The Myth of Republican Fiscal Responsibility

#101
#101
droski said:
the fact is that americans got richer under reagan. i very much doubt that is going to happen under obama.
Click to expand...


Lots of people lost their azzes as well. Remember the S&L crisis and the junk bond crash? Remember October 1987??? Ask how it worked out for Met Life, Equitable and New York Life, etc???
 
#102
#102
truefan said:
Lots of people lost their azzes as well. Remember the S&L crisis and the junk bond crash? Remember October 1987??? Ask how it worked out for Met Life, Equitable and New York Life, etc???
Click to expand...

are we going to blame clinton for long term capital or the russian debt crisis? s- happens.
 
#104
#104
truefan said:
Lots of people lost their azzes as well. Remember the S&L crisis and the junk bond crash? Remember October 1987??? Ask how it worked out for Met Life, Equitable and New York Life, etc???
Click to expand...
there will never, ever be a president who doesn't preside over some one off financial meltdowns. That's just part of economics.

The S&L crisis was a disaster, but the solution was well done and a blueprint for fixing this latest disaster, but we've essentially ignored everything but the name.

How did the junk bonds crash? People wanted Milken's hide for making too much money, but all he did is use historical default rates to make people realize that the returns in junk debt more than offset the potential risks. Loads bought into it and were paid beautifully for so doing.

The crash of 1987 was an oddball and happened worldwide, but getting to the bottom of it was tough. Regardless, do you recall that the market was actually up for 1987?
 
#105
#105
BigPapaVol said:
Bush wasn't remotely fiscally responsible. Bush I raised freaking taxes for you. What else did you want him to do? Clearly that was genius for you. Granted, 1991 saw credit markets similar to what we see today.

Reagan simply took the most disastrous inflation environment in American history, reversed it, over the shouts of as partisan a dem congress as history has produced and grew the economy like it was post WWII. He ramped up spending to kill the Soviets and couldn't ever get Tip to agree to cutting enough horsecrap gov't offices.

Now, which president are you going to tout as fiscally responsible? Clinton?
Click to expand...

Debt as a % of GDP and overall debt is the statistics I am working with. If Reagan was fiscally responsible he wouldn't have been cutting taxes while spending like he did. I agree that the spending needed to be done during the cold war, but his tax policy didn't come remotely close to paying for it.

And yes, I get it. It was all Carter's fault for giving him a recession, and despite the numbers, Clinton was a fiscal idiot who benefited from Reagan, blah, blah, blah.

The stuff I keep hearing from you guys is smoke and mirrors IMO. The numbers don't lie. I am not against tax breaks, I am for them, but only when it makes sense. Bush had the right idea post 911, but he spent out of our means. Reagan is the same way, but his spending was more justified, IMO. In neither case, did this tax breaks pay for themselves, much less the increased spending. Likewise, I don't see this latest spending bill as good for economic growth.

Look at the historical data. If you are going to spend, you need to tax and sacrifice economic growth. Likewise, if you want economic growth, you need to cut spending and decrease taxes.

Therein lies the problem. When it comes to economic growth and fiscal responsibility the R's think they can have their cake and eat it too with tax breaks, and the dems think they can as well with increase spending.

Now let's hear how Reagan did it right so Clinton's presidency could look better.....
 
#107
#107
BO is raising the taxes on couples making over 250k. Bush lowered the taxes for this bracket and BO is raising the tax rate back to where it was.
 
#109
#109
rjd970 said:
Debt as a % of GDP and overall debt is the statistics I am working with. If Reagan was fiscally responsible he wouldn't have been cutting taxes while spending like he did. I agree
Click to expand...


If the U.S. applied to join the EU it could not because it's debt ratio is too high currently.
 
#112
#112
rjd970 said:
Debt as a % of GDP and overall debt is the statistics I am working with. If Reagan was fiscally responsible he wouldn't have been cutting taxes while spending like he did. I agree that the spending needed to be done during the cold war, but his tax policy didn't come remotely close to paying for it.

you might do a bit of homework on Reagan's positions on much of the spending that was approved. He advocated any and all military spending, but he wanted the rest to take the hammer.

 And yes, I get it. It was all Carter's fault for giving him a recession, and despite the numbers, Clinton was a fiscal idiot who benefited from Reagan, blah, blah, blah.

I didn't blame Carter or dismiss Clinton. I asked who you hold up and if you'd like to dispute the inflationary environment wrt Carter, please do. Now hold up your hero and I'm willing to bet that I can unequivocally drop the hammer on him. Statistically, Clinton looks phenomenal. Realistically, he was aided by a virulently anti-Bill congress who legitimately had a mandate from the peeps.

 The stuff I keep hearing from you guys is smoke and mirrors IMO. The numbers don't lie. I am not against tax breaks, I am for them, but only when it makes sense. Bush had the right idea post 911, but he spent out of our means. Reagan is the same way, but his spending was more justified, IMO. In neither case, did this tax breaks pay for themselves, much less the increased spending. Likewise, I don't see this latest spending bill as good for economic growth.

It is absurd to try and say the tax breaks didn't pay for themselves. You have no merit to that argument either. Reagan's absolutely paid for themselves, as you might see that governmental tax receipts skyrocketed during his presidency, even after the first three years of essentially stagflation and brutal monetary policy. Increased governmental spending will never pay for itself and that has been the downfall of every president that increased it.

Look at the historical data. If you are going to spend, you need to tax and sacrifice economic growth. Likewise, if you want economic growth, you need to cut spending and decrease taxes.

Had Reagan taxed to support his G spending, we would be in an altogether different place today. The disaster he inherited would have become another great depression. Again, he spurred the economy to unbelievable heights toward the end of his admin and was the catalyst for the growth of the Clinton era. That doesn't diminish Clinton, but certainly his surpluses weren't the product of investment that his own policies induced.

Therein lies the problem. When it comes to economic growth and fiscal responsibility the R's think they can have their cake and eat it too with tax breaks, and the dems think they can as well with increase spending.

Now let's hear how Reagan did it right so Clinton's presidency could look better.....
Click to expand...
Since you've got this all figure out, point to me one single policy of Clinton's that ushered in the tech boom? One single policy. One single investor that made the decision to do so because Clinton made it more palatable to do so. One.

Maybe the federalize healthcare that he pushed so hard. Maybe the Obama-esque giveaway programs that he had in mind. Maybe the tax hikes on the wealthy that he was after.

Maybe you'll walk me through the story about Clinton getting absolutely murdered in his first midterm election, even though the economy was improving and he had yet to actually get anything done?
 
#113
#113
truefan said:
Exactly. This particular tax cut did NOTHING to stimulate the economy
Click to expand...
that's patently retarded. Do you recall the beating that the overall economy took after 9-11? Do you recall muddling through that? Sans a real estate explosion, via a truckload of investment and low rates, we'd still be fighting off that one.
 
#114
#114
droski said:
please explain how a tax cut to anyone could possibly do "NOTHING" to stimulate the economy. do you understand how economics works at all?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand it very well. AT LEAST AS WELL AS YOU....LOL....more than likely, much better.

The Bush tax cut to the ultra wealthy DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY TO ANY SIGNIFICANCE. You can think you understand it, but unless you look at results, you don't understand it. In fact, I am one who should be asking the question of you.
 
#115
#115
Clinton reduced the size of govt his entire presidency. That was Al Gore's main responsibilty as VP, find ways to reduce the size of govt.

Republicans controlled Congress when Clinton was President and when Bush was. Bush's record isn't looking good at the moment.
 
#116
#116
Clinton reduced the size of govt his entire presidency. That was Al Gore's main responsibilty as VP, find ways to reduce the size of govt.

Republicans controlled Congress when Clinton was President and when Bush was. Bush's record isn't looking good at the moment.
Click to expand...


Neither is Obama's.
 
#117
#117
oklavol said:
Clinton reduced the size of govt his entire presidency. That was Al Gore's main responsibilty as VP, find ways to reduce the size of govt.

Republicans controlled Congress when Clinton was President and when Bush was. Bush's record isn't looking good at the moment.
Click to expand...
can you even mildly support this comment.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#118
#118
truefan said:
Yes, I understand it very well. AT LEAST AS WELL AS YOU....LOL....more than likely, much better.

The Bush tax cut to the ultra wealthy DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY TO ANY SIGNIFICANCE. You can think you understand it, but unless you look at results, you don't understand it. In fact, I am one who should be asking the question of you.
Click to expand...

define "any significance." Argue the tax cuts weren't the right thing to do. fine. but don't tell me that billions of more $$$ in american's pockets don't stimulate the economy. even wackjob liberal economists like laura tyson wouldn't make such an idiotic statement. it's pretty simple the more money people have, teh more they spend, the more they spend the more the economy expands. is this really that complicated?
 
#119
#119
BigPapaVol said:
Since you've got this all figure out, point to me one single policy of Clinton's that ushered in the tech boom? One single policy. One single investor that made the decision to do so because Clinton made it more palatable to do so. One.

Maybe the federalize healthcare that he pushed so hard. Maybe the Obama-esque giveaway programs that he had in mind. Maybe the tax hikes on the wealthy that he was after.

Maybe you'll walk me through the story about Clinton getting absolutely murdered in his first midterm election, even though the economy was improving and he had yet to actually get anything done?
Click to expand...

I don't care about Clinton. He had a Congress that held him in check. I never said otherwise. I'm not going to name any other president because none of them manage economic growth and fiscal responsibility at the same time. Even Clinton, looking at the GDP growth numbers over his administration, stayed fairly constant, but fiscally he looks pretty good. Again, Reagan was great for economic growth, but was a disaster fiscally.

You obviously didn't read my post, or your "tax breaks solve everything" glasses glossed over it.

Here is the crux of my position, again:

If you are going to spend, you need to tax and sacrifice economic growth. Likewise, if you want economic growth, you need to cut spending and decrease taxes.
Click to expand...

Show me one solitary piece of evidence that cutting taxes generates economic growth AND has a positive fiscal effect. It will be about as easy as it would be for me to show you that raising taxes has a positive fiscal effect AND generates economic growth. Cutting spending is the key, and always will be the key, to being fiscally responsible and generating economic growth and the same time. Plain and simple.

Reagan's administration paid for its economic growth with rising deficits and debt, and Clinton's administration had net stagnant economic growth as collateral for its fiscal management.
 
#120
#120
oklavol said:
Clinton reduced the size of govt his entire presidency. That was Al Gore's main responsibilty as VP, find ways to reduce the size of govt.

Republicans controlled Congress when Clinton was President and when Bush was. Bush's record isn't looking good at the moment.
Click to expand...

And intelligence and military suffered heavily because of it. Not blaming Clinton or his policies for 9-11 but this certainly didn't help matters.

Also don't forget that Democrats had control for the last couple of years and have done no better, the polls actually showed they did worse.
 
#121
#121
oklavol said:
Clinton reduced the size of govt his entire presidency. That was Al Gore's main responsibilty as VP, find ways to reduce the size of govt.
Click to expand...

I'm with the others here - please show something to support this claim. The table I linked earlier in this thread shows that government outlays (spending) went up every year of the Clinton presidency.
 
#122
#122
BigPapaVol said:
Since you've got this all figure out, point to me one single policy of Clinton's that ushered in the tech boom? One single policy. One single investor that made the decision to do so because Clinton made it more palatable to do so. One.

Maybe the federalize healthcare that he pushed so hard. Maybe the Obama-esque giveaway programs that he had in mind. Maybe the tax hikes on the wealthy that he was after.

Maybe you'll walk me through the story about Clinton getting absolutely murdered in his first midterm election, even though the economy was improving and he had yet to actually get anything done?
Click to expand...

The part I'm speaking about didn't quote, but Reagan entered office when the economic issues under Carter were subsiding. Volker's contraction of money supply (during Carter) and the beginning of the oil glut really pulled the economy out of recession. I'm not speaking for or against cutting taxes -- I simply haven't done enough research -- but I firmly believe Reaganomics is vastly overblown as to it's real impact.

If we are truly talking about "fiscal responsibility" -- it simply doesn't exist. I don't care what your politics are, but fiscal responsibility is just as much about where you put the money as restraining spending. I don't know I've ever seen either side do both at the same time.
 
#124
#124
truefan said:
He has been in office a month. Making such a claim is utterly ridiculous and positively stupid
Click to expand...

Being in office for one month and signing this spending bill is a really bad start don't you think?
 
#125
#125
until reagan told the american people that inflation would drop and they believed it volkers contraction of the money supply didn't do crap. obama should take a lesson about the power of positive thought when it comes to the presidentcy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top