Originally Posted By ecdc >>Huh? Clinton reduced the deficits that exploded under Reagan and Bush I, and actually created a surplus briefly. But you'll believe what you wish.<< It really is amazing, isn't it. Black becomes white and up becomes down in these people's world.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Frankly, I don't really care what it was. We've been safe for over six years, and it has to be more than dumb luck. In spite of its many flaws I will always appreciate the fact that the Bush administration has successfully fought terrorism in the United States...*** Exactly how many foreign terrorist attacks have occurred on American soil since the founding of the nation?
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <Huh? Clinton reduced the deficits that exploded under Reagan and Bush I, and actually created a surplus briefly. But you'll believe what you wish.> I'm not refering to deficits and balanced budgets. I'm talking about the actual amount of money SPENT. Woodrow Wilson brought about the concept of deficit spending. FDR lived out of national desparation using deficit spending. Reagan was forced into deficit spending by Democrat congress budgets. Bush Sr. tried to cut it (with little help from his Democrat congress). Clinton ignored deficit spending. With the populace conditioned to massive government spending, he just enjoyed spending period - and the highest amount of taxation in history to compensate. Note that Clinton balanced his budget simply by stroking his pen. It was the Republican congress that wrote the bills that enabled the budget to be balanced. Even then, it did nothing about the deficits of years passed. Balance budgets are not nearly enough. They only balance one year - supposedly. Americans have been further conditioned to trust that massive spending continues to be OK. It's not OK. Hence Bush has failed. And Clinton formulated the trend into this administration. My only hope is the Obama will end the trend. But I highly doubt it will happen. We will continue to spend an unthinkable amount of money that will never be payed off even beyond our great, great grandchildren.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "Americans have been further conditioned to trust that massive spending continues to be OK." You know that Bush has been the worst ever at this, right? And he had a Republican congress for several years so you can't blame the dems for it. Republicans spend. Dems tax and spend - but at least they have figured out a way to pay for things and keep deficits down.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Huh? Clinton reduced the deficits that exploded under Reagan and Bush I, and actually created a surplus briefly. But you'll believe what you wish.>> <I'm not refering to deficits and balanced budgets. I'm talking about the actual amount of money SPENT.> What you don't understand is a lot. <Woodrow Wilson brought about the concept of deficit spending. FDR lived out of national desparation using deficit spending.> Wilson had WWI. FDR had the depression and WWII. Hello? <Reagan was forced into deficit spending by Democrat congress budgets.> False. You've tried this before, and it continues to be false. Reagan proposed the budgets. All of them. The most the congress did in any given year was tinker around the edges. I know this challenges an obviously cherished view of yours, but it's true. If you can show me this is not the case, feel free to do so. But the facts are these: the 80's congresses never altered the proposed Reagan budgets by more than a few percent. The only time the deficit took a major hit under Reagan was after the 1986 tax raises. <Bush Sr. tried to cut it (with little help from his Democrat congress).> "Tried" to cut it? Think again. The deficits under Bush were even worse than those under Reagan. Remember SPP's chart? Or would you simply prefer to ignore it? <Clinton ignored deficit spending. With the populace conditioned to massive government spending, he just enjoyed spending period - and the highest amount of taxation in history to compensate.> It was not the highest amount of taxation in history. Where do you get this stuff? And he didn't ignore deficit spending - he reversed a longstanding trend. <Note that Clinton balanced his budget simply by stroking his pen. It was the Republican congress that wrote the bills that enabled the budget to be balanced. > Again, you don't seem to understand the process when you spout this stuff. Presidents propose budgets. Congress then has the power to alter them. Then the president signs them into law or not. I think both Clinton and the GOP congress deserve credit for cutting the deficit in the 90's. Trouble is, most partisans like to credit just one or the other. <Even then, it did nothing about the deficits of years passed. Balance budgets are not nearly enough. They only balance one year - supposedly.> There we agree. But considering how huge the national debt had gotten during the 80's/early 90's, it was fairly impressive to run a surplus at all. A surplus that might have continued and retired more of our national debt, had Bush II not insisted on big tax cuts for the wealthy and leading us into an ill-advised war. <Americans have been further conditioned to trust that massive spending continues to be OK.> Many Americans don't like to think about it at all. But more than previously, I think, understand we can't just keep charging everything to a national Visa card indefinitely. <It's not OK. Hence Bush has failed. And Clinton formulated the trend into this administration.> No. Clinton reversed the trend and presented Bush II with a surplus for the first time in decades. Bush II squandered it.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <<Reagan proposed the budgets. All of them..Again, you don't seem to understand the process when you spout this stuff. Presidents propose budgets. Congress then has the power to alter them. Then the president signs them into law or not.>> You speak of the ficticious and theatrical process. I speak of the Constitutional process. Presidential budget proposals are nothing more than that: public presentations of the opinions of the presidents. Congress has zero obligation to follow any of it. As a matter of fact, they can follow ZERO of it. Presidents proposed budgets to guide congress into a non-veto situation. The constitution does not grant the president any authority to demand budgets. Only Congress has the authority to author and pass all spending and taxing. The president either strokes his pen, or slaps a veto stamp. He cannot spend unless authorized by law. He cannot tax unless authorized by law. He cannot make law. He can only authorize that which was authored by Congress.
