Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 | 2:05 a.m.
Nevada is being pummeled by political attack ads paid for by an out-of-state, extremist right-wing political action committee. They wrongly attack Sen. Harry Reid for creating deficits and the financial crisis, which required billions of bailout dollars to prevent a world financial meltdown. That is not what history proves:
First, deficit spending took off under President Ronald Reagan.
Second, under Bill Clinton’s administration, Democrats pushed through “pay as you go.” By 2001, the George W. Bush administration had inherited a balanced budget with billions of dollars in surplus.
Third, the Bush administration resumed deficit spending and by 2008 ran up trillion-plus dollar deficits, trashed the world economy and let our financial system run amok until a catastrophic meltdown was imminent in September 2008. The bailout was an “emergency” request from the Bush administration and did receive bipartisan support in order to save us all. Some without courage opposed it to save their political skins.
Fourth, for 16 of the past 18 years Republicans ran the Senate, not Harry Reid. In the 2006 election the Democrats took the Senate majority (by one vote) only because two independents joined them. Not a powerful position when President George W. Bush had a veto.
Fifth, now in 2009, a firmly Democratic Congress and president are forced to clean up the huge mess Republican deregulation and failed economic policies have left us. The fix will be painful and costly — we need Harry Reid now more than ever, not GOP doublespeak that returns the cause of the problem to power.
Let’s send a message to extreme political organizations from outside of Nevada that we will not accept misrepresentations of our citizens. Now is the time for Nevadans to realize that Harry Reid is a powerful advocate for us in Washington as Senate majority leader. The price we pay for this advantage is exposure to attack politics at its worst. I implore Nevadans to not forget where Searchlight is and what Harry Reid means to us.
George W. Bush administration had inherited a recession from Clinton.
We know that the Clinton actual surplus was already down to $127 billion for FY 2001. Well down from the peak of $236 billion just the year before.
The expectation that Clinton was leaving a long term surplus is fiction. It was based on the same types of budget ruses that we saw recently in Congress. Under Clinton the GDP was negative in the 2nd quarter of 2000 and the 1st quarter of 2001.
Clinton left
The long 17-month contraction in the ISM manufacturing index starting in July of 2000, causing the lost of millions of manufacturing jobs, which helped drive the country into recession.
The March 24, 2000 to October 9, 2002 S&P 500 Index drop of 49.1% was caused in part by a need by people to sell stock to pay increased taxes.
Median Household income crest at $42,000 in 1999, and dropped in 2000 and 2001.
Corporate debt increased by 125% between 1995 and 1999 to $2.6 trillion; and corporate tax shelter trickery (Enron, Global Crossing, and Tyco) took off.
Real GDP was just 0.5% in 2001
The January COB 2001 Fiscal outlook was for a FY-2001 Federal total revenue of $2135 billion and a $286 million surplus. However, Clintons last budget for FY-2001 showed a Federal total revenue decrease from $2.025 trillion (FY-2000) to $1.991 trillion (FY-2001), and actual decline in surplus from $236 billion (FY-2000) to $127 billion (FY-2001). Clintons economic surplus projections for just nine months later were off by -$144 million (-7%).
ByFuture crushes Michael Ray.
The ever ongoing expert.
Future_2012: I like the fact that you like facts too. Makes it so much easier to make a point! Keep em'coming.
indithinker, more indy thinking please. Future's argument is nice but just spin, not fact.
According to the Center For Budget and Policy;
When the Bush Administration issued its budget on April 9, 2001, it predicted a budget surplus of $125 billion for fiscal year 2001. Now, four months later, the predicted $125 billion surplus has practically disappeared. How did this happen? The answer is that the recently enacted tax-cuts reduced revenues by $74 billion in 2001 and the economy slowed significantly, so that revenue collections fell below predicted levels.
Facts are that the surplus was $76 billion in 1999 and $236 billion in 2000, the last 2 years of the Clinton administration.
Bush was totally responsible for the declining surpluses. Tax cuts meant decreased revenues. (duh?) Unfortunately Bush's tax cut theory, coupled with the deregulation, that CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO CLINTON, did not bode well for us. BUSH'S TAX CUTS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISAPPEARING SURPLUS. Paaaleese! 2001 is Bushie's responsibility.
It's easy to fool people with bogus facts. Future ranks right up there with Sean Hannity and we all know Sean Hannity Is Tremendous.
Future: comical!
PALIN/*LIMBAUGH 2012
(*pending outcome of drug tests)
Dot com bust caused expected capital gains tax revenue to plummet in 2001/2002. Then there was 9/11.
How have we done since Harry&Nancy became congressional leaders in Jan 2007? Are we still losing the Iraqi war?
Furture_2012 I think it all goes back to Lyndon Johnson,it was all his fault. Of course the right wing nut jobs will never admit the great 'communicator' Reagan was a nit wit at best and his trickle down theory along with with supply side economis failed miserably leaving a huge deficit and a recession. Reagan was a better Democrat.
Of course in 2002 Bush asked Congress to find ways for marginal home buyers to be able to purchase homes followed by Greenspans asking Wall Street in 2004 to find financing methods for these buyers along with absolutely no oversight. Bush's insistance in 2007 and early 2008 that economy was strong and resilient. There should be any accounability here and lets not forget Bush's lying war that oil was going to pay for and America would be the victors of in a few short months. That war did not hurt the economy-MUCH.
Nothing worse tha a lying excuse making, right wing,neo con nut job. They are all the same, somebody else did it and we tried to save America.
There is only one thing wrong with this foolishness, Americans are smart and they don't buy it. Now what other talking points do the liars Cheney and Rush have?
rusty57 Another person who changes the facts to suit them selves. How many generals warned Bush about his lying war and not to start it? Lets not forget the National Security Avisor under Bush's dad who warned W not to start his lying war. The war was lost long before Harry and Nancy. It was lost by Georgie and Dickie.
rusty57: If you think we're winning in Iraq, or even making progress towards building a democracy there, you're very naive. We have succeeded in reducing the loss of American soldiers, which is the only goal in my estimation. The sectarian violence is beginning to increase and will eventually result in the Shia eliminating all Sunni in all of Iraq through violence and intimidation. The hatred between the two sects created by Saddam Hussein and the reprisals by the Shia majority after the invasion will take another 1000 years to be forgotten. Bush opened a can of worms that cannot be closed. Don't expect a McDonalds on every corner in Bagdad during your lifetime.
Loudmouth right wing extremists once asked "aren't we better off without Saddam Hussein"? They don't ask that question anymore as the answer is not what they would want to here.
homer, it doesn't look lost at this point, nor did it then, those are "the facts". Now about that Afghan surge...or did I miss the exit strategy? Will Harry be so quick to lose that one?
Mr. Ray: Are you saying you really believe you can spend your way out of a recession or borrow your way out of debt? I don't believe you're that ignorant. So it must be a blind faith in something that has you believing the current president's policies make any sense. What is it?
Yes, of course Nevada will be better off without the most powerful Senator in Washington.
We should trade that power in for a backbenching member of the minority republican party. Nevada will get SO MUCH MORE out of that!
LOL, you armchair politickers are NUCKING FUTS! And not to mention mildly entertaining.
ksand99 - What does "the most powerful senator in Washington" have to do with anything - especially doing the right thing? Wasn't Hitler the most powerful man in Europe?
I would encourage you to think before you post.
I'm sure glad you think being the Senate Majority Leader means nothing. You'd gladly trade such seniority and power for a powerless backbencher.
Larry, take off your goofy partisan glasses and see the real world. You probably naively think Yucca would be alive today if it weren't for Reid. Think before I post? Right back atcha, kid! You want to strip Nevada of any current political power it has in Washington.
And lay off the trite 'Hitler' paranoia. You obviously have no concept of Godwin's Law. Look it up and think before you post.
Political ads already? The election is still eighteen months away and I am still numb from the 2008 extravaganza. Sen. Reid, here is my recommendation for the Election Reform Act of 2009: (This will apply to all politicians and political action groups)
No campaign ads at all until 90 days before the election. (May hold our interest for such a short time)
No fund raising events until 120 days before the election (Thus freeing up time to do the peoples work).
No outdoor plastic signs at all can be put up. (Save the planet)
Half of all campaign contributions will be given to a non profit charity. (At least something nobel will come of a campaign)
All campaign promises will be posted on a tracking website and the winner of the election will be expected to keep at least 60% of those. (May be a stretch number but it can be done)
You are not allowed to smear your opponent, you can only talk about your own strengths, ideals and personal convictions. (Another stetch target, I know)
Feel free to add to the list.
Does anyone know about H.W. Bush and the Carlysle Group?
ksand99. Of course you're right. We are all better off with those like Reid in office. Secretly, like you I am looking forward to a much larger federal government, one that is far more intrusive in my personal life, demanding more and more of my money for their carefree spending. I'm excited that people with no fiscal responsibility have a lot of power in our government.
OK, don't cite the rule of sarcasm, I'll be serious.
If you've read our founding documents and some history of those wise men, their biggest fear has to jump out and bite you on the nose: Fear of a powerful central government. Before the constituents would ratify the Constitution they insisted it include a bill of rights to limit the federal government's power.
People like Reid take this country further from the conservative principles upon which it was founded. Conservative, capitalistic principles are what has separated us from the dictatorships and Socialist societies through the years.
I would disagree, but you could make an argument for the good that Reid has done for Nevada. However there's a bigger picture: Reid is not good for the country. As an average senator, Reid does not further the culture that has made this nation great. As a senator with a lot of power, Reid is destructive to the nation.
Larry5,
Have you been drinking the koolaid of Rush and Sean Hannity again. Do us all a favor and go bury your head in the sand somewhere.
bush2hater. I'd say based on the name you've chosen to use here, it appears your mind is closed. You've made one comment on this thread and the one you chose was "Go bury your head in the sand somewhere". Feel free to point out to me what I said that offended you.
It seems like you have no intelligent counter to the statements I made. Why not put your pride aside, read the founding documents and some history of those times and see if my points might have some validity?
No one will need to know you've opened your mind and you would gain some valuable knowledge. Hate is a very self-destructive feeling to be carrying around. I've been there. Good luck to you sir.
Larry, the self-described conservatives were in full control recently. Government grew exponentially. They were elected by constituencies mindlessly repeating the very words you've written here.
They kept telling us: elect conservatives, government will get smaller! It did not. They told us the economy will be better! It is not. They told us they would keep us safer! They did not.
You can weakly assert that freedom is somehow reserved as a "conservative" principle. That's cute. The greatest assault on our civil liberties in the past century was authored and passed by a "conservative" majority in the House and Senate.
There's your dream world, then there's reality. You need to get out more.
You still haven't explained exactly how Nevada would benefit from having a powerless backbencher from the minority party in the Senate, as opposed to having the majority leader. Please, elucidate your argument. Prove we'll be better off as a state by removing our influence in Washington.
ksand. It appeared that you had read my post but your last paragraph doesn't indicate that.
If Reid's job is to get the most he can for Nevada, then it's all about power. Should that become the focus of every senator and representative? The perverted state of our congress is in large part due to the competition to bring home as much money as possible to your own state. I'm sure you know who has to pay for all this.
I don't want a senator who works hard for Nevada at the expense of the constituents of 49 other states. I would prefer a senator who always does what's best for the country. Harry Reid is nothing if not fiscally irresponsible. That's not good for the country. I believe there are other issues which make him a poor candidate but this one is enough.
With regards to your other comments, I have the impression you were using the word "conservatives" when you meant "Republicans." I'm sure you know they are not synonymous.