Democrats are the real fiscal conservatives

[DarkWizard12]

when is the GOP ever held accountable for lying? .

Eric Cantor.

 

[JasperL]

So once you again you're confusing correlation and causation...

The causation is the GOP's purpose in the WH is to cut taxes. So they do, which lowers revenue, and then they increase spending, hence ==> bigger deficits.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

So once you again you're confusing correlation and causation...

And once again you're forgetting that while correlation is not causation, a strong-enough correlation (as this certainly is) shows a Really Good place to start looking for the reason i.e. smoke is a strong correlation to fire. Smoke doesn't automatically denote fire, but when there's enough smoke, it only makes sense to go check what the heck is going on there.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

a smaller deficit still adds to the debt, Eisenhower had 3 balanced budgets, Truman none. Kennedy and johnson none, carter none, clinton none until the Republicans took the house, Obama not one. So other than the republican budgets under Clinton since the 60's they all had deficits every year and the debt increased. your words All but two Democratic presidents since the Depression have either decreased the debt by the
the real issue is what has happened to the debt and deficits since 1981 and continue today.

A smaller debt still adds to the deficit, that is true.

So which adds MORE to the debt - a smaller deficit, or a bigger deficit?

All but two Democratic presidents (one of whom was during WWII) decreased the deficits over their administrations...but ALL Republican presidents increased the deficits over their administrations. In other words, beware of making false equivalencies - the Democratic almost-always-decreased deficits (especially when considered alongside the Democratic surpluses) are NOT comparable to the Republican always-increased deficits (especially when considered alongside their total lack of surpluses). Beware of making false equivalencies - a bad record by one group does NOT automatically equal to (much less excuse) a much worse record by the other group.

Oh, and one more thing - see the bolded part above? The reason is Reaganomics. Except for FDR's military buildup for WWII, Reagan was the first one to really blow up the deficit, all in the name of slashing taxes. It's Reagan - and NOT Trump - that holds the questionable trophy for America's biggest tax cut. His reasoning was that if we slash taxes, businesses will make more money and actually pay more in total taxes. It didn't work - George H.W. Bush called the idea "voodoo economics" - but we're STILL stuck with Reaganomics today, also known as "supply-side" or "trickle-down" economics.

And no, I'm not a Reagan hater - I voted for him and hold him to be our fifth-best president...but NOT because of his economics. I put him there for what he did to win the Cold War without it turning hot, and for getting our military out of our post-Vietnam funk (got stories about that) - I'll always love him for that. But when it comes to economics, Reagan was an utter disaster...and one we're stuck with today. Consider what Dick Cheney said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." That quote pretty much says everything you need to know about whether the GOP has actually taken our deficit/debt seriously since 1981.

(references for all the above available on request)

 

[Glen Contrarian]

No, it was a complete non-sequitur. This post of yours here is what we call "irony." You're simply changing your premise.

Many, if not most, of your posts come from a place of "DEMOCRATZ R ALL GUD, REPUBLICANZ R ALL BAD." The world is lot more complex than that.

And you're full of it. If you'd really read most of my posts, then you would have known that this is one of my most common phrases: "Almost all conservatives are good-hearted, well-meaning, honest people with no malice towards anyone." I've said that MANY times...and I mean it, for that's how I was raised, and that describes all my family of my youth in the Deep South.

What you did, sir, was instead of judging me on what I have or have not said, you judged me based only on what you wanted to believe about me. A wise Man once said, "judge not, lest ye be judged." Learn not to make assumptions as you did in your comment, and you'll make such mistakes far less often.

 

[Bootz]

A smaller debt still adds to the deficit, that is true.

So which adds MORE to the debt - a smaller deficit, or a bigger deficit?

All but two Democratic presidents (one of whom was during WWII) decreased the deficits over their administrations...but ALL Republican presidents increased the deficits over their administrations. In other words, beware of making false equivalencies - the Democratic almost-always-decreased deficits (especially when considered alongside the Democratic surpluses) are NOT comparable to the Republican always-increased deficits (especially when considered alongside their total lack of surpluses). Beware of making false equivalencies - a bad record by one group does NOT automatically equal to (much less excuse) a much worse record by the other group.

