First Stimulus, Now "Deficit Reduction".

[Zippa D Doodah]

It is just further proof that it doesn't matter what he says. It is meaningless. He gives a lecture on fiscal responsibility to people who pay their mortgages and taxes, and yet plans to bail out the irresponsible and hire the tax cheats. Who does he think he is kidding?

I'll bet he looks at us sternly and wags his finger.

Not that it's all about me, but I am sick and dang tired of being responsible and sacrificial, then being scolded, punished, and admonished to tighten my belt.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I'll bet he looks at us sternly and wags his finger.

Not that it's all about me, but I am sick and dang tired of being responsible and sacrificial, then being scolded, punished, and admonished to tighten my belt.

ITA.

 

[joviroxx]

Who does he think he is kidding?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

Obama is not raising taxes, he is letting part of the temporary tax cut expire. When the tax cuts were implemented, they were put in place for 10 years. He will retain the tax cut on lower income workers, but those at the high end will see their tax rates revert back to what it was before.

Now why does he feel he need to do this? Perhaps it is because the Republicans voted in huge tax cuts and then went on a wild spending spree. The national debt soared during the 6 years the Republicans controlled congress and the White House. We have huge deficits, soaring national debt etc. all from these 6 years of total fiscal irresponsibility. If the Republicans had cut spending like they said they would - we would not be in this situation, and the tax cuts could be sustained.

It is very important that you look at what Republicans do, rather than what Republicans say - they always talk about fiscal responsibility, but they are anything but fiscally responsible.

Do a bit of research on the deficit and the national debt - you will find that three Presidents are responsible for almost all of our national debt, all three Republicans (Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr). Stop listening to the Republican double speak and research it yourself, I think you will be surprised and just how bad the Republicans have been. I was a lifelong Republican, but not anymore. If you really really look at what they've done, you may see the light as well.

It just goes to show that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.


Here's an interesting graph:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

If Reagan, BushI, and Bush II didn't get us into record-breaking debt, perhaps we wouldn't be in the economic situation we are in today.

 

[djm99]

It just goes to show that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.


Here's an interesting graph:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

If Reagan, BushI, and Bush II didn't get us into record-breaking debt, perhaps we wouldn't be in the economic situation we are in today.

EXCELLENT POST!!!! I'm looking forward to the response or lack of...

 

[CowboyCO]

It just goes to show that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.


Here's an interesting graph:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

If Reagan, BushI, and Bush II didn't get us into record-breaking debt, perhaps we wouldn't be in the economic situation we are in today.

Actually from WWII - 1994, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. From 1946-1976, them dems were considered to fiscally conservative (ala JFK and his tax cuts) and socially liberal. A change occurred in the Democratic party and they raised taxes and spent. You will notice that from 1994-2000, when the Repubs took control of the House, the debt dropped - as they promised in the Contract with America. Then Congress, led by Republicans spent like drunken sailors while reducing taxes, instead of reducing taxes and controlling spending. That's what happens when you reduce taxes and then increase spending. I wonder what happens to GDP when you massively increase spending (say... an extra $trillion$) and then RAISE taxes. Got a graph for that one?

 

[JMD]

EXCELLENT POST!!!! I'm looking forward to the response or lack of...

Reagan's debt was largely caused by increased defense spending due to the Cold War. That increase in defense is what contributed to the end of the Cold War and ultimately the fall of the Soviet Union.

The fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90's, lead to the inevitable decrease in Military spending after the cold war. Couple that with the dot com bubble in the late 90's, and you have 2 major factors that contributed to the debt to surplus shift under Clinton.

 

[minnie61650]

It just goes to show that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.


Here's an interesting graph:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

If Reagan, BushI, and Bush II didn't get us into record-breaking debt, perhaps we wouldn't be in the economic situation we are in today.

Thanks for the chart.

Here is an article about how the economy fares better when a Democrate is President.

REPUBLICANS vs. DEMOCRATS ON THE ECONOMY....Did you know that Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republicans? Sure you did. I pointed this out two years ago, back when my readership numbered in the dozens, and more recently Michael Kinsley ran the numbers in the LA Times and came to the same conclusion.

The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a 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's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.

Skeptics offer two arguments: first, that presidents don't control the economy; second, that there are too few data points to draw any firm conclusions. Neither argument is convincing. It's true that presidents don't control the economy, but they do influence it — as everyone tacitly acknowledges by fighting like crazed banshees over every facet of fiscal policy ever offered up by a president.

The second argument doesn't hold water either. The dataset that delivers these results now covers more than 50 years, 10 administrations, and half a dozen different measures. That's a fair amount of data, and the results are awesomely consistent: Democrats do better no matter what you measure, how you measure it, or how you fiddle with the data.

