3) President Obama bailed out the banks.

Sorry, this one is quite true. not only has Obama funneled more benefits to TBTF institutions post Paulson, don't be surprised if he does it again right after the midterms, Obama has sent taxpayer infusions to Fannie and Freddie and generally Fed Treasury policy is coming at the expense of Main Street. He'll never call for a foreclosure moratorium, his administration is as Bank friendly as the last.

Obama voted for the bailouts and stimulus program during the Bush years. Does that count? Obama is part of the problem. He is continuing many of the same programs that Bush started-- especially concerning the war. Vote the Democrats out.

And you think voting democrats out will change anything? Nothing will change. We will have the same problems.... It is not a problem that is dependent on who is in office. They are all making the same mistakes and blaming the other party.

Unfortunately, Anonymous 20:17, if we were to vote the Democrats out we'd be voting the vultures back in. Republicans/Tea Partyists (can't really tell them apart) are the perps in the misery that lingers on from their previous shenanigans. To vote them back in just to punish the Democrats would leave us bleeding from all the noses we'd have cut off just to spite our faces. What we really need is a Congress that will do its job, instead of sitting down on their rumps and squealing NO-O-O-O at every issue (and collecting their plush salaries for NO-thing).

The raft of negative comments on this thread simply proves that all too many Americans have been "fact-proofed" either by their blind ideology, innate stupidity, calculated propaganda/obfuscation/diversion, or, sadly, all of the above.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." François-Marie Arouet -"Voltaire" (1694-1778.)

Actually Fitz, according to my college textbooks on health and wellness life expectancy is declining and expected to continue declining.
Everyone else, I support Obama. I do not agree with everything he has done since taking office. Nor do I agree with all of the things he voted for as a senator. I picked the better of two evils. I would not have voted for Bush' right hand man if my life depended on it. And until the "party of no" gets over their revenge tactics and stops being childish at the expense of our nation's betterment, they are the ones who need replaced. Not even by democrats... just by people who actually think and act instead of sitting on their butts in stagnation, like a diseased price of tissue spreading infection to the rest of the body.

1) The FY 2010 deficit is an ESTIMATE. No statement of fact can be made about the 2010 deficit until the year is over and all the relevant stats compiled. Well, history shows that the numbers always look worse in the final analysis.
 
2) Straw man.

3) Straw man.

4) Stimulus has never worked. It can't. It's a shell game. Creating jobs that produce little, if any, economic output, does not help the economy. It's nothing more than an attempt to re-inflate the bubble. All it does is push the problem into the future and guarantee that the inevitable crash is even more painful.

5) See: Journal of Public Economics Volume 89, Issues 5-6, June 2005, Pages 1027-1043 Tax structure and economic growth "Past theoretical work predicts that higher corporate tax rates should decrease economic growth rates, while the effects of high personal tax rates are less clear. In this paper, we explore how tax policies in fact affect a country's growth rate, using cross-country data during 1970-1997. We find that statutory corporate tax rates are significantly negatively correlated with cross-sectional differences in average economic growth rates, controlling for various other determinants of economic growth, and other standard tax variables. In fixed-effect regressions, we again find that increases in corporate tax rates lead to lower future growth rates within countries. The coefficient estimates suggest that a cut in the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points will raise the annual growth rate by one to two percentage points."
http://tinyurl.com/27grf7f

6) This one makes no sense. Its cost is one issue. Its effect on the deficit is a totally different issue, having to do with the difference between the amount of money raised versus the amount of money spent. One has nothing to do with the other. And, linking to an old article presenting outdated information on only one of the health care bills is not honest. The current CBO estimate of the three bills that make up health care reform (H.R. 4872, H.R. 3590, and H.R. 3961) are that they will cause a $60 billion deficit between now and 2019. Any way you slice it, it will increase government spending as a percent of GDP.

7) The SS trust fund is nothing more than a Treasury bond. There's no cash there, and the only way to convert it to cash is to raise taxes or print the money.

