Kinda Nifty

[kyburg]

You really want to see what happened from 2000 to present, nation-wide?

Go play with this widget.

It goes all the way back to 1994. Wow, look at what happens after 2000...oh, wait.

...

(I'll admit it. Gallows humor.)

Comments

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

A perfect example to demonstrate how the Republican economic policy works to drive the country to ruin.

Warning, rant ahead...

[turandot.livejournal.com]

Except that this problem did not begin and end just due to who's in charge. It's a problem that goes deeper than just politics, and into the unwillingness of most Americans to face the fact that most mature economies decline as a matter of course, and the only way to ensure that the standard of living for its denizens does not fall is through added taxation and the expansion of most social services.

Now, I hate the Republican party, especially the brand of "Tax rebate'em and get them in the mall" that were very common during the Bush era (and who are still saying that tax cuts should be the way to go, although no one is listening anymore), and I dislike Bush a fair amount (I lived in Texas during the "Bush in the White House" years, so I experienced the extent of some of Bush's *cough* legacy *cough* well ahead of most people in this country), but you can't just pin this whole thing on politicians.

We as voters have enabled both parties in this illusion that you can tax nothing, and cut social services, and everything would be alright.

There is a reason why the table starts at 1994. There is significance in that number. That's when the moderate Democrat Congress that had been more or less in charge since 1948 lost its majority to a Republican party that came to power advocating further fiscal responsibility. So out went Welfare, and all sorts of social programs. In went favoring our culture of creating wealth out of nothing.

This current fiscal crisis seems familiar to some of us because it had a precursor in the crash and burn of the tech bubble. In fact, if you look at the figures for the late 90's and the last year Clinton was in office, a recession had already begun to develop. It was partly because a lot of tech companies with inflated stock had begun to have massive failures. But instead of our government learning to regulate wealth, we just went and promoted another bubble instead (before Bush advocated homeownership for everyone, Clinton was doing the same with the middle class in the late 90s). A bubble for a bubble.

The only real problem this time around is that we have no short fix, no other bubble to replace this one with, and we have taxpayers who have gotten used to either party refusing to mention that maybe, just maybe, taxes would have to increase in order to kickstart a recovery (Obama's refusal to increase taxes for anyone earning less than 250K is just as shortsighted as the Bush tax cuts were). Instead politicians of all stripes spend time coddling their public about not needing to invoke the specter of socialism whenever their tax bill might momentarily go up. It isn't just the Republicans, it's both parties.

When was the last time we heard a politician saying "We need to make some changes, they will be costly to everyone, and will require you to support your government with your wallets. Everyone has to sacrifice a little bit now, so that everyone may prosper later." We'd probably have to go back to the war effort during WWII. After that, it seems, every era brings new expectations of wealth that are just not sustainable unless everyone stops saying "What's mine is mine, and what's yours can go to the government. But not mine, never mine. I get to keep mine.". With that attitude, I'm not surprised that the Government's net worth is a huge IOU... and that attitude knows no party affiliation, at this point.

[murphymom.livejournal.com]

I *heart* your icon...

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

Notice: TEXAS FTW

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

That is very interesting to watch. It's like watching weather patterns--and with so many different sorts of details.