Oh, and one more thing - see the bolded part above? The reason is Reaganomics. Except for FDR's military buildup for WWII, Reagan was the first one to really blow up the deficit, all in the name of slashing taxes. It's Reagan - and NOT Trump - that holds the questionable trophy for America's biggest tax cut. His reasoning was that if we slash taxes, businesses will make more money and actually pay more in total taxes. It didn't work - George H.W. Bush called the idea "voodoo economics" - but we're STILL stuck with Reaganomics today, also known as "supply-side" or "trickle-down" economics.

And no, I'm not a Reagan hater - I voted for him and hold him to be our fifth-best president...but NOT because of his economics. I put him there for what he did to win the Cold War without it turning hot, and for getting our military out of our post-Vietnam funk (got stories about that) - I'll always love him for that. But when it comes to economics, Reagan was an utter disaster...and one we're stuck with today. Consider what Dick Cheney said: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." That quote pretty much says everything you need to know about whether the GOP has actually taken our deficit/debt seriously since 1981.

(references for all the above available on request)

have you looked at receipts and outlays over the years since ww2 in terms of GPD.

I assume that Reagan signed the largest tax increase in American history as well. and certainly you know that the house and senate were controlled by DEms when the tax rate was cut to 28%

 

[Glen Contrarian]

"democrats are the real fiscal conservatives"

Well, you know, It'd be nice if democrats didn't claim the opposite. At least the republicans give lip service, and so fiscal conservatives like myself can hold them to account. anything goes with democrats.

Last I recall, "deeds, not words" was considered a wise rule of thumb. If you prefer words over deeds, well, I guess that does make you a prime target for GOP campaign focus groups....

 

[DarkWizard12]

Last I recall, "deeds, not words" was considered a wise rule of thumb. If you prefer words over deeds, well, I guess that does make you a prime target for GOP campaign focus groups....

but the deeds of the democrats put W. Bush to shame when it comes to fiscal responsibility lol, or were the obama deficits a figure of my imagination?

At least republicans have another year to go before we see if they're serious about fiscal responsibility.

 

[Fletch]

Because that's precisely what the numbers show.

Every single Democratic president since the Depression first took office with an economic deficit...and only FDR and Carter left office with a bigger deficit (and FDR had this little thing called "World War II" going on - you may have heard of it). ALL other Democratic presidents left office with either a SMALLER deficit (or with a budget surplus) than when they first took office.

How many Republican presidents since the Depression had a budget surplus, or left office with a smaller deficit than when they first took office?

None. Not a single one. And remember, you canNOT address the federal debt without FIRST addressing the federal deficit.

In other words, for almost ninety years, the documented history shows that Democratic presidents have been demonstrably more careful with our taxpayer dollars than have Republican presidents...and Trump has shown that he is going to continue that trend.

I see. So Democrats are the real conservatives and, according to democrats, conservatives are all racists, Nazis, Klansmen, homophobes, islamophobes, sexists and unredeemable deplorables. Interesting.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I see. So Democrats are the real conservatives and, according to democrats, conservatives are all racists, Nazis, Klansmen, homophobes, islamophobes, sexists and unredeemable deplorables. Interesting.

It would be nice if you'd learn to reply about what is actually written, and not just regurgitate stuff that are true only in your imagination.

I presented you with historical fact. If you can't handle historical fact, then perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.

 

[Fletch]

It would be nice if you'd learn to reply about what is actually written, and not just regurgitate stuff that are true only in your imagination.

I presented you with historical fact. If you can't handle historical fact, then perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.

I can handle facts just fine. The fact is, liberals paint all conservatives as racists, Nazis and bigots. Then along comes a liberal to declare that liberals are the true conservatives. The issue isn't my interpretation of facts, but with contradictory and hyperbolic liberal rhetoric

 

[Glen Contrarian]

but the deeds of the democrats put W. Bush to shame when it comes to fiscal responsibility lol, or were the obama deficits a figure of my imagination?

At least republicans have another year to go before we see if they're serious about fiscal responsibility.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but the day Obama took office, we were in economic free-fall. We lost over 700,000 jobs that very month. Our economy continued to plummet for two more months until Obama got the stimulus passed (which most economists agree was too small, btw)...and the stock market began rising - slowly, but surely...and when Obama was done in 2017, the economy was in FAR better shape than when he first took over.

What you need to remember, sir, is three things:

1 - When the Great Recession happened (under Bush), that meant that tax revenue was MUCH less than it would have been otherwise. Much lower tax revenue automatically translates into a much higher deficit.

2 - The second factor was BUSH'S bailout: TARP, which initially cost nearly a half-trillion dollars. Yes, we made our taxpayers' money back and then some as the years went by, but that near-half-trillion dollars DID balloon the deficit even more, especially since it was passed just before the beginning of the 2009 fiscal year.

