The Myth of Republican Fiscal Responsibility

#26
#26
Lawgator....

droski said:
bush was not fiscally responsible. reagan had little choice but to cut taxes with inflation at 10% and the economy in the toilet and it clearly was the correct decision. bush senior and reagen inherited a recession and therefore of course the revenue side would be lower and the deficit would be higher. clinton wasn't fiscally responsible more that he benefited from the greatest employment bubble in american history. I'd love to see this chart by deficit per the unemployment rate and pure govt spending.

the difference between reagan or bush senior and obama is that the formers decided to give money back to the people to help the economy but the latter is giving money to all his buddies that helped him get elected. i fail to see how obama's plan will help this country.
Click to expand...

...see what I mean?

Dems are always on the good side of fortunate economic circumstances, and Repubs are always the victims of unfortunate ones. Data doesn't matter!

When that fails, they just say "Obama sucks" and we hear rants about sheep following supporters and democratic cronyism.
 
#27
#27
Vol Mania 21 said:
well that comment is all i need to knw about what you believe. if you want higher taxes, no one ever said you couldn't pay more. let the ones who want tax cuts have them and the ones who are for higher taxes pay what they believe they owe.
Click to expand...

I don't want higher taxes. But sometimes it is fiscally responsible. See the plot in the OP for reference.
 
#28
#28
rjd970 said:
They have had a very tax friendly president the last 8 years and a congress to boot for 2/3 of the time. Where are all the jobs that we are supposed to be seeing now?
Click to expand...
Red herring alert.

Once again . . . If the wealthy don't create jobs, then who does?

You can't seriously ignore all external factors that go into job creation and make an assumption that if jobs weren't created quickly enough in a low tax environment then higher taxes must be OK.
 
#29
#29
rjd970 said:
Lawgator....



...see what I mean?

Dems are always on the good side of fortunate economic circumstances, and Repubs are always the victims of unfortunate ones. Data doesn't matter!

When that fails, they just say "Obama sucks" and we hear rants about sheep following supporters democratic cronyism.
Click to expand...

in the last 20 years there is zero question that republican administrations have inherited declining economies and democrat administrations have inherited inproving economies. that is until today. :the_finger: the fact is the president has very little effect on economic cycles and certainly no effect on ones he has coming into office.
 
#30
#30
KB5252 said:
You avoided the question by trying to deflect it. If it isn't the wealthy that employ most Americans then who does?
Click to expand...


I don't know, but it isn't the wealthy. Small business employ a large number of people. What have the multi-million dollar bonus bank execs done for us the last 8 years?
 
#31
#31
Vol Mania 21 said:
if you think that the stimulus plan is a good idea then i'm highly disappointed in you LG
Click to expand...


I think that the vast majority of it, in the final analysis, is going to be budget neutral or very minimally a negative (and not accounting for spinoffs we can't relate to the spending for sure). The portion that the Republicans have been focused on for the last few days comprises less than five percent of the spending in the bill.

Obama is going to have to keep the pressure on. I hope that tonight he is clear in how the money will be spent and the expectations regarding it. Plus I hope that he takes the critics to task for emphasizing the smallest portions of the package rather than the big picture.

Will the spending plan work? I don't know. There will probably be a lot of debate about that in a few years and if the economy has improved markedly by then, he'll want to take credit and the Republicans will want to give him none. If the economy continues to tank, the Republicans will blame him and he will blame hangover from Bush. I doubt that anyone will know for certain if it worked.
 
#33
#33
rjd970 said:
I don't know, but it isn't the wealthy. Small business employ a large number of people. What have the multi-million dollar bonus bank execs done for us the last 8 years?
Click to expand...

Most small business owners are not millionaires but they have accumulated some degree of wealth. It all depends on where you set the bar wealth.
 
#35
#35
rjd970 said:
I've posted stuff like this before. It is also very telling how the national debt increased under Reagan, Bush, and Bush...compared with every other president combined.

Get ready to hear arguments that your graph isn't accurate because the republicans were victims of unfortunate economic circumstances and the democrats were riding high on fortunate economic circumstances created by their republican predecessors.

Actual data doesn't seem to carry much weight with most on here. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Many of the arguments are legit. The facts behind the graph don't seem to carry much weight on here either.

Just a reminder of some things to look at:

1. This graph is debt as % of GDP not debt. I'll have to check it out but I'm quite sure the DEBT went up under Carter and possibly under Clinton.


2. No one, I mean no one on here has suggested the W and/or the R Congress under him were anything close to fiscally responsible.


3. The R Congress has as much to do with Clinton's outcome as Clinton does. As I suggested to you in another thread - read some history about the budget battles during that time. Congress (Rs) were ALWAYS trying to lower Clinton's budget. They were generally successful at doing so. Even so, Clinton raised government spending in every year he was in office.


4. Finally, the premise of this thread is absurd. If you and LG believe that Rs are not fiscally responsible - how in anyway does that justify what Obama is doing. You two should be leading the charge against his plans.


Wait until you see this graph next year and for many years there after - you will freak out. That line is going through the roof.
 
#36
#36
droski said:
in the last 20 years there is zero question that republican administrations have inherited declining economies and democrat administrations have inherited inproving economies. that is until today. :the_finger: the fact is the president has very little effect on economic cycles and certainly no effect on ones he has coming into office.
Click to expand...


Of course, but you are quick to say Obama is going to have a disasterous effect on economic cycles with his plan, but Reagan and Bush didn't.

Is this an Obama is going to make it worse, but Reagan and Bush were victims and had little power to do anything argument?
 
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
I think that the vast majority of it, in the final analysis, is going to be budget neutral or very minimally a negative (and not accounting for spinoffs we can't relate to the spending for sure). The portion that the Republicans have been focused on for the last few days comprises less than five percent of the spending in the bill.

Obama is going to have to keep the pressure on. I hope that tonight he is clear in how the money will be spent and the expectations regarding it. Plus I hope that he takes the critics to task for emphasizing the smallest portions of the package rather than the big picture.

Will the spending plan work? I don't know. There will probably be a lot of debate about that in a few years and if the economy has improved markedly by then, he'll want to take credit and the Republicans will want to give him none. If the economy continues to tank, the Republicans will blame him and he will blame hangover from Bush. I doubt that anyone will know for certain if it worked.
Click to expand...

smallest portions!!!!!!!! are you high? i'd argue 70% of the bill is pork.
 
#38
#38
volinbham said:
Many of the arguments are legit. The facts behind the graph don't seem to carry much weight on here either.

Just a reminder of some things to look at:

1. This graph is debt as % of GDP not debt. I'll have to check it out but I'm quite sure the DEBT went up under Carter and possibly under Clinton.


2. No one, I mean no one on here has suggested the W and/or the R Congress under him were anything close to fiscally responsible.


3. The R Congress has as much to do with Clinton's outcome as Clinton does. As I suggested to you in another thread - read some history about the budget battles during that time. Congress (Rs) were ALWAYS trying to lower Clinton's budget. They were generally successful at doing so. Even so, Clinton raised government spending in every year he was in office.


4. Finally, the premise of this thread is absurd. If you and LG believe that Rs are not fiscally responsible - how in anyway does that justify what Obama is doing. You two should be leading the charge against his plans.
Click to expand...



As to #2, you are absolutely correct. Even the conservativesd on here have been critical of Bush for his spending, though I do think the volume of the criticism has been hypocritically amplified for Obama; turn.

As to #4, in theory you are of course correct. But the point of my thread was not to justify more spending. Rather, it was to illustrate that over the last 30 years or so the Republicans cannot credibly claim to be fiscally conservative relative to the Democrats, that's all.
 
#39
#39
rjd970 said:
Of course, but you are quick to say Obama is going to have a disasterous effect on economic cycles with his plan, but Reagan and Bush didn't.

Is this an Obama is going to make it worse, but Reagan and Bush were victims and had little power to do anything argument?
Click to expand...

reagan's plans greatly helped the economy. bush i'd argue didn't hurt anything though if he didn't spend like a drunken sailer and just did the tax cuts he could have helped a lot. i've never seen a study showing hte type of spending obama wants to do benefits an economy long term and frankly it logically wont benefit the economy.

edit: and i am of the theory that we need to do something, but obama doesn't care about helping the economy (or he is an idiot), he is just paying off his buddies that got him elected.
 
Last edited:
#41
#41
droski said:
smallest portions!!!!!!!! are you high? i'd argue 70% of the bill is pork.
Click to expand...


Depends on your definition of pork. I consider tax breaks or grants for small groups of individuals or businesses to be pork. The tax break for the industyr that made arrows comes to mind. I generally do not consider spending on roads or bridges to be such (unless they are not for purposes of improved infrastructure, see e.g. Bridge to Nowhere).

I do not consider budget aid to the states to be pork.
 
#42
#42
droski said:
complete bs. he did not raise taxes on the middle class. that is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


You need to go do some research and then get back to me. I didn't say he shifted them to the middle class. Sometimes it is hard to believe anyone would let you advise them on buying securities
 
#44
#44
droski said:
in the last 20 years there is zero question that republican administrations have inherited declining economies and democrat administrations have inherited inproving economies. that is until today. :the_finger: the fact is the president has very little effect on economic cycles and certainly no effect on ones he has coming into office.
Click to expand...


Unbelievable. You need to do some reading and research. Clinton walked into a declining economy.
 
#45
#45
volinbham said:
Many of the arguments are legit. The facts behind the graph don't seem to carry much weight on here either.

Just a reminder of some things to look at:

1. This graph is debt as % of GDP not debt. I'll have to check it out but I'm quite sure the DEBT went up under Carter and possibly under Clinton.

Look again. The Debt went up around $900 billion under Clinton and about $900 billion under all other presidents combined. Under Reagan, Bush, and Bush it went up $8 trillion. Besides, when I bring that up, I always get the "well, but you have to look at debt/gdp percentage" from you guys. Well, there it is in the OP. What should I look at next?


2. No one, I mean no one on here has suggested the W and/or the R Congress under him were anything close to fiscally responsible.

So why say republicans are, especially in light of the above graph under the great Ronald Reagan?


3. The R Congress has as much to do with Clinton's outcome as Clinton does. As I suggested to you in another thread - read some history about the budget battles during that time. Congress (Rs) were ALWAYS trying to lower Clinton's budget. They were generally successful at doing so. Even so, Clinton raised government spending in every year he was in office.

Clinton spent way less than he took in. I have no doubt that the R's were responsible in part for that, as well as a nice economy to work in. I seriously doubt, given the historical data and the results of the last 8 years, it would have looked the same with a republican president during the Clinton years.


4. Finally, the premise of this thread is absurd. If you and LG believe that Rs are not fiscally responsible - how in anyway does that justify what Obama is doing. You two should be leading the charge against his plans.

I have been. I am just saying this notion that republicans are much better is absurd. The premise of the thread is the "myth of republican fiscal responsibility", mind you. That is what I am responding too. The Dems are just as bad, and so it much of Obama's silly plan.

Wait until you see this graph next year and for many years there after - you will freak out. That line is going through the roof.
Click to expand...

It probably will, but the repubs don't have much of a leg to stand on with the ridicule.
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
Depends on your definition of pork. I consider tax breaks or grants for small groups of individuals or businesses to be pork. The tax break for the industyr that made arrows comes to mind. I generally do not consider spending on roads or bridges to be such (unless they are not for purposes of improved infrastructure, see e.g. Bridge to Nowhere).

I do not consider budget aid to the states to be pork.
Click to expand...

first off what % of this infractructure spending goes directly to building roads and bridges? 50%? most of this money is going to studies on new spending first rather than funding existing projects that we have already shown a need to improve. for instance $8 billion to the las vegas / LA high speed rail. we've needed money for years to widen the trucking cooridor between LA and vegas. the studies have been done, but the money isn't going there it's going to a new study.

as for "budget aid to the states" things like longer unemployment benefits (which the states will probably have to pay themselves after 2 years) are definetly pork.
 
#47
#47
truefan said:
You need to go do some research and then get back to me. I didn't say he shifted them to the middle class. Sometimes it is hard to believe anyone would let you advise them on buying securities
Click to expand...

ok who did he shift the taxes to then? jesus?

truefan said:
Unbelievable. You need to do some reading and research. Clinton walked into a declining economy.
Click to expand...

complete and utter bs. the economy was well into recovery at the end of bush seniors administration.
 
#48
#48
droski said:
first off what % of this infractructure spending goes directly to building roads and bridges? 50%? most of this money is going to studies on new spending first rather than funding existing projects that we have already shown a need to improve. for instance $8 billion to the las vegas / LA high speed rail. we've needed money for years to widen the trucking cooridor between LA and vegas. the studies have been done, but the money isn't going there it's going to a new study.

as for "budget aid to the states" things like longer unemployment benefits (which the states will probably have to pay themselves after 2 years) are definetly pork.
Click to expand...


We have different definitions of "pork," particularly as to your second paragraph. As to your first, our definitions overlap, but not completely.
 
#50
#50
truefan said:
Unbelievable. You need to do some reading and research. Clinton walked into a declining economy.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see some numbers on this. The recession had pretty much ended in mid 1991 and the economy was growing again . . . despite what James Carville said.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top