Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against the "Magical Accounting" of Trickle-Down Economics

[Vigilante]

WOW!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent.

Real revenues increased by 24% AND the people got to keep an additional 1.1% of GDP?

Win-Win!!!

You can do that if government grows less than GDP.

Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?

Oh yeah, STARVE THE BEAST

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.



Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?

GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit. How did that double it?
Liberal math?

 

[francoHFW]

GHW Bush was no Reaganist. He actually had a brain.

 

[Vigilante]

GHW Bush was no Reaganist. He actually had a brain.

Did he end the Cold War also?

 

[francoHFW]

See if you can spot when the American dream went to hell, Reaganist chumps, and tell us who's been in charge...Infrastructure jobs act or not, the rich paying their fair share or not?, training for 3 million good tech jobs or not, cheap college loans or not?, phony debt crises and shutdown or not?, immigration bill or not? Mindless, party first obstruction by the GOP? Absolutely. see sig for how Reaganism has screwed YOU, hater dupes.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = 404
1 = Clipboard01.jpg image
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[initforme]

And here we are told how great Reagan was...

 

[francoHFW]

GHW Bush was no Reaganist. He actually had a brain.

Did he end the Cold War also?

Gorby did- Reagan just spent a ton of money. We're just lucky all his demented bluster didn't bring back Kremlin hardliners...

 

[francoHFW]

Only in Pub bizarro world lol...

 

[francoHFW]

The Pub hardliners then screwed Gorby, Yeltsin, and Russia and got us Putin.

 

[Vigilante]

The Pub hardliners then screwed Gorby, Yeltsin, and Russia and got us Putin.

Rewriting history...as fast as he can think this shit up, and type!

 

[francoHFW]

^^Genus Pub Dupus Ugly Americanus. Give us some more spoon fed bs lol.

 

[Vigilante]

^^Genus Pub Dupus Ugly Americanus. Give us some more spoon fed bs lol.

Open your mouth, Francostein....

 

[Dad2three]

Sure Rushblo, sure...

Those of US in reality recognize ELEVEN tax increases stopped Reagan from doing more than just tripling the US debt in 3 years!

First, Congress controls spending.

Second, a single Obama deficit was bigger than all of Reagan's and a single Obama deficits was less than an entire Reagan budget. Obama and the Pelosi, Reid Reign of Terror already ran up $7.5 TRILLION in new debt

SO CONGRESS CONTROLS SPENDING AND IN YOUR NEXT SENTENCE YOU TALK ABOUT THE OBAMA DEFICIT??? LOL

And the GOP hasn't had the House for 4 years???lol



Yes we know Reagan tripled the debt, while Obama inherited a shit storm (and less than 15% of GDP in revenues) and yet will increase debt by only 70%

Yes we know Reagan tripled the debt, while Obama inherited a shit storm (and less than 15% of GDP in revenues) and yet will increase debt by only 70%

Reagan's $1.6 trillion was awful. And all we got was a victory in the Cold War.
Obama added $7.4 trillion, so far, and what have we won?

Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of “Containment” by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt’s Postwar concluded: “…Washington did not ‘bring down’ Communism – Communism imploded of its own accord.”
Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


Economist Mike Kimel has noted that the former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness

Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong, observed a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt) and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt)


David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s. Former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett attributed the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast"


2001 vs. 2011


In June 2012, the Congressional Budget Office summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011

The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011, the budget office said, could be attributed largely to:

• 
  
  
  • $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession) (DUBYA/GOP)
  • $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases (DUBYA/GOP)
  • $1.5 trillion – Increased non-defense discretionary spending
  • $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (DUBYA)
  • $1.4 trillion – Incremental interest due to higher debt balances (DUBYA/GOP)
  • $0.9 trillion – Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010

Changes in CBO s Baseline Projections Since January 2001 Congressional Budget Office


So under Obama, the debt has increased 70 percent after nearly six years. But let’s look at what happened under Republican hero Ronald Reagan, using the fiscal year numbers in the White House’s historical budget tables.

Size of national debt when Reagan took office:$1 trillion
Size after six years:$2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)

In other words, when the numbers are placed in context, the national debt grew faster under Reagan than it has under Obama

Does Obama have the 8216 worst 8217 record of any president on the national debt - The Washington Post

the Congressional Budget Office summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011

Well shit, when you base your estimate on an unsustainable bubble peak, you're going to get ridiculous projections.

Why don't we take a 10 year estimate of the budget from 2006-2016?
Then we can blame the shortfall on Obama.

In other words, when the numbers are placed in context,

I know, $1.9 trillion, horrible.
$7.4 trillion, so far, not so bad. LOL!
Liberal logic.....and math......is funny.

I know, and WEIRD how Dubya/GOP STILL gutted revenues even though they say that happening, TWICE right?

Percent of GDP is how liberals look at it, just like economists, and YES, Reagan tripled the debt AFTER whining about deficits under Carter, where he quadrupled Carter's deficits!

