What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
166 Comments
- novenator, on 07/18/2009, -14/+66Bush doubled the national debt by continuing the insane conservative fiscal policy of 'starve the beast' (see link below). The rich and corporations got richer while everyone else suffered, including the shrinking middle class. What did the Republicans leave us with? A Great Recession, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression with absolutely nothing to show for it. What a waste. At least the ARRA is being spent domestically, on projects that both improve our infrastructure and provide working Americans with jobs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast - niradg, on 07/18/2009, -13/+62As novenator hints, it's not just how much you spend, it's what you spend it on. Spending $1 trillion dollars to invade a country that poses no immediate threat to the US returns $0 to taxpayers. Spending $700 billion to invest in infrastructure & energy efficiency, education & healthcare, pays a dividend for decades.
- veganpa, on 07/18/2009, -7/+36Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion in 2001. Budget experts projected a $710 billion surplus for 2009 when he came into office. But the deficit soon exploded, thanks largely to the Bush tax cuts -- which accounted for 42 percent of the deficit. When Bush left office, he handed President Obama a projected $1.2 trillion budget deficit for this year, the largest ever.
As for the debt, when President Bush took office, it was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. - inactive, on 07/18/2009, -12/+41Wait you can't go blaming mr bush for what he did that's just wrong, ask any republican.
- smashTasker, on 07/18/2009, -10/+30Bush was a liar and a crook, good riddance
- TobiasParker, on 07/18/2009, -0/+13You borrow money from the asian family down the street.
- inactive, on 07/18/2009, -4/+1493% - 7 years (84 months)
7% - 6 months
(6 x 93) / 84 = 6.6% ~7%
Considering Obama's 7% as the effect of a stimulus (something that is not ongoing spending, like a war), those 7% are still within the boundaries of normality, if you consider Bush as an example. - xexx, on 07/18/2009, -4/+147% that wouldn't have been required had we not had 8 years of Bush.
- Snap65, on 07/18/2009, -4/+14Exactly.
- Waiting2awake, on 07/18/2009, -7/+16Blame Bush all you like. I do.
If Bush and Obama do the same thing, they deserve the same criticism. I would just wish those that rightly blame Bush for so much, could see that. - Humptydank, on 07/18/2009, -0/+9Uhmm, I think he was on your side there Gordo.
But hey, once you've broken a bottle on the table might as well swing it at anybody, right? - inactive, on 07/18/2009, -7/+16Obama has not started a war, or tanked the economy.
- Bhima, on 07/18/2009, -4/+12Regardless of what you think of government spending, it is impossible to characterize "Starve the Beast" as an ethical strategy.
If you think that governments should be small then it is the expensive government programs that need to be ended.
If you think that governments have a larger role play in our society, then these programs need to be paid for as we go. - charm803, on 07/18/2009, -0/+8The difference is Obama is helping AMERICAN infrastructure, while Bush was just throwing piles of money to a country that did not want it.
For now, they are complaining that the Taliban is not the problem, but the crooked cops.
I support Obama's 7% over ANY of Bush's. - Maxmojo015, on 07/18/2009, -12/+19Everything on this site is so partisan now. It's unbelievable...
- ShingoEX, on 07/18/2009, -5/+12"Votes for change and we don't get it"
I love how people expect "change" to happen in an extremely unrealistic short period of time, and when it doesn't happen just like that, they say things like this. - GorfTron, on 07/18/2009, -8/+15Bush took over with a surplus and one major goal - tax reductions on the rich. He did this ASAP and ignored everything else, like terrorism. Good job Bush!!
- oldhick, on 07/18/2009, -26/+32How is this relevant? Is this the "well he's not quite as bad as Bush" angle you're going for here? So Bush runs up a deficit. The nation gets pissed. Votes for change and we don't get it. Deficit spending continues, government continues it's quest to be larger and to control more elements of the market and our lives. Instead of pushing Obama to cut the budget, to restore some fundamental fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget, we high light that Bush was worse... We knew that already. That's why everyone voted for change I thought. It'd be nice to get it.
- kufu91, on 07/18/2009, -1/+7Clinton didn't help the deficits? you do know we had a surplus, right?
- inactive, on 07/18/2009, -1/+7What health care plan does EVERYONE have now?
- charm803, on 07/18/2009, -1/+7If you want to disagree and prove a point, you should not use words like "libtards," as people will not take you seriously.