3 - The third was Obama's stimulus (which included making permanent the Bush tax cuts in order to get a few Republican votes) ALSO added to the deficit...but it worked, and set our nation on the long, slow path back to recovery...which process was nonetheless much quicker than what happened in Europe since all European nations went the route of austerity instead of using a Keynesian stimulus.

The response to the Great Recession was a national emergency. The day he took office Obama was handed an economic s**t sandwich of epic proportions, and by the time he was done, our economy was in FAR better shape and our deficit was cut in half. Too bad Your Boy Trump thinks - like Reagan and Dick Cheney - that "deficits don't matter".

 

[Abbazorkzog]

The fact that we have two political parties more alike than they are different should disturb you.

 

[bluesmoke]

Because that's precisely what the numbers show.

Every single Democratic president since the Depression first took office with an economic deficit...and only FDR and Carter left office with a bigger deficit (and FDR had this little thing called "World War II" going on - you may have heard of it). ALL other Democratic presidents left office with either a SMALLER deficit (or with a budget surplus) than when they first took office.

How many Republican presidents since the Depression had a budget surplus, or left office with a smaller deficit than when they first took office?

None. Not a single one. And remember, you canNOT address the federal debt without FIRST addressing the federal deficit.

In other words, for almost ninety years, the documented history shows that Democratic presidents have been demonstrably more careful with our taxpayer dollars than have Republican presidents...and Trump has shown that he is going to continue that trend.

However, deficits as a percentage of receipts (revenue), Carter’s was lower than both of the Bushes and Reagan for their respective fiscal years.

Trump will continue the trend due to precedent. His tax plan of a giveaway to the rich and corps while throwing bread crumbs to those with the least, follows that of Reagan and Bush2, both of whom had huge deficits and thus contributed greatly to the debt.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I know this may come as a shock to you, but the day Obama took office, we were in economic free-fall. We lost over 700,000 jobs that very month. Our economy continued to plummet for two more months until Obama got the stimulus passed (which most economists agree was too small, btw)...and the stock market began rising - slowly, but surely...and when Obama was done in 2017, the economy was in FAR better shape than when he first took over.

What you need to remember, sir, is three things:

1 - When the Great Recession happened (under Bush), that meant that tax revenue was MUCH less than it would have been otherwise. Much lower tax revenue automatically translates into a much higher deficit.

2 - The second factor was BUSH'S bailout: TARP, which initially cost nearly a half-trillion dollars. Yes, we made our taxpayers' money back and then some as the years went by, but that near-half-trillion dollars DID balloon the deficit even more, especially since it was passed just before the beginning of the 2009 fiscal year.

3 - The third was Obama's stimulus (which included making permanent the Bush tax cuts in order to get a few Republican votes) ALSO added to the deficit...but it worked, and set our nation on the long, slow path back to recovery...which process was nonetheless much quicker than what happened in Europe since all European nations went the route of austerity instead of using a Keynesian stimulus.

The response to the Great Recession was a national emergency. The day he took office Obama was handed an economic s**t sandwich of epic proportions, and by the time he was done, our economy was in FAR better shape and our deficit was cut in half. Too bad Your Boy Trump thinks - like Reagan and Dick Cheney - that "deficits don't matter".

Oh yea, i forgot, when the economy is bad, fiscal responsibility goes out the window. Right.

also, the bush tax cuts expired. They weren't permanent.

 

[bluesmoke]

That's BS, every Democrat President with a Republican Congress*********

The only combination where we prevent spending is a democrat President and Republican congress... because then republicans go in fiscal responsibility mode to prevent Democrats from passing anything. Any other combination, it's a spending spree.

Not true. Republicans controlled the Senate, with the help of the VP, all the time and the House ¾’s of the time, during the Bush2 years, which were the worst fiscal years in modern history. During the Obama years, which got us out of the Republicans’ Great Recession, the Dems controlled the Senate ¾ of the fiscal years and ¼ of the House when the Republicans proudly practiced obstruction. Clinton’s economic plan, by which determined the best fiscal years in modern history, was passed under a Dem controlled Congress. That’s enough fact and data to refute what you say. And, of course, you cannot refute the OP that the best fiscal years were under Dem presidents. It's when the Reps controlled Congress during the Clinton years that the financial industry was deregulated that in a big way contributed to the Great Recession. Clinton's big mistake:

https://www.infoplease.com/history-...omposition-congress-political-party-1855-2017

So, who is truly slinging the BS?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

have you looked at receipts and outlays over the years since ww2 in terms of GPD.