8) Many people don't know that the government builds roads, schools, etc.? Really? Government spending has a negative effect on economic growth. This has been demonstrated over and over. It drains money needed for capital formation. It drains money needed for consumption. It is primarily spent on projects that produce little, if any, return.
http://www.parlamaid-alba.org/business/committees/enterprise/inquiries/bg/30%20Sup%20Evidence.pdf
 

There are many views on how to bring the economy back. One thing is certain to me is that the Republicans presided over and were responsible for the worst recession since WW2. The conservative ideology of small government and deregulation was the primary cause. Unenforced and a lack of regulations in the financial industry (read derivatives) was a crucial problem. Additionally, trickle down economics never has worked for the middle class but has certainly worked for the wealthy. The tax cuts didn’t produce any significant jobs and greatly add to the deficit. Yet they still demand these cuts. The Republicans want the middle class to sacrifice their social security, health care and wages but will pump billions to the very wealthy. Very good for donations!
There were no significant bank failures since WW2 until Reagan said government is the problem and then started the beginning of the deregulation of the financial industry. From then on every major bank failure was on a Republican watch. So much for deregulation!
As far as Democrats are concerned the middle class and actually all classes including the rich fare better during their administrations (read Clinton). The Dems make mistakes, but the Republicans make disaster.

Don't give up on Obama yet!

The Social Security fund is fully funded? An empty IOU that the government can never pay qualifies as fully funded? There hasn't been money available in the Social Security trust fund for many years, just those lonely, useless notes floating around. I think you ought to check the "facts" you are trying to represent.

When did anyone last drive on a privately built highway or cross a privately built bridge? Without a solid infrastructure the economy suffers. Obama's original stimulus plan offered that sort of thing, and planning for the future in which we will need alternative sources of power like solar and wind. Who said we can't afford it? The right, of course. Seems to me we are being left behind by China and Europe because we refuse to invest in the public good.

You left out the two most important things:

9) US global military imperialism, including the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq, is a bigger problem than all the others put together.

10) The Republican and Democratic parties are two sides of the same coin -- a cartel. They supply merely the illusion of choice. We need more fundamental reforms than either party is talking about. To worry about which party is in charge is to take ones eye of the ball.

Freemason, please stop drinking while blogging. Your "opinion" comment is completely bizarre and illogical.

Case in point:

"4) Stimulus has never worked. It can't. It's a shell game [Blah! Blah! Blah!]..."

Apparently, you are economically illiterate. Open up any Economics 101 book and read about Keynesian Fiscal Stimulus, and you will see that it most certainly works because that is what got us out of the Republican inspired Great Depression.

I won't waste my time disproving the rest of your nonsensical comment. You discredit yourself by your own words.

Obama promised to close Guantanamo,and get out of Iraq amongst other things?
Instead he authorized more drone strikes and killed many innocent people then Bush (not that I liked him).
Obama has given green light for killing US citizens on foreign soil without due process(mind you he is a lawyer.)
He supports MANY brutal regimes in the Middle East(like the republicans did).
His policies on nuclear issue are biased(so are the republicans).
The ruling elite consider the rest of the population dumb and keep selling the nonsense about "war on Terror".
The truth is "oil,power and military industrial machines".
Both the parties have lost it.
I for one is planning on staying home and not wasting my vote on these losers (both democrats and republicans).

Pay for Performance for Congress? Maybe a scorecard for Congress using metrics such as unemployment percent or job creation would entice them to cooperate and abandon partisan inaction. If structured properly perhaps the best folks would be attracted, e.g. if country's metrics don't improve no pay (assuming the special interests would not subsidize instead).

"Democrats, don't sit on your hands. Get up, vote for your party"....thats the problem. quit voting for your party and vote for the individual. voting for your party got us into this mess, and they made it worse.
do some research and vote for the individual. the party cool aid line has broken america.

Say what you want about the Tea Party but...

"One thing that sets aside just about every self described Tea Party voter from every other group; They are all, each and every one, people who pay taxes and support society.... rather than folks who take from, use, depend on, and abuse society."

Holy moly... Is this article truly what liberal progressives believe? Do they get off on just making stuff up? The stimulus wasn't enough and should have been more????????? Cutting taxes creates more debt?????? Are you serious? No mention anywhere about the egregious government spending.

What a joke.