Originally Posted By X-san "As a matter of fact, they can follow ZERO of it." Heck, they could even follow NONE of it. ;p
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn So at least it seems we both agree that excessive deficits are bad. Fortunately, the treasury is taking in revenues at a record rate. Here's a dilema: some of what is creating the record-setting revenue rate is not just the amount generated as a result of cuts in taxation, but also from the record profits by oil companies. Their "evil profits" are paying more to the IRS that more than 50% of the tax-paying population of citizens. How is Obama going to compensate for that is the price of oil goes down?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Reagan proposed the budgets. All of them..Again, you don't seem to understand the process when you spout this stuff. Presidents propose budgets. Congress then has the power to alter them. Then the president signs them into law or not.>> <You speak of the ficticious and theatrical process. I speak of the Constitutional process.> And yet you get the history wrong. <Presidential budget proposals are nothing more than that: public presentations of the opinions of the presidents. Congress has zero obligation to follow any of it. As a matter of fact, they can follow ZERO of it. Presidents proposed budgets to guide congress into a non-veto situation.> Correct. Yet the history shows that when given Reagan's budgets, the congresses of the day altered them very little. They COULD have altered them more; that would have been their constitutional right. But they didn't. There's no getting around that inconvenient little fact. <The constitution does not grant the president any authority to demand budgets. Only Congress has the authority to author and pass all spending and taxing. The president either strokes his pen, or slaps a veto stamp. He cannot spend unless authorized by law. He cannot tax unless authorized by law. He cannot make law. He can only authorize that which was authored by Congress.> Correct, but see above. Congress could have altered his proposed budgets greatly. They did not. Every budget Reagan presented to Congress had large deficits built in to them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Every budget Reagan presented to Congress had large deficits built in to them.> And which the Democrats proceeded to increase. I don't think it's mrkthompsn getting history wrong.
Originally Posted By dshyates I think he is getting it very wrong all because of his political bias. And know this has nothing to do with the deficit, but was another thing Republicans praise. Reaganomics "Trickle Down Theory" was an absolute disaster that we are still dealing with today. It lead to the creation of the "CEO Class", where CEOs went from making 1-5 million a year to 400 million a year while the mean salary of the American peole has declined since it was enacted. It turned the middle class into the servant class. IE: It did NOT trickle down. PERIOD. One of the first thing Clinton did was enact the single largest increase in the minium wage, as that was the about the only was to force any of it to actually be wrestled from the hands of the CEO. This is one of the major reason the business leader of this country requested the Repulican party to get this guy out of office. And thus began the Star unauthorized investigations. He was authorized to investigate one issue, and 10 unauthorized invetigatins later he caught him in a lie a martial infidelity.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Reaganomics did work, and it was President Clinton's shady deals and personal conduct that lead to the Starr investigations.
Originally Posted By dshyates There is tons of evidence that supply-side economics doesn't work. Reagan and W. both subscribe to supply-side economics and got the same results. Economic growth, but at the expense of the American people with economic inequality and bloated deficits. Here is an interesting article. it seems to me that only politicians think it works. Economists think the country now due to supply side economics is in worse shape than before W. took over.
Originally Posted By dshyates Dang, forgot the link. <a href="http://www.thestreet.com/story/10379294/1/trickle-down-theory-has-left-gop-bloated-and-confused.html?puc=relatedarticle" target="_blank">http://www.thestreet.com/story...darticle</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Every budget Reagan presented to Congress had large deficits built in to them.> <And which the Democrats proceeded to increase.> By a small amount. As I said. But Reagan raised the military budget by more than he cut discretionary spending, thus raising government spending overall. And that was built in to all the budgets he presented to congress. Congress restored a few cuts in some discretionary programs every year, and let other cuts remain. The budgets as finally signed were primarily Reagan's design. And the right is STILL pretending that it was those few restored discretionary programs that busted the budget in the 80's. Pathetic. <I don't think it's mrkthompsn getting history wrong.> He did when he said congress changed the proposals by more than a small amount.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There is tons of evidence that supply-side economics doesn't work.> And tons more that it does. <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm755.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.heritage.org/Resear...m755.cfm</a> <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED091597b.cfm?RenderforPrint=1" target="_blank">http://www.heritage.org/Press/...rPrint=1</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <By a small amount.> Small percentages of very large numbers make for large numbers. <He did when he said congress changed the proposals by more than a small amount.> I don't believe he said that. I took him to mean that you were wrong when you claimed the small increases were insignificant. They weren't.
Originally Posted By dshyates You do realize Heritage.org is a right-wing cheerleader website. They have a What Would Reagan Do headline banner on their homepage. Do you really think that you will get the truth about Reagans failures on a site that equates him to Jesus? Get real.
