Left VS. Right on the economy by MalBadInLatin

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Left VS. Right on the economy

POSTED BY: MALBADINLATIN
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 05:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2206
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, October 27, 2008 10:22 AM

The common wisdom in most circles of American life is that Republicans in power are better for the economy than are Democrats.

But history shows us that's not true.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=Left-Vs-Right-On
-The-Econ-by-tabonsell-080918-997.html

I'm posting this because today John McCain in a very accusatory tone said Barak Obama is the most Liberal candidate for President ever. Unless someone can debunk the data I'm presenting with a credible (non-Fox) source...being a leftist Liberal is exactly what the economy needs!

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 10:45 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
The common wisdom in most circles of American life is that Republicans in power are better for the economy than are Democrats.

But history shows us that's not true.

History shows that a person's party is not as relevant as his ideology.

Liberal Jimmy Carter (D) was terrible for the economy.

Conservative Ronald Reagan (R) had the longest period of sustained economic growth in the history of the world.

Moderate George Bush (R) was bad for the economy.

Liberal Bill Clinton (D) was bad for the economy.

Moderate Bill Clinton (D, post Jan 1995) was good for the economy.

George W. Bush (R) who taxed like a conservative and spent like a liberal was both good and bad for the economy (its hard to gauge given the unprecedented outside negative economic influences that came along such as Katrina and the war).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 11:33 AM

SWISH

Thanks Malbad, this article is interesting. I've just got to quote some of it:

"Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenues by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenues are good because they will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending.

The numbers in the Economic Report undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.

Since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year under the GOP and $30 billion for Democrats. In an average Republican year the deficit increased by $36 billion. In an average Democratic year it shrank by $25 billion.

[snip]

The gross domestic product from 1960 to 2005 (taking inflation into account) rose an average of $165 billion a year in 2000 dollars under Republican administrations and $212 billion a year under Democrats. On the average yearly rise in per capita income, Democrats score about 30% higher.

On inflation Democrats average 3.13 % versus 3.89% for Republicans. On unemployment (5.33% under Democrats versus 6.38% for the GOP). Unemployment fell in the average Democratic year, rose in the average Republican one."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 12:16 PM

KIRKULES

Hero has it right, it's the combination of relatively low taxes along with fiscal discipline that brings prosperity. Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001. If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side. It's pointless to raise tax rates when polititicians lack the fiscal discipline to work with the revenue available.

Most of the non-discretionary spending by the Fed is the result of programs originated and perpetuated by Democrats. We'll never be able to get our financial system in order for the long term prosperity until we slow the growth in spending. Raising taxes soon results in diminishing returns and this is even more true when the economy is doing badly. In this environment raising taxes will result in lower revenues and more deficit spending, exactly what we don't need now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 12:31 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side.

And if it weren't for that unfortunate convertible ride, JFK's visit to Dallas would have gone swell...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 1:56 PM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
History shows that a person's party is not as relevant as his ideology.

Liberal Jimmy Carter (D) was terrible for the economy.

Conservative Ronald Reagan (R) had the longest period of sustained economic growth in the history of the world.

Moderate George Bush (R) was bad for the economy.

Liberal Bill Clinton (D) was bad for the economy.

Moderate Bill Clinton (D, post Jan 1995) was good for the economy.

George W. Bush (R) who taxed like a conservative and spent like a liberal was both good and bad for the economy (its hard to gauge given the unprecedented outside negative economic influences that came along such as Katrina and the war)

So you're basically giving Bush II a pass, and asking me to accept your use of the terms moderate and liberal as they relate to the overall state of an economy along with the highly technical terms of bad, good, and terrible, along with pro conservative rightie commentary?

It sounds like you are trying to say that every Democratic Presidency that had a robust ecomomy wasn't that way because of Democrats...or if they were Democrats, and it was good, they weren't acting like Democrats. That's really effective rhetoric. Because my original point was that McCain should not say that being a leftist liberal is bad for the economy. But since you've shown me how all lefties are economic loosers...why I'll just vote for McCain.

Maybe if you standardized what good, bad, and terrible mean in terms of how they relate to the mind boggling set of measures for an economy, it would be helpful then might actualy mean something.

Also, if it's not too much thinking beyond good and bad...did you remember that Carter inherited a post Vietnem, post Watergate, post Arab Oil Embargo, Post energy shortage, highly inflationary economy from Nixon/Ford?

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 2:08 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Hero has it right, it's the combination of relatively low taxes along with fiscal discipline that brings prosperity. Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001. If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side. It's pointless to raise tax rates when polititicians lack the fiscal discipline to work with the revenue available.

Most of the non-discretionary spending by the Fed is the result of programs originated and perpetuated by Democrats. We'll never be able to get our financial system in order for the long term prosperity until we slow the growth in spending. Raising taxes soon results in diminishing returns and this is even more true when the economy is doing badly. In this environment raising taxes will result in lower revenues and more deficit spending, exactly what we don't need now.

Katrina and 911 were necessary perhaps the war in Afghanistan was as well. Iraq was not, is not and will not be necessay

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 2:14 PM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Hero has it right, it's the combination of relatively low taxes along with fiscal discipline that brings prosperity. Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001. If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side. It's pointless to raise tax rates when polititicians lack the fiscal discipline to work with the revenue available.

Most of the non-discretionary spending by the Fed is the result of programs originated and perpetuated by Democrats. We'll never be able to get our financial system in order for the long term prosperity until we slow the growth in spending. Raising taxes soon results in diminishing returns and this is even more true when the economy is doing badly. In this environment raising taxes will result in lower revenues and more deficit spending, exactly what we don't need now.

I hear that all the time. I don't doubt you've bought into it. But as far as the OP question...Do you think all Democratic Liberal Presidencies have had nothing to do with the economic prosperity they enjoy, and it's only Republicans who know how to make economies thrive?...and can you prove it? and then answer follow questions?

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:06 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Hero has it right, it's the combination of relatively low taxes along with fiscal discipline that brings prosperity. Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001. If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side. It's pointless to raise tax rates when politicians lack the fiscal discipline to work with the revenue available.

Most of the non-discretionary spending by the Fed is the result of programs originated and perpetuated by Democrats. We'll never be able to get our financial system in order for the long term prosperity until we slow the growth in spending. Raising taxes soon results in diminishing returns and this is even more true when the economy is doing badly. In this environment raising taxes will result in lower revenues and more deficit spending, exactly what we don't need now.
I hear that all the time. I don't doubt you've bought into it. But as far as the OP question...Do you think all Democratic Liberal Presidencies have had nothing to do with the economic prosperity they enjoy, and it's only Republicans who know how to make economies thrive?...and can you prove it? and then answer follow questions?

Trolls against McCain

I never said that we haven't experienced prosperity under the Democrats, but I do believe the they are responsible for the bulk of our spending problems. When you start huge bureaucracies it's almost impossible to keep Government spending from growing out of control.

JFK understood how to create economic prosperity, but most Democrats since think Government is the answer to all problems and punishing the rich is worthy goal even if it results in lower revenues.

One of the reasons I said "relatively low taxes" is because the level to which taxes can be raised without hurting growth and reducing revenues is dependent on the current economic conditions. If the economy is booming and you raise taxes a few percentage points you will increase revenues to a certain point. Even in a booming economy there's a point at which raising tax rates will actually reduce revenues. In a slow economy raising tax rates will almost always reduce revenues.

The problem with the liberal approach to the economy is that they believe the higher the tax rate the higher the revenues. If they were smart they would cut capital gains and corporate taxes to stimulate long term growth in the economy and then raise income taxes on all Americans making 60k up. Broad based tax increases are the only kind that raise significant revenues. This would provide the massive revenues they desire and with a booming economy nobody would even notice. Instead they will cut taxes for those that don't pay taxes anyway and raise the capital gains tax resulting in stagnant growth. There are plenty of Democrats out there that understand this is the wrong approach, Obama, Pelosi and Reid just doesn't happen to be among them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:17 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Hero has it right, it's the combination of relatively low taxes along with fiscal discipline that brings prosperity. Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001. If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side. It's pointless to raise tax rates when politicians lack the fiscal discipline to work with the revenue available.

