Now on ScienceBlogs: Oldest Human-Made Object in Space
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Worldnutdaily Joins Forces With Theocrats | Main | Palin Keeps Digging »
Posted on: July 8, 2009 9:02 AM, by Ed Brayton
From an audience member at an appearance by George W. Bush, apparently oblivious to irony:
Bush's principles ring true in Oklahoma, said Kris Day, who owns the Cowboy's Tack Shop with her husband, Neal."We're conservative," she said. "We don't spend money we don't have."
The mind boggles.
Politicsdenialism blog 02.14.2012
respectful insolence 02.14.2012
uncertain principles 02.13.2012
confessions of a science librarian 02.13.2012
starts with a bang! 02.13.2012
Comments
Who are you gonna believe? Me...or your Lyin' Eyes?
Posted by: steve s | July 8, 2009 9:10 AM
After 8 years of his drivel and bushisms and embarrassment why would anyone pay him to speak.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 8, 2009 9:26 AM
1. If the lighting is right maybe we can see the strings.
2. During Q & A ask him to turn around and pull up his jacket so we can see the remote control.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | July 8, 2009 9:48 AM
"We don't spend money we don't have."
That's almost un-American.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | July 8, 2009 9:55 AM
I don't believe most Americans understand the degree to which Bush left us in debt. I think they also wrongly believe that Obama's plans would generate more debt than Bush did. Most Americans would assign only the debt increase that the federal gov't currently makes interest payments towards in a given budget year. That debt went from aprox. $5 trillion to I believe around $11 trillion during the Bush Administration's tenure. About 15% of last year's federal tax receipts went towards servicing this debt, it was about 22% under Reagan, it's partly modest because interest rates are low.
In addition, Bush created a $500 billion per year structural deficit during the flush portion of the economic cycle that Obama inherited where he inherited a slight surplus. I didn't validate the start and final debt numbers so excuse me if I'm off a bit - they are close.
However, our unfunded future liabilities, which includes known future payments for Social Security, Medicare, and pensions where we have no scheduled receipts to fund, rose from $20 trillion to more than $56 trillion dollars under Bush, including $18 trillion due to his Medicare prescription plan which contains no corresponding plan to fund. Here are a couple of insightful links that also validate these numbers:
Bruce Bartlett, a Reaganite conservative validating my assertions in the last paragraph while ridiculing the TeaBaggers and George Bush's performance.
A great tutorial on what these entitlement liabilities mean to current and future taxpayers.
In addition, the debt Bush created that's part of the $11 trillion appears to have had little stimulative effect on the economy. That's why Bush's job creation record and the stock market's performance failed so miserably under his reign.
It appears to me that Obama's generated incremental debt should have a stimulative effect, which means that while that debt will increase our interest payments, we should see some corresponding growth in GDP to fund this debt. However, I also believe Obama's and the Democratic-majority Congress' stimulative efforts were mediocre when more optimal choices were available.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2009 9:58 AM
No doubt. What happened to the US Nationally bears striking resemblance to what happened to the S&L crisis that involved oddly enough. McCain and the Bush Bros in the 80s. UH, I dunno, a pattern perhaps?
Most Bushies, obviously bought the Kool-Aid, added their own cyanide and are making Southern Sweet Tea with it for themselves and their neighbors.
So I wish I could say I was surprised, but I am not.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | July 8, 2009 10:16 AM
Technically speaking, the quote is kind of true, if you have one of two possible interpretations. Bush did not spend money he did not have.
1. He spent money our grandchildren will not have.
Or
2. He spent money that does not exist.
Perhaps this can be a new game for us Dispatchers. "Spin The Dumbass Quote."
Posted by: Blue Nine | July 8, 2009 10:34 AM
Blue Nine stated:
Yes he did. He created about $5 - $6 trillion in additional debt by spending more than the Treasury collected.
He also did your #1. #2 is incorrect, whatever he spent was paid for by borrowing.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2009 10:49 AM
Irony of ironies is that many, perhaps most, Republicans really and truly think that the statement is true. That only Democrats spend money and that Republicans are frugal and into saving money.
