Getty Images
It'd be a time-consuming challenge to fact check Paul Ryan's entire interview on "Meet the Press," but there was one line in particular that stuck in my head after the show.
Was it the Republican congressman's claim that it's "pretty clear" that Keynesian economics "doesn't work"? That was, to be sure, a bizarre claim, especially given Ryan's previous endorsements of Keynesian economics, but that's not what stood out for me.
Was it the Budget Committee chairman's claim that Republicans "aren't preaching austerity"? That, too, was ridiculous, given that austerity is the foundation for Ryan's own budget plan, but there was something else that was more memorable.
"Look, if we had a Clinton presidency, if we had Erskine Bowles, I think we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now. That's not the kind of presidency we're dealing with right now."
Ah, right. The ol' "we liked Clinton better" argument from the far-right Republicans who woke up every morning for eight years trying to think of new and creative ways to destroy the Clinton presidency. For Ryan, Bill Clinton and his team were fiscally responsible, but it's that rascally Barack Obama who's in office that Republicans can't work with.
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind Paul Ryan that Clinton was able to eliminate the deficit, start paying off the national debt, and deliver the largest surpluses in American history after -- wait for it -- raising taxes a whole lot. He raised taxes on the wealthy, the middle class, and the private sector, despite howls from congressional Republicans who said Clinton's economic plan would obviously do lasting damage to the economy and force a deep recession.
So when Paul Ryan said a President Clinton would have "fixed this fiscal mess," he's referring to a Democrat who balanced the budget by raising taxes far more than Obama did. "That's not the kind of presidency we're dealing with right now"? That's true -- on raising taxes, Clinton was further to the left.
Leave a Comment:
Unless he's talking about another Clinton who--if victorious in 2008--would be giving us what he was saying
What Ryan is trying to do is reinforce the idea that is held among many in the DEM party that those that are better for the economy are on the right of the Democratic party, rather than the left.
The inconvenient truth about the Clinton years was that the things the president did had little to do with the explosion of high tech industry in the 90s- and explosion that ended in the dot com bubble. There are two huge areas of new investment, and the right wing of the party wants to go with the "Sustainable environmental policy" theme resurrected from the 70s for cooperating with the fossil fuel industry. The reason that the Clinton2.0 policies will be a disaster is that the bill for it will inevitably come due, just as Clinton1.0's deregulation of Wall Street regulations did.
The other avenue for new investment is to re-orient trade and industrial policy towards the global climate change challenge. Make it our Kennedy moon shot challenge. Instead of unapologetic neoliberal trade policy, we don't erect protectionist barriers, but what we do implement are fines for the carbon cost of the climate change pollutants released into the atmosphere that are an unmeasured externality expressed in the cheap Wallmart China manufactured product. Similarly, Tar sand oils and Natural Gas can have export Carbon fines imposed unless it is shown that they will be refined with zero carbon release. The WTO cannot assert these are illegal trade barriers, and this means US manufactures are not penalized by stiff US domestic regulations on carbon emissions.
US industry can build the technology to convert our massive natural gas reserves to hydrogen. It is very convenient and cost effective to remove the CO2 as part of the refining process, where the exothermic reaction can create harvestable heat for power generation, and be sited near geologic formations (such as those off the Oregon coast) where the CO2 can be permanently held ad depth where it is denser than water and will over time combine chemically for permanent sequestration.
This will be a wicked amount of new spending and infrastructure creating massive jobs, but the price can come out of the extreme amount we already spend at the pump on energy. The premium we pay for this form of energy will not be crippling. On the contrary, the Pay later pitch that the DEM right wing implicitly makes is much much more debilitating- defense spending to wars over food and water, or budget busting disaster spending due to city after city getting hammered by extreme weather evetns.
The Kochs and the Exxons of the world can have their cake in some of the Left scenarios for industrial policy involving sequestration - so it is conceivable their opposition will not be permanent, with it being in their economic interests to perpetually seek destruction or serious co-opting of climate change policies. If they are still digging up and being paid handsomely for energy, why should they resist the new normal. The difference is whether the global economy and climate will not collapse under their preferred "deregulated" environment.
And maybe Exxon can live with the economic advantages of that more stable track for industrial long term development around the globe.
I say Hillary Clinton for Pres and Michelle Obama Veep 2016!!!!
I am with Amy Goodman on this. You don't look at the gender of the person, but their policies. Sorry, unless Clinton makes a clean break with her ties to the right wing of the DEM party, she is pretty low on my list. Pelosi is my dream first choice, Warren my second.
.
Hillary might be an excellent choice for Supreme court.
This is why the Romney Campaign cut the boy wonder off of interviews the last several weeks. Ryan simply can't resist telling fibs, he is always trying to promote himself as some intellectual and that requires embellishment.
Some call Paul Ryan the leading intellect of the Republican party. Others call him a gibbering simpleton. But I say they're both right.
"Perhaps now would be a good time to remind Paul Ryan...."
That he too walked out on and belittled the Simpon/Bowles "Deficit Committee". Then again, that was reality & Ryan lives in bad fiction....
Perhaps we can begin referring to Mr. Ryan as Paul Ryan ,Failed vice presidential candidate .
Has a nice ring to it.
Every. Single. Republican voted against Clinton's plan. They ALL screamed it would destroy the country.
Worth repeating: Clinton passed his stimulus plan without a single Republican vote.
Paul Ryan (R-Fail)
Short and to the point.
Well one can hardly accuse Paul Ryan of being a mental giant!.
Paul Ryan is living proof that people who can not survive and function in the private sector have to turn to politics to get a job. This guy wouldn't last three days in the real world. The only thing legitimate about him, is the legitimate danger he poses to the country.
But, he did drive the winermobile for one entire summer. So there's that.
How can anyone take anything this guy says seriously? He leaves one smirking in awe at his audacity and stupidity. Why is anyone giving him attention or allowing his voice on a national level. It's truly amazing. Fact checkers are too busy laughing to do their jobs.
Lyin Ryan speaks again and guess what...you guessed it. So why bother to listen...because he's being forced on us by the MSM as if we should...as if he's a serious person...hahahahaha.
Do these guys have some opposition research telling them that Obama is uber sensitive to claims that the Clintons are more talented and would have been more successful? They keep on going there, so I guess the fantasy is that Obama is listening to this up in his room, getting all worked up, pounding his fist against the wall and crying "Stop it Paul. The Clintons aren't better than me."
Obama was just voted in for a second term with high unemployment and a belief by many that he couldn't possibly be re-elected (a view apparently shared by Mitt Romney and his campaign staff). I don't think he has a self-esteem problem.
Considering the context "if we had a Clinton presidency...fixed this fiscal mess by now" I feel sure he is referring to Hillary.
Not that that makes it any less ridiculous. Maybe more so, if you consider her possible run in 2016...A run that some republicans would support, apparently.
President Clinton seems to have a different view. As I remember, during the DNC he flatly stated that NOBODY could have fixed things this quickly.
As an aside, I do commend Mr. Ryan for bringing up the excellent point that it takes Democrats to figure this kind of stuff out..........Not that I blame him one little bit for not suggesting that Bush or Romney could have done it.
And if we had the Gore presidency that Americans voted for, we wouldn't have this mess either, no 2 wars financed with Chinese loans, no tax cuts financed by Chinese loans. Some guy named Bush, one of THEIR guys, with the aid of THEIR congress, caused much of the mess we are still cleaning up today.
Thank you .
I don't care what people say . I'm still pissed about it.
Uffda and Sick,
i agree. repubs LOVED and signed up for everything W. bush wanted.
GORE WON FLORIDA, but W. had alot of help from Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris (sec. of state). he also had help from protesters who were staff OF repubs in washington. they sent people to Florida to PROTEST THE RECOUNT. some of these protesters were given HIGH RANKING POSITIONS IN THE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Gore won, but he didn't stand a chance against the fraudulent repub machine.
Where's that photo of the shill protestors STORMING the doors of the recount venue?
Oh, here: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blfloridagopmob.htm
And don't forget the famous confusing Florida butterfly ballot. And yes, I'm still po'ed about that election, though I'm happy that Lie-berman was never VP.
The only question I have is why the press goes to this guy? I know he's chair of the House budget committee, but why go to this loser for 'insight'? Why a prime spot on Meet the Press? (three guesses and the first two that say it's because oaf David Gregory is a big Republican don't count.)
Why a prime spot on Meet the Press?
Third guess : McCain was busy Sunday?
Because like Palin, he has a pretty face and that makes the program easier on the eyes? It couldn't be that he knows what he is talking about.
I still contend that Paul Ryan (and John McCain) are booked on the Sunday shows because their staffs are too lazy to find other guests.
Mike: I'm a sucker for guys with blue eyes, but Paul Ryan is not attractive to me AT ALL. And the gym photos confirm it. He looks like a complete dweeb.
I think his comment about Clinton will make an excellent first campaign ad for Hillary when she runs in 2016
Ryan says Clinton would have fixed this mess by now? How can this be? He raised taxes AND had pretty good jobs numbers. http://zfacts.com/node/337
The T-Pubs keep on telling us cutting taxes and borrowing is good economics.
I also must wonder "what if" we had Gore instead of Bush, Uffdaguy.
If Gore had been president instead of W, the economy would likely be in a whole lot better shape!
Maybe he was referring to the "other" Clinton that was actually running in 2008?
Yeah, maybe that's what he meant. But I'd guess she would be much like former President Clinton.
Either way, it seems he's telling us the Clinton model is better, both than McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden?
I assumed he was trying to tell us as an authoritarian person again.
Goober Pyle Ryan is just an idiot.
this article reminds me of how much i miss "Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity" volumes. oh man that needs to come back even if it's just a weekly general polotician edition.
To the people that think the economy should have been fixed by now need to remember the Great Depression took 11 years and war spending with people buying war bonds, etc., etc. There are economists today that say what we have is a Depression, not a Great Recession.
There are similarities and dissimilarities.
http://www.thegreatdepressioncauses.com/timelines.html
The solution to the Great Depression came with exporting our goods to Europe for the WWII.
How can we get businesses to hire more Americans and actually export stuff made in the U.S. again?
We tried cutting taxes, they did not hire, but Wall St. has recovered. Only part, a little part of the economy is doing better. Cutting jobs/wages isn't what we need to do.
I think the President has been trying to say that all this time.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/paul-krugman-on-how-to-fix-the-economy-and-why-its-easier-than-you-think-20120502
and a different angle
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/economy/77427/economic-crisis-recession-depression
But both seem to agree, demand would lead to recovery. We need more demand. Taking more money out of hands of employees only prolongs the small increases in demand.
I know I heard some folks lately calling themselves "supply siders", which is how we got here. Less regulation allowing people to make known risky loans and figuring a way to sell THAT was like playing hot potato or musical chairs, damn if the banks or Wall St. would lose a thing in that scenario.
A Clinton Whitehouse? Lets see, let me shrill my voice.It would sound like this," WHAT DOES IT MATTER AT THIS POINT ABOUT THE ECONOMY, FREEDOMS, FOREIGN POLICY OR ANYTHING ELSE!!!!! HOW DARE YOU AS ME A HARD QUESTION!!!!"
It's amazing to me that Ryan brought up Erskine Bowles as an example of somebody who would be good for the debt. Ryan was on the Simpson-Bowles Commission and voted against the findings of the Commission.