Republicans: SPEND SPEND SPEND
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
http://www.mail.com/news/...-teaser1-5

Mind you, Romney said he will pay for all this by cutting 'waste'.

If you have a huge honking deficit, you do not start boasting about the billions and billions you plan to spend to make the military industrial complex even more bloated unless you are pandering to those MIC folks.

Oh, wait.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 10 years ago
"Waste," to a conservative: anything that doesn't kill people.
Top
Posted by bigsky (+82) 10 years ago
amorette, if we add up all the money spent by every republican in the history of this nation would it equal the ammount of money obama spent in the first couple of years of his administration? I think not.

spend spend spend......indeed...
Top
Posted by Former (+187) 10 years ago
Bigsky speaks the truth here...
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 10 years ago
Only because Mr. Bush started two wars.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 10 years ago
Okay, Bigsky. Here's your opportunity: back up your statement with some fact. Show us the numbers.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17335) 10 years ago
True fact: The total amount of government spending in the United States has increased three percent from second half of 2007 (when the recession began) to 2011.

Here's the federal government spending.



Not shown is the decrease in local and state government spending due to the recession, which is how the three percent figure is determined.
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+981) 10 years ago
Yes there is truth in your numbers Gunnar but that is not what bigsky said and Former agreed with. He said the three years of Obama spending were greater the eight years of the second Bush, four years of the first Bush eight years of Reagan and so on back to and including Lincoln. Don't see how those number could be true. Now it could be your numbers are what was intended but it was not what was said.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 10 years ago
Gunnar - I was giving Bigsky a chance to substantiate his ludicrous statement. I don't think he can. Hell, I know he can't.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17335) 10 years ago
Steve and Brian - yes, I know what Aaron and "Former" were saying and how totally wrong they are, but the latest right wing nut job stick-up-their-bungholes is how the left has no civility. So, I was gently trying to educate those morans, instead of telling them how stupid they are.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 10 years ago
The point is, you don't solve the deficit by throwing more money at the Military Industrial Complex! What happened happened. Now we need to change course and pandering to the defense contractors is not the way to do it!
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 10 years ago
wow great chart, Richard!!! It really shows how it is and was...thanks for finding it...
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
I don't believe it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
Well then, do your own "apples-to-apples" research and prove it wrong.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 10 years ago
I don't believe it


Why? Is it because it wasn't spoon-fed to you by Fox News? Procreating Moran.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
Why the name calling Kelly? I just said I don't believe it. Why should I find facts to backup your beliefs?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 10 years ago
Why should I find facts to backup your beliefs?



To know the truth perhaps, instead of spouting off what you wish to be true...and as far as name calling Mr. Taxpayer, this is far from your first rodeo...so people in glass houses, etc etc...
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17062) 10 years ago
"tax payer" needs to go to the Rick Kuchynka/Rich Lowry [same person] school of GOP FUD. S/he completely neglected to state that any rise in debt during a GOP presidency was entirely the fault of the Democratically controlled Congress.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
I just said I don't believe it. Why should I find facts to backup your beliefs?


Because as members of the human race we should love and care for one another and seek to spread the truth. You've stated that you don't believe what I posted is true. You should care enough to point out my error, if in fact it is error. Probably, the only way that happens is for you to do and share your own research so that you are convinced of the truth of the facts I posted OR I can become convinced that what I posted is incorrect based on your research.

The only way we move forward as the United States of America is to get past the "my side your side" mentality.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (10/13/2011)]
Top
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
Thank you.

Now, how about an analysis of how the policies of GWB actually were the causal effect of much of the debt incurred by Obama over his years in office, and then crediting the President who created the economic mess?

Obviously, the figures can be manipulated, so expose the causal elements of each administrations deficits, and see what you get.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
Howdy...I don't call people f...ing morons to get my point across. I respect the others opinions more if they refrain from always trying to make the other poster look smaller with name calling.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 10 years ago
biggest statement about Obama administration debt, which means he inherited his issues like all the wars, etc...so the debt in reality is Bushs debt passed along to Obama...

In reality, many factors, including the economy, wars and congressional actions, contribute to the rise of the debt.)
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
Howdy who controled the congress?
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
You state Fox puts out lies, but when I prove this was a lie, you come up with excuses. It takes a big person to admit they were wrong.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
Richard I guess the next president is going to have a huge problem then from Obama. So in return remember that when or if there spending goes up.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17335) 10 years ago
Nice research, tax payer.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 10 years ago
Of COURSE deficit spending has gone up. WE'VE CUT TAXES to historic lows and fought TWO WARS in the last 10 years.

Raise taxes, reduce military spending and even a WATB like tax_payer could understand the resulting charts and graphs.

If you want to see what austerity leads to, please take a look at what's happening in Britain and Greece right now.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 10 years ago
I am the last one to excuse Obama, believe me, but it is a fact that those stupid wars that cost so many of our guys lives,and were started by the great GWB, have contributed to much of our debt both then and still...we should never have been in them as the Iraq war IMO was all about oil...we need to bring our boys home and to hell with the Military Industrial Complex...and yes if Obama administration causes debt on their own watch they should be held responsible for it afterwards also...being an independent, I don't really like either side but I lean toward helping the American people before I help anyone else...to me debt that goes toward helping the American people like health care for all, is good debt vs war in other countries that don't mean diddley to me...In Iraq, we lost lives so that Exxon and other oil giants can get the oil to SELL TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...if our boys lost their lives getting it, why shouldn't the american public own the rights to that oil???
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
I agree we need to get out of the wars unless they are needed for national security. We need to bring our jobs home and get rid of Nafta. We need to fill the jobs we have at home before we create more welfare. I read a article of many higher paying jobs that can not be filled. They can not find the skilled workers, so maybe people should look into what job openings are out there with the pay they think they need and study that in college. There are many oponions that make sence if they are discussed rationally instead of my side your side.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
Howdy do you have numbers on how much oil we got out of Iraq because of the war? I also feel if it benefits their country and they do have lots of money to rebuild it themselves and not us.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
I meant Nafta and all the other free trade agreements.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
I believe that China was the big winner of the war with Iraq and the oil.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 10 years ago
Taxpayer, you must realize that oil companies in other countries are partially owned by the American giants...they have enough subsidiaries, that it would make your head spin...would take all day just to figure out one of them...like trying to untangle a ball of yarn...here is a list of who got what, but it doesn't really tell us who owns the top oil companies listed that noone ever heard of before...when the dust clears, they are all one big happy family IMO...a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...You are just going by "surface info" and not delving into the stocks and ownerships etc etc which would be hard for anyone to do IMO...

http://uk.reuters.com/art...HN20100720

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/13/2011)]
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
So are you admitting that it is just your opinion that Bush went to war with Iraq because of oil? You can not find the facts to prove it, so in my opinion it is just your opinion.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
No I have no facts to back this up. http://plancksconstant.or...q_war.html
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
What cost more the failed stimulus program or the Iraq war? I was for neither.

[This message has been edited by tax payer (10/13/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 10 years ago
Tax Payer, you just want to fight, and I can afford precious little of that in my stage of life...I have given you MY OPINION which is made with considerable research in the past, for what it's worth...whether or not you accept it or not is of no importance to me...I cannot go back and do the research all over again however if you search this web site, you will see it proven time and time again that the Iraq war was and is bogus...

also as I have already explained the foreign oil companies are all particially if not wholly owned by the american giants...wake up and smell the roses or just sit there and believe your surface research..again I don't care...

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/13/2011)]
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
Wow Howdy, I was just asking for facts as I am suppose to provide for my beliefs. You have plenty of time to copy and paste yours, but no time to research. It took me 3 secs to get the facts on the chart. I was not asking for a fight, it is you that provokes people to fight with your posts. Maybe you should look in the mirror.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 10 years ago
Amen webmaster, Amen...thank you for your opinion...Taxpayer, I am done responding to you..You are erased from my sight...Hereafter, you join the ranks of Rick in my mind...
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 10 years ago
Perfect analogy!! Clinton really did well economically which is why I was pulling for Hillary thinking she would do well and would fight for the little people (99%) too...Perhaps I would have been wrong, who knows...but we got what we got and Obama inherited a hell of a mess...He was pretty much screwed before he took office...no he hasn't been a great president so far IMO, but better than the corporate loving McCain...Obama just needs to grow more backbone and fight the opposition more heavily...again in my opinion...
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17335) 10 years ago
What cost more the failed stimulus program or the Iraq war? I was for neither.


The stimulus program, while not as successful as its authors intended it to be, was a success. It kept us from another Great Depression. My opinion (shared by the Kruginator) is that it was too small.

A second flaw of the stimulus program was the bureaucratic red tape that came with it. For every dollar you spent, you had to spend a dollar tracking where the money went and reporting to the bean counters. A part of the blame resides with us, as everyone believes the government to be nothing but liars and crooks, so we have to overtrack every expenditure for accountability.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17062) 10 years ago
"What cost more the failed stimulus program..."

That's classic GOP-speak... "the failed stimulus program". It would be like the Democrats referring to the Iraq war as "the failed Iraq war". If you say it often enough, the sheeple believe it and repeat it.

Why not just "the stimulus program"? Because that wouldn't be Foxy.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 10 years ago
Agreed. The stimulus "failed" because it wasn't large enough.

When you have an economy predicated on people buying things, austerity and "belt tightening" are huge problems.

Also...

Most of the political geniuses who bitch about the stimulus or the deficit also wanted to see GM and Chrysler go under. They seem to have recovered nicely.
Top
supporter
Posted by Mary1 (+158) 10 years ago
Bush signed for the first stimulus package.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 10 years ago
Mary1, you are absolutely correct...very few Faux Fans realize or wish to acknowledge that...
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
I don't care if Peter Rabbit signed the first stimulus...they don't work. It is just a bandaid to a cut off leg, will maybe buy you some time. We need our jobs brought home for the economy to work. I did not care for Bush Jr..either.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
Just for you Howdy...It seems like US is getting part of the pie for Iraq. I feel Bush Jr. went to war with Iraq because of unfinished business of the war Bush Sr. had with Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/business/energy-environment/15iht-srerussia15.html?pagewanted=all
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 10 years ago
And just what was that "unfinished business"?

I would also be interested in hearing your analysis of FDR and the great depression. It would APPEAR that stimulus spending was the solution in that case, but I certainly am open to hearing alternative theories.
Top
Posted by tax payer (+345) 10 years ago
This pretty much says how I feel on the stimulus.

http://www.examiner.com/s...mulus-work

[Edited by MilesCity.com Webmaster - Fixed the link]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4944) 10 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
This thread is great. First Richard posts the infamous "Pelosi/Moveon Four Pinocchios Debt Graph", showing that all the debt belonged to Bush. Then he double-dog-dares someone to prove it wrong.

Then it's proven the obvious fraud that it is, but Richard goes on to blame all Obama's debt (that his graph says doesn't exist) on Bush anyway.

Meanwhile Clinton is given credit for all of the good stuff during his watch. But his bad stuff was really all Reagan's fault. But none of Bush's bad stuff was Clinton's fault. Bush's bad stuff is all his own, plus Obama's bad stuff belongs to Bush as well.

Make sense?

Then we're told by the Krugmanites that Obama's debt (Bush's fault) should've been made even larger by spending waaaay more on Stimulus, (in which case even that extra debt would probably also be Bush's fault). Meanwhile Bush's war spending is blamed for all our budget problems while Krugman is out selling war (with aliens) as the best kind of stimulus.

Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
First Richard posts the infamous "Pelosi/Moveon Four Pinocchios Debt Graph", showing that all the debt belonged to Bush. Then he double-dog-dares someone to prove it wrong.

Then it's proven the obvious fraud that it is, but Richard goes on to blame all Obama's debt (that his graph says doesn't exist) on Bush anyway.


Sorry Ricky, nobody has proven anything to me. I am still analyzing the data. I am thinking that expressing debt as a percentage of dead soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan war rather than GDP might be more reflective of what is really going on; as apparently the majority of Grand Old Plutocrats economists have an aversion to simply looking at raw data.

And I didn't exactly blame Obama's debt on Bush. I ask for an "analysis of how the policies of GWB actually were the causal effect of much of the debt incurred by Obama over his years in office, and then crediting the President who created the economic mess? Obviously, the figures can be manipulated, so expose the causal elements of each administrations deficits, and see what you get."

There is a difference.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
Hah. Did you read the WaPo article about that graph you posted, Richard?

But this chart, originally created by the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Our friends at PolitiFact did a pretty thorough takedown of it in May, giving it their worst rating: "pants on fire." They even caught the Pelosi people in a bad mathematical error, based on the fact that the Democrats calculated the numbers as if Obama took office a year later than he did.
...
If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office. In fact, Obama does almost twice as poorly as Reagan - and four times worse than George W. Bush.
...
If MoveOn.org or Pelosi's office had any sense of shame, they would have quietly removed the links to this chart from their websites when PolitiFact gave it a "pants on fire" rating four months ago. The fact that an outdated version is still floating around - and that people are still deluded into thinking it to be correct - is doubly shameful.

Four Pinocchios


You're still "analyzing?" Seriously?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
Okay, after looking into this situation further the some of the numbers in chart I posted are in error. Here is an analysis of why that is the case:

The chart actually comes from a Flickr page belonging to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who posted it on May 5, 2011. Specifically, the chart tracks "percent increase in public debt" for the five presidents during the following time periods -- January 1981 to January 1989 (Reagan), January 1989 to January 1993 (George H.W. Bush), January 1993 to January 2001 (Clinton), January 2001 to January 2009 (George W. Bush), and January 2009 to April 2011 (Obama).

We checked with Pelosi's office to see what data they used to assemble the chart. They referred us to the U.S. Treasury's "Debt to the Penny Calculator."

First, we should note that we interpreted the caption in Pelosi's chart that reads "percent increase in public debt" to mean public debt, not gross federal debt. Public debt is debt held by the public, whereas gross federal debt includes both publicly held debt and debt held by the government, such as money in the Social Security trust fund.

Despite what the chart's label suggested, the data we received from Pelosi's office made clear that they had been using the gross federal debt number. So we'll start with that figure.

We can quickly dispense with the figures for Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The "Debt to the Penny" calculator doesn't go back further than 1993, but we were able to estimate the figures for debt under Reagan and the elder Bush by using data from the Office of Management and Budget. OMB's numbers are calculated somewhat differently than Treasury's, but the percentage increases were close enough to what the chart said that we're not going to quibble over them. OMB has debt under Reagan increasing by 186 percent (the chart had said 189 percent) and by 54 percent under George H.W. Bush (compared to the 55 percent in the chart).

Instead, we'll focus on the numbers for Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama.

From the online calculator, we requested the daily debt totals since 1993 and picked out the ones closest to the inauguration dates of those three presidents, as well as the end of the month of April 2011. Here's what we came with for gross federal debt:

January 20, 1993 (end of George H.W. Bush and beginning of Clinton): $4.188 trillion
January 19, 2001 (end of Clinton and beginning of George W. Bush): $5.728 trillion
January 20, 2009 (end of George W. Bush and beginning of Obama): $10.627 trillion
April 29, 2011 (closing date of the chart): $14.288 trillion

This allows us to determine how much the debt rose under each president:

Under Clinton: Increase of $1.54 trillion, or 37 percent
Under George W. Bush: Increase of $4.899 trillion, or 86 percent
Under Obama: Increase of $3.661 trillion, or 34 percent


So we can dispense with Clinton -- in the chart, his figure is correct. But the chart is significantly off for both Bush and Obama. We found Bush to have an 86 percent increase, not 115 percent as the chart said. And we found the debt under Obama to be up by 34 percent, more than double the 16 percent cited in the chart.