Most of the non-discretionary spending by the Fed is the result of programs originated and perpetuated by Democrats. We'll never be able to get our financial system in order for the long term prosperity until we slow the growth in spending. Raising taxes soon results in diminishing returns and this is even more true when the economy is doing badly. In this environment raising taxes will result in lower revenues and more deficit spending, exactly what we don't need now.
I hear that all the time. I don't doubt you've bought into it. But as far as the OP question...Do you think all Democratic Liberal Presidencies have had nothing to do with the economic prosperity they enjoy, and it's only Republicans who know how to make economies thrive?...and can you prove it? and then answer follow questions?

Trolls against McCain

I never said that we haven't experienced prosperity under the Democrats, but I do believe the they are responsible for the bulk of our spending problems. When you start huge bureaucracies it's almost impossible to keep Government spending from growing out of control.

JFK understood how to create economic prosperity, but most Democrats since think Government is the answer to all problems and punishing the rich is worthy goal even if it results in lower revenues.

One of the reasons I said "relatively low taxes" is because the level to which taxes can be raised without hurting growth and reducing revenues is dependent on the current economic conditions. If the economy is booming and you raise taxes a few percentage points you will increase revenues to a certain point. Even in a booming economy there's a point at which raising tax rates will actually reduce revenues. In a slow economy raising tax rates will almost always reduce revenues.

The problem with the liberal approach to the economy is that they believe the higher the tax rate the higher the revenues. If they were smart they would cut capital gains and corporate taxes to stimulate long term growth in the economy and then raise income taxes on all Americans making 60k up. Broad based tax increases are the only kind that raise significant revenues. This would provide the massive revenues they desire and with a booming economy nobody would even notice. Instead they will cut taxes for those that don't pay taxes anyway and raise the capital gains tax resulting in stagnant growth. There are plenty of Democrats out there that understand this is the wrong approach, Obama, Pelosi and Reid just doesn't happen to be among them.

Did you read the information that was linked?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:26 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Did you read the information that was linked?

Yes I read it, all the same old deceptive arguments mixed in with some truth. Would you like me to address any particular point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:42 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side.

And if it weren't for that unfortunate convertible ride, JFK's visit to Dallas would have gone swell...

I have to say, that's about the most pointless comment I have ever seen you make...and that's saying a lot.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:31 PM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules: I never said that we haven't experienced prosperity under the Democrats,

Thanks for the very comprehensive answer. But I'm still unclear on whether or not you think that any of the prosperity the United States has experienced was due to any efforts from Liberals, the Left, or Democrats?

Because McCain talks about being Liberal as though Rush Limbo has been puttin' it to him, and yelling it at him while he drives the point home.

I don't subscribe to the notion that economic prosperity is a Republicans only club. In fact my true opinion is that the Executive Branch has very little ability to manipulate the economy into a state which produces "prosperity", like in the 90's. It's a pedulum swinging from Bubble to Correction...Bubble, Correction. And so on.

So telling America that economically we'll be fucked if we vote for Obama, and "it'll all be ok in a jiff!" says Palin if we vote for that Mavericky John McCain...is a gross oversimplification of what it takes for economic prosperity to come out and play...and as a result, quite incorrect.

Can't get Republicans to answer a question about John McCain being wrong, without having to sit through everything they think is wrong with Obama first. Fox and Rush do that...monkey see, monkey do.

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:16 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side.

And if it weren't for that unfortunate convertible ride, JFK's visit to Dallas would have gone swell...

I have to say, that's about the most pointless comment I have ever seen you make...and that's saying a lot.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I was pointing out that it's ludicrous to leave out all of the negative things that have happened that impacted our economy, and concentrate only on the good things that happened.

I could make the argument that Carter would have done a fine job with the economy if he hadn't inherited such a fucked-up country in the wake of Nixon and Ford. But you CAN'T throw out the bad stuff - it gets counted, too. And Bush's answer to unforeseen events was always to ratchet up spending on completely unrelated policies and unnecessary wars. There was no way it was going to end well.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
When you start huge bureaucracies it's almost impossible to keep Government spending from growing out of control.

Tell me then, who rolled out the
Department of Homeland Security ?
Transportation Security Administration ?