Someone writes something out in a seemingly factual way and all the liberals clamor at these half truths. It's almost as if history doesn't exist for these people and the facts about world economies and cause and effect of bad policy from the last 200 years has miraculously disappeared.

What do you expect from out-of-touch liberals. They're so caught up being zealots for their liberal "religion" they turn a blind-eye to actual truth.

Hey, 15:03, crawl out of that Faux News cave and join reality, eh?

Most of the "egregious" and unnecessary government spending took place under Reagan and W. And many economists, including conservative ones, believe the stimulus was not enough. Cutting taxes has *not* created jobs. America was far more prosperous in times when taxes were much higher, such as the 91% top bracket under Republican President Eisenhower in the 1950s.

But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

Hey 15:24, higher taxes do NOT strengthen an economy. A strong economy can SUPPORT higher taxes. Oh, and there were 2, year long, recessions during Eisenhower probably due to the New Deal, inflation, and post war crap. What is completely laughable though is your idea (and apparently also the idea of progressives) that higher taxes brings a country out of recession. ORLY???!!!

Oh, and about the stimulus. They said that if we didn't pass the stimulus we'd lose X jobs. If we did pass the stimulus we'd lose Y jobs (much less than X). It turns out that with the stimulus, we lost both X+Y+Z jobs. We should have just stuck with no stimulus. Too late.

If the wealthy returned to paying Clinton-era taxes, we'd all be better off. It would reduce the deficit and prevent these jokers from buying politicians who will only support THEIR interests rather than the interests of the American people at large. They clearly aren't using the extra cash to create jobs . . .

As for the recession that began under W's watch, it ended in June under Obama's watch.

So, no one is discussing higher taxes to end a recession, duh.

And as for the stimulus, not a single reputable economist agrees with your assessment, 17:08. Stop watching Glenn Beck and form your own opinions. You might have to grow a brain first, though, I realize.

A panel of professional historians recently ranked Obama, based on his performance to date, the 15th best president in American history.

Meanwhile, W was right near the bottom of the barrel . . .

What a bunch of lame, tired rhetoric, 00:03. If you can't see the difference between parties, it's because you're suffering from ideological blindness.

lololol@#6 and #7. I'm so happy that social security is completely sound for the next 25 years. So until I retire, pretty much. No complaints there. Just overlook the fact that Social Security is going broke in European countries like Spain, we aren't like them.

I'm very glad this article was written from an unbiased perspective, amirite?

One thing I never hear mentioned in the who caused what argument is the 2 wars Bush started are now IN THE BUDGET. Blame who you want, but Bushs' wars and tax cuts were never accounted for until Obama took office.

The Bush tax cuts started going into effect in 2001. Where are the jobs they were supposed to create? If we want "trickle down" we will have to allow those unaffordable cuts (look at the deficit) to expire. Going back to Clinton-era taxes--when the country was highly prosperous--won't be a bad thing.

PURE BS, NICE TRY AT TWISTING, DISTORTING, DISTRACTING, AND DODGING BLAME!

NO ONE'S FALLING FOR IT EXCEPT FOR UNEDUCATED PEOPLE WHO VOTE BASED SOLELY ON COLOR AND PARTY.

this is the most pathetic attempt at self-excusing tripe I have seen come out of any administration in 35 years.

I am not going to justify one shred of this completely invalid sack of crap by even beginning to tackle each argument. This whole thing is so patently false and opposite of the truth that I would waste hours dismantling claims that everyone, including the writer and think tank who cooked this up, knows to be dung. Actually, dung has greater value, you can compost it to ferilze your garden. This diatribe of spewage is nothing but a waste of time to readers here.