We quickly discovered the source of the discrepancy: Whoever put the chart together used the date for Jan. 20, 2010 -- which is exactly one year to the day after Obama was sworn in -- rather than his actual inauguration date. We know this because Treasury says the debt for Jan. 20, 2010, was $12.327 trillion, which is the exact number cited on the supporting document that Pelosi's office gave us.

However this error happened, it effectively took one year of rapidly escalating debt out of Obama's column and put it into Bush's, significantly skewing the numbers.

Using the corrected figures does mean that, superficially at least, Democrats have a point. The debt did still increase more, on a percentage basis, under Bush than it did under Obama.


http://www.politifact.com...t-accumul/

In the interest of full disclosure the reference cited above goes on to discuss debt as a percentage of GDP. Using this comparison Obama has increased the public debt more than the last five Presidents. I'll leave the decision as to whether this is a valid measure or not up to others.

I think it begs the question I raised about an analysis of policy and how Bush's policies may have dictated Obama's polices to some extend. It also points out the need we have as a nation to change some things so we are more competitive in the global economy. Universal healthcare comes to mind as a high priority needing to be addressed with regard to our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

What is very clear and nearly indisputable (although I suspect some will try) is how well we did under Clinton who raised taxes and lowered the public debt. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here and repeated.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (10/14/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
My position is that there is no free lunch. Borrowing to 'stimulate' the economy is counterproductive.

Allocation of limited resources by central planning is automatically a disaster, no matter how 'smart' the central planners are.

I don't doubt Obama's a smart guy, but no one person or group of people is equipped to command an economy the way progressives think possible. Even if its in the name of fairness.

The most dangerous leaders are the ones who think they're smart enough to run an economy. The best leaders are the ones who realize that their own knowledge is insignificant in comparison to the sum of the knowledge of all free individuals. They know their job is to help take care of the playing field, but to otherwise leave the game up to us.

You'll keep hearing talk about rolling financial regs back to the 1990's. I say if we can do that, why can't we roll EPA regs back too? If the 1990's were so great, why not roll the budget back to what it was back then... Heck even adjust for population growth and inflation. The budget would still be in fine shape if only we'd kept spending in check.

De-federalize most of the issues we fight about. They weren't meant to be federal issues in the first place. Bridgier would have no reason to fight with me. He can fight the progressive fight in Idaho (haha ) while those of us who live here can worry about Montana.

Then states could learn from each other and make each other better. Instead we try to force everyone to be the same because it's easier to fight once than 50 times.

There's a million ways to say it. But we put far to much credit and faith in the federal government and its leaders. The best government is local. Unfortunately that isn't always the easy solution. But you can only take shortcuts for so long.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 10 years ago
Richard, how about the biggest omission...

you're comparing 2 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush (or Reagan)

Obama's budgets, even if you take them at face value, show nothing but deficits on the horizon.

Obama will put on far more debt in one term than Bush did in two. There's no arguing that. And that's even with all the draconian cuts (as we're told) that Republicans have been forcing since January.

I'm not saying deficits were right under Bush. As you used to say, it was like driving towards the cliff at 45mph instead of 90. But your new guy doesn't see it. And his foot is still on the gas.

Maybe it's time for a balanced budget amendment.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
Richard, how about the biggest omission...

you're comparing 2 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush (or Reagan)


Yes, the chart make that comparison. Until Obama has served 8 years we won't know for certain how this will turn out. That is the nature of dealing with raw data instead of projection.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 10 years ago
Every time you acknowledge Rick a baby dies and its life force is given to Sarah Palin.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 10 years ago
More grist for the mill...



Interpreting the graph

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years is now approximately $1,215 billion. The NY Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%).

CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article concluded that President Obama's decisions accounted for only a "sliver" of the deterioration, but that he "...does not have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit..."[1] Recessions have long-lasting impacts on forecasts, as they reduce the GDP estimates for future years and increase the amount of safety net spending, like unemployment and food stamps.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w...9-2012.png

This is interesting:



This graph shows that $9.2 Trillion of the $12 Trillion supply-sider increase in national debt is considered problematic by economists. They say it is fine to increase the debt in step with national income. Republicans say the whole $12 Trillion is a problem.

The green line shows what would have happened if Reagan and the Bushes had just kept the debt growing at the same rate as the economy. That would make their parts flat. Many conservatives claim Congress increased Reagan's budgets, but this is not the case as you can see documented here.

WWII caused the debt to shoot up, starting in 1942, and reach 30% higher relative to the country's wealth than it is today. The economic stimulus of that government spending pulled us out of the great depression and into high gear to win the war. (When to save / when to borrow.)

The green line in the graph shows what would have happened if Reagan had proposed budgets that let the debt increase in step with inflation and the economy-if he had kept it at a constant fraction of GDP. That's not much to ask of a president who said he'd do far better than those before him, since every previous post-war president had actually reduced the debt as a fraction of GDP.

By the end of the Reagan-Bush 12-year "revolution," the extra debt they had piled on the country was costing the country an extra 2.6% of GDP in interest-$300 million a day. Without that interest working against him, Clinton would have paid down the debt a bit faster. That helps the green-line goes down in the Clinton years. That's what would have happened without the Reagan-Bush interest burden.
Now if W. Bush had held the line as all non-supply side presidents had done, the national debt would have been only 21% of GDP, and the country would have been ready to pull itself out of the Great Recession with ease. In fact when W. Bush's last budget year ended we would have had $9 Trillion less in debt.

So how did Reagan, the great debt-slasher, go so far wrong? Partly it was his belief in supply-side "economics." This "theory" claims that when the government cuts taxes, especially taxes on corporations and the rich, it makes them so happy to keep more of their money that they work much harder, get richer, and pay even more taxes than before the tax cut. So the lower the tax rate, the more money the government collects to pay down the debt! Believe that happy talk, and you can run up quite debt.

Of course the rich loved this "theory" and fed the press many stories about the wonders of the new supply-side "economics" (cooked up by Laffer, as a graduate student). Money talks, and a lot of people listened.

It's time to rethink what radical conservatives have done and are doing to our country. The Reagan-Bushes National Debt now totals $9.2 trillion. That's the lions share of our present debt.


http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 10 years ago
THE G.O.P. DESTROYED THE ECONOMY
from a Reagan Insider

When Fed chief Paul Volcker "crushed inflation" in the '80s we got a "solid economic rebound." But then "the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts." By 2009, they "reduced federal revenues to 15% of gross domestic product," lowest since the 1940s. Still today they're irrationally demanding an extension of those "unaffordable Bush tax cuts [that] would amount to a bankruptcy filing."

http://www.marketwatch.c...8-10
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+474) 10 years ago
I'm happy to report. CFTC (Commodity Future Trades Commission) will be voting on Tuesday. They have the votes to put Dodd-Franks Wall Street Reform Law regarding speculation into affect. This means my friends no more speculating on gas prices and food prices. This is a "BIG" win for Dodd's-Franks and OWS! Yes, my friends the wheels are in motion. Keep in mind this is the reform law the republicans want to kill, whenever you hear them say the Dodd's-Frank bill needs to be repealed. "This is the one." Imagine that!?! A law to help the economy grow they want to repeal! Anything to help that 1%.......amazing!!!!
Top