(10-15-2015 03:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: You know, I agree with Tulsi Gabbard.. Lets have a debate every week on the Dem side.
These won't hurt the Dems.
Indeed.
In three months everything will be free and the annual budget will be close to $100 trillion.
But ya know.....some people lap up that hot air rhetorical nonsense.
Funny thing..budget deficits go DOWN under Democrats and go up under Republicans.
Budget deficits go down under a republican congress, up under a democratic congress, and through the f&ing roof under a democratic white house and congress.
"Budget deficits go down under a republican congress, up under a democratic congress, and through the f&ing roof under a democratic white house and congress."
Not trying to be confrontational but they explode when one party controls all 3. Republicans don't hold any high ground in that regard.
(10-16-2015 06:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: "Budget deficits go down under a republican congress, up under a democratic congress, and through the f&ing roof under a democratic white house and congress."
Not trying to be confrontational but they explode when one party controls all 3. Republicans don't hold any high ground in that regard.
Not true last time republicans held all 3, 2003-06.
But you make a valid general point. This country doesn't fare well under single-party control. Gridlock works far better than letting either party have its way, because both parties are stark raving nuts.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2015 07:46 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
10-16-2015 06:17 AM
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,179
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Its a darn shame what Bush inherited and what he left us with. Our nation has such a short memory. Look at the budgets that W inherited and look at how he spoiled that. Pathetic.
(10-16-2015 07:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: Its a darn shame what Bush inherited and what he left us with. Our nation has such a short memory. Look at the budgets that W inherited and look at how he spoiled that. Pathetic.
Yep, he inherited an economy on a downward trend (GDP growth was dropping in the third and fourth quarters of 2000) and the start (in March 2000) of a collapsing stock market. Then there was that inconvenient event on 9/11.
What is pathetic is your inability to see reality. Clinton left Bush an economic mess.
The Federal Reserve's interest rate policies of the last seven years and their quanitative easing has saved the US about $350 billion each of the last seven years. That's the difference between what the US would have had to pay in debt service on the national debt at the rate in 2008, compared with the actual rates of the last seven.
In effect, the Fed saved the national debt $2.5 trillion.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2015 08:42 AM by QuestionSocratic.)
(10-16-2015 07:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: Its a darn shame what Bush inherited and what he left us with. Our nation has such a short memory. Look at the budgets that W inherited and look at how he spoiled that. Pathetic.
Clinton did very little to "earn" those budget surpluses. It was due to massive productivity gains due to hardware, software and the dot.com revolution converging at the same time. Combine those economic facts with the relative quiet that the U.S. experienced prior to the global terrorist threats and there you go. Seriously, what did the gov't do that resulted in that economic boom? Very little if anything.
Not pointing fingers at any single party, but look at how they reacted to the booming economy. They assumed that it would last forever and did not take into account that sooner or later, either the reason for the boom will run its course and those gains taper off or an exogenous supply shock changes the dynamic completely.
You do realize that the people who are most attracted to politics are corrupt by nature, cannot earn their money in the real world or desire power to make decisions for everyone else. It doesn't matter what party. Even with the LP party, their politicians are largely idealist and more "pure". But the moment they become mainstream - watch out. It turns into a deathwatch to wait for how long it will take until the party "dies" and it's rotting corpse is reanimated and turns into a flesh eating parasite like the other mainstream parties.
(10-16-2015 07:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: Its a darn shame what Bush inherited and what he left us with. Our nation has such a short memory. Look at the budgets that W inherited and look at how he spoiled that. Pathetic.
Yep, he inherited an economy on a downward trend (GDP growth was dropping in the third and fourth quarters of 2000) and the start (in March 2000) of a collapsing stock market. Then there was that inconvenient event on 9/11.
What is pathetic is your inability to see reality. Clinton left Bush an economic mess.
Well, there was a war as well. Actually 2.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2015 09:01 AM by bullet.)
(10-16-2015 08:39 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: The Federal Reserve's interest rate policies of the last seven years and their quanitative easing has saved the US about $350 billion each of the last seven years. That's the difference between what the US would have had to pay in debt service on the national debt at the rate in 2008, compared with the actual rates of the last seven.
In effect, the Fed saved the national debt $2.5 trillion.
That's one side of the equation. At one point Japan's rates were actually negative... (not really, but functionally). Low interest rates isn't a sign of a strong economy. It is easily arguable that these same actions were caused by or resulted in a reduction of economic activity worth at least that much. Printing money isn't without cost.
(10-16-2015 08:42 AM)miko33 Wrote: Clinton did very little to "earn" those budget surpluses. It was due to massive productivity gains due to hardware, software and the dot.com revolution converging at the same time.
In fairness, A lot of this was funded by Clinton's massive expansion of the mortgage market... people doing federally subsidized (both to the borrower AND lender) cash-out refinancing to invest in dot coms.... which of course lead to the collapse.
You can't give blame OR credit to any one person or action, but you can certainly see things that impacted them. The key is to look for both the pros AND the cons of these actions... though most often, people merely choose to focus on one or the other aspect because it supports 'their team'.
10-16-2015 10:59 AM
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,179
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
The saddest part of this hyper partisan era we find ourselves in is we can't even look at a chart and give credit where it is due. I have zero interest in arguing with people at this time in my life. I actually even dipped my pinkie toe into the stagnant swamp by saying that I wasn't trying to be confrontational. It is my belief the W was the worst economic steward of our nations economy in my lifetime. I can show you graphs that back up my school of thought. It falls upon deaf ears. I don't know how we reconcile it. We look at the same graphs and we come up with spin to justify our thoughts. It's actually pretty discouraging when you think about it. Those tax cuts didn't pay for themselves.
(10-16-2015 12:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: The saddest part of this hyper partisan era we find ourselves in is we can't even look at a chart and give credit where it is due. I have zero interest in arguing with people at this time in my life. I actually even dipped my pinkie toe into the stagnant swamp by saying that I wasn't trying to be confrontational. It is my belief the W was the worst economic steward of our nations economy in my lifetime. I can show you graphs that back up my school of thought. It falls upon deaf ears. I don't know how we reconcile it. We look at the same graphs and we come up with spin to justify our thoughts. It's actually pretty discouraging when you think about it. Those tax cuts didn't pay for themselves.
Part of the problem Mach is that you assume simple charts can tell a complicated picture..
Seriously. The national debt has **Doubled** under Obama that kind of "paying it forward" can cover up a lot of economic weakness.
(10-16-2015 12:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: The saddest part of this hyper partisan era we find ourselves in is we can't even look at a chart and give credit where it is due. I have zero interest in arguing with people at this time in my life. I actually even dipped my pinkie toe into the stagnant swamp by saying that I wasn't trying to be confrontational. It is my belief the W was the worst economic steward of our nations economy in my lifetime. I can show you graphs that back up my school of thought. It falls upon deaf ears. I don't know how we reconcile it. We look at the same graphs and we come up with spin to justify our thoughts. It's actually pretty discouraging when you think about it. Those tax cuts didn't pay for themselves.
Tax cuts do not need to pay for themselves. They are not a cost. That line of thinking is why we have the deficits we do. Just like how raising taxes does not necessarily lead to more income, reducing taxes does not mean reducing income.
The issue during the Bush administration wasnt tax dollars flowing into the treasury. We had plenty of that. It was tax dollars being wasted. Same as today.
Short answer. Reduce taxes and quit f&ing with rates. Then reduce spending to below those levels and quit f*&ing with that.
Wars are really, really, really expensive. Thus the huge deficits of the Bush era. The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for that decade. They went full retard. As soon as Republicans admit that, the better off that party will be.
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2015 12:58 PM by shiftyeagle.)
(10-16-2015 07:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: Its a darn shame what Bush inherited and what he left us with. Our nation has such a short memory. Look at the budgets that W inherited and look at how he spoiled that. Pathetic.
Yep, he inherited an economy on a downward trend (GDP growth was dropping in the third and fourth quarters of 2000) and the start (in March 2000) of a collapsing stock market. Then there was that inconvenient event on 9/11.
What is pathetic is your inability to see reality. Clinton left Bush an economic mess.
Well, there was a war as well. Actually 2.
And at that time the Democrats tacked on lots of extra spending items for various things before allowing any money to fund the Iraq war and Bush went along with it too. even up through 2007 votes were held up until the extra funding of other programs were included in the spending bills. Google it if You must.
(10-16-2015 12:45 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: The saddest part of this hyper partisan era we find ourselves in is we can't even look at a chart and give credit where it is due. I have zero interest in arguing with people at this time in my life. I actually even dipped my pinkie toe into the stagnant swamp by saying that I wasn't trying to be confrontational. It is my belief the W was the worst economic steward of our nations economy in my lifetime. I can show you graphs that back up my school of thought. It falls upon deaf ears. I don't know how we reconcile it. We look at the same graphs and we come up with spin to justify our thoughts. It's actually pretty discouraging when you think about it. Those tax cuts didn't pay for themselves.
Part of the problem Mach is that you assume simple charts can tell a complicated picture..
Seriously. The national debt has **Doubled** under Obama that kind of "paying it forward" can cover up a lot of economic weakness.
Indeed.
Something that is amazingly overlooked or underestimated is the impact the 9/11 attacks had on our economy. The discussions are instead all about the wars.
September 10th, 2001 I owned, had an interest in, was a partner in or investor in 5-6 different businesses/ventures.
Within 6 months we had liquidated or shuttered all but 2.
