• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats: The Party of the Rich.....

Fearandloathing said:
There is plenty to assail there Jack. One, he was led by congress on a lot of it. He was blessed with an expanding global economy THEN to US's benefit, and he had great immediate success through tampering with investment regulations than eventually led to the 2008 crash.
Click to expand...

He had the good sense to concede to Congress where that made sense. As for 2008, I won't hold any POTUS responsible for economic developments that happen seven years after he leaves office.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not necessarily a Clinton fan, but if you're talking about economic policy his record is unassailable.
Click to expand...


As are all the Democrats when compared to their GOP counterparts. Clinton created more jobs than Reagan, Bush1 and Bush3 combined but Democratic Presidents have proven to be best for the economy in general. We an only hope that voters memories are not to short to remember the disaster that the last Republican President handed the American people. Life is short.
 
Fearandloathing said:
There is plenty to assail there Jack. One, he was led by congress on a lot of it. He was blessed with an expanding global economy THEN to US's benefit, and he had great immediate success through tampering with investment regulations than eventually led to the 2008 crash.
Click to expand...

You are right. Clinton's biggest mistake was working with the GOP and that bankers shill, Phil Gramm but let's not forge that idiot, Alan Greenspan. His touting of Banking deregulation as the best thing sliced bread has got to be the stupidest thing a Fed chief has ever done. At least HE apologized though. We haven't heard a peep from Gramm or the other Republicans that authored those god-awful bills.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
As are all the Democrats when compared to their GOP counterparts. Clinton created more jobs than Reagan, Bush1 and Bush3 combined but Democratic Presidents have proven to be best for the economy in general. We an only hope that voters memories are not to short to remember the disaster that the last Republican President handed the American people. Life is short.
Click to expand...

Economic performance under GWB was for seven years superior to anything BHO has yet achieved.
 
iguanaman said:
You are right. Clinton's biggest mistake was working with the GOP and that bankers shill, Phil Gramm but let's not forge that idiot, Alan Greenspan. His touting of Banking deregulation as the best thing sliced bread has got to be the stupidest thing a Fed chief has ever done. At least HE apologized though. We haven't heard a peep from Gramm or the other Republicans that authored those god-awful bills.
Click to expand...



As you point out, Clinton made himself the poster boy for de-regulation. He even strong armed Canada into joining in, a move that was thwarted here by the Reform Party who handed it over to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, then David Dodge, who went the other way and tightened mortgage regulations and extyended the powers of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

Dodge is why Canada escaped the melt down.
 
iguanaman said:
You are right. Clinton's biggest mistake was working with the GOP and that bankers shill, Phil Gramm but let's not forge that idiot, Alan Greenspan. His touting of Banking deregulation as the best thing sliced bread has got to be the stupidest thing a Fed chief has ever done. At least HE apologized though. We haven't heard a peep from Gramm or the other Republicans that authored those god-awful bills.
Click to expand...
I'd bet real money that most people consider Clinton's "biggest mistake" to be trying to use the power of his office to stop several women he shared his genitalia with from having their day in court.
 
iguanaman said:
As are all the Democrats when compared to their GOP counterparts. Clinton created more jobs than Reagan, Bush1 and Bush3 combined but Democratic Presidents have proven to be best for the economy in general. We an only hope that voters memories are not to short to remember the disaster that the last Republican President handed the American people. Life is short.
Click to expand...
Let's hope the voters remember that Clinton cut spending to 17% of GDP and did a lot of deregulation.
 
mpg said:
Let's hope the voters remember that Clinton cut spending to 17% of GDP and did a lot of deregulation.
Click to expand...

