Reply #82 Posted: 05/21/2009 10:51:36 AM
I've taken several maco and microeconomics courses at the university level.
What you don't understand is the the Federal Gov't has always played a large role in the economy and can't stand by idly as GWB did and watch companies that employ millions of people (ie auto industry) fail. GWB turned a blind eye to the problem in 2008 - he was over his head, obviously.
This is blatently not true, perhaps if by always you mean since WWI then I would agree with you to a certain extent. Prior to that date the percentage of government spending compared to the overall was between 6 and 10% approximately. This amount was what was needed to provide for those services, that by the Constitution, was the Federal governments obligation. This covered defense, interstae commerce and other services deemed to be for the General welfare of the citizens. WWI saw that percentage spike to close to 30% of GDP and then a reduction back to about 12%. This 12% represented an increase in the baselineline budget that a World War can cause, another reason that war is hell. FDR then had the great insight to begin increasing the  government's share once again, backed by the brain trust and the Progressives. FDR managed to increase that spending to just over 20% of GDP, a 40% increase from the old baseline of the 1920's. WWII again saw a great spike in government spending to over 50% of the GDP during the war years. After the war the nation returned to the FDR levels and then began a gradual rise to the 30% of GDP range, right up until the Great Society of LBJ where it finally broke the 30% threshold,(yet still we have poverty in the country, sorry, got sidetracked there) and then the slow climb began, with spikes during the Carter, Bush I and Bush II years
ending with the 40% threshold being broken by Bush in 2008. Clinton and the Republican Congress actually lowered spending but that was just a smoke and mirrors allusion because instead of spending the tax revenues they decided to raid all the Federal Trusts.
Now we stand at close to 45% of GDP being in the control of the Federal government with an increases to that already proposed by the 2010 Budget nightmare.
There is only so much economy to go around and when the government increases their stake in the "game" something has to decrease. That decreace in private sector share is a loss to individual liberty and an increase in nationalization, which we all know is a form of socialism or collectivism. The Federal government now controls 45% of the econmy with the remaining portion of 55% being divided up by the private sector. So we are technically a 55% capitalist and 45% socialist market. We are becomming a less free market with every year that passes.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.htmlYou do a very good job of generalizing blame without any substancial facts to back up your claims where Bush is concerned. Let me be real clear here, I am no fan of Bush's Republican Socialist agenda on economic policy. I blame him very strongly for his intial steps in both advancing taxpayer funds to private enterprise as well as his steps to impart government control over private companies outside of the regulatory function. Unlike you, however, I will not blanketly blame him for causes that were beyond the scope of his role. Causes such as deminishing market share for the domestic auto industry, increased non-negotiable forced labor rates and benefits, poor quality of workmanship, poor management that was out of touch with their market and company fundamentals and a general "fatness" on the part of all in the industry.
The federal government did provide it's own set of causes to the troubles we now see. Increased retooling due to new restraints and increased regulations with no long term commitments to any single plan and poor trade policies that were stacked against domestic manufactures. Poor oversight of existing regulations and mandates within the financial industry and health industries are also a major contributors to the problems. Bush, as well as Congress, can both equally be blamed for these situations. To blame Bush alone is just showing a bias on your part, one that merely scratches the surface of blame.
You also exaggerate you figures where claiming that the auto industry employs "millions" of employees. The industry at it's peak from 1998-2001 employeed a little over 1.3 million people and during the Bush years that figure dropped to between 1.1 and 1.15 million. Now if you wanted to include, which you did not, all the secondary business employees to the auto industry, then you would be more in line with your claims.
http://www.ita.doc.gov/static/auto_reports_jobloss.pdfI would be more inclined to not respond to your posts if they were not obvously wrong and biased or had any basis of facts supported by sources within them.
"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.