I have been told by GOP supporters that 'Bush inherited the deficit but had the wisdom to cut taxes and get government out of the way of business so that the budget would come into balance'.
Furthermore that 'Obama gave the banks 750 billion dollars'. The other one is that 'Obama set the timetable for withdrawing the troops in Iraq and this demoralized the soldiers and lost the war'.
Face palm.
Posted by: Art | July 8, 2009 10:53 AM
Has anyone seen data on whether conservatives and liberals differ regarding personal indebtedness? My default assumption would be that they do not, but it would be very interesting if in fact conservatives tended to have greater indebtedness than liberals.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 8, 2009 11:05 AM
I clicked the link, and the crowd is waving a lot of flags. There is also a woman with a shirt with a flag pattern. Now, I know that this photo was taken on July 4, but conservatives do like to wave flags a lot all the time. This and the threads on the Air Force refusing to do a flyover in Idaho lead me to a question: Is it just me, or do conservatives seem really really insecure in their faith and patriotism? They seem to need to be surrounded by flags and crosses all the time. Why is that?
Posted by: Blue Nine | July 8, 2009 11:33 AM
Blue Nine - Short term memory loss (a by-product of total bi-lateral brain lobectomy, necessary to believe all that RRR* guff) -DJ
*Right-wing Religious Retard
Posted by: DingoJack | July 8, 2009 11:57 AM
James,
I've looked into the data regarding presidential responsibility for our national debt. Of course there is the role congress plays in the process, but really we know that the executive establishes the budget. So, what we have is this:
Carter and the presidents prior to him: $900 billion combined
Reagan + Bush: $3.8 trillion combined
Clinton: $900 billion
Bush II (the stupid strikes back): $5.4 trillion
Realistically anyone in the modern era who claims that Republicans are fiscally responsible is either ignorant, an ideologue, or batshit insane.
Personally that's also why I think the polls show 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative. They have these idiotic cartoon characterizations of both Republicans and Democrats, labeling them as "conservative" and "liberal" and then giving them utterly idiotic characteristics.
I had a friend who considered himself conservative because he didn't believe in giving money to lazy people who didn't want to work. I asked him who did want to give money to lazy people who didn't want to work?
We went step by step through issues and his positions were liberal or moderate/liberal except for this one characature opposition of an idiotic position nobody holds.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 8, 2009 12:12 PM
In defense of H.W. Bush and part of Reagan's tenure, I remember that H.W. was committed to reducing the debt and even raised taxes to accomplish that objective as did Reagan later in his term.
H.W. Bush was never a movement conservative though he did pander to them. We should remember he lost in '92 partly because he made a principled decision to raise taxes, which broke a previous campaign promise. H.W.'s economic policies played a large role in insuring a more robust recovery, where Clinton's policies amplified the recovery as well.
In addition, Reagan's failure regarding the debt were largely due to stimulative efforts given the recession he inherited and conservative economic policies he initially implemented that aggravated that debt by slowing a recovery (such as raising taxes on the poor during a recession while cutting the taxes of the rich during that same recession). Further aggravating his situation was a country who collectively wanted the military rebuilt. Later in Reagan's tenure he too raised taxes overall and became more committed to being more fiscally prudent after his earlier failures. I bring this up for three reasons:
1) There is a vast difference between what I call republicanism (moderate Republican from that period and what's left of them today) and conservatism - during a time when conservatives did not reign supreme within the GOP like they do now.
2) Conservatives now days fondly remember Reagan's talking points and his implementation of his initial policies as if they were the reason Reagan was ultimately successful. It was not, these efforts were a failure, he was ultimately successful due to his non-conservative policies implemented later in his tenure.
3) Like Obama, Reagan inherited an economic mess and a military who required fundamental reform and investment (where Carter received far too much undeserved blame). New debt under Reagan, like Obama, was inevitable.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2009 12:46 PM
Yes, Obama did create a $1,800 billion deficit this year, 4 times more than Bush, and he does extend $1 trillion deficits 10 years into the future.