At least engage in a meaningful debate.
/yes, I know this is digg. - oldhick, on 07/18/2009, -0/+5Just to clarify, I didn't vote for change. The "we" was the collective US. I knew what Obama would do.
- Subduction, on 07/18/2009, -1/+6"We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box... That's the beauty of our 2nd Amendment rights."
-- Catherine Crabill, Republican legislative candidate in Virginia
"Those are my convictions. I am a full-blooded, freedom-loving American, and what we're seeing in Washington is domestic terrorism at its worst."
-- Catherine Crabill, "clarifying" her remarks - DogofWar1, on 07/18/2009, -4/+9The big problem with starve the beast is that it is a two-way street. You can not have a populace that demands much of the government, as ours does, and yet have the politicians starving it. Surprisingly, it isn't always the politicians though. The people are stupid enough to cause this too sometimes.
The epitome of this has to be California. It is a state that demands so many programs from its state government, and then, when they have to vote on proposals to pay for it, no one votes for more taxes. Thus the state goes into debt.
America needs to figure out what it wants from its government. If the election of people in 2008, who ran on a more liberal approach to government is any indication, then people need to understand that these programs have to be paid for somehow. Americans ought to accept somewhat higher taxes, especially considering our taxes now are not particularly high. - Subduction, on 07/18/2009, -0/+5No, it wasn't. It was replaced with "comment removed."
To actually remove a comment you hit "Edit" and click on the red "Delete" in the lower right corner. - inkswamp, on 07/18/2009, -6/+11Where are all the conservatives repeating the standard line about how the CBO has a liberal agenda?
- twiztidsinz, on 07/18/2009, -0/+5I think Subduction is pointing out that the loons do indeed want to go out and shoot people to back up your statement...
- novenator, on 07/19/2009, -0/+4The American political scene has turned very partisan and nasty in the last 6 months. I wonder why? Who is saying the most outrageous things?
- Rotzooi, on 07/18/2009, -5/+9Obama inherited a completely destroyed economy, courtesy of George Bush. Fixing that WILL COST MONEY. Suck it up, Republicans. You voted that clown in office, now let the grown ups fix the mess.
- inactive, on 07/18/2009, -17/+21There's no use in trying to argue with the tea party goers.
Just let them blame it on the democrat, and hope that makes them happy enough not to come out with their gun and start shooting everyone. - Subduction, on 07/18/2009, -0/+4Apology accepted.
- TobiasParker, on 07/18/2009, -5/+9http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Obama is doing exactly what Roosevelt did to get us out of the great depression. - DogofWar1, on 07/18/2009, -8/+12If we did this in %s, the debt today is really Reagan and Bush 43s fault. GHWB wasn't great either, but no where near as bad. Clinton did raise the debt, but he had a surplus at the end, which took mad fiscal skills. Obama, up 'til now, has had to raise spending during this recession, that's what basically all legit economists say is neccesary. Bush 43 (and Reagan) basically jacked up spending during good times too, and that's where problems started.
- funkedup, on 07/18/2009, -4/+8Your diagnosis of the problem is severely flawed. We didn't have free markets under Bush, we had crony-capitalism. No wonder why people don't support free markets, they have no idea what they actually are.
- AmnesiacJack, on 07/18/2009, -0/+4There has been plenty of chances for "change" that could have been done easily and in a short period of time but this administration has time and again decided to stay the course and continue with Bush policy.
Transparency? (5 days before being voted on posted on the web any one?)
Illegal wiretaps? (Ahhh ***** might as well keep this going on who knows when you need dirt on some one!)
Lobbyists on a leash? (Czar positions must not count)
Guantanamo? (Damn better get rid of a few to shut people up)
There is a big list of easy things that they could change if they wanted to and if they stuck to their campaign promises with half as much effort as they put into pointing fingers at the past as if it some how justifies the continued rape of the country. - ChuckDees, on 07/18/2009, -1/+5I call *****, EVERYONE knows only liberals cause deficits.
/s - ChuckDees, on 07/18/2009, -1/+5Public opinion on the deficit is not too good right now.
It should be explained that there wouldn't have to be any major increased spending.
If it were not for the horrible economy and two wars.
It also should be reminded that Bush kept the true cost of the wars off the books.
The GOP acts as if the last eight years of mismanagement never happened.