Receipts of revenue and outlays of expenses are NOT viewed "in terms of GDP". They CAN and often are be viewed as a percentage of GDP...and if you'll check, ever since Reagan first took office, the Democratic presidents have been better in this respect, too.

I assume that Reagan signed the largest tax increase in American history as well. and certainly you know that the house and senate were controlled by DEms when the tax rate was cut to 28%

That's why the president - not Congress, but the president - largely gets all the credit and all the blame for what happens on his watch. I've seen my fellow liberals argue that Reagan doesn't get credit for winning the Cold War, but he does. History doesn't remember the Congresses or the cabinet advisers or the governors or whatever. History remembers the leaders...and for good reason. The bock stops there on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. That's why Trump will be given 100% of the credit for what he accomplishes...AND 100% of the blame for whatever happens on his watch. He'll refuse to accept the blame, but historians will not give him any choice in the matter - along with all the credit, ALL the blame will be his, too.

 

[faithful_servant]

And once again you're forgetting that while correlation is not causation, a strong-enough correlation (as this certainly is) shows a Really Good place to start looking for the reason i.e. smoke is a strong correlation to fire. Smoke doesn't automatically denote fire, but when there's enough smoke, it only makes sense to go check what the heck is going on there.

It can also point you to a completely wrong conclusion with the OP as a prime example.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Oh yea, i forgot, when the economy is bad, fiscal responsibility goes out the window. Right.

also, the bush tax cuts expired. They weren't permanent.

No. When the economy is bad, use stimulus measures to kickstart the economy back into gear...and when the economy is good, THEN cut spending to get the deficit under control. That's Keynesian economics...and that's what enabled us to recover MUCH more quickly than Europe did since pretty much all of Europe adopted austerity - what you call "fiscal responsibility".

Look, your austerity - your "fiscal responsibility" - sounds good in theory...but as Europe's experience showed, it doesn't work as advertised. On the other hand, Keynesian economics is proven time and again to work - that's what got us out of the Great Recession fast than the European nations, and that - in the form of our taxpayer-and-deficit-funded military buildup prior to WWII - was what pulled us out of the Great Depression.

So instead of going with what sounds good and right to you, look first to see what has and has not worked in the real world...and THEN decide what's right and wrong.

 

[Bootz]

Receipts of revenue and outlays of expenses are NOT viewed "in terms of GDP". They CAN and often are be viewed as a percentage of GDP...and if you'll check, ever since Reagan first took office, the Democratic presidents have been better in this respect, too.



That's why the president - not Congress, but the president - largely gets all the credit and all the blame for what happens on his watch. I've seen my fellow liberals argue that Reagan doesn't get credit for winning the Cold War, but he does. History doesn't remember the Congresses or the cabinet advisers or the governors or whatever. History remembers the leaders...and for good reason. The bock stops there on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. That's why Trump will be given 100% of the credit for what he accomplishes...AND 100% of the blame for whatever happens on his watch. He'll refuse to accept the blame, but historians will not give him any choice in the matter - along with all the credit, ALL the blame will be his, too.

Cute about percentage of GDP which would be inclusive in terms of GDP Buy i have looked when i did this study for Reince Priebus.




Presidents Budget Years Avg Receipts Avg Outlays Defense Avg Deficits Avg Growth growth/deficits Avg Oil Top Rate Top Bracket 100k Avg Median Avg Mean Mean Vs Avg % labor force Receipts composition % GDP
%GDP %GDP %GDP %GDP %GDP 2014$ Current $ 2012$ Rate 2012$ 2012 $ 2012 $ Median gap unemployment participation % Individual Corporate Social Insurance

Eisenhower 1954 - 1961 16.91 17.29 10.05 0.38 2.76 7.36 24.60 91 200k 1,700 -> 1.535 43 5.36 59.39 7.3 4.25 2.3

Kennedy/Johnson 1962 - 1969 17.26 18.15 8.29 0.89 5.01 5.65 22.00 91 -> 70 200 ->100 1,425 -> 625 43 -> 39 5.28 66.59 7.3 3.5 3.3

Nixon/Ford 1970 - 1977 17.28 19.26 6.53 2.36 2.90 1.23 36.62 70 100 -> 101 626 -> 385 42 -> 50 46760 54250 16.6 6.28 61 7.5 2.5 4.6

Carter 1978 - 1981 18.28 20.60 4.73 2.33 2.77 1.19 83.06 70 102 -> 108 360 -> 273 53 -> 54 47593 56945 18.7 6.68 63.62 8.3 2.3 5.4

Reagan 1982 - 1989 17.50 21.61 5.76 4.15 3.63 0.87 50.02 50 ->38.5 ->28 42->88-> 18 98 -> 185 -> 38 49 -> 28 48712 60128 23.4 7.24 65.04 7.9 1.5 6.1

HW Bush 1990 - 1993 17.18 21.27 4.63 4.10 2.03 0.50 33.83 28 -> 31 19 -> 250 34 -> 397 28 -> 31 49632 63201 27.3 6.72 66.36 7.5 1.6 6.3

Clinton 1994 - 2001 18.65 18.80 3.21 0.13 3.67 29.36 27.00 39.6 ->39.1 250 -> 297 397 -> 385 31 53305 71612 34.3 4.93 66.89 8.6 2 6.3

W Bush 2002 - 2009 16.53 19.85 3.85 3.31 1.60 0.48 58.50 38.6 -> 35 307 -> 372 391 -> 399 30 -> 28 54254 74112 36.6 5.84 66.06 7.3 1.8 6.1

Obama 2010 - 2013 15.38 22.40 4.33 7.03 2.25 0.32 86.64 35 -> 39.6 373 -> 400 393 -> 391 28 51303 71125 38.6 8.5 63.95 7 1.4 5.5
Cumulative Avg 3.10

 

[Glen Contrarian]

It can also point you to a completely wrong conclusion with the OP as a prime example.

When the correlation is weak, it's wrong to imply causation. However, when the correlation is strong and there is a direct relation between both factors - the federal budget and those who determine the federal budget - then there is at least to some extent a dependency of one upon the other.

That being said, if nothing else the data provide show that the Republican claim to "fiscal responsibility" is nothing more than hot air.

 

[Harshaw]

And you're full of it. If you'd really read most of my posts, then you would have known that this is one of my most common phrases: "Almost all conservatives are good-hearted, well-meaning, honest people with no malice towards anyone." I've said that MANY times...and I mean it, for that's how I was raised, and that describes all my family of my youth in the Deep South.

What you did, sir, was instead of judging me on what I have or have not said, you judged me based only on what you wanted to believe about me. A wise Man once said, "judge not, lest ye be judged." Learn not to make assumptions as you did in your comment, and you'll make such mistakes far less often.

See, this is another thing you do -- you constantly shift terms and change arguments. This is the second time I've noted you do it in this thread alone.

I didn't say "conservatives." I didn't mention individuals. I said "Democrats" and "Republicans." You have started quite a few threads, like this one, where you extol the virtues of the Democrats as a party and say flat out that the Republicans are bad as a party.

 

[faithful_servant]

When the correlation is weak, it's wrong to imply causation. However, when the correlation is strong and there is a direct relation between both factors - the federal budget and those who determine the federal budget - then there is at least to some extent a dependency of one upon the other.

That being said, if nothing else the data provide show that the Republican claim to "fiscal responsibility" is nothing more than hot air.

The problem is that correlation is subjective to the point of being arbitrary. You choose to see the correlation. You don't have anywhere near enough facts to have a valid correlation, all you have is a case of "I want to find something to prove that I'm right." Correlation still demands that you have some facts and not just two parallel lines on a graph. You are making assumptions based on bias and not facts.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The problem is that correlation is subjective to the point of being arbitrary. You choose to see the correlation. You don't have anywhere near enough facts to have a valid correlation, all you have is a case of "I want to find something to prove that I'm right." Correlation still demands that you have some facts and not just two parallel lines on a graph. You are making assumptions based on bias and not facts.

Is it really a case of me choosing to see the correlation that's obvious to me (especially since it applies over nearly the entirety of the past ninety years)...or is it more of a case of you refusing to see the correlation no matter how obvious it is to others?

We see this all the time - the correlations between homicides and ease of availability of firearms is obvious to all the world...except for your crowd. The correlations between global warming and the human output of greenhouse gases is obvious to all the rest of the nations on the planet and to most Americans...except for your crowd.

So it's pretty obvious that it doesn't matter what the correlations are, nor does it matter how strong those correlations may be - your side has decided to deny, deny, deny no matter what.