They see this ideologically, i.e. not politically

"They see this ideologically, i.e. not politically. But the political facts are these. Federal tax revenues are at a 50-year low; marginal rates are lower for many than they were when Reagan was president. In a divided government, any achievement requires some sacrifice from both sides. And yet the GOP is insisting that its side offers no sacrifice, even as the other party controls the Senate and the White House. Their own party, moreover, contributed dramatically to the debt we now face. And there is no clear evidence that raising revenues will lead to economic decline. Ronald Reagan's tax hike to deal with a much smaller debt in 1982, as Bruce Bartlett shows, preceded a burst in growth. The tough budget calls, including tax hikes, of GHW Bush and Bill Clinton led the way to economic growth far outpassing that after George W. Bush's bankrupting tax cut.

The notion that no revenues can be raised in the current crisis is, quite simply, nuts."

read the rest

report |
reckoner said almost 4 years ago ...

"Most of our debt came from non war spending after Obama got the credit card."

Nope. It's rather surprising to see where it came from. Wow, Reagan and Bush.

reckoner said almost 4 years ago ...

with obama

d6fer said almost 4 years ago ...

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data source

sean_renaud said almost 4 years ago ...

Just stop and think for a moment D6. Does the claim you're making even sound possible to you? Forget plausible does it even sound possible or do you think some very interesting data was punched into the system to come up with an answer that looks like that?

reckoner said almost 4 years ago ...

And Bush of course did the same.

This shows the sort of blinders that many have. The first year of Obama was pretty much a continuation of the Bush policies. We had two wars, a failed economy, and the Bush tax cuts. That alone accounts for most of the problem. The only thing Obama did in this time was the bailout. This of course is exactly what Bush did as well. And very few honest and sane people believe we should have let the banks fail.

So I'm not really sure what d6 is getting at. That Bush left a giant mess? That we should have let the banks fail and probably gone into another great depression? Or is it just a meaningless way to score political points. You know, gotcha politics.

sean_renaud said almost 4 years ago ...

Except neither did that. For what reason would we start measuring all the debt acculmilated over two hundred plus years from a low point? It seems the debt was higher under Roosevelt/Truman than it is now. Why is that arbitrarily not called debt for the sake of this argument? Sure we were well on way to paying it back but unless the claim is being made here that Reagan and the Bush's and Obama each spent more than the combined and that Clinton through slick willy magic managed to spend less than any president the statement itself is based on at best interesting cherry picking of facts.

"At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers."

The previous statement is simply false. It's like claiming that if your parents buy a house and spend thirty years paying down the mortgage until the house is paid for and you add a garage door that you've increased the debt more than any of the previous owners. You did no such thing in real terms. That's the other thing that people never seem to bring up. We were deeper in the hole than this in the past and had Reagan simply left things as they were we would probably have eliminated the debt entirely, more to the point it took just forty years. So we're only passing this debt to our grandchildren if A you're so damn old your grandkids are already part of the situation or damn near or B if we consciously choose to pass the buck. No reason why we can't pay down our debt like our Grandparents did.

There's also the troublesome fact that the 2009 budget was a Bush Budget not an Obama one. So 9 months of much of that spending (including TARP) wasn't actually Obama.

reckoner said almost 4 years ago ...

yup, it's Bush's legacy.

"O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired."

Also, if we want to be honest we should look at it as a percentage of GDP.

Join our friendly Yakkstr community in 1 Easy Step
  • Meet Like Minded People
  • Share your thoughts with others who share your interests
  • No assholes to deal with, we keep them out
Join Now by writing your first comment below

Related Posts
Religious Nutter
Shirley Phelps-Roper
last by superbozo almost 4 years ago
The problem with politics in this country
d6fer said, "liberalism begets degenerate behavior."
last by sean_renaud over 3 years ago
The Things I Should Not Do -- I Do
I think it was Paul who said, somewhere in the New Testament, that he did the things he should not do and did not do the things he should do. That is the very definition of our government today. Thanks to Liberals / Democrats / Socialists (like
19 comments Last Page
last by sean_renaud over 3 years ago
I am not lost
I am here, just not
last by quietone over 4 years ago
I am so pissed at this woman I though was my friend! I cannot believe this is happening.
last by zsuzsio about 4 years ago

Remember me

New? Sign up here.
reckoner commented 16 days ago on
yeah, i feel the same a bit. One of the things I'm thinking about is making it more of a .... permanent discussion on topics. I.e. rather than talking about global warming for the 100th time, there is one organized and structured discussion of that topic read the rest
reckoner commented 17 days ago on
Shot in the back by the police
And we can admit that there is a racial bias in it read the rest
reckoner commented 17 days ago on
Shot in the back by the police
it is justice. but my question is how often this happens when there is no camera recording it. If this video didn't exist, you would insist that this "thug" tried to kill the cop, that the cop was scared for his life, and that this was justified. read the rest
reckoner commented 19 days ago on
Business fleeing red state bigotry
only old people watch news t.v. anymore read the rest
reckoner commented 20 days ago on
Business fleeing red state bigotry
I'm happy to have big company CEOs in the liberal camp. The republican party is shrinking fast! Let's be honest here, the social conservatives are hurting the party at this point. That is what you see happening. Our culture has moved read the rest
reckoner commented 20 days ago on
Minimum wage and government meddling
I beleive that in America you should not have to live in poverty if you work a full time read the rest
reckoner commented 20 days ago on
Where's the outrage?
I'm working on the new yakkstr. Stay read the rest
reckoner commented 21 days ago on
Business fleeing red state bigotry
even business is against the republican party these read the rest
reckoner commented 21 days ago on
Can we all agree that Fox has no integrity?
"You don't watch O'Riley to get the News, you watch to hear opinions" And don't you expect those opinions to have integrity? Isn't it a problem for Fox if it's got an integrity problem. Are you admitting they have no integrity on their opinion read the rest
reckoner commented 21 days ago on
Can we all agree that Fox has no integrity?
So you are saying it's OK for O'reilly to lie, and that his viewers know he's a read the rest