A bunch of angry people here, and I don't blame you. Stop the stupid "liberal" name calling already, really. Bush and Cheney should be in jail for war crimes and breaking the constitutional law of this country. To turn to the party of no idea's and "no" gives the control back to the party that started this mess. Unless you are at the top 2% of wealth, why on earth would you do that. The middle class will not get any breaks with a Republican rule. They don't give a rat's ass about you brother. Wake up and turn off Fox News, its messing with your sense

The right-wing whackadoodle trolls and Obama so-called progressive haters are on this post this morning.
To the person suggesting that voting only for Dems won't fix things, excuse me, but a continuing majority of Dems will not kill the Health Care Reform Bill, but will probably come up with a better bill with a public option, as Dems will not kill the Financial Reform Bill either. Rethugs will indeed continue Herbert Hoover economics. Let's remember, in 1930, the top 1% was not affected by the Great Depression, as the top 1% aren't affected by the Great Recession. That's the real base of the Rethugs: the haves and have mores who could care less about how America goes as long as they don't have to contribute to society with paying a bit more in taxes, let alone invest in private sector industry or the public sector to create jobs here as long as they can invest "over there" for jobs to be created "over there" (which means killing that financial reform law that took away that tax dodge!).

I've been observing US politics long enuff to know that change is incremental. Elect a Dem and maybe you can elect a more progressive Dem next time around. Elect a GOPer of TPer and you are terminally stupid unless you make more than $250,000/year. Ignorance can be a willful choice.

"Stimulus has never worked. It can't. It's a shell game. Creating jobs that produce little, if any, economic output, does not help the economy"

Consumer Spending drives the economy. Simply keeping people employed helps bouy consumer spending, and thus demand. Demand for products keeps other people in their jobs and often prompts hiring.

The GDP equation is heavily weighted toward consumer spending. This is why reaganomics is so bad for this country. Putting the squeeze on the wages of the middle class and poor who are very likely to spend every penny and giving to the rich who already have everything they want and will simply horde it away kills the economy by simple virtue of the fact the wealthy have nothing more to spend upon. Every republican administration since reagan has been followed by a recession for this reason.

To: 00:49 — Anonymous (not verified)

What you wrote is completely false!! Seriously, you really think there is no "Tea Party member" who has ever taken unemployment, welfare, or workers compensation.... Think again, it's many of these same uninformed people, who are happy to take, but just don't want others to share in those same benefits.

(Tue, 10/26/2010 - 00:49 — Anonymous (not verified)

Say what you want about the Tea Party but...

"One thing that sets aside just about every self described Tea Party voter from every other group; They are all, each and every one, people who pay taxes and support society.... rather than folks who take from, use, depend on, and abuse society.")

Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:52 — Susan (not verified)
 
While Clinton did lower the deficit almost to zero, the 'Clinton surplus' is a myth. The last time we had a surplus (i.e., the government took in more than it spent, thus lowering the debt) Eisenhower was in office. Also, if the government had to use GAAP accounting standards, the debt would be $100-$200 trillion, and every administration for the last 100 years would look fiscally irresponsible.

Here are the government's own figures (probably won't format properly).

Fiscal  National Debt   Deficit
Year    ($ Trillions)   ($Billions)
FY1993  $4.411488        FY1994         $4.692749       $281.26
FY1995  $4.973982       $281.23
FY1996  $5.224810       $250.83
FY1997  $5.413146       $188.34
FY1998  $5.526193       $113.05
FY1999  $5.656270       $130.08
FY2000  $5.674178       $17.91
FY2001  $5.807463       $133.29

Note that the debt increased every year under Clinton. That's no surplus.

Mon, 10/25/2010 - 17:16 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)

The New Deal created the longest, deepest depression the world has ever seen; it lasted twice as long as the previous record holder. Keynes was not an economist, he was a statist (read the General Theory... he doesn't even understand Say's Law, much less complex economic principles). Arecent poll by NABA (National Association for Business Economics... the
world's largest association of economists) showed that less than half of all economists believe that the New Deal worked, which is pretty remarkable considering that almost 90% of the country's economists work for the government. It's not getting any press (I wonder why), but the economic establishment is beginning to turn its back on Keynes, and it's about time; he didn't know what he was talking about.

Mon, 10/25/2010 - 23:10 — Ohio Teacher (not verified)

You're a teacher and all you can do is spew insults? Not even an attempt at a rebuttal? Keynes' General Theory has been thoroughly refuted. (see "Failure of the New Economics," by Henry Hazlitt, available for free at http://mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf). The only reason it's taught in government-owned or -funded schools is that Keynes' answer to every problem is more government, not because it correctly describes how economies work (any history buff should be able to see that).