Tom Toles for November 16, 2009

I would point out that it is Scott that is being dishonest, that first Ronald Reagan ran up the deficit (which Bill Clinton actually beat down into a surplus), then Bush did (from the $500+ million surplus Clinton left him to a trillion dollar deficit); but that would be feeding a troll, and that never leads anywhere good.

Is it neccessary to take up three pages of space with quotes? Just post a link - I know we’re nowhere near the same superior intellectual plane as you Scott, but I can think we can figure out how to click a button.

True to his mark “scotty” pages of nothing and what’s so comical is scott actually believes what he posts.

Um Scott, you do realize what this is going to mean right? That the largest drain on the US budget is going to have to get reduced…military. Thats right, the military is the biggest check the US has to sign.

as a total side note: what i find amazing is that even though using tax payers dollars can go to military companies who create weapons that kill innocent civilians on a daily basis, the right shiits a brick if the public plan includes the ability for women to get an abortion (which have PROVEN to lower crime rates).

but back to my point. Yes, the US is not being fiscally responsible now, but now is not the time for it. The US is the biggest and most bloated economy. It was ill managed and caused HUGE problems accross the whole world. So yes, spending now is the only thing that can be done, and as a consequence of American economic policy, people are not going to live as well as they did in the past. Too bad, that is what happens when you borrow more than your can pay back (that will teach you for using credit cards to pay off credit cards!). And the author is totall wrong in saying that the US is creating a bad business environment. At no point does the author show HOW these policies are stifling productivity or anything of the sort. They are just repeating the same old rhetoric. Kind of like an economic mantra where they say “government is bad, government means lower productivity, government is stifling the economy” but that isnt true. GM after having been taken over by the government is doing much better than before, and now doesnt have to get rid of it assets in Europe. There are now laws to protect credit card holders, and now house holds are actually saving some money. Further more, it was the economic deregulation that CAUSED the complete credit crunch because each organization was a black hole. They didnt have ANY transperancy and that meant that no player trusted the other. Had there been MORE government regulation and accountability by business then banks would have been able to see which company was doing fine and which was not, which would have allowed for credit to flow again. So please Scott, stop posting this right wing BS. The authors have little idea of what they are talking about, and if they thought about it for e ten seconds they would clearly see that it is their misguided policies that CREATED THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Senorbullwinkle: I couldn’t bring myself to read all of Scotts rant, but I read every word about Colonblow. Scott should take it regularly and keep it nearby.

Even when Scott is being unoriginal, one can depend on nothing but fruits of the flesh. Until he learns to respond in love, not hate, he lacks the spirit for meaningful communication. I will continue to love him, and pray for him.

Bruce, I understand the libretarian argument. No government = no problems, right? Well I am sorry to say, but such simplistic thought has no merit. The free market is not real. The market does not know best. It is a logical fallicy to place all your faith in the market. It is also a fallicy to believe that industry will create more jobs if the market was free, the only consequence is that those in charge will become that much richer, neo-feudalism would be the end result. It is also a myth to think that if everyone had a job (which is not the case in a free market capitalist system where THERE MUST be unemployed people otherwise there is no incentive to work). Bruce, the government is there for a reason and the important thing is that people need to maintain control of the government, and that is done by ensuring that the system is properly democratic, which is accomplished through maintaining a large middle class, which would not be the case in a free market system.

I wont go into the debate what the best system is. But a few facts about the current crisis: the banks created the crisis. It wasn’t a government policy. It was a consequence of the free market. The government bailed them out to prevent worse. I’m not saying free market doesn’t have its place, but in this case it lead to the troubel we’re now in.

you can elect the president, but you can’t elect a bank CEO.

lack of government policy/regulation shares the blame

i go for jobs and health care

SCOTT LIES

senor, there goes that sarcasm again! funny!

scott - while it is true that the SEC could indeed act more than they did, it is also true that much of the meltdown occurred because of a new area (derivatives) which was NOT regulated, and proposed regulations were shot down, notably by McCain’s advisor on financial affairs, Phil Gramm. (http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/15/100-year-crash-mccain-advisor-spurred-62-trillion-derivatives/print/) Your comment on Al Gore is simply irrelevant – and peanuts compared to this market of nearly half a quadrillion dollars. Your comment on Frank and Dodd ignores the steady removal of constraints on banking and investments that goes back to Reagan and went even further under Bush, and was a key element of Republican policies and platforms all along. Frank and Dodd may have got on the bandwagon, but it’s the GOP who built it, hitched the horses, and drove it. So your last little bit I will simply ignore, as you have launched fully into fiction. The Democratic party is not Marxist. Period, full stop.

Mr. Toles has the right of it: Propose an idea to Congress and it is off to a flying … stop.

At the peak in 2007, the totally unregulated derivatives market was estimated to have a nominal value of $680,000 billion ($680 trillion), and involved premium/bets of roughly $68,000 billion ($68 trillion). (see data on bis.org0

The entire global GDP was only about $60,000 billion ($60 Trillion). The U.S. GDP was about $14,000 billion, but we’ve tinkered with the way we calculate GDP in the past 20 years so the totals are suspect. (see ShadowStats.com)

Over 80% of the U.S. government debt of roughly $10,700 billion (in January 2009, when Obama took office) was incurred by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. We are still paying up to 14% annual interest on debt that Reagan LOCKED into noncallable bonds. (If you doubt the facts about the incursion of the debt by mostly Republican’s, go check the financial reports…blaming it on Congress demeans the role that the President plays in presenting a budget and signing the bills into law). If you’re going to continue to maintain that these Republican president’s were just pawns of their wayward, overspending Congress’s, then go check out their budgets, compare them to the Congressional authorization bills, and prove to us that you are correct. The financial reports of the U.S. Gov are available at http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2008financialreport.html)

vhammon, ENCORE! ENCORE!

@ Vhammon Excellent post!

Scott, you are so wrong it is actually starting to become funny. Keep it up and keep us laughing.

What i find hilarious is that Scott takes a very simple fact (Reagan had a democratic congress) and hides behind it. He was shown the figures, and even admited that Reagan allowed the Democrats to expand the budget beyond reason WHILE keeping his own massive military spending on it also. It is the DUTY of a representative to get whey they need to satisfy their consitutents because that is why they get elected. Reagan should have cut military spending, or something of the like instead of irresponsibly racked up debt. It was either the military, or get relelected. But he decided to do both and started up the massive debt. It was only perpetuated by the Bushes and only made worse by political tax cuts (for rich and companies) and deregulation or refusing to regulate (Clinton shared a hand in this, but admittedly, Clinton was no economist, and relied heavily on the advice of Greenspan). Now sure, Obama is again raising the debt, but only to save the fractured system that was created before him and it is not as if he DOESNT see the debt. He knows that it is something that needs to be dealt with and it will be. Remember it is only the first year (not even) and it is certain that when everything plays out, I guarantee that it is not going to be the end of the world as some loonies would have you believe. I would like to remind you that Scott has said that he would like the end of days to come sooner than later (I understand that that is due to a matter of faith, but honestly, why should we follow the long term advice from someone who’s greatest hope is the complete destruction of the known universe occurs within the next ten minutes just to be with their God?)

My money’s on the “Health Care” tortoise. He has a look of grim determination on his face. By the way, folks, keep your long winded diatribes down to a minimum. No one wants to read all that drivel.

But, algurka, some people seem to love writing it !…

Henri