The Republicans are the Problem

[Penumbra]

Seeing how the Obama administration has spent as much money in one term as GWB did in two terms in office, you are making my point very well.

If not for the obstructionists, we would have spent even more. In 2014 when most of Obamacare kicks in, we will step up spending beyond that.

Many people subscribe to the theory of raising taxes to solve this problem, but they ignore the glaring fact that increased taxes and raised revenue are two different things. Compare California and Texas for example.

What we want is for people to pay more taxes not higher taxes, these are two different things.

Raising taves never improves an economy. A better economy increases the number of haves and decreases the number of have nots who are a burden on the government.

The economy tanked at the end of GWB's 8 years. Obama inherited the mess.

Reagan dramatically increased the national debt, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP (after debt as a percentage of GDP had been falling for decades), in part because he started with a recession.

Can you provide an example of a recent U.S. administration that you think did an ok job, economically speaking?

We have a spending problem not a tax problem.

Can you demonstrate this by comparing US spending as a percentage of GDP to other countries, or is this being presented as an opinion rather than a fact?

The U.S.A. has the highest corporate tax in the world.

I favor significantly lower corporate taxes.

 

[Penumbra]

Some people believe we should tax more. I don't see how throwing money at the government which consistently spends it irresponsibly is a solution to any problem.

We could cut spending and provide good health care. The fact is that politicians don't want good healthcare for everyone. Either republican or democrat. Far too many with loud voices profit off of our current system to simply let it die.

People vote into office politicians that spend money, and then vote in politicians that don't want to tax for that spending. Can't have both.

And polls show things like how most people don't want drastic social security cuts, don't want drastic medicare cuts, don't want drastic defense cuts, and yet don't want higher taxes for themselves. I think people have become used to increasing debt as a percentage of GDP for the last 30 years like a big credit card.

income difference is great because education difference is great. The work and contribution of a CEO to a company is many time that of the average worker in a company.

I don't think you clicked through to the link I provided there, because the link shows that CEO pay compared to average worker pay has increased dramatically over the last few decades. It's not just a matter of CEO's earning more, it's a matter of the ratio between CEO pay and average worker pay widening substantially.

No one party or individual is responsible for such things. America as a whole is.

I agree, though members of both parties have historically supported different policies to different degrees, and not all policies are equally as effective.

Isn't part of this problem the fact that people see their options as being solely Republicans or Democrats?

I would much prefer it if we had a 3 or 4 party system.

In a 2 party system, the party that is currently out of power has no incentive to do anything good for the country. But in a 3+ party system, an individual party cannot benefit merely from making one other party look bad; they must make their own party look good.

A healthy government is one that is slow to action and heavy in deliberation.

We got here only after the Dems were in charge...

A decade ago we had a budget surplus. Unpaid for wars and tax cuts for the wealthy occurred, as well as a moderate recession, and then after years and years of no corrective action, the budget deficits grew, and debt as a percentage of GDP increased.

What good would it do to compromise to the people who, when in charge, couldn't get what they wanted done? Suppose you disagree with someone. Your voice in the argument was essentially muted and the someone you disagreed with could have had their way with you.

Now you get a greater voice, why would you compromise? Any success of the current Republicans is linked to the failure of the Democrats who proceeded them.

I say throw the whole lot out. The true problem with the political game is that it is riddled with party loyalties. Not loyalty to constituents, or loyalty to human benefit, but loyalty to parties. Because at the end of the day, parties control who gets elected, the people only have a minor say. And this, my friends, is the problem.

I agree that voting along with party lines is a problem.

It's not "the" problem, though. It's "a" problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you provide an example of a recent U.S. administration that you think did an ok job, economically speaking?

Two regimes worked well for us economically:
- The period when Clinton cooperated with Gingrich to reduce regulation.....albeit for 1 year.
- Reagan's reign, when we traded away many tax dysfunctional dodge schemes (eg, accelerated depreciation) in exchange for lower marginal income tax rates, & curbed excessive union power.

 

[T-Dawg]

Two regimes worked well for us economically:
- The period when Clinton cooperated with Gingrich to reduce regulation.....albeit for 1 year.
- Reagan's reign, when we traded away many tax dysfunctional dodge schemes (eg, accelerated depreciation) in exchange for lower marginal income tax rates, & curbed excessive union power.

But Reagan's reign was terrible for us economically, especially in the long run . Reagan was a dangerous man who brought down regulations that had been keeping another Depression from happening, and an evil man who lowered taxes on the wealthy.

 

[Penumbra]

Two regimes worked well for us economically:
- The period when Clinton cooperated with Gingrich to reduce regulation.....albeit for 1 year.

I view Clinton's overall presidency as solid in the way of economics, though to be fair, he led during a time of great technological advancement. The country had a budget surplus towards the end of his presidency. Maybe without two wars and unnecessary tax cuts, by the next administration, we wouldn't be in quite the budget mess we're in.

However, some troubles under Clinton's presidency are:

-Both Republicans and Democrats passed a law, repealing part of the Glass-Steagall act, and Clinton signed it, which helped lead to bank consolidation. It has been argued by many that this was a direct contributor to the financial collapse that occurred as the early stage of this recession.

-The U.S. trade deficit ballooned during these years. It was a fairly small deficit prior to his presidency, but it increased many times over into a rather alarming trade deficit through Clinton's presidency and most of Bush's. It leveled out a bit under Bush, and significantly reduced under Obama, but much of this was probably due to the recession rather than an actual improvement.

- Reagan's reign, when we traded away many tax dysfunctional dodge schemes (eg, accelerated depreciation) in exchange for lower marginal income tax rates, & curbed excessive union power.

The national debt as a percentage of GDP radically increased under Reagan.

Prior to that, from the end of WW2 to the beginning of Reagan's presidency, under a mix of moderate Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, and a Democrat Congress, the national debt as a percentage of GDP had consistently fallen. Under Regan and the new mixed Congress, the national debt increased dramatically, both in absolute dollar terms, and as a percentage of GDP. To be fair to Reagan, he did inherit a problematic recession, but he basically got the country out of it by charging it to the national credit card. I don't see how he can be considered a good president, economically speaking, if his two terms ended with radically increased national debt levels, compared to what he started with.

 

[Revoltingest]

But Reagan's reign was terrible for us economically, especially in the long run . Reagan was a dangerous man who brought down regulations that had been keeping another Depression from happening, and an evil man who lowered taxes on the wealthy.

Federal regulation increased every year during his reign, going by the volume in the CFR.
(I never said he was perfect.)
I welcome your contrary evidence.

 

[TheKnight]

Can you demonstrate this by comparing US spending as a percentage of GDP to other countries, or is this being presented as an opinion rather than a fact?

Our spending problem is not that we spend too much, but that we don't spend effectively.

People vote into office politicians that spend money, and then vote in politicians that don't want to tax for that spending. Can't have both.

And polls show things like how most people don't want drastic social security cuts, don't want drastic medicare cuts, don't want drastic defense cuts, and yet don't want higher taxes for themselves. I think people have become used to increasing debt as a percentage of GDP for the last 30 years like a big credit card.

I agree. You cannot have both. In our current situation we could certainly use less spending and more taxing. And if not less spending, then more efficient spending.

I don't think you clicked through to the link I provided there, because the link shows that CEO pay compared to average worker pay has increased dramatically over the last few decades. It's not just a matter of CEO's earning more, it's a matter of the ratio between CEO pay and average worker pay widening substantially.

I have no qualms about what CEO's make. A person should be able to make what they want from a company of which they are in charge. I see no reason to cap what a CEO makes based on the sole fact that not everyone can make that. Is it fair? No, it isn't. But life isn't fair and the government's job is not to make life fair. It is to keep us free.

I agree, though members of both parties have historically supported different policies to different degrees, and not all policies are equally as effective.

There's been a pretty consistent handover rate since WW2 and neither party's policies dazzle me.

I would much prefer it if we had a 3 or 4 party system.

Why must there be parties at all?

Ahh yes, factions as mentioned by Madison...can't live with em can't live without them.

I don't care about parties, I care about options. I care about politicians being able to be elected running on the things that people want, not based on party lines and agendas.

I agree that voting along with party lines is a problem.

It's not "the" problem, though. It's "a" problem.

Perhaps it is best viewed as a symptom of a largely uneducated America. What our Founders envisioned works well in a nation of educated men and women. Sadly, we're losing that edge. And, as a computer scientist and hobbyist philosopher, I see our education issues as the greatest crisis we face.

 

[Revoltingest]

I view Clinton's overall presidency as solid in the way of economics, though to be fair, he led during a time of great technological advancement. The country had a budget surplus towards the end of his presidency. Maybe without two wars and unnecessary tax cuts, by the next administration, we wouldn't be in quite the budget mess we're in.

However, some troubles under Clinton's presidency are:

-Both Republicans and Democrats passed a law, repealing part of the Glass-Steagall act, and Clinton signed it, which helped lead to bank consolidation. It has been argued by many that this was a direct contributor to the financial collapse that occurred as the early stage of this recession.

-The U.S. trade deficit ballooned during these years. It was a fairly small deficit prior to his presidency, but it increased many times over into a rather alarming trade deficit through Clinton's presidency and most of Bush's. It leveled out a bit under Bush, and significantly reduced under Obama, but much of this was probably due to the recession rather than an actual improvement.

The national debt as a percentage of GDP radically increased under Reagan.

Prior to that, from the end of WW2 to the beginning of Reagan's presidency, under a mix of moderate Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, and a Democrat Congress, the national debt as a percentage of GDP had consistently fallen. Under Regan and the new mixed Congress, the national debt increased dramatically, both in absolute dollar terms, and as a percentage of GDP. To be fair to Reagan, he did inherit a problematic recession, but he basically got the country out of it by charging it to the national credit card. I don't see how he can be considered a good president, economically speaking, if his two terms ended with radically increased national debt levels, compared to what he started with.

Again, I never said Reagan was perfect.
But the economy blossomed under some good leadership.
Far greater in deleterious effect than Glass Steagall were other factors:
- 9/11 exposing the country's vulnerability to terrorism, & our dysfunctional over-reaction to it, eg, the wars
- 9/11 causing the contraction of the business community. This was the seminal event which caused & preceded the financial collapses. This caused higher unemployment, property deflation & the real estate crash.
- Socialized lending of Fannie & Freddie created excessive housing inflation, which put homeowners under water when their income & property value fell.
- Massive wasteful spending for bail-outs & stimulus pull money from more productive areas of the private sector.

 

[Penumbra]

Our spending problem is not that we spend too much, but that we don't spend effectively.

I agree. You cannot have both. In our current situation we could certainly use less spending and more taxing. And if not less spending, then more efficient spending.

I have no qualms about what CEO's make. A person should be able to make what they want from a company of which they are in charge. I see no reason to cap what a CEO makes based on the sole fact that not everyone can make that. Is it fair? No, it isn't. But life isn't fair and the government's job is not to make life fair. It is to keep us free.

Quite the assumptions, there. I never said anything about getting the government involved in capping it. I actively oppose such things.

The CEO is an employee of the company, and gets paid what he can convince the board to pay him. But it's a reflection on culture to see CEO pay radically increasing compared to the average worker, and to combine that massive increase with tax cuts on the wealthy seems nuts to me.

There's been a pretty consistent handover rate since WW2 and neither party's policies dazzle me.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by consistent handover.

Congress was controlled by Democrats between WW2 and Reagan, and the Republican and Democrat presidents were pretty moderate. (They're the kind of Republican presidents my father supported, and now he views the Republican party as insane.)

