PDA

View Full Version : Who increased the debt....



YardleyLabs
09-28-2011, 11:45 AM
I post this more for fun than anything else, but it is still accurate:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5066/5684032538_71d8db3038_b.jpg

M&K's Retrievers
09-28-2011, 12:29 PM
Hey, Jeff! Welcome back to the BS Arena.

I don't have the numbers but could it be that the dollar amount of Obama's 35% is equal to or greater than the other 4 added together? Anyone have those numbers? Anyone? Bueller?

Remember, figures lie and liars figure.....

Good to hear from you, Yardley.

YardleyLabs
09-28-2011, 02:37 PM
Hey, Jeff! Welcome back to the BS Arena.

I don't have the numbers but could it be that the dollar amount of Obama's 35% is equal to or greater than the other 4 added together? Anyone have those numbers? Anyone? Bueller?

Remember, figures lie and liars figure.....

Good to hear from you, Yardley.
From a dollar perspective, GWB still holds the record, but took eight years to get there.

In saying that I was posting this just for fun, one of the reasons is just what you are alluding to. Reagan took over at a time when every administration since the end of WWII had worked to try to balance the budget and reduce the nation's debt from the high levels incurred to fight that war. He adopted policies that resulted in astronomical annual deficits and a dramatic increase in debt. His high percentage in the chart was earned by his policies. By contrast, Clinton took over when the deficit and the debt were at historic highs created by Reagan policies. It took almost eight years to turn the deficit that Clinton inherited into a surplus, and the debt went up significantly before that. However, the percentage increase was low in part because the debt was so high.

GWB inherited that high number debt along with a spending surplus, meaning the debt was being reduced. Like Reagan's, the GWB administration also fundamentally believed that deficits were irrelevant (and often took heat for saying so publicly). He instituted tax cuts that reduced Federal revenues dramatically as a percentage of GDP, while driving up spending to historically high levels as a percentage of GDP. The debt increased by a massive number - both in dollars and in percentage. By the time GWB left office, the annual Federal deficit had doubled from the prior year, which was almost twice the year before. Not only was the deficit growing exponentially, the biggest tax cuts had been timed to occur at the end of the administration, passing the issue on to his successor.

Obama adopted policies that increased the annual deficit slightly from what was being incurred at the end of the GWB administration. Interestingly, the rate at which the deficit was growing as a percentage of the total budget actually shrank from what it had been in the prior few years. Since the first year, the annual deficit has actually gone down, but is still so high that debt is growing dramatically.

Buzz
09-28-2011, 02:41 PM
If only we could have spent half the money that got poured into the "war on terror" into infrastructure and R&D instead. :(

Franco
09-28-2011, 03:05 PM
Buzz, you mean the money borrowed from China, money that they are using to stockpile gold with or the money we've been printing?

Don't forget that this is the front against terror as the extreme right talk show pundits have explained us. ;-)

road kill
09-28-2011, 03:31 PM
I post this more for fun than anything else, but it is still accurate:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5066/5684032538_71d8db3038_b.jpg
To answer the title........
If I had to guess, I would guess Congress, since I believe they are the ones that authorize spending and budgets.
Maybe I am wrong.

I think the backlash is due to the fact that we are now spending more than we have on crap we don't need.
I think common sense dictates we cut back a bit until we can afford the waste again.


But HEY!!!!
If blaming Bush gets you off.........;)


RK

Goose
09-28-2011, 03:51 PM
I feel bad for our children. They're so screwed.

We live in Cuba now.

caryalsobrook
09-28-2011, 07:13 PM
From a dollar perspective, GWB still holds the record, but took eight years to get there.

In saying that I was posting this just for fun, one of the reasons is just what you are alluding to. Reagan took over at a time when every administration since the end of WWII had worked to try to balance the budget and reduce the nation's debt from the high levels incurred to fight that war. He adopted policies that resulted in astronomical annual deficits and a dramatic increase in debt. His high percentage in the chart was earned by his policies. By contrast, Clinton took over when the deficit and the debt were at historic highs created by Reagan policies. It took almost eight years to turn the deficit that Clinton inherited into a surplus, and the debt went up significantly before that. However, the percentage increase was low in part because the debt was so high.

