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.

---

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.

---

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)

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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...

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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"

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Whaddya doin' man???

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---