That is not what I said, however .... Republicans have not proved to be responsible stewards of spending. They cannot be trusted with it.
The cedarcomm paper is excellent, I've seen it before. It appears to have moved and I can't find a direct link to it. Here's a yahoo answer that references much of the data in it, it also includes other sources too.
Republicans talk big, but do not deliver. They have never once decreased spending. However, they have multiple times decreased taxes WHILE increasing spending. Highly irresponsible!
All Presidents prior to Reagan contributed to paying off the huge WWII debt. The graph also credits the drop in federal debt as a percent of GDP under Clinton towards repayment of the remaining WWII debt and not towards paying off the Reagan-Bush debt. That would simply hide their impact by making it appear that more of the current federal debt was left over from WWII. Had Reagan-Bush simply managed to break even, the WWII debt would have been as low as it's shown to be.
Debt held by the Federal Reserve System is purchased by printing money; the purpose of these "open market operations" is to put more currency into circulation. The most recent figures used for this part of the federal debt are available from the St. Louis Fed. This was divided by GDP figures provided by the Department of Commerce.
Since all Presidents from Truman on have reduced the gross federal debt except Reagan and the Bushes, the part remaining from WWII is found by subtracting their debt contributions (and the FRS contribution) from the current federal debt total. Presidents and the Federal Debt For the first eighteen years after WW II, Truman (1945-53), Eisenhower (1953-61) and Kennedy (1961-63) all worked vigorously to keep spending under control. Of the seven years Truman was in office, the national debt came down in four. In 1946 & 7, with a Republican Congress for his first two years in office he brought down spending. The following year, with a Democratic Congress he reduced what was commonly called the “War Debt” again. Two of the eight years Eisenhower served as President saw debt reduction during the years when Democrats were in charge of Congress, 1956 & 7. Kennedy reduced the debt by over 4% his first year in office, 1961, then it went up slightly his next two years. JFK was dealing with a Democratically controlled House and Senate when he managed to reduce the debt.
Since 1961 the United States national debt has never gone down.
It is interesting to note who controlled Congress versus what party was in the presidency during the seven years that the debt was reduced throughout the terms of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Three times the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency (1948, 1951 & 1961). The other four years all had a mix of control, with Republicans in the White House (1956 & 1957), in charge of Congress (1946 & 1947), but never both. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in total charge of both elected branches of government have they ever reduced spending. They talk about it a lot, but they never deliver.
While the debt did go up every year during Johnson’s time in office (1963-69), he was the last president before Clinton to submit a balanced budget, and Johnson did this during a time of a very hot Cold War. Johnson’s average was a debt increase of 3% for the six years he served. He had a Democratic Congress to work with all his years in office.
Even Nixon (President from 1969 to 1974, when he resigned in disgrace) only had one year when he raised the debt more than 6%, 1971. His average was 5% for the six years he was in office. Between uncontrolled inflation and Ford’s conservative bend the debt increased 17% his first full year in office (1975), and 13% his second (1976). Ford’s plan to impose a policy of price controls failed to bring government overspending and inflation under control. Both these Presidents faced an opposition Congress controlled by Democrats during their time in office.
Starting in 1977 President Carter tried to control government spending even during inflationary times. The national debt increased an average of 9% per year while he was in office, and his policies eventually brought inflation under control with the help of a semi-cooperative Democratic Congress. He was thrown out of office after one term for making and implementing the hard decisions required to cut spending and deal with the energy crisis. (Had we followed his policies all these years we would not be dependant on foreign oil as we are now under Republican leadership.)More......................http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdeb…
A picture of the post-WWII debt supercycle http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/…
Presidents and the Federal Debt http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdeb… http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/…
And as to general prosperity of the country, we do better in that respect under Democratic presidents as well. Really, what are Republicans good for, in terms of fiscal and economic questions???????
[B]Country prospers under Democratic presidents[/B
By MIKE PHILLIPS | Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:20 pm | (17)
Since President George W. Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress decided to fund the Iraq war with deficit spending, the conflict has represented an unfunded federal mandate valued at about $2.5 billion weekly. I mention this not to debate the war but to point out that presidential policies and congressional actions affect the pocketbooks of everyday Americans. It really does matter who is president.
This is especially true for the 85 percent of American families in the lower, middle and upper middle-class income categories with annual pre-tax earnings of less than about $115,000. These folks are justifiably anxious about their economic future. If the truth be told, only time will tell if we're on the right track. Fortunately, history informs predictions about the future, and history justifies optimism.