GWB inherited that high number debt along with a spending surplus, meaning the debt was being reduced. Like Reagan's, the GWB administration also fundamentally believed that deficits were irrelevant (and often took heat for saying so publicly). He instituted tax cuts that reduced Federal revenues dramatically as a percentage of GDP, while driving up spending to historically high levels as a percentage of GDP. The debt increased by a massive number - both in dollars and in percentage. By the time GWB left office, the annual Federal deficit had doubled from the prior year, which was almost twice the year before. Not only was the deficit growing exponentially, the biggest tax cuts had been timed to occur at the end of the administration, passing the issue on to his successor.

Obama adopted policies that increased the annual deficit slightly from what was being incurred at the end of the GWB administration. Interestingly, the rate at which the deficit was growing as a percentage of the total budget actually shrank from what it had been in the prior few years. Since the first year, the annual deficit has actually gone down, but is still so high that debt is growing dramatically.
Good grief Yardley. Surely you know better. Look at the debt as a % of GDP and look at the deficit as a % of GDP.

I give Clinton his due. After the healthcare debacle of Hillery, he got slamed by the republicans, losing both the house and the senate. Because he and Newt Ginhrich could deal, the budget was indeed balanced. Actually they were close to working out a deal to stabalize SS, but old Bill couldn't keep it in his pants.

dback
09-28-2011, 08:08 PM
Good to see you Jeffery.........

YardleyLabs
09-28-2011, 08:26 PM
Good grief Yardley. Surely you know better. Look at the debt as a % of GDP and look at the deficit as a % of GDP.

I give Clinton his due. After the healthcare debacle of Hillery, he got slamed by the republicans, losing both the house and the senate. Because he and Newt Ginhrich could deal, the budget was indeed balanced. Actually they were close to working out a deal to stabalize SS, but old Bill couldn't keep it in his pants.

Actually, the picture is the same when you only consider real dollars as a percentage of GDP

In round numbers, under Reagan the debt increased by almost 21% of GDP. Under GB, it increased 13% of GDP, under Clinton it decreased almost 10% of GDP, under GWB it increased by almost 28% of GDP, and under Obama it increased by 9% of GDP. Between Roosevelt and Reagan, the debt decreased as a percentage of GDP under every administration. (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

M&K's Retrievers
09-28-2011, 08:51 PM
How much money, greenbacks, Somalians, dough, moola, dollar bills has Obama increased the debt vs. the other 4 combined. Don't give me percentages if possible.

Buzz
09-28-2011, 10:10 PM
Good grief Yardley. Surely you know better. Look at the debt as a % of GDP and look at the deficit as a % of GDP.



Unfortunately this figure you speak of has a denominator as well as a numerator... They have both moved in unfavorable directions. ;-)


Sorry Mike, I couldn't help myself. I'll refrain from talking about math from now on. Maybe!

caryalsobrook
09-28-2011, 11:06 PM
Actually, the picture is the same when you only consider real dollars as a percentage of GDP

In round numbers, under Reagan the debt increased by almost 21% of GDP. Under GB, it increased 13% of GDP, under Clinton it decreased almost 10% of GDP, under GWB it increased by almost 28% of GDP, and under Obama it increased by 9% of GDP. Between Roosevelt and Reagan, the debt decreased as a percentage of GDP under every administration. (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

You are right in what you say but that is not the complete story. Reagan was certainly at fault, along with the congress in increasing the debt. But let us go back and look at the presidents before him and come back to his time.

During the Carter administration, expenditures jumped from about 18% to over 20% of GDP while revenues stayed at about 18%(revenues had stayed at about 18% from 1951 until the end of the Clinton administration when it rose above 20%). So why did the debt as a % of GDP go down during the Carter administration? Simple, we experienced a period of the highest inflation(not his fault). Inflation will always reduce the ratio of debt to GDP. Never theless, he did increase the ratio of expenditures to GDP.