Posted by: Mitchell Blatt | July 8, 2009 2:06 PM
Mitchell Blatt - Citation please. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 8, 2009 2:15 PM
Mitchell Blatt - Citation please. - DJ
DJ,
What they're doing is pulling a fast one. First, they're pretending that the 2009 budget is an Obama budget, not the final Bush budget. They then blame Obama for spending the money authorized by the bailouts, the claim is, while it was available, he didn't have to "spend it." It is a collection if phony book-keeping gimmicks, pretty standard for Republicans. If you look at their same methodology:
They actually blamed Carter for the current financial crisis while at the same time arguing that Bush had nothing to do with it and, "in fact" fought bitterly to try to stop it but the Democrats blocked his every move. Now, in order to pull this off, they need blinders the size of Texas, but...
*They point to the Community Reinvestment Act of the 70s
*They argue that Bush tried to reform the market with Sarbanes-Oxley
*They blame Clinton for Gramm-Bliley
*They blame Freddy & Fannie (and with them the Democrats)
So really, what they're doing is blaming the Democrats for forcing financial brokers to lend money to people who couldn't afford to really borrow the money and deregulating the market and then blocking brave wonderful President Bush from stopping them so they could continue to give money to undeserving poor people.
It's a more nuanced way of blaming poor minorities and the Democrats for their own failed policies. Unfortunately guys like Mitchell buy it.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 8, 2009 2:36 PM
"We are the true conservatives." -- Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds (remember him?)
He said that at a small fundraiser I attended somewhere around 1991. The theme was environmental, rather than fiscal, conservatism. Just another one of those hidden future costs.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | July 8, 2009 3:14 PM
I just think it's pretty darned interesting that a two-term president who's been out of office for less than a year can't get a better invitation for the Fourth of July than Woodward, Oklahoma.
Posted by: Old Meanie | July 8, 2009 3:52 PM
DogmeatIB,
I didn't mean government debt. I am in full agreement with you on that score. I meant in terms of personal indebtedness, credit cards, mortgage indebtedness in relation to income, etc.
The null hypothesis would be that Americans do not differ on indebtedness by ideology. But the alternative hypothesis, that conservatives tend toward greater personal indebtedness, would be an intriguing find.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 8, 2009 4:09 PM
James Hanley - This is not exactly what you asked for given a certain pro rata of debt might not worry one group over another and therefore not show up in these poll results. I would have much preferred seeing actual debt rates broke down by political ideology, especially credit card debt. But it's the best I could find.
It shows conservatives worry less about debt than their budget relative to non-conservatives; who worry more about debt and less about their budget.
When it came to the national debt which is tangential to your question but applicaple to the topic of this blog post, and this poll was taken in 2006, liberals were nearly all concerned about our national debt while merely half of conservatives were. That's empirical data possibly arguing for current hypocrisy if that number has significantly increased given our current and future debt loads have not changed significantly due to Obama, but were inherently there under Bush (who avoided reporting on parts of it, including in his budgets).
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2009 4:38 PM
My mistake James, misinterpreted your question. To confirm what Michael linked to, I have seen some anecdotal evidence that suggests that, at least "conservative Christians" are more likely to take on debt that they cannot afford. I don't recall if Ed did a post on it, or if I read it elsewhere, but a study found that a number of conservative evangelical groups were promoting borrowing, and their members were borrowing and buying things they really couldn't afford at a truly measurable level than the public at large. Apparently their attitude was "God will provide." And they acted as if they were approved for the loan because God wanted them to have the house, etc.
I saw elsewhere a comment that suggests the data would likely be skewed. As a group, the wealthy tend to be a bit more conservative (barring the coasts here in the US), if that argument is true, then the numbers would likely be skewed a bit because the wealthy generally don't need personal debt.
Interesting thing is England tried to do a study determining political affiliation and debt. It failed because of partisanship. Ironic, eh?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 8, 2009 5:54 PM
Yes, you do spend money you don't have. The difference is that you spend it on the wrong things.