But it turns out there's more to this. Via Brendan Nyhan, I recently read a paper by Princeton's Larry Bartels that adds some fascinating details to this picture.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. The unsurprising result is shown in the chart on the right.

Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.

Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)

In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.

Link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php

here is another article:

Why the economy fares much better under Democrats
On job and income growth, the record couldn't be clearer.
By Larry M. Bartels
from the October 21, 2008 edition
<SNIP>

The bottom line: During the past 60 years, Democrats have presided over much less unemployment and much more robust income growth.

<SNIP>
In the past three decades, since the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries oil price shocks of the mid-1970s and the Republican turn toward "supply side" economics, the average unemployment rate under Republican presidents has been 6.7 percent – substantially higher than the 5.5 percent average under Democratic presidents. (The official unemployment rate takes no account of people who have given up looking for work or taken substantial pay cuts to stay in the labor force.) Over an even broader time period, since the late 1940s, unemployment has averaged 4.8 percent under Democratic presidents but 6.3 percent – almost one-third higher – under Republican presidents.

Lower unemployment under Democratic presidents has contributed substantially to the real incomes of middle-class and working poor families. Job losses hurt everyone – not just those without work. In fact, every percentage point of unemployment has the effect of reducing middle-class income growth by about $300 per family per year. And the effects are long term, unlike the temporary boost in income from a stimulus check.

Compounded over an eight-year period, a persistent one-point difference in unemployment is worth about $10,000 to a middle-class family. The dollar values are smaller for working poor families, but in relative terms their incomes are even more sensitive to unemployment. In contrast, income growth for affluent people is much more sensitive to inflation, which has been a perennial target of Republican economic policies.

<SNIP> In fact, over the past 60 years, the real incomes of middle-income families have grown about twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents. The partisan difference is even greater for working poor families, whose real incomes have grown six times as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents. <SNIP>


• Larry M. Bartels directs the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics in Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is the author of "Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age."

Link to full article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html

Here is another article:

Economy has fared better under Dem presidents
Arthur L. Blaustein

Sunday, October 19, 2008


Most Americans have one eye on the nation's financial crises and the other on the presidential election. And they are asking themselves, "Is John McCain or Barack Obama, the Democrats or the Republicans, better for the economic health of the country as well as for my own financial well-being?" That is the defining question of this election.


A businessman who voted for George Bush twice, and Bill Clinton in '96, told me, "Barack Obama sounds really impressive, and I have to admit that the goals of his social programs - particularly health care, education and the environment - seem good. But I'm worried the Democrats can't manage the economy as well, and they'll get into my wallet."

s sentiment is not rare. In past elections, pollsters have found that many voters believe that the Republicans do better with the economy. But is it true?

Let's look at the record.

During the 20th century, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 7.3 percent per year on average under Republican presidents. Under Democrats, it rose 10.3 percent - which means that investors gained a whopping 41 percent more. And the stock market declined further during George Bush's two terms.

Moreover, according to research from Professor Larry Bartels of Princeton, real middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president, contrasted to that growth under a Republican president.

ce World War II, Democratic presidents have increased the national debt by an average of 3.7 percent per year, and Republican presidents have increased it an average of 10.1 percent. During the same time period, the unemployment rate was, on average, 4.8 percent under Democratic presidents; it was 6.3 percent under Republicans.

That's the historical record.

What about economic policies over the past 15 years? The Clinton-Gore administration presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. The national debt was reduced dramatically, the industrial sector boomed, wages grew and more Americans found jobs.

How has the Bush-Cheney team fared? In the past seven years, we have experienced the weakest job creation cycle since the Great Depression, record deficits, record household debt, a record bankruptcy rate and a substantial increase in poverty. We have gone from being the nation with the biggest budget surplus in history to becoming the nation with the largest deficit in history.

The Bush administration, supported by Republicans on Capitol Hill, pushed through a sweeping tax cut in 2001, under which the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans reaped 43 percent of the gain. In less than a year and a half, the federal government's 10-year projected budget surplus of $1.6 trillion had vanished. In 2000, we had a surplus of $236 billion. In 2004, we had a deficit of $413 billion. This dramatic reversal is the direct consequence of Bush's tax cuts - and McCain wants to pursue the same bankrupt policies.
<SNIP>

There's an old expression in Las Vegas, "Figures don't lie and liars figure."

Arthur L. Blaustein was chairman of the President's National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity during the Carter administration and was appointed to the board of the National Endowment for the Humanities by Bill Clinton. He teaches public policy and economic development at UC Berkeley. His most recent books are "Make a Difference - America's Guide to Volunteering and Community Service" and "The American Promise." E-mail comments to insight@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page G - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Link to full article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/18/IN5C13H0J5.DTL
--------------------------------

And another :

Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't
And the numbers show that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008, at 1:49 PM ET

Link:

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/
------------------------
And another:

1959-2007: Democratic president better for the economy than Republicans for the past 50 years

09/17/2008

Link:

http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-franc...conomy-than-republicans-for-the-past-50-years
------------

There are many more.

