Flyersfan314
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 232
- Reaction score
- 47
- Location
- South Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
its on the bottom of each bar. On the x-axis.
Not this myth again.
View attachment 67114847
Looking back the past 40 years:
- Spending was at its lowest when Republicans had complete control.
- Spending was at its highest when Democrats had complete control.
- Spending was also quite high in the Reagan/Tip O'Neill years
- Spending was moderate by comparison when Congress was controlled by the opposing party
If you instead want to go the "House control the purse-strings" route, you'll also find a large difference between the parties:
Democratic House: 21.0%
Republican House: 19.2%
What's important is the debt to gdp ratio:He increased the debt more than any other president. I think it was around 5-6 trillion
As someone else pointed out, spending is just half the problem
I posted a "practical view of our economic situation" aboveIts not just spending its tax cuts without cutting spending. That chart is not a practical view of our economic situation. Spending is one half of the budget. Sometimes spending is a good thing.
Democratic presidents hadn't had a split congress for at least 60 years, and probably a lot longer than that, until this year.It doesn't label each category by years which makes it difficult to tell if it's accurate
OK, but it's wasn't clear
Where is D pres, split congress?
Yes of course. That post was specifically addressing a claim made that Bush and his R congress "spent like mad" -- False.The amount spent is only one side of the ledger, the amount of revenues is the other.
No, Bush and to a lesser extent Nixon had that tendency, Reagan and Bush Sr. spent vast amounts.Republicans may tend to spend less,
I doubt there's much of a difference except GWB probably had somewhat less with the two recessions (as I explained above) and Obama having significantly less given that tax receipts have been at historic lows.they also take in less and as a result increase the debt more then democrats have.
its on the bottom of each bar. On the x-axis.
What's important is the debt to gdp ratio:
The debt increased throughout Clinton's presidency, but the overall significance of that debt declined because of strong GDP growth. The more money you make, the more debt you can maintain.
Bush largely maintained debt/gdp throughout his presidency, though his presidency was bookended with recessions, so you see it climb at the beginning and at the end.
The increases under Bush were due to decreased revenues during two recessionary periods, not from "out of control spending."
With Obama, we have high spending and stagnant growth, so yes - the alarm bells are going off.
I suppose we also can't assume that tax cuts didn't cause a huge surge in revenue that thwarted a massive depression. Of course there's no proof that either occurred, but fun to fantasize.Yes you do give a more practical view above. The tax cuts did not come with spending cuts, just because it didnt happen right away does not mean the tax cuts didnt not cause a deficit increase. We were already running a deficit, tax cuts are irresponsible without the same spending cuts. Yes the decreased revenues were from the recessions.
Yes of course. That post was specifically addressing a claim made that Bush and his R congress "spent like mad" -- False.
No, Bush and to a lesser extent Nixon had that tendency, Reagan and Bush Sr. spent vast amounts.
I doubt there's much of a difference except GWB probably had somewhat less with the two recessions (as I explained above) and Obama having significantly less given that tax receipts have been at historic lows.
Yes of course. That post was specifically addressing a claim made that Bush and his R congress "spent like mad" -- False.
I suppose we also can't assume that tax cuts didn't cause a huge surge in revenue that thwarted a massive depression. Of course there's no proof that either occurred, but fun to fantasize.
I suppose we also can't assume that tax cuts didn't cause a huge surge in revenue that thwarted a massive depression. Of course there's no proof that either occurred, but fun to fantasize.
I also found this
Distribution of Effective Individual Income Tax Rate, 2010, Baseline: Current Law with AMT Patch
This is after stimulus and is more detailed. I find it interesting.
I don't blame Obama for the debt he took on. We were loosing revenue at an extraordinary rate. Drastic have made things spending cuts would have made things worse. I can show you a similar chart form 1936 of what happens when the government makes massive spending cuts in a recession.
Yes you do give a more practical view above. The tax cuts did not come with spending cuts, just because it didnt happen right away does not mean the tax cuts didnt not cause a deficit increase. We were already running a deficit, tax cuts are irresponsible without the same spending cuts. Yes the decreased revenues were from the recessions.
That figure is taken from a Jan 2005 piece by the left wing cbpp. The pie chart is their predicted breakdown for 2005.It's not adding up. During bush*, the deficits soared, but you say it's not because of increased spending or tax cuts. Here's another way to look at it
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
He is better than the Republican candidates. He is not politically savy and has trouble getting through the programs he wants to pass. Republicans solution i to keep cutting taxes and spending. That will make the problem worse.
If FDR or Clinton was running no I don't think he deserves another four. I don't think anyone who is running right now (including Obama) should be President. I will vte for him because he is the best option.
How do you figure?But bush* tax cuts didn't result in a huge surge of revenue
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
That figure is taken from a Jan 2005 piece by the left wing cbpp. The pie chart is their predicted breakdown for 2005.
They claimed the tax cuts would balloon the deficit to the tune of $569.
They were way off - the deficit ($319) came in well below their predictions and those of the CBO.
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
They posted a followup artricle the next year insisting that the drop in the deficit was not due to strong growth, but from temporary factors. The economy of course continued to grow at an impressive rate for another couple of years. So, people don't take cbpp predictions too seriously.