It was around 1980 and after when debt started getting out of control, with a brief period of relief at the turn of the millennium, and then back to debt increases again.

Why must there be parties at all?

Do you believe the government should stop them from existing?

Ahh yes, factions as mentioned by Madison...can't live with em can't live without them.

I don't care about parties, I care about options. I care about politicians being able to be elected running on the things that people want, not based on party lines and agendas.

Perhaps it is best viewed as a symptom of a largely uneducated America. What our Founders envisioned works well in a nation of educated men and women. Sadly, we're losing that edge. And, as a computer scientist and hobbyist philosopher, I see our education issues as the greatest crisis we face.

Yes, it all starts with the public. I don't believe the public knows what they want.

Perhaps a good start would be not being one of the most stingy of developed countries with regards to helping students get through higher education.

Do you believe the nation would be better educated under Ron Paul?

 

[Reverend Rick]

The economy tanked at the end of GWB's 8 years. Obama inherited the mess.

This is true, but GWB gets no credit for the 7 good years we had and Obama takes no responsibility for anything for the last 4 years? I know, it's all GWB's fault, Obama did everything right.

Reagan dramatically increased the national debt, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP (after debt as a percentage of GDP had been falling for decades), in part because he started with a recession.

He also lowered taxes and raised revenues during his time in office. Please note that I am not saying this is the solution this time around, the top 5% are not paying enough taxes but people making under a million should still get the tax break not just the folks making 200K. The folks making 200K - 1 million are the small business folks who are the engine that creates jobs and drives the economy. They need help, not the billonaires who are not investing in domestic jobs.

Can you provide an example of a recent U.S. administration that you think did an ok job, economically speaking?

The Clinton administration comes to mind.

Can you demonstrate this by comparing US spending as a percentage of GDP to other countries, or is this being presented as an opinion rather than a fact?

Actually this is the best indicator of our economic strength. This is not opinion, this is the number that gets a country downgraded or not. If we raise the GDP, the spending will not be as big an issue. Comparing our number to other countries who are flirting with default is not the best practice, but comparing spending as a percentage of GDP is an excellent way to grade different administrations and how effevtive they where. In other words, we could grow out of this problem instead of cutting spending. Basically we ned to make more stuff in the U.S.A.

I favor significantly lower corporate taxes.

If it brings back jobs to this country, it is a no-brainer.

I believe Mitt Romney understands a rising tide raises all boats where class warfare achieves nothing for our country as a whole.

Obama looks at small business with disdain and has done nothing to help us until this election year. Banks are just now starting to help the situation. If Obama would have done this 2 years ago, his reelection would be a done deal instead of a coin toss.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Do you believe the nation would be better educated under Ron Paul?

No I do not. The thing is, students need to go after degrees that will put money in their pockets and enable them to pay their student loans.

My suggestion would be interest free loans for certain degrees that are needed in the future.

Colleges should have to be accountable for their alumni's unemployment after graduation as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Republicans are the problem." is not factual.
Rather it is a just perspective of those who think Democrats are the solution.

 

[Penumbra]

This is true, but GWB gets no credit for the 7 good years we had and Obama takes no responsibility for anything for the last 4 years?

What good years did we have under GWB, economically speaking?

-We were in war for most of them.
-We started with a budget surplus, but after unfunded tax cuts, unfunded wars, and an unfunded portion of medicare, we ended with a large budget deficit.
-No corrective measures were taken to regulate banks before finding out how consolidated and over-leveraged the financial industry became.

I know, it's all GWB's fault, Obama did everything right. He also lowered taxes and raised revenues during his time in office.

Which specific policies do you feel that Obama failed on that the GOP would have performed superior in?

What are your thoughts on this chart? What would the GOP have done to improve it, in hindsight?

http://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/8787/images/JobCreationGraph_January_500px.jpg

Please note that I am not saying this is the solution this time around, the top 5% are not paying enough taxes but people making under a million should still get the tax break not just the folks making 200K. The folks making 200K - 1 million are the small business folks who are the engine that creates jobs and drives the economy. They need help, not the billonaires who are not investing in domestic jobs.