 

[Goofycampers]

Oh brother there just aren't enough words to set that straight, kool aid is definetly the drink of choice if you believe that!

 

[AndyLL]

Actually from WWII - 1994, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. From 1946-1976, them dems were considered to fiscally conservative (ala JFK and his tax cuts) and socially liberal. A change occurred in the Democratic party and they raised taxes and spent. You will notice that from 1994-2000, when the Repubs took control of the House, the debt dropped - as they promised in the Contract with America. Then Congress, led by Republicans spent like drunken sailors while reducing taxes, instead of reducing taxes and controlling spending. That's what happens when you reduce taxes and then increase spending.

That's about the most positive spin you could put on it but you forgot some facts.

1) You ignored Reagan/Bushs massive run up ( huge tax cuts & huge spending)

2) Under Clinton the spending was already under control before Repubs took control in Congress and the tax increase in 1993 had as much to do with the lowering of the deficit as did the Repubs. ( although the Repub Congress can take some credit for keeping spending under control)

3) you ignored Bush II's massive run up ( huge tax cuts & huge spending again)

Until Reagan and supply side economics the Deficit after WWII was decreasing year after year under both republican & Democrat control.

After Reagan all Republican presidents rose the deficit and the one Democrat president lowered it... no matter what party was in control of congress.

So it is a myth that Democrat presidents are the ones increasing the Deficit.

I wonder what happens to GDP when you massively increase spending (say... an extra $trillion$) and then RAISE taxes. Got a graph for that one?

Actually you only have about $400 Billion in spending and ~$400 billion in tax cuts and we don't know yet how much in tax increases.

 

[Goofycampers]

That's about the most positive spin you could put on it but you forgot some facts.

1) You ignored Reagan/Bushs massive run up ( huge tax cuts & huge spending)

2) Under Clinton the spending was already under control before Repubs took control in Congress and the tax increase in 1993 had as much to do with the lowering of the deficit as did the Repubs. ( although the Repub Congress can take some credit for keeping spending under control)

3) you ignored Bush II's massive run up ( huge tax cuts & huge spending again)

Until Reagan and supply side economics the Deficit after WWII was decreasing year after year under both republican & Democrat control.

After Reagan all Republican presidents rose the deficit and the one Democrat president lowered it... no matter what party was in control of congress.

So it is a myth that Democrat presidents are the ones increasing the Deficit.



Actually you only have about $400 Billion in spending and ~$400 billion in tax cuts and we don't know yet how much in tax increases.

I don't agree with your assertion, but even if it was true, your new "leader" just blew that out of the water.

 

[Rence]

I don't agree with your assertion, but even if it was true, your new "leader" just blew that out of the water.

Don't confuse him with facts, he mind is made up!!!

Do some research - search on the federal deficit and the national debit - you will find that the last three Republican Presidents are responsible for most of our national debt - and the worst period of deficit spending was the six years that the Republicans controlled congress and the white house. Stop listening to the story the Republicans try to dupe you with and go look at the facts.

 

[AndyLL]

I don't agree with your assertion, but even if it was true, your new "leader" just blew that out of the water.

uhhh... which assertion?

It's kind of hard to argue with the graph. Reagan, Bush, Bush it goes up. Clinton it went down.

Obama... to soon to tell. 400Billion in spending which hopefully will be offset by reduced spending in Iraq over the next 4 years.

Another 1 Trillion in TARP and AIG bailouts but while on the budget for this year hopefully will be paid back.

You realize if much of that trillion in bailout is paid back by 2010 how good that's going to make Obama's budgets look then?

The republican's took their ball and went home and the economy will be recoverying the banks buying back their equity just right around election time.

 

[JMD]

It's kind of hard to argue with the graph. Reagan, Bush, Bush it goes up. Clinton it went down.

Uh...it's not that simple.


As I already mentioned, the increased debt under Reagan was caused in large part by defense spending due to the cold war. And wasn't significantly decreased until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90's, through most of Bush 1. And considering the Cold War ended with out a single shot fired, it's argueably the best money we've ever spent.

The decrease in defense spending after the cold war and dot com bubble had more to do with the shift from debt to surplus than Demcratic policy under Clinton.

 

[JimB.]

1. - I am a Republican.

2. - The last 8 years almost turned me into an Independent. The behavior of Republicans in Congress may very well complete the act.

3. - George Bush (with the help of a REPUBLICAN Congress for 6 years) spent money like a drunk sailor on shore leave. The few REPUBLICANS who are, by some luck, STILL in Congress are at least partly complicit in the current economic morass. They need to show some guts and admit that. Their current stand of unanimous opposition to the President's plans and goals is going to go off in their faces like a hand grenade.

4. - The Republicans coming out and criticizing Obama's goals is just plain stupid. THEIR spending, and a Republican Administration's lack of oversight of the financial & securities markets are, to a certain degree, responsible for the crock of crap we are currently in. When Louisiana's house is in order, THEN Bobby Jindal can come out and speak up, but until then, he needs to keep his head down & mouth closed. It's curious that a large portion of Republican Governors are giving a measure of support to the President's efforts, including our own Resident Buffoon Charlie Crist (who, in less than 2 years has destroyed the public education system in Florida). Voted for him once. Will NOT make that mistake again.

5. - I am willing to give the President his due & his chance. He INHERITED this mess. He did not create it. Only time & history will tell whether he was right. I sure hope he is, because the alternative is not pleasant.

Peace. Out.

 

[Goofycampers]

1. - I am a Republican.

2. - The last 8 years almost turned me into an Independent. The behavior of Republicans in Congress may very well complete the act.

3. - George Bush (with the help of a REPUBLICAN Congress for 6 years) spent money like a drunk sailor on shore leave. The few REPUBLICANS who are, by some luck, STILL in Congress are at least partly complicit in the current economic morass. They need to show some guts and admit that. Their current stand of unanimous opposition to the President's plans and goals is going to go off in their faces like a hand grenade.

4. - The Republicans coming out and criticizing Obama's goals is just plain stupid. THEIR spending, and a Republican Administration's lack of oversight of the financial & securities markets are, to a certain degree, responsible for the crock of crap we are currently in. When Louisiana's house is in order, THEN Bobby Jindal can come out and speak up, but until then, he needs to keep his head down & mouth closed. It's curious that a large portion of Republican Governors are giving a measure of support to the President's efforts, including our own Resident Buffoon Charlie Crist (who, in less than 2 years has destroyed the public education system in Florida). Voted for him once. Will NOT make that mistake again.

5. - I am willing to give the President his due & his chance. He INHERITED this mess. He did not create it. Only time & history will tell whether he was right. I sure hope he is, because the alternative is not pleasant.

Peace. Out.

I don't think so. I just love these kind of posts when someone comes on and says I used to be a republican but now I've seen the light. Give me a break. Republicans AND Democrats are responsible for this mess and to say otherwise is dishonest and foolish. That kind of thinking is why nothing ever changes in government.

 

[Goofycampers]

Uh...it's not that simple.


As I already mentioned, the increased debt under Reagan was caused in large part by defense spending due to the cold war. And wasn't significantly decreased until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90's, through most of Bush 1. And considering the Cold War ended with out a single shot fired, it's argueably the best money we've ever spent.

The decrease in defense spending after the cold war and dot com bubble had more to do with the shift from debt to surplus than Demcratic policy under Clinton.

Yeah , I don't give a rat's patooty about his graph. I lived thru Carter and our economy got MUCH better under Reagan. I could make a graph, that doesn't mean it's accurate for goodness sake.

 

[JimB.]

I don't think so. I just love these kind of posts when someone comes on and says I used to be a republican but now I've seen the light. Give me a break. Republicans AND Democrats are responsible for this mess and to say otherwise is dishonest and foolish. That kind of thinking is why nothing ever changes in government.

I did not say I USED to be a Republican. I still am. If you do not care to believe me, that is of course your right.

The last President had a choice whether to spend money. Congress appropriates it, but the President spends it. The President has oversight of the SEC. The President appoints the head of the Fed.

True, both parties are responsible, but my party refuses to admit that. And it's disappointing. I believe in accountability. The Republicans in Congress do too.




As long as it's someone else.............................

 

[Goofycampers]

I did not say I USED to be a Republican. I still am. If you do not care to believe me, that is of course your right.

The last President had a choice whether to spend money. Congress appropriates it, but the President spends it. The President has oversight of the SEC. The President appoints the head of the Fed.

True, both parties are responsible, but my party refuses to admit that. And it's disappointing. I believe in accountability. The Republicans in Congress do too.




As long as it's someone else.............................

You're right, sorry but judging by your post I would be hard pressed to call you a Republican. I do agree with you that Bush was ridiculous with his spending though. He did alot as a President that I don't agree with and I have said so. But the republicans certainly didn't get us into this mess without lots of help from democrats. I'm really tired of everyone saying this in defense of what Obama is doing. You can't cure the bad with the worse.

 

[JimB.]

But the republicans certainly didn't get us into this mess without lots of help from democrats.

I Agree Completely!

I guess our difference is that I am in the light of our past President's record, I am at least willing to give the new guy a shot. Heck, in 4 years we may ALL be singing his praises.