found they could perform at a similar rate with what they had. The ripple of the credit bubble (both in housing and household savings) stalled "trickle up" market forces that would generate more employment.

Fortunately, despite Jim's best intentions to spread doom and gloom the economy is looking better. Housing is recovering and household debt is dropping.

I thought Obama was going to fix all of that. The rich seem to be getting richer, even than before, and the "economy" languishes. Just needs more time.

That's the nature of an economy where wealth generation has less emphasis on individual labor and more on service and speculation.

Actually, the sequester may help by reducing the rate of spending a little bit. That might help the "economy" grow a wee bit faster. And if the less progressive Repubs in Congress maintain their solidarity against increased spending, maybe things will turn around in Obama's time. And he will get credit.

If anything the Sequester will lower the GDP at least in the near term. I don't think we're going to see any real action until they reach a deal later this year.

-spence