Nixon, Ford, Johnson and Kennedy all ran relatively tight revenues and expenditures(around 18-19% of GDP). Inflation was actually initiated during the Johnson administration and Nixon even put in place price controls in an attempt to curtain it. It worked for his term but Carter paid for it during his term.

When Reagan came into office, inflation had been brought under control thanks to Paul Volker and 20% interest rates. Reagan was determined to bring the UUr to its knees by drastically increasing military spending. He did try to cut other spending to compensate the military buildup(I do remember his budget director John Stockman fighting with the democrat house and senate to cut non military spending. He got nowhere and for the first time other than the short time Carter had a budget over 20% of GDP, Reagan's budgetwent as high as 23% of GDP. Obviously the compromise between Reagan and the congress was to increase military spending but not cut non military spending. With little or no inflation, the result was a growth in debt to GDP which is the highest of any time between 1951 until 2009. probably a mistake since expenditures have only fallen below 20% of GDP only during the last 6 years of the Clinton admin. with a republican house and senate. they were able to compromise and return to fiscal sanity.

W Bush probably is the most guilty. After his tax cuts, revenues fluctuated quite a bit from 15-18% while he and his republican congress went on spending about 20% of GDP. I blame the republicans not for cutting taxes but for continueing spending at levels of 20% of GDP. From 1951 until the reagan admin, spending ran a relatively constant 18%.

I believe that had the republicans maintained fiscal sanity and had refused social engineering through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, we never would have had either the president ofr congress we had 2009-2011. The government during this period has run expenditures of well over 25% of GDP even if you believe the nembers they have used(they have distorted them with the expenditures of TARP and the repayment of these funds)

One other thing you might remember concerning the numbers. When they talk about public debt they mean debt only held by the public. An example is the 600 billion in debt that the FED bought is not counted as public debt and will distort the numbers when it comes to the current president. All you have to look at is that his expenditures went to over 25% of GDP while his revenues went to 15% of GDP. That has to be scary and no wonder fiscal conservatives are screaming louder and hope that if the reublicans regain control that they have learned their lesson. If not then there will be hell to pay.

YardleyLabs
09-29-2011, 06:01 AM
I don't disagree with your analysis, although we may differ some on interpretation. However, just as it is important to consider the rate of inflation (something that is actually already embedded in the analysis when you are looking at debt as a percentage of GDP), it is even more important to look at the rate of GDP growth and and the value of US currency relative to the value of the currencies of our trading partners. A big factor in the growth of deficit relative of GDP under GB41 and Obama were the recessions that each inherited. If the economy contracts and spending remains constant, then spending grows as a percentage of GDP. However, cutting spending under those circumstances will actually make a recession worse. At the same time, during a recession, tax revenues will normally decline by a higher percentage than GDP as a whole, making the deficit even worse. That was not the case with either the Reagan or GWB administrations. The argument that Reagan's deficit was necessary because of the importance of increasing military spending has no more merit than the arguments of Democrats who say that deficits are OK when we are investing in education. Spending is spending. If the budgets need to be balanced, you either raise taxes, make offsetting cuts in other areas, or you do not make the spending increases you believe are needed. The unfortunate facts is that the Reagan, GWB and Obama administrations have shared a belief that balancing the budget is a secondary priority. In periods of recession, I would generally agree. However, that is where currency values come into the equation. GWB adopted a strategy of systematic currency devaluation to reduce the value of our national debt. The value of the dollar declined 40% as a result and our stature as an economic force in the world was severely damaged. That would have been largely irrelevant in prior administrations since we essentially self-financed our debt - that is, it was purchased by government programs (social security) and US investors.

Under GWB, the debt grew beyond our ability to finance it, and more and more was purchased by other countries. Now we are dependent on their perceptions of or credit worthiness and the evidence says we are not a good risk. That makes it necessary to take actions to control the debt that may, in fact, damage our economy in the short run to satisfy the demands of our creditors. That may be the single most important economic legacy of GWB's presidency.

Hew
09-29-2011, 07:02 AM
My eyes glaze over in utter boredom while gazing at your "Blame Republicans!" chart created by such an unbiased and unimpeachable source like the Democrat Leader, yet I am pleased that you're posting again. Welcome back!

YardleyLabs
09-29-2011, 07:13 AM
My eyes glaze over in utter boredom while gazing at your "Blame Republicans!" chart created by such an unbiased and unimpeachable source like the Democrat Leader, yet I am pleased that you're posting again. Welcome back!

Thanks HEW, although the numbers did come from the Treasury Dept, not Pelosi, and I did try to add a little more meat.....

road kill
09-29-2011, 07:17 AM
Thanks HEW, although the numbers did come from the Treasury Dept, not Pelosi, and I did try to add a little more meat.....

I'm shocked??

You call it "meat," some would call it "spin!";)
I truly do love when you guys play the "he started it" card!!:D

Weclome back Mr Yardley!!


RK

Uncle Bill
09-29-2011, 02:17 PM
Ah...the "Head of the Class Envy crowd" rears up again. I imagine Buzz is elated to have you impress him with what he should have thought of.

For the sake of your offspring, Yardley, it's my true hope you will someday heal all your sword wounds, and realize this oligarchy is in the process of shoving this country over the precipice. How can you possibly continue your support of what your party is doing to this nation?

Fortunately, despite the left's best efforts to ruin this country, there are sane folks that put patriotism ahead of the unionista design of destruction, and will hopefully pull this collapse out of the depths of despair.

UB

caryalsobrook
09-29-2011, 02:47 PM
I don't disagree with your analysis, although we may differ some on interpretation. However, just as it is important to consider the rate of inflation (something that is actually already embedded in the analysis when you are looking at debt as a percentage of GDP), it is even more important to look at the rate of GDP growth and and the value of US currency relative to the value of the currencies of our trading partners. A big factor in the growth of deficit relative of GDP under GB41 and Obama were the recessions that each inherited. If the economy contracts and spending remains constant, then spending grows as a percentage of GDP. However, cutting spending under those circumstances will actually make a recession worse. At the same time, during a recession, tax revenues will normally decline by a higher percentage than GDP as a whole, making the deficit even worse. That was not the case with either the Reagan or GWB administrations. The argument that Reagan's deficit was necessary because of the importance of increasing military spending has no more merit than the arguments of Democrats who say that deficits are OK when we are investing in education. Spending is spending. If the budgets need to be balanced, you either raise taxes, make offsetting cuts in other areas, or you do not make the spending increases you believe are needed. The unfortunate facts is that the Reagan, GWB and Obama administrations have shared a belief that balancing the budget is a secondary priority. In periods of recession, I would generally agree. However, that is where currency values come into the equation. GWB adopted a strategy of systematic currency devaluation to reduce the value of our national debt. The value of the dollar declined 40% as a result and our stature as an economic force in the world was severely damaged. That would have been largely irrelevant in prior administrations since we essentially self-financed our debt - that is, it was purchased by government programs (social security) and US investors.

Under GWB, the debt grew beyond our ability to finance it, and more and more was purchased by other countries. Now we are dependent on their perceptions of or credit worthiness and the evidence says we are not a good risk. That makes it necessary to take actions to control the debt that may, in fact, damage our economy in the short run to satisfy the demands of our creditors. That may be the single most important economic legacy of GWB's presidency.

Only one part I completely dissagree with, "However cutting spending under these circumstances would make the recession worse". I cite the recession of 1920 when unemployment went above 30% and GDP dropped about 30% also(it has been a while since I looked at the actual numbers so take them as approximate), far higher than anything that we have experienced now. the action taken was to CUT FED spending from a little over 6 billion to less than 3 billion and to CUT the maximum tax rate from 75% to 25% in only 2 YEARS. The result was meteoric recovery. While during the Roosevelt admin. the policy was to INCREASE SPENDING AND INCREASE TAXES WITH THE RESULT OF A DEPRESSION THAT LASTED ALMOSST 15 YEARS.