SEE THAT LARGE INCREASE UNDER REAGAN, AS HE GUTTED FED REVENUES WITH TAX CUTS? SAME WITH DUBYA? THEN SEE HOW OBAMA'S SPIKED UP BECAUSE HE INHERITED THE BUSH SUBPRIME BUBBLE MELTDOWN? THIS WAS AFTER DUBYA GUTTED TAX REVENUES THAT CLINTON GOT BACK TO 20% OF GDP (REAGAN HAD TAKEN THEM TO 17%) , ALL THE WAY TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS (LESS THAN 15% OF GDP)

Nah, it's POLICY of Obama that created the debt right? lol

 

[Dad2three]

CONTEXT. When going to 2 UNFUNDED WARS, GIVING 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS (NOT CUTTING SPENDING) AND GIVING US UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION. Zero honesty from cons, EVER

He's president, he OWNS his UNPATRIOTIC DEBT....That's IRRESPONSIBLE, THAT'S UNPATRIOTIC! OVER $7 TRILLION!!!! He's such an economic ..... Gruber hit it on the head, Obuma voters are STUPID!

Got it, he went in and gave US 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (1 during a time of war), went to 2 wars on the credit card, gave US a Medicare expansion AND cheered on the Banksters who created ANOTHER credit bubble and bust (like Ronnie's S&L, and Harding Coolidge's depression 1.0) . Oh wait, that was Dubya, FULLY supported by the GOP/conservatives for 6+ years. Obama just inherited the shitpile

The Obomanation had 2 years of a Democratic controlled Congress and did NOTHING. You post nothing, easy to see you're an Obumble voter and subversive tree frog!

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,

WHILE DUBYA/GOP POLICY WAS TANKING THE ECONOMY, 9%+ THE LAST QUARTER OF 2008, LOSING 4+ MILLION JOBS IN 2009!!!


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days Fact Left[/QUOTE
Which is it ,,,, your Filibuster-proof Majority for 60 working days, OR your link to veto

This is impressive, anyone care to link to this actually doing that?

Sure

January 08, 2009 (12 days before Obama comes into office, working off Dubya's final F/.Y budget that started Oct 1 previous year like EVERY other Prez)

CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009


It turned out to be $1.4 trillion

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News


At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

Treasury 680 billion deficit for 2013 - Oct. 30 2013

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs

NET OF 7 MILLION SINCE COMING INTO OFFICE

I know, Obumble lied!

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama's FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term as promised. The budget also delayed the tough decisions to cut spending and reform entitlements that are needed to avoid a debt crisis.

Once more for you bubba

Sure

January 08, 2009 (12 days before Obama comes into office, working off Dubya's final F/.Y budget that started Oct 1 previous year like EVERY other Prez)

CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009


It turned out to be $1.4 trillion

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News


At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit (OBAMA'S 4TH BUDGET) is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

Treasury 680 billion deficit for 2013 - Oct. 30 2013

 

[Dad2three]

WOW!!!!

 

[Vigilante]

He's president, he OWNS his UNPATRIOTIC DEBT....That's IRRESPONSIBLE, THAT'S UNPATRIOTIC! OVER $7 TRILLION!!!! He's such an economic ..... Gruber hit it on the head, Obuma voters are STUPID!

Got it, he went in and gave US 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (1 during a time of war), went to 2 wars on the credit card, gave US a Medicare expansion AND cheered on the Banksters who created ANOTHER credit bubble and bust (like Ronnie's S&L, and Harding Coolidge's depression 1.0) . Oh wait, that was Dubya, FULLY supported by the GOP/conservatives for 6+ years. Obama just inherited the shitpile

The Obomanation had 2 years of a Democratic controlled Congress and did NOTHING. You post nothing, easy to see you're an Obumble voter and subversive tree frog!

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,

WHILE DUBYA/GOP POLICY WAS TANKING THE ECONOMY, 9%+ THE LAST QUARTER OF 2008, LOSING 4+ MILLION JOBS IN 2009!!!


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days Fact Left[/QUOTE
Which is it ,,,, your Filibuster-proof Majority for 60 working days, OR your link to veto

This is impressive, anyone care to link to this actually doing that?

Sure

January 08, 2009 (12 days before Obama comes into office, working off Dubya's final F/.Y budget that started Oct 1 previous year like EVERY other Prez)

CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009


It turned out to be $1.4 trillion

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News


At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

Treasury 680 billion deficit for 2013 - Oct. 30 2013

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs

NET OF 7 MILLION SINCE COMING INTO OFFICE

I know, Obumble lied!

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama's FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term as promised. The budget also delayed the tough decisions to cut spending and reform entitlements that are needed to avoid a debt crisis.

Once more for you bubba

Sure

January 08, 2009 (12 days before Obama comes into office, working off Dubya's final F/.Y budget that started Oct 1 previous year like EVERY other Prez)

CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009


It turned out to be $1.4 trillion

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News


At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit (OBAMA'S 4TH BUDGET) is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

Treasury 680 billion deficit for 2013 - Oct. 30 2013

What are you talking about?

President Barack Obama will be the first president in this great country who will not have passed a budget in his first term of office. He submitted a budget that was defeated by a vote of 97-0. Not a single Democrat or Republican voted for it.
In his first two years in office, instead of focusing on the economy, he passed the stimulus bill (which did not work because he pushed for clean energy), and the Affordable Healthcare Act (which had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court because it was so controversial). In fact, we had to wait until it was passed before we saw what was in it.
In 2010, the Republicans won a majority in the House, and they have submitted 33 budget bills that have been shelved by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The bills were not allowed for discussion or for a vote. The president refuses to negotiate with the Republicans.

 

[Dad2three]

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent.

Real revenues increased by 24% AND the people got to keep an additional 1.1% of GDP?

Win-Win!!!

You can do that if government grows less than GDP.

Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?

Oh yeah, STARVE THE BEAST

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.



Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?

GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit. How did that double it?
Liberal math?

"GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit"

President George H.W. Bush.

Jan. 20, 1989*: $2,697,957, 000,000
Jan. 20, 1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60

Sorry, meant to say HWBush only added about 60% in his 4 years, where Reagan had tripled it and HW 's son, Dubya had doubled the debt. Mostly inheriting Ronnie's failed voodooo economics and failed S&L crisis where Ronnie ignored the regulator warnings!!!

YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!

National Debt by President LBJ to Obama - TheStreet

 

[Vigilante]

WOW!!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, he went in and gave US 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (1 during a time of war), went to 2 wars on the credit card, gave US a Medicare expansion AND cheered on the Banksters who created ANOTHER credit bubble and bust (like Ronnie's S&L, and Harding Coolidge's depression 1.0) . Oh wait, that was Dubya, FULLY supported by the GOP/conservatives for 6+ years. Obama just inherited the shitpile

The Obomanation had 2 years of a Democratic controlled Congress and did NOTHING. You post nothing, easy to see you're an Obumble voter and subversive tree frog!

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period,

WHILE DUBYA/GOP POLICY WAS TANKING THE ECONOMY, 9%+ THE LAST QUARTER OF 2008, LOSING 4+ MILLION JOBS IN 2009!!!


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days Fact Left[/QUOTE
Which is it ,,,, your Filibuster-proof Majority for 60 working days, OR your link to veto

This is impressive, anyone care to link to this actually doing that?

Sure

January 08, 2009 (12 days before Obama comes into office, working off Dubya's final F/.Y budget that started Oct 1 previous year like EVERY other Prez)

CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009


It turned out to be $1.4 trillion

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News


At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

Treasury 680 billion deficit for 2013 - Oct. 30 2013

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS


JAN 2001 111,859,000

Jan 2008 11,5977,000 (DUBYA'S HIGH POINT 4.1 million jobs created in 7 years)


JAN 2009 111,397,000

FEB 2010 107,187,000 (DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION LOW POINT)

Dec 2014 118,402,000

Since hitting Dubya's bottom, more than 11 million private sector jobs

NET OF 7 MILLION SINCE COMING INTO OFFICE

I know, Obumble lied!

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama's FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term as promised. The budget also delayed the tough decisions to cut spending and reform entitlements that are needed to avoid a debt crisis.

Once more for you bubba

Sure

January 08, 2009 (12 days before Obama comes into office, working off Dubya's final F/.Y budget that started Oct 1 previous year like EVERY other Prez)

CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009


It turned out to be $1.4 trillion

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News


At $680 billion, the fiscal 2013 deficit (OBAMA'S 4TH BUDGET) is 51% less than it was in 2009, when it hit a record high nominally of $1.4 trillion.

Treasury 680 billion deficit for 2013 - Oct. 30 2013

What are you talking about?

President Barack Obama will be the first president in this great country who will not have passed a budget in his first term of office. He submitted a budget that was defeated by a vote of 97-0. Not a single Democrat or Republican voted for it.
In his first two years in office, instead of focusing on the economy, he passed the stimulus bill (which did not work because he pushed for clean energy), and the Affordable Healthcare Act (which had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court because it was so controversial). In fact, we had to wait until it was passed before we saw what was in it.
In 2010, the Republicans won a majority in the House, and they have submitted 33 budget bills that have been shelved by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The bills were not allowed for discussion or for a vote. The president refuses to negotiate with the Republicans.

Got it, MORE talking points


The Truth Behind The GOP's '1000 Days Without A Budget' Canard

First, Budget resolutions don't have the force of law, and they aren't the legislative tool that mandates what the government can and can not spend. That's what appropriations bills are for, and for the last 1000 days Democrats and Republicans have worked together, however acrimoniously, to devise spending plans for the government.


....But the much more important fact Republicans have left out is that the Senate passed a budget on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis last summer -- one that unlike an annual "budget resolution" has the force of law behind it. The Budget Control Act -- the law that resolved the debt limit fight -- set binding appropriations caps for this fiscal year and the next and instituted a mechanism to contain spending on domestic discretionary programs -- education, research, community health programs and the like -- through the next decade.

The Truth Behind The GOP s 1000 Days Without A Budget Canard

 

[Dad2three]

GHW Bush was no Reaganist. He actually had a brain.

Did he end the Cold War also?

Nope, neither did Reagan!