Deregulation was the Republicans idea and convinced Clinton to go along. We learned the hard way, bankers need regulation or they bet the store and need bailing out when they lose. For some reason Republicans want to keep bailing out the bankers. I don't see any huge cut in spending in this chart. Revenue increased though.

us_total_spending_20c.png
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Deregulation was the Republicans idea and convinced Clinton to go along. We learned the hard way, bankers need regulation or they bet the store and need bailing out when they lose. For some reason Republicans want to keep bailing out the bankers. I don't see the cut in spending in this chart. Revenue increased though.

us_total_spending_20c.png
Click to expand...
Look at the Clinton years in that graph.
 
mpg said:
Look at the Clinton years in that graph.
Click to expand...

GDP growth averaged nearly 4% a year which would account for most of that "dip". There were no drastic cuts, and Govt. revenue was up as a % of GDP also. As you can see below Clintons spending went up every year at a higher rate than Obama. Of course it seems like a cut compared to the Republicans on this chart. What is clear is that we REALLY can't afford another Republican President.

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
GDP growth averaged nearly 4% a year which would account for most of that "dip". There were no drastic cuts, and Govt. revenue was up as a % of GDP also. As you can see below Clintons spending went up every year at a higher rate than Obama. Of course it seems like a cut compared to the Republicans on this chart. What is clear is that we REALLY can't afford another Republican President.

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg
Click to expand...
Like I said, let's hope that the voters remember that Clinton brought spending down to 17% GDP and deregulated as well.
 
mpg said:
Like I said, let's hope that the voters remember that Clinton brought spending down to 17% GDP and deregulated as well.
Click to expand...

The chart shows Clinton INCREASED Govt. spending by over 3% so I don't know what you are talking about.
 
iguanaman said:
The chart shows Clinton INCREASED Govt. spending by over 3% so I don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Assuming that that bar graph is correct, it's probably referring to spending of actual dollars, which normally goes up because of inflation, increase in population and increase in productivity. That's why spending is usually measured as % GDP, like in the first graph that you posted. That graph shows that Clinton cut spending, Bush II increased spending, and Obama increased it further.
 
mpg said:
Assuming that that bar graph is correct, it's probably referring to spending of actual dollars, which normally goes up because of inflation, increase in population and increase in productivity. That's why spending is usually measured as % GDP, like in the first graph that you posted. That graph shows that Clinton cut spending, Bush II increased spending, and Obama increased it further.
Click to expand...

Since the 1990's spending has historically been in the 32 to 35% range by GDP. Certainly not anywhere near that 17% you keep dreaming.

Obama's 2014 spending will be at 35% vs. Clinton's low of 32.6%. That does not sound like Obama is a big spender to me.
VE-PRESIDENTIAL-SPENDING-R2.png
 
Last edited:
Reagan spent more on government than Obama by far. People forget that defense is government.
 
eohrnberger said:
Rumor has it that Vern posted something here?

I wouldn't know, as I've got him on ignore. It's not as if he really contributes anything past the issued talking points anyway.
Click to expand...

Is there an ignore button? I didn't know that. Here’s what you missed. The dems raised taxes on the rich and the short lived “narrative” a few months ago about “how dare Obama oppose tax inversions while taking donations from people who benefit from them”. And what's funny, you posted this tired conservative talking point

eohrnberger said:
If you really think that the Democrats are honestly helping the poor, I think you are sadly misinformed.
The Democrats specifically don't want to help the poor, but wish to continue to claim they are so that they can have a recurring voter block that segment.
Click to expand...
To which I informed you that President Obama helped 6 million poor people get health insurance by expanding Medicaid. See, I posted facts and you posted tired conservative talking points as you accused me of posting talking points. anyhoo, your childish efforts to ignore my insightful posts (especially when I shred yours) begs the question, why are you at a debate forum?
 
iguanaman said:
Since the 1990's spending has historically been in the 32 to 35% range by GDP. Certainly not anywhere near that 17% you keep dreaming.

Obama's 2014 spending will be at 35% vs. Clinton's low of 32.6%. That does not sound like Obama is a big spender to me.
VE-PRESIDENTIAL-SPENDING-R2.png
Click to expand...
The first graph that you posted agrees with what's been widely reported by multiple sources, including whitehouse.gov.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom