Income (in)equality in the United States

#151
#151
BigPapaVol said:
this presumes that the congress isn't the heavy in pulling purse strings, which is absolute lunacy.
Click to expand...

Actually, although you can't go by this graph alone, it does support the growth of the power of the Executive over this time frame.

It seems all those Democrat Legislatures post WWII knew a thing or two about reducing deficits....
 
#152
#152
utgibbs said:
Actually, although you can't go by this graph alone, it does support the growth of the power of the Executive over this time frame.

It seems all those Democrat Legislatures post WWII knew a thing or two about reducing deficits....
Click to expand...

you obviously don't remember how many clinton spending plans got shut down by congress.
 
#153
#153
droski said:
you obviously don't remember how many clinton spending plans got shut down by congress.
Click to expand...

Remind me.

But regardless, the point holds no water. The greatest deficit reduction in the country's history was accomplished under the longest continuous Democrat majority in the Congress - contrary to the ideology and excuses being lofted up now.
 
#154
#154
utgibbs said:
So, Reagan and Bush I and Bush II are the most guilty and obviously began this process.

:hi:

national-debt-gdp-us.gif
Click to expand...

Throw in Obama term thus far and real data instead of projected data and it shows a different picture....one that is just as worthless as this one.

Also, if you draw a trendline starting from 1950 to the present it actually has a downward slope, negating the argument of governemnt growth over the period.

We should look at external factors here and consider what if's. What if Reagan didn't have to fight the cold war and arms race? What if Clinton did? What if Reagan and Clinton switched places in history? What if Kerry had won in 2000 instead of Bush? While the president can affect the economy, deficits, etc...external factors carry a much heavier hand. As a rule, the president is at the mercy of the circumstances of his time. Personally, I don't assign too much blame to deficits under Reagan/Bush/Obama...and I don't give too much credit for successes under Kennedy and Nixon.
 
#155
#155
rjd970 said:
Throw in Obama term thus far and real data instead of projected data and it shows a different picture....one that is just as worthless as this one.

Also, if you draw a trendline starting from 1950 to the present it actually has a downward slope, negating the argument of governemnt growth over the period.

We should look at external factors here and consider what if's. What if Reagan didn't have to fight the cold war and arms race? What if Clinton did? What if Reagan and Clinton switched places in history? What if Kerry had won in 2000 instead of Bush? While the president can affect the economy, deficits, etc...external factors carry a much heavier hand. As a rule, the president is at the mercy of the circumstances of his time. Personally, I don't assign too much blame to deficits under Reagan/Bush/Obama...and I don't give too much credit for successes under Kennedy and Nixon.
Click to expand...

Wow.

Obama would be on the Reagan + Bushes trajectory. No one has denied that. Clinton, as I said, benefited from the maturation of the most convivial technology of the modern era - the microchip.

Truman BEGAN the Cold War with NSM 68 or whatever declaring the permanent war footing. I personally feel Truman / Reagan / Bush II are in a real fight to see which is the worst president of all time. And yet, despite astronomic debt from WWII and Great Depression, Truman and every other President afterwards decreased the deficit relative to the National Household Income.
 
#156
#156
utgibbs said:
Wow.

Obama would be on the Reagan + Bushes trajectory. No one has denied that. Clinton, as I said, benefited from the maturation of the most convivial technology of the modern era - the microchip.

Truman BEGAN the Cold War with NSM 68 or whatever declaring the permanent war footing. I personally feel Truman / Reagan / Bush II are in a real fight to see which is the worst president of all time. And yet, despite astronomic debt from WWII and Great Depression, Truman and every other President afterwards decreased the deficit relative to the National Household Income.
Click to expand...

You do realize the difference between debt and deficit, right?

What in the hell does the debt from WWII have to do with deficits relative to household income in the 50's? Given that we were not paying for two overseas wars anymore and the economy was booming during the 50's, it would make sense the deficit would decrease. It had little to do with Truman himself.
 
#157
#157
utgibbs said:
Wow.

Obama would be on the Reagan + Bushes trajectory. No one has denied that. Clinton, as I said, benefited from the maturation of the most convivial technology of the modern era - the microchip.

Truman BEGAN the Cold War with NSM 68 or whatever declaring the permanent war footing. I personally feel Truman / Reagan / Bush II are in a real fight to see which is the worst president of all time. And yet, despite astronomic debt from WWII and Great Depression, Truman and every other President afterwards decreased the deficit relative to the National Household Income.
Click to expand...

the fact that you left Carter off the list says much about your absolute and undeniable inability to be objective. Haven't been yet, but I was holding out some hope.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top