Both completely redundant and ineffective bureaucracies that are naught more than security theatre without accomplishing anything other than annoying the piss out of folk.

Both parties have fallen to this crap, and frankly I'm of the opinion that the last decent Conservative we had in office was Ike.

He had his flaws, overbearing religiousity was one, but he also had the patience and understanding to leave his hands off something which would be made worse by intervention, even when folks who didn't realize that clamored for him to act.

He knew full and well the merits of leaving well the hell enough alone, and while he didn't act directly against assholes like McCarthy and Nixon, he went out of his way to not support them either.

Some folk hold it against him that he rarely acted swiftly on a problem, but I believe the truth of it is that he never went in headfirst, always waited till he had a good enough understanding to act wisely, and then used a minimum of force for maximum effect, with as much discretion as possible.

The man was what a Conservative should be, and while not a flawless example, sure ain't a bad one.

We could use another Ike right now, but sadly, we got nothing even close, Ron Paul is far more aggressively minimalist (not that I disagree with that, mind you) and most of the Republicans are busy sinking with the PNAC-CleanBreak-NeoCon-Likud boat, which is all the more hilarious since THAT ship sailed from the office of a Democrat (Scoop Jackson) in the first place.

Of the whole political scene, I think the only one with the potential to be another Ike would have been General Odom, but sadly he capped it back in May, alas.

While much of the information about him isn't really publicly available, due to the nature of most of his assignments, it's well worth the digging - he was a guy who knew true intelligence work didn't mean terrorism against your own people, or scaring them witless, but meant nailing down and nullifying threats so they could sleep safe and sound, unconcerned with them.

THAT man, is one of the few I truely respected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Eldridge_Odom

The only other one I could think of is maybe Powell, having been burned so badly by folks who'd long since parted with real conservatism, I think he wouldn't be a bad Conservative prez as long as he took that lesson to heart and never forgot it.

I sure as hell don't think much of McCain, and even less of Palin - honestly, was THAT the best they could come up with ?

Cause it's friggin pathetic, and they're just gonna get steamrollered in a crushing defeat that will set the stage for things to go potentially just as badly in the other direction.

Find me a new Ike, if you really wanna block that slide, cause currently the Republican leadership is a circular firing squad of woe, all gnashing their teeth at everything in range as they get crushed into a corner by a populace irate with how they have been treated under them.

That ain't leadership, that's a damn feeding frenzy.

I'm open to suggestions, but be advised I have pretty high standards.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:00 AM

KWICKO

Yup, Fremmie - Powell is seen largely as "damaged goods", having been part of the public face of lying us into Iraq. But politics is the art of making people think highly of the lowest things you've done, so I don't rule him out because of that.

In fact, he COULD use that as a campaign plank - "I got screwed by the idealogues, so you can be sure they WON'T be in my Administration!"

And "slow to action"? You mean he actually thought things through and gave his considered response? Perish the thought! There's no room in the White House for anyone with critical thinking skills!

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:13 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The man was what a Conservative should be, and while not a flawless example, sure ain't a bad one.

*pokes Frem violently in the side*
Whaddya doin' man??? This may damage your rep as an Amerika-hating terrorist-lover here!!! Your SUPPOSED to hate ALL Republicans, as well as moderate Dems!!!!

*shakes head*isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Whaddya doin' man???

Dropping an anvil on the other side of the see-saw.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:51 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
It sounds like you are trying to say that every Democratic Presidency that had a robust ecomomy wasn't that way because of Democrats...or if they were Democrats, and it was good, they weren't acting like Democrats.

Thats not what I'm saying. 1976 is important. Its the start of our modern economic age as well as when what is now conservative, liberal, and moderate got their present definitions and the emergence of the modern political process and party system.

Since 1976 we have had two Democratic and three Republicans. Carter and Clinton both governed as liberals. Clinton became moderate after the failure of his 1993 reforms and the subsequent 'Republican Revolution' in 1994, likely to reflect the political reality (he wanted to be reelected AND he had to work with a hostile Congress). Reagan governed as a conservative, Bush governed as a moderate and often compromised with the liberal Congress on Domestic issues. Bush 2 held firm on taxes and spent like a drunken Kennedy.

So how do we judge their performances?

Quote:

Maybe if you standardized what good, bad, and terrible mean in terms of how they relate to the mind boggling set of measures for an economy, it would be helpful then might actualy mean something.

Good would be the economy under Reagan or Clinton's second term. Bad would be the economy under Carter, Bush in 1992, Bush 2 in 2001 (and generally off and on since then).

Carter was the worst. double digit interest rates, inflation, and high unemployment.

Quote:

...did you remember that Carter inherited a post Vietnem, post Watergate, post Arab Oil Embargo, Post energy shortage, highly inflationary economy from Nixon/Ford?

Yes, I did remember that, and you make a good point. During the 1976 election the economy was mostly a non-issue (it was slow, but not bad).

In November of 1976 the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Four years later it virtually unchanged at 7.5%. The interest rate was 6.5%, climbed as high as 20% in mid-1980 before falling to a mere 15.5% in November (it later reached 21% before Carter left office). Carter took office with an inflation rate of 6.5% and left it at 13.6%. That is bad (and it reminds us that our present problems are somewhat sensationalized by the press and the election).

What about Bush 2? The energy crisis was decades in the making, not one new power plant or oil refinery since the 1970's. In fact, if you recall, the energy crisis actually hit with the first oil spike and rolling blackouts in 1999 and 2000. Then the 9/11 attacks causing severe damage to New York and hurting the financial industry. Then the accounting scandals, another legacy of the 1990's. The war. Katrina (the complete destruction of an entire major city was simply...unprecedented, but lets not forget the catastrophic damage done to so much of the Gulf Coast outside of New Orleans). The oil crisis. The destruction of Galveston. The banking scandal (one last gift from the 1990's).

While Bush clearly had poor economic planning (at least based on his spending), the economy was so affected by these endless outside disasters that it is hard to know where we'd be 'but for'.

The real question is not whether Bush's economy was good or bad but rather, whether'he did as good as possible under the circumstances'.

I think he's done ok, but it could have been better. That said...I don't know anyone who would have done it better. Certainly not Gore or Kerry.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001

Ah, that old saw. Those figures are NOT correct, and not corrected for inflation. Go to the OMB website for the actual Federal Revenues, you'll see what I mean.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:12 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero: The real question is not whether Bush's economy was good or bad but rather, whether'he did as good as possible under the circumstances'.

I think he's done ok, but it could have been better. That said...I don't know anyone who would have done it better. Certainly not Gore or Kerry.

This is good because it adds yet one more variable into the futility of trying to assume the credit, or blame for the double edged sword that is the economy...from the Oval Office.

My point remains...John McCain lacks the crystal ball one would need to predict that an economy would be better under his Presidency, compared to an Obama Presidency. AND it's his closing argument!

I think voters are just as irresponsible if they're going to vote for John McCain, as they were if they voted for George Bush in 2004.

Is Obama the opposite?, No. But this thread is about McCain's desperation rhetoric.

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh hell, I'll do it for you:

I found the figures conveniently at www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml

These are adjusted for inflation.

1962 99.7
1963 106.6
1964 112.6
1965 116.8
1966 130.8
1967 148.8
1968 153.0
1969 186.9

1970 192.8
1971 187.1
1972 207.3
1973 230.8
1974 263.2
1975 279.1
1976 298.1
1977 355.6
1978 399.6
1979 463.3

1980 517.1
1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6

1984 666.5 Reagan
1985 734.1
1986 769.2
1987 854.4 debt -168.4

1988 909.3 HW Bush
1989 991.2
1990 1,032.1
1991 1,055.1 debt-321.4

1992 1,091.3 Clinton
1993 1,154.5
1994 1,258.7
1995 1,351.9
1996 1,453.2
1997 1,579.4
1998 1,722.0
1999 1,827.6 surplus 1.9

2000 2,025.5 G Bush
2001 1,991.4
2002 1,853.4
2003 1,782.5
2004 1,880.3
2005 2,153.9
2006 2,407.3
2007 2,568.2 debt -342.2
2008 will be lower because of the housing bust

If you're going to discuss about something, at least make it real. Start with facts and figures.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:18 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Eisenhower + Goldwater = Fiscal Conservative = Good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE