[EconProf]

Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.
So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.

[EconProf]

Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.
So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.

[EconProf]

Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.
So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.

[EconProf]

Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.
So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom]
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.
I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.
Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom]
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.
I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.
Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom]
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.
I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.
Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom]
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.
I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.
Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom]
I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Actually ANY existing president in the aftermath of 9/11 would have reaped the accolades of a suddenly unified nation. I wouldn’t call that his finest hour.
I would instead nominate his courage in opting for the surge in Iraq, against most all pundits’ advice, the political and popular sentiment, and even some CYA military figures. (Oh, and one particular Illinois senator on the make). It worked beyond anyone’s expectations, and is now about to be copied in Afghanistan.
Another less-recognized accomplishment will be the revenue increases throughout most of his eight years in office flowing from a growth oriented economy. We sure miss that now.

[EconProf]

Plenty of evidence can be mustered to prove that Bush and Obama have each done some stupid things in their lives, and each has done some smart things as well. But I’d like to argue that intelligence, in an IQ sense, is less important to being a good president than such things as character, ideology, and common sense. Perhaps the worst president since WW II was Jimmy Carter, who had IQ and character, but lacked judgement and leaned far left. And we now revere such middling minds as Truman and Eisenhower for their guts and organization skills at a time of testing for our nation.
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes.

[EconProf]

Plenty of evidence can be mustered to prove that Bush and Obama have each done some stupid things in their lives, and each has done some smart things as well. But I’d like to argue that intelligence, in an IQ sense, is less important to being a good president than such things as character, ideology, and common sense. Perhaps the worst president since WW II was Jimmy Carter, who had IQ and character, but lacked judgement and leaned far left. And we now revere such middling minds as Truman and Eisenhower for their guts and organization skills at a time of testing for our nation.
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes.

[EconProf]

Plenty of evidence can be mustered to prove that Bush and Obama have each done some stupid things in their lives, and each has done some smart things as well. But I’d like to argue that intelligence, in an IQ sense, is less important to being a good president than such things as character, ideology, and common sense. Perhaps the worst president since WW II was Jimmy Carter, who had IQ and character, but lacked judgement and leaned far left. And we now revere such middling minds as Truman and Eisenhower for their guts and organization skills at a time of testing for our nation.
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes.

[EconProf]

Plenty of evidence can be mustered to prove that Bush and Obama have each done some stupid things in their lives, and each has done some smart things as well. But I’d like to argue that intelligence, in an IQ sense, is less important to being a good president than such things as character, ideology, and common sense. Perhaps the worst president since WW II was Jimmy Carter, who had IQ and character, but lacked judgement and leaned far left. And we now revere such middling minds as Truman and Eisenhower for their guts and organization skills at a time of testing for our nation.
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes.

[EconProf]

Plenty of evidence can be mustered to prove that Bush and Obama have each done some stupid things in their lives, and each has done some smart things as well. But I’d like to argue that intelligence, in an IQ sense, is less important to being a good president than such things as character, ideology, and common sense. Perhaps the worst president since WW II was Jimmy Carter, who had IQ and character, but lacked judgement and leaned far left. And we now revere such middling minds as Truman and Eisenhower for their guts and organization skills at a time of testing for our nation.
Another observation about the Bush vs. Obama contest: Obama is charismatic and masterful as a speaker, while Bush talks like a hick. Many people can’t get past appearances in our American Idol culture, to Bush’s disadvantage. I suspect history will treat him more kindly than today’s chattering classes.

[EconProf]

OK guys, we’ve pretty much exhausted the pros and cons of protectionism and talked plenty about the past.
Here’s my take on the future. The Obama administration and UAW now owns most of GM and Chrysler. Said companies cannot make profitable vehicles when pitted against foreign-owned companies producing in the non-unionized southern states.
Look for OM (ObamaMotors) to tilt the playing field for their union buddies by making American taxpayers subsidize Chrysler, OM, and probably soon Ford car sales by subsidizing them to give them a competitive advantage over non-unionized foreign-owned car makers. Exhibit one is the “cash for clunkers” bill currently whizzing through congress that will pay buyers getting into a slightly higher mileage new car than the one they are trading in, presumably to be junked? (talk about wasteful).
Exhibit Two is the Chevy Volt, the high-mileage, high priced ($39,000 or so), being developed that will only sell with the promised tax credits, state and federal (aka forced gift from taxpayers) amounting to many thousands of dollars per vehicle.
In short, the free trade era in which consumers had choices, foreign competitors forced product improvement in US vehicles, and foreign-owned US plants embarrassed GM, Ford, and Chrysler into facing their own problems is now over. Protectionism won out. Obama is our president and needs to repay his debt to the UAW.

[Author]

Posts