Thats cool i guess its their job, but the public need's to have a longer memory. - kufu91, on 07/18/2009, -0/+4but in that example, you and the drugstore are independent agents. lets pretend citizens are tenant farmers and the government is a land lord. the tenant farmers create wealth (economic growth) and pay for the land (taxes). the land lord in return makes sure his tenant's know how to farm (public education) can get working tools (regulation) and don't get poor enough to starve (minimum wage and friends).
suppose the tenant farmers with the most land (financial institutions) try out a risky new farming technique, getting a massive number of farmers with little experience to farm their land. At first they grow a record number of crops but in the process destroy the soil on many of the land lord's farms. the crops all fail one year because of this and cause a famine (depression)
wouldn't the land lord spend money to fix the soil and keep his tenants alive until the next crop rather than hoard all of his money in his castle? - Scira, on 07/18/2009, -1/+5Obama is spending more per time then Bush, but at least its on our country. Also who's to say he will continue to spend like this? He could start spending less, or more, but we don't know yet.
But using the numbers people have been saying here and assuming Obama goes at a steady rate, it will take him slightly over 7 years to put him equal to Bush. - twiztidsinz, on 07/18/2009, -1/+47% is a FRACTION of 93%...
And you have to SPEND to get out of a recession, ask any economist. - Arkons24, on 07/18/2009, -4/+7Even by Obama's conservative and very rosy numbers he is expecting to increase the national deficit to like $18 trillion if I remember correctly from the current 11 trillion when he took office. Bush took office with $5.7 trillion of national debt and left with approximately 11 trillion give or take.
Personally, I don't see this crisis abating any time soon and Obama's time line for recover seems overly optimistic. I see national debt expanding beyond the estimates released thus far due to increasing socialization of America's largest corporations. This is a dangerous precedent, especially considering the lessons learned from the housing securities market and Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's role in its collapse.
Btw the argument that our current predicament is the fault of any one person within the political spectrum or either side of the aisle in particular is a very tired and very dead horse. Bush didn't cause the weakness in the credit markets and neither has Obama - though neither has done much to help them either. Complacency in the government over financial regulatory capture and excessive monetary tinkering by the fed due to large inflows of foreign investment was set off by a series of bad decisions by our legislature regarding Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and how the mortgage securities market is structured ... in other words the the entire government and the federal reserve dropped the ***** ball. The people who are supposed to be protecting us from this sort of thing are the ones who actually caused it. - Fr33th0t, on 07/19/2009, -0/+3It would be unfair to blame Bush whose actions allowed this mess to get to the point where Obama had to pump money into the economy to kick-start it? Riiiiight. I suppose you also believe that Bush shouldn't be blamed for the Iraq war or 9/11 as well.
- busterbros, on 07/18/2009, -7/+10I can immediately see one problem with the NYT infographic linked from that article. "The numbers that appear below are the average annual deficit or surplus for this four-year period." While Bush is done spending for 2009-12, Obama still has plenty of time. If the trend set by his first six months keeps up, I don't think he'll have any trouble catching Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/busi ... - durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -0/+3"No wonder why people don't support free markets, they have no idea what they actually are."
"Free markets" which satisfy the definition of the ideologues do not exist, have never existed, and many would argue, will never exist. You cannot point to a single successful country which operates on an ideologically pure free market principled system. - inactive, on 07/18/2009, -3/+6Obama would not have needed to do his "7%" if it wasn't for Bush.
- inactive, on 07/18/2009, -1/+4"Most of the deficit" does not mean "all of the blame"
- Diefree, on 07/18/2009, -1/+4Nope we have to remember history to stop these liars and idiots that want to call for violence and tell lies about the situation to deflect the blame onto the Dems when it was actually good ole boy Bush that put us here. All the while the suddenly "too much spending" were cheering his wasting money in an illegal invasion, idiotic tax cuts, and general stupidity. Until the tea baggers, Freepers, birthers, and all the other liars stop lying we'll keep pointing out the truth.
- uncleosbert, on 07/19/2009, -0/+3no, mchisari is right. economics is still a social science, not a hard science, and we should be willing to look at examples on the ground instead of just the underlying philosophies.
- Rotzooi, on 07/18/2009, -2/+5After we're done with that, can we return to blaming Bush? Because in the end, the buck stopped with him. He destroyed America and everything it once was.
- novenator, on 07/19/2009, -2/+5No, it wasn't. That's another right wing talking point that has no basis in reality.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is