Investigative journalists and academics have shown that Democratic presidents are best for the U.S. economy. In 2005, reporter Kevin Drum wrote in the Washington Monthly: "Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in the time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations."
Dr. Larry Bartels of Princeton conducted an exhaustive review of the country's economic circumstances under various presidents over the last several decades. In his seminal book "Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age," he wrote: "I was surprised to discover how often and profoundly partisan differences in ideologies and values shaped key policy decisions and economic outcomes. On average, the real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans."
Other indicators show that Democratic administrations are best for the economy. Since 1918, Democrats saw a 12.3 percent return on the S&P Index to the Republican's 8 percent. Since 1930, Democrats created 5.4 percent GDP growth, whereas Republicans rang in with only 1.6 percent.
On average, Democrats favor policies that directly benefit the overwhelming majority of American families. These policies aim to broadly distribute economic opportunity based on the belief that widespread and hard-earned prosperity is best for the country's social and economic security. It is important to note that Democrats advanced these policies while also improving circumstances for the upper 5 percent of the American families that are considered affluent with annual pre-tax incomes greater than $190,000. Since 1948, the average annual growth in real income for these families increased most under Democratic presidents.
In contrast, Republicans favor policies that benefit the small minority of rich and hyper-rich American families with annual pre-tax incomes greater than $1 million or $6 million, respectively. These policies aim to distribute economic opportunity narrowly based on the belief that spending by these select groups will generate benefits that eventually trickle down to the rest of us. Since 1945, Republican presidents have supported policies that allowed the income of rich families to nearly triple and the hyper-rich families to increase five-fold!
The tendency of Democrats to promote broad prosperity is also evident at the state level. Here in Montana, Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Democratic legislators (and a handful of forward-thinking Republican legislators) have advanced policies that maintained a relatively low unemployment rate, increased funding for public education, and left substantial funds unspent and unobligated (currently projected to be $400 million through June 2011) as a hedge against future economic uncertainty. It is inarguable that these policies greatly benefited the vast majority of Montana families that make less than $115,000 annually.
History shows that the broad prosperity that most Americans desire is best advanced by Democratic administrations. Quite simply, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to advance policies that create a broad, rising tide that floats the most boats. That seems like an ideal way to ensure that our economy does not again end up in dry dock in need of serious repair.
Rep. Mike Phillips of Bozeman is a state representative for House District 66 and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
Country prospers under Democratic presidents
You're going to blame Bush, in total, for the FY2009 deficits. even those caused by The Obama's stimulus spending, and regardless of the fact that the FY2009 budget was written and passed by a dem-controlled congress.
The fact is, if you had even an ounce of intellectual honesty, you'd admit that there is plenty of blame to go around.
Is that what Republicans do when presented with facts? Attack personally? Hmmmm, yes, actually, that is what they do. Politics of personal destruction, and all.
Bush is responsible for the BULK of the 09 deficits. There are actual breakdowns of numbers showing sourcing. These are actual facts.
The CBO revised their BUSH DEFICIT waaayyyyy the f up, before Obama was even sworn into office. That's a fact too.
Facts are not bigoted, and not partisan. You should cease ad hominem attacks. They make the flinger look weak.
Pssstt -- no opposition party can pass a budget of their own agenda unless they control veto-proof majorities. Bush is responsible for eight budgets - fy 02, thru fy 09.
Last edited by jackalope; 09-08-09 at 02:44 PM.
Honestly, I don't know what you're reading. You're just making chit up and throwing it around, right?
Let me be ABSOLUTELY clear.
The BULK of the '09 deficit was set in stone before Obama EVER took office. The small part of the ARRA that added to the deficit was not legislation BUSH proposed, he gets NO credit for any benefits that may accrue to the economy from the stimulus bill. HOWEVER. Bush IS responsible for the need for the bill.
Bush FURTHER will be responsible for much of the deficits for years to come. As under Clinton, policy changes in '93 took many years to stem the red ink from Reagan-Bush.
Bush will be getting slammed, and rightfully so, for years of deficits to come.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
Here is another FACT: Since the Democrats took over the power of the purse, the deficit has gone from under $300 billion to over $1.8 trillion. Please explain to me how this is fiscally responsible.
Now either you completely fail to comprehend the definition of fiscally responsible, or you are just entering into hyper partisan hyperbolic blather in a desperate effort to defend your party for purely hyper partisan purposes that have NOTHING to do with the facts; which is it?