One simple question. It seems to me that all those liberals argue during good times that given the increased revenues that that is the time to increase Gov. spending. During times as these, they argue that we must INCREASE SPENDING inorder to increase demand. Tell me WHEN IS THERE EVER A TIME THAT LIBERALS WOULD ARFUE FOR THE GOV. TO CUT SPENDING???????

charly_t
09-29-2011, 06:11 PM
Ah...the "Head of the Class Envy crowd" rears up again. I imagine Buzz is elated to have you impress him with what he should have thought of.

For the sake of your offspring, Yardley, it's my true hope you will someday heal all your sword wounds, and realize this oligarchy is in the process of shoving this country over the precipice. How can you possibly continue your support of what your party is doing to this nation?

Fortunately, despite the left's best efforts to ruin this country, there are sane folks that put patriotism ahead of the unionista design of destruction, and will hopefully pull this collapse out of the depths of despair.

UB


I have what I thought was a smart relative. She and her family can only talk about the bad Republicans and how stubborn they are. The kicker is that this lady does not in any way approve of most Unions. She listens to the wrong "news" people. I am so very tired of hearing them talk about this. Both parties are at fault but that family does not see it.

twall
10-01-2011, 11:40 AM
I give Clinton his due. After the healthcare debacle of Hillery, he got slamed by the republicans, losing both the house and the senate. Because he and Newt Ginhrich could deal, the budget was indeed balanced.

It is easy to blame the top dog. I think the leadership of congress party affiliations and presidential party affiliations have a bigger impact.

How does that graph look when you do it for Speaker and Senate President party affiliations?

Tom

Gerry Clinchy
10-01-2011, 03:16 PM
I have an idea ... suppose we stop talking about spending cuts and call it "redistribution of wealth".

Since the Dept. of Education has not done a real good job of improving the quality of graduating students (those that do graduate), how about redistributing some of their wealth to fixing roads and bridges?

We can then redistribute some of the wealth to the ineffective Dept. of Engergy to decreasing the deficit.

We can redistribute some of the wealth of the EPA to fixing some more of those bridges and some to decreasing the deficit.

"Redistribution of wealth" that could work for me :-)

YardleyLabs
10-02-2011, 04:59 PM
It is easy to blame the top dog. I think the leadership of congress party affiliations and presidential party affiliations have a bigger impact.

How does that graph look when you do it for Speaker and Senate President party affiliations?

Tom

The difficulty of any such analysis is determining how to attribute credit or blame given the lag between when policies are adopted legislatively and when they actually affect the budget and economy. Thus, if you pass a tax cut in 2003 that doesn't have it primary effect until 2-5 years later, who is responsible for the deficit that arises as revenues begin to decline? In the last 40 years, control of the branches of government has been divided most of the time. There are three congressional terms when Democrats controlled all three branches and 2 1/2 - 3 terms when Republicans have controlled al three branches (The senate was evenly split during GWB's first term for part of the time, with Cheney holding the tie breaking vote. That was reversed with a party switch in the second half of the session.) The period of Republican control was during GWB's presidency and saw the greatest increases in deficits ever, measured as a percentage of GDP. The periods of complete Democratic control were during the Carter Presidency and the first two years of the Clinton Presidency. In both, deficits declined as a percentage of GDP.

The question of who should be credited - Congress of the President - is more complex. During the Reagan administration, Democrats controlled the House all eight years, while Republicans controlled the Senate for six of those years. The deficit grew fastest when Republicans controlled the White House and the Senate, and slowest when Democrats controlled the Senate and House. Under GB41, the growth in deficit slowed further. That was a period when Democrats controlled both houses. Under Clinton, the deficit shrank throughout his Presidency both because of economic growth and because of tax increases adopted during his first two years in office. The tax increases were adopted when Democrats controlled all three branches. The primary impact of those increases happened when Republicans controlled the Senate and the House.

In general, I think it is appropriate that we credit or blame Presidents for what happens on their watch even though some of that credit and blame belongs to legislators. The President's job is to provide leadership. The more effective he is in doing that, the more Congress will support him regardless of party. Ultimately, legislators are more interested in winning elections than in hold an ideological line. If there is something that scares me in our current political scene, it is that more and more legislators seem willing to see the ship sink if it will promote their own ideological beliefs.

caryalsobrook
10-03-2011, 11:02 AM
Only one part I completely dissagree with, "However cutting spending under these circumstances would make the recession worse". I cite the recession of 1920 when unemployment went above 30% and GDP dropped about 30% also(it has been a while since I looked at the actual numbers so take them as approximate), far higher than anything that we have experienced now. the action taken was to CUT FED spending from a little over 6 billion to less than 3 billion and to CUT the maximum tax rate from 75% to 25% in only 2 YEARS. The result was meteoric recovery. While during the Roosevelt admin. the policy was to INCREASE SPENDING AND INCREASE TAXES WITH THE RESULT OF A DEPRESSION THAT LASTED ALMOSST 15 YEARS.

One simple question. It seems to me that all those liberals argue during good times that given the increased revenues that that is the time to increase Gov. spending. During times as these, they argue that we must INCREASE SPENDING inorder to increase demand. Tell me WHEN IS THERE EVER A TIME THAT LIBERALS WOULD ARFUE FOR THE GOV. TO CUT SPENDING???????

Just reminding you of the uestion Yardley. Have an answer or should we resign ourselves that liberals only have excuses to increase spending and raise taxes and debt and never cut spending or decrease the debt.

Goose
10-03-2011, 05:01 PM
I just want to take a moment to congratulate Barack Milhous Obama for his record breaking $14,790,340,328,557 of debt that he continues adding to. We should all place bets on when we will hit $15 trillion. It won't be long.

We live in Cuba now.

TN_LAB
10-04-2011, 06:03 AM
Who increased the debt....

I hardly care which monkey was President when the checks were being written.

The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to quit digging.

Cowtown
10-04-2011, 09:23 AM
My eyes glaze over in utter boredom while gazing at your "Blame Republicans!" chart created by such an unbiased and unimpeachable source like the Democrat Leader, yet I am pleased that you're posting again. Welcome back!

Exactly.

Just for fun eh?

hahahahaha

Gerry Clinchy
10-04-2011, 10:06 AM
Who increased the debt....

I hardly care which monkey was President when the checks were being written.

The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to quit digging.

Ditto.

The perennial problem with politicians (non-partisan!) is that whenever they see revenue increase, they have an irrestible impulse to spend it. That is why I so strongly resist allowing them to raise taxes.


The reason they "stole" from the SS fund was because it actually was looking good at the time. God forbid that they should leave any excess $ untouched.

The "real world" is subject to cycles ... acts of nature, unexpected political upheavals in other parts of the world, technology bursts and busts. People living in the real world try to plan for those cycles. Politicians just increase taxes ... because they can.

We may be able to solve one problem at a time, and gradually, with planning, solve several. If we try to solve them all at once, we end up in trouble.

road kill
10-04-2011, 10:57 AM
Who increased the debt....

I hardly care which monkey was President when the checks were being written.

The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to quit digging.

Or BUY new shovels!!!!!!;-)


RK

YardleyLabs
10-04-2011, 03:13 PM
Just reminding you of the uestion Yardley. Have an answer or should we resign ourselves that liberals only have excuses to increase spending and raise taxes and debt and never cut spending or decrease the debt.