Posted by: Tired | July 9, 2009 2:15 AM
With the talk about debt and fiscal responsibility, there are quite clearly different ways to be fiscally responsible. While there are of course couple different schools of though about deficit spending during a recession, there is zero reasons for deficit spending when the economy is expanding beyond a rebound. So while people can certainly debate whether or not we need trillion dollar deficit right now, everyone should be able to tell that there was zero reason for deficits during about 2003-2007 years. The economy had rebounded from 2001 recession, and annual Afghan war spending requirements were known, there was no reason why the administration could not have raised the necessary taxes to pay for the spending.
Posted by: MarkusR | July 9, 2009 8:45 AM
MarkusR stated:
Not true. A good reason to deficit spend in flush years is future economic growth opportunities that require government investment to optimize those opportunities. Such spending may not be immediately stimulative, but should provide the infrastructure necessary that the return on investment yields increased future tax receipts due to a marginally larger economy. Such wise investments reduces the future debt relative to total GDP to the denominator growing (the size of the economy) which also reduces future debt service payments relative to the total share of federal tax receipts.
This is not what the Bush Administration did, rather than investment, they were expending monies on items that had little or even negative impact to GDP, e.g., the war on Iraq - while approaching $1 trillion in expenditures this fiasco is also projected to marginally reduce total GDP by $2 - $3 trillion.
A good example of smart deficit spending when the economic cycle is experiencing good times is when the state of CA was investing in infrastructure, including education, several decades ago that attracted industries, businesses, American citizens and highly desired immigrants - especially those in the STEM industries (Science, Tech, Eng'ing, and Math).
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 9, 2009 10:21 AM
Michael,
Those are all good reasons to spend. But they aren't reasons to accept deficits when doing so during good times. When GDP is expanding that is the only time you can turn a deficit into a surplus. It's called a tax hike, and people need to learn to accept them in good times.
Posted by: MarkusR | July 9, 2009 11:44 AM
MarkusR - I disagree, my point and example are not only valid, but is also standard business practice by most large entity, both in business and gov't - including local, state, and national gov'ts with the exception of some states who have poorly structured budget restrictions that has proven to reduce their growth - such as CA today vs. CA several decades ago. When one has growth opportunities, a sound debt and equity allocation strategy will be required and to realize those opportunities debt is an extremely common element - that goes for both businesses and governments and is the heart of what financial managers do.
I agree tax increases at the start of flush economic cycle is a valid option if increased cash outflows are also budgeted to meet future growth opportunities - but that is not a mutually exclusive alternative as you argue. The creation of new debt coupled to tax increases is not only a viable option, but a far more common policy. The key success factor when making these decisions is that future cash flows (tax receipts) will cause the added debt to shrink relative to the total economy being invested in by the entity.
This is how most new infrastructure projects get funded, often by selling tax-free municipal bonds on the front-end coupled to usage fees (taxes) on the back-end.
If governments did not employ such financial strategies, historical trended GDP growth would be far lower given not borrowing would have reduced the ability to put the needed capital requirements in place to grow.
I understand the mainstream media doesn't portray basic economic and fiancial principles properly when they discuss government budgeting, I can assure you these options are not only valid and employed, but necessary.
I want to also repeat from my past comment this sort of mind-set was in no way employed by the past president. Given his deficits were known to not be stimulative prior to their being expensed, they should have been supported by tax increases alone, and not debt.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 9, 2009 2:56 PM
Blue Nine "Is it just me, or do conservatives seem really really insecure in their faith and patriotism?"
For one thing, they're the same thing. After all, the Pledge of Obedience has "One Nation under God", which the Founding Fathers, conservative evangelical Protestants all, put in themselves (with no help from anything except for hyper-Calvinism and the Pauline Epistles) way back when the Puritans founded this country after George Washington crossed the Delaware. True story.
"They seem to need to be surrounded by flags and crosses all the time. Why is that?"
The objects themselves are more important than what they symbolize. Same with the bible. And the Constitution. "They" don't seem to be much for symbolism.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 10, 2009 9:23 AM