Compared to the middle-wage workers of those small businesses, do you believe the owners making $200k-$1million should pay lower total taxes as a percentage of income? What about lower taxes as a percentage of wealth? Or equal? Or higher?

I think there's also a key difference in political conversation between reinvested earnings, and earnings that are extracted from a business by the owner for consumption.

The Clinton administration comes to mind.

I agree, for the most part.

So would you support the tax levels that existed under his administration? The tax levels that were in place before they were cut under the Bush administration?

The Democrat party has wanted the expiration of those cuts, while the GOP has strongly opposed letting them expire.

Actually this is the best indicator of our economic strength. This is not opinion, this is the number that gets a country downgraded or not. If we raise the GDP, the spending will not be as big an issue. Comparing our number to other countries who are flirting with default is not the best practice, but comparing spending as a percentage of GDP is an excellent way to grade different administrations and how effevtive they where. In other words, we could grow out of this problem instead of cutting spending. Basically we ned to make more stuff in the U.S.A.

But the question was, can you offer a comparison to show that your statement is a fact rather than an opinion, that spending is the problem and not tax? Can you compare our spending to other countries to show that it's specifically our spending that's the problem, and not our tax levels?

More important to the national balance sheet than spending as a percentage of GDP, are the total deficit as a percentage of GDP, and the national debt as a percentage of GDP.

Simply raising the GDP doesn't fix everything. The GDP improved under Reagan, but national debt as a percentage of GDP increased dramatically over his terms, since he had unsustainable deficits each year.

We can sustainably have small budget deficits each year, as long as the deficit as the percentage of GDP is somewhat less than the percentage of GDP growth. This will keep national debt as a percentage of GDP flat or decreasing. Of course, achieving a balanced budget or a surplus would reduce debt more quickly.

But when deficits as a percentage of GDP consistently outpace GDP percentage growth year after year, national debt as a percentage of GDP begins increasing, which is unsustainable if not eventually corrected. This occurred under Reagan, occurred under Bush I, didn't occur under Clinton overall, occurred under Bush II, and occurred under Obama. At least Reagan and Obama have the excuse of inheriting huge recessions, whereas the Bush's, especially Bush II, mostly just had bad economic policy to blame.

If it brings back jobs to this country, it is a no-brainer.

I believe Mitt Romney understands a rising tide raises all boats where class warfare achieves nothing for our country as a whole.

Obama looks at small business with disdain and has done nothing to help us until this election year. Banks are just now starting to help the situation. If Obama would have done this 2 years ago, his reelection would be a done deal instead of a coin toss.

How does a rising tide raise all boats?

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

If tax cuts for the rich didn't help before, what argument makes it different that it would help now? Seems like consistently poor logic from the politicians that propose it.

I think it was Stephen Colbert who humorously pointed out years ago: "A rising tide lifts all boats... as long as you have a boat."

No I do not. The thing is, students need to go after degrees that will put money in their pockets and enable them to pay their student loans.

My suggestion would be interest free loans for certain degrees that are needed in the future.

I think we can do better than interest free loans. Many countries provide free education for those that are able to make use of it. Interest free loans still result in large debt among those with the lowest wealth, and that impacts economic measures of spending, saving rates, etc.

How about interest free loans for certain degrees that, if the student receives grades above a certain threshold in a year, are partially forgiven? Or, base it on graduating in the top X% of the class, or some similar metric?

Colleges should have to be accountable for their alumni's unemployment after graduation as well.

Accountable in what way?

I appreciate the discussion from you guys, btw.

 

[Father Heathen]

Basically half the country wants hope and change while the other half was content with the way things was.

Except "the way things was" is what caused all of our current problems.

Many people believe the less the federal government does the better while others think the government is the answer to all their problems.

No one actually says or thinks that. Stop embarrassing yourself by regurgitating such tired drivel.

My advice is to take personal responsibiliy for yourself and fix your own problems.

And how exact does would a working, middle class average Joe solve the problem of misconduct and corruption within banks and corporations?

 

[TheKnight]

Quite the assumptions, there. I never said anything about getting the government involved in capping it. I actively oppose such things.

The CEO is an employee of the company, and gets paid what he can convince the board to pay him. But it's a reflection on culture to see CEO pay radically increasing compared to the average worker, and to combine that massive increase with tax cuts on the wealthy seems nuts to me.

CEO's being really good at convincing boards I guess.

Do you believe the government should stop them from existing?

I think the people should.

Yes, it all starts with the public. I don't believe the public knows what they want.

Perhaps a good start would be not being one of the most stingy of developed countries with regards to helping students get through higher education.

Do you believe the nation would be better educated under Ron Paul?

No, I don't think the nation would be better educated under Paul's presidency. The President alone cannot have such an influence.

Ron Paul's political philosophy focuses on the responsibility of the individual rather than government responsibility. I support Ron Paul because I support the idea that people should take greater responsibility for the things they do and the circumstances in their lives. I support Ron Paul because of all the candidates, he best represents my ideas on those things that he would, as President, have the power to influence. I absolutely love his foreign policy and I love, even more, the idea that we should live in a country that allows people to do what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone.

Unfortunately, my voice is not so loud that it can sway the national agenda. However, for me, Ron Paul represents that. Will he make education, health care, or the economy any better? No, probably not.

But he stands to, at the very least, get in the way of those who are sprinting in the wrong direction and say "Think about what you're doing." And even if he doesn't win, he is the only candidate I could vote for and say honestly that I feel he represents me. He is, so I believe, what a candidate should be. Someone who people can look at and feel represented. I would venture that all of Paul's supporters feel at least somewhat similar.

Contrast that with candidates who people vote for because "they're not the worst person who could be in office."

 

[Nashitheki]

Is it pretty safe for one to assume that most rednecks are republican ?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it pretty safe for one to assume that most rednecks are republican ?

About as safe as presuming most 'injuns' are Democrats (ie, not safe at all).

 

[Nashitheki]

About as safe as presuming most 'injuns' are Democrats (ie, not safe at all).

That president the Absaroka affectionately named 'Black Eagle' has done squat for the Indians, but the Crow were ever dogs of the Shemanese.

To me and I imagine for some others, the democrats will always play the part of blathering whiners, while the republicans will play boisterous blowhards. An 'us versus them' game both heads of this monster has inflicted upon fools for years.

I've no blue or red banner flying so I guess that puts me at odds with both of these ugly monstrous heads.

Oh well, to hell with this two headed monster.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What good years did we have under GWB, economically speaking?

2000-2007. Yes, you are right that the common worker may not have thought so, but people who where in the stock market, real estate or had small businesses did quite well during that period.

-We were in war for most of them.
-We started with a budget surplus, but after unfunded tax cuts, unfunded wars, and an unfunded portion of medicare, we ended with a large budget deficit.
-No corrective measures were taken to regulate banks before finding out how consolidated and over-leveraged the financial industry became.

No disagreement here.

Which specific policies do you feel that Obama failed on that the GOP would have performed superior in?

Performed superior in? That is a loaded question don't you think? The GOP would not have shut down small business loans and the unemployment rate would have been better. Remember shovel ready jobs?

What are your thoughts on this chart? What would the GOP have done to improve it, in hindsight?

http://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/8787/images/JobCreationGraph_January_500px.jpg

Compared to the middle-wage workers of those small businesses, do you believe the owners making $200k-$1million should pay lower total taxes as a percentage of income? What about lower taxes as a percentage of wealth? Or equal? Or higher?

I think there's also a key difference in political conversation between reinvested earnings, and earnings that are extracted from a business by the owner for consumption.

Everyone was bailing from investments. People would have had more confidence in a business leader who understood the business mindset.

I agree, for the most part.

I did not approve of NAFTA, but Clinton did understand, "it was about the economy stupid".

So would you support the tax levels that existed under his administration? The tax levels that were in place before they were cut under the Bush administration?

The tax cuts where a good idea, extending them was not.

The Democrat party has wanted the expiration of those cuts, while the GOP has strongly opposed letting them expire.

They should have expired prior to Obama being elected. After 2008, the expiration would have been bad timing during the recession.

But the question was, can you offer a comparison to show that your statement is a fact rather than an opinion, that spending is the problem and not tax? Can you compare our spending to other countries to show that it's specifically our spending that's the problem, and not our tax levels?

Extending unemployment was a waste of money. The sinking ship still sank. This was not a matter of opinion, it really just depends on who you try to help. Poor folks don't invest or create jobs. The Billionaires did not as well, we should have taxed the crap out of them or gave them an option to invest in domestic jobs to continue the tax rate they enjoyed.

In other words, the ultra rich did not step up and do their part.

More important to the national balance sheet than spending as a percentage of GDP, are the total deficit as a percentage of GDP, and the national debt as a percentage of GDP.

Balanced budget amendment anyone? States and cities have to balance a budget, Obama did not even get his budget approved much less balance anything.

Simply raising the GDP doesn't fix everything. The GDP improved under Reagan, but national debt as a percentage of GDP increased dramatically over his terms, since he had unsustainable deficits each year.

This is true. My only point was, we could have not spent as much and would have been better off. Both parties spend to much, just on different things. Lower taxes brought in more revenue though, at least you admit that. This only proves my point that both parties have a spending problem not a tax problem.

We can sustainably have small budget deficits each year, as long as the deficit as the percentage of GDP is somewhat less than the percentage of GDP growth. This will keep national debt as a percentage of GDP flat or decreasing. Of course, achieving a balanced budget or a surplus would reduce debt more quickly.

I agree.

But when deficits as a percentage of GDP consistently outpace GDP percentage growth year after year, national debt as a percentage of GDP begins increasing, which is unsustainable if not eventually corrected. This occurred under Reagan, occurred under Bush I, didn't occur under Clinton overall, occurred under Bush II, and occurred under Obama. At least Reagan and Obama have the excuse of inheriting huge recessions, whereas the Bush's, especially Bush II, mostly just had bad economic policy to blame.

Excuses should be looked upon as challenges not a reason to fail.

How does a rising tide raise all boats?

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

If tax cuts for the rich didn't help before, what argument makes it different that it would help now? Seems like consistently poor logic from the politicians that propose it.

I think it was Stephen Colbert who humorously pointed out years ago: "A rising tide lifts all boats... as long as you have a boat."

Yes you need to have a boat. Some folks are beyond help. :sorry1:

I think we can do better than interest free loans. Many countries provide free education for those that are able to make use of it. Interest free loans still result in large debt among those with the lowest wealth, and that impacts economic measures of spending, saving rates, etc.

How about interest free loans for certain degrees that, if the student receives grades above a certain threshold in a year, are partially forgiven? Or, base it on graduating in the top X% of the class, or some similar metric?

Accountable in what way?

I appreciate the discussion from you guys, btw.

I like the partial forgiveness idea.

 

[Penumbra]

2000-2007. Yes, you are right that the common worker may not have thought so, but people who where in the stock market, real estate or had small businesses did quite well during that period.

The stock market had one of its worst performing periods over the last decade. It mostly wasn't Bush's fault though; it was mainly a result of overvaluation at the beginning of his presidency. S&P 500 and DJIA both ended lower at the end of his presidency than they were at the beginning. Eight years, and negative market growth. This contrasts the several decades of consistent exponential growth that occurred before he took office.

Corporate profits did ok, but not jobs. The unemployment rate was significantly higher at the end of Bush's presidency than at the beginning of his presidency.

As for real estate, are we counting the real estate bubble as a success? Bad lending that resulted in too many people buying homes they couldn't afford, over-building, resulting in a crash after the bubble burst?

As for small business, do you have a few sources showing that small businesses, in a broad sense, did reasonably or unusually well under Bush's presidency? Because it seems the stock market and the real estate market both did unusually poorly under his terms, so hopefully he at least did ok in this area.

No disagreement here. Performed superior in? That is a loaded question don't you think? The GOP would not have shut down small business loans and the unemployment rate would have been better.

Under what policies would the unemployment rate have been better?

Why did the unemployment rate go higher during the Bush administration and under the primarily GOP-controlled Congress?

Remember shovel ready jobs? Everyone was bailing from investments. People would have had more confidence in a business leader who understood the business mindset.

Which investments were people bailing from, and which jobs did these affect?

Which leader are you referencing? The part where job losses began reducing and eventually turning into job creation correlated almost exactly with the transition of presidency?

I did not approve of NAFTA, but Clinton did understand, "it was about the economy stupid". The tax cuts where a good idea, extending them was not. They should have expired prior to Obama being elected. After 2008, the expiration would have been bad timing during the recession.

I don't see how the tax cuts were a good idea if they were not paid for. Why is starting a budget deficit a good idea?

I agree they should have expired earlier, if they were implemented at all. Preferably not implemented at all.

It seems to me that the arguments that come from the fiscal conservative side is that:
-Under good times, we can't undo the tax cuts because we're booming. We don't want to ruin the boom, right?
-Under bad times, we can't undo the tax cuts because we're in a recession. We don't want to prolong the recession, right?
(No mention of the deficits they're contributing to.)

Extending unemployment was a waste of money. The sinking ship still sank. This was not a matter of opinion, it really just depends on who you try to help. Poor folks don't invest or create jobs. The Billionaires did not as well, we should have taxed the crap out of them or gave them an option to invest in domestic jobs to continue the tax rate they enjoyed.

"Poor folks" have lives.

In quantitative terms, they also buy things that fuel the corporations. Jobs don't mean much without customers.

In other words, the ultra rich did not step up and do their part. Balanced budget amendment anyone? States and cities have to balance a budget, Obama did not even get his budget approved much less balance anything. This is true. My only point was, we could have not spent as much and would have been better off. Both parties spend to much, just on different things. Lower taxes brought in more revenue though, at least you admit that. This only proves my point that both parties have a spending problem not a tax problem. I agree.

Lower taxes brought in budget deficits and increased national debt. They were Reagan's version of a stimulus. It resulted in widening the wealth gap.

To an extent, I don't blame Reagan for a portion of the deficits. He had a recession to deal with. But nonetheless, the debt increased radically under his 8 years of presidency, and he had a significant budget deficit in each and every year in office.

Excuses should be looked upon as challenges not a reason to fail. Yes you need to have a boat. Some folks are beyond help. :sorry1:I like the partial forgiveness idea.

So would you say Reagan's presidency was a failure? He had the challenge of starting with a recession, and failed because he significantly increased the national debt both in absolute terms and in relation to GDP? Correct? We shouldn't take into account what he had to start with?

Obama started with a budget deficit mainly caused by needless tax cuts and two wars. Then with the recession (larger than any previous one since the Great Depression, larger than the one Reagan started with) that occurred towards the end of Bush's presidency, the tax revenue decreased, while federal spending did not, creating an even larger temporary deficit.
-But GOP says don't let tax cuts expire. And no other new taxes, ever.
-GOP says don't cut the largest defense budget in the world.
-GOP blames Obama for not having a balanced budget.

Do they want him to make instant cuts of more than a trillion dollars per year to social security, medicare, department of transportation, veteran affairs, effective immediately? Is that what the public wants? Because that's the only option the GOP doesn't seem to be against, based on those constraints.