I'd say that what the numbers show pretty clearly is that during the 30 or so years before the GWB Presidency, the Federal government maintained spending at a fairly constant percentage of GDP. During the Reagan administration, that didn't change a lot. However, general taxes were cut while social security taxes and Medicare taxes were increased dramatically. The tax increases for social security and medicare were immediately diverted to cover the deficits that resulted from the cut in general taxes rather than to cut spending. Things came back into balance following Reagan as spending was held at a fairly constant level of GDP, but tax increases were adopted that brought the budget back into balance, producing a cash flow surplus for social security and medicare, as was needed to finance future spending needs. Under GWB, that surplus was used to justify massive cuts in general taxes (social security and medicare taxes continued to rise) that were far in excess of any anticipated cash flow surplus. Rather than implement spending cuts to eliminate that deficit, Federal spending was increased by a greater percentage than had been seen under any President since WWII, laying the foundation for what we have today. Obama has done nothing to make that situation better, meaning that the deficit continues to grow. The biggest issue that I have with Republican proposals is that they still would do nothing to reduce the deficit. Rather, they would add to it by extending tax cuts that are now scheduled to expire. That will make the problem even worse.

jwh1949
10-04-2011, 04:39 PM
I don't post on the political venue of RTF but I need to say something about the state of our beloved country. I don't know the age of most of you but I'm a "boomer" who had the oppurtunity to grow up in what would have to be considered the best time we Americans have ever seen. Some how "we", be us Dems,Reps or whatever let it slip away on our watch. This isnt something that happened overnight and it saddens me that we will be the first generation to not pass on a brighter future to our kids. I dont see it as any one Presidents or parties fault although most would have you believe so. Perhaps instead of pointing the finger we need to work together in whatever way possible to move this great country forward.The blame is "ours" and no one else, shame on us. Jack

caryalsobrook
10-06-2011, 03:26 AM
I'd say that what the numbers show pretty clearly is that during the 30 or so years before the GWB Presidency, the Federal government maintained spending at a fairly constant percentage of GDP. During the Reagan administration, that didn't change a lot. However, general taxes were cut while social security taxes and Medicare taxes were increased dramatically. The tax increases for social security and medicare were immediately diverted to cover the deficits that resulted from the cut in general taxes rather than to cut spending. Things came back into balance following Reagan as spending was held at a fairly constant level of GDP, but tax increases were adopted that brought the budget back into balance, producing a cash flow surplus for social security and medicare, as was needed to finance future spending needs. Under GWB, that surplus was used to justify massive cuts in general taxes (social security and medicare taxes continued to rise) that were far in excess of any anticipated cash flow surplus. Rather than implement spending cuts to eliminate that deficit, Federal spending was increased by a greater percentage than had been seen under any President since WWII, laying the foundation for what we have today. Obama has done nothing to make that situation better, meaning that the deficit continues to grow. The biggest issue that I have with Republican proposals is that they still would do nothing to reduce the deficit. Rather, they would add to it by extending tax cuts that are now scheduled to expire. That will make the problem even worse.

Nice history lesson, BUT YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!

TN_LAB
10-07-2011, 06:04 AM
One of my favorite songs of all time

All we gotta do is...

All we gotta do is...

All we gotta do is...! .....

*harmonica*


http://youtu.be/_SjBdVYG9ms

Gerry Clinchy
10-07-2011, 09:27 AM
I may be too simplistic ... at this point, I am somewhat less interested in who caused this problem (unless we intend to prosecute them or re-elect them!) than in who can fix it and how.

Reagan is dead; Bush won't be elected to anything again. Slick Willy is probably happy being a king-maker. Hillary might be an issue.

So, if we know what we did wrong, let's find the people who have ideas on how to fix it; and hold them to their word.

Franco
10-07-2011, 09:37 AM
I may be too simplistic ... at this point, I am somewhat less interested in who caused this problem (unless we intend to prosecute them or re-elect them!) than in who can fix it and how.

Reagan is dead; Bush won't be elected to anything again. Slick Willy is probably happy being a king-maker. Hillary might be an issue.

So, if we know what we did wrong, let's find the people who have ideas on how to fix it; and hold them to their word.

A good start would be to disband the Federal Reserve which enables out of control spending, Wall St theft and return to the Gold Standard! The artificial manipulation of the economy, interest rates and value of our currency is the real culprit!

krmont22
10-12-2011, 01:49 AM
This states the bills written at that time, increased my BILLS...!
i don't get this some people sitting their ass tight decides how our salary will be exhausted....???