I swear that I am starting to believe that 90% of conservative ideology (no offense to those conservatives nice enough to comment here) is based in some kind of mythology. One of the largest appears to be that Reagan did something magical to the economy and reduced the deficit, and therefore all we have to do is cut taxes and everything will magically be ok.
When I raised these facts with a prominent Republican recently he counted that Reagan had cut spending. But he didn't. Spending rose from 21.7% of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 23.5% in 1983 before declining to 21.2% in 1988. And that improvement came about largely because favorable demographics caused entitlement spending to temporarily decline from 11.9% of GDP in 1983 to 10.1% in 1988. (Last year it was 12.5% of GDP.)Democrats have done a pretty good job of managing the economy. Not perfect but certainly better than Bush, and better than the Republicans who think that tax cuts are the magical cure to whatever economic situation we face.
14 comments:
Don't cut taxes, raise them. People who make a profit need to give more of it to "the people". It's only fair.
Raise spending. "The people" need for the government to spend more money on them. It's only fair.
Borrow more money. We need it so the government can spend it on "the people". We can worry about paying it back later. It's only fair.
Print more money. If taxes and borrowing don't raise enough money, just print more! It's for "the people", and it's only fair.
Happy days are here again!!!
That snark? It was to a former Reagan Republican who worked to support supply side economics.
But no. republicans now have idiots as their base, but those idiots can repeat talking points like no ones business.
Well done, Louie.
Streak - Isn't this paragraph the point you have been emphasizing on your blog for years now?:
Domestic discretionary spending amounted to $485 billion last year. With a deficit last year of $459 billion, we would have had to abolish virtually every single domestic program to have achieved budget balance. That means every penny spent on housing, education, agriculture, highway construction and maintenance, border patrols, air traffic control, the FBI, and every other thing one can think of outside of national defense, Social Security and Medicare.
That is, the only money available to cut is the money for, well, "the people." You know, the interstates on which food travels from California to the rest of the country.
And, if Louie recalls, the last time the United States had a budget surplus, it was under a Democratic President and a Republican President squandered that surplus. But, I guess red herrings and "talking points" are more effective evidence to support arguments than citing evidence from what read like a reasoned argument about the economy.
Anyway, what I wonder is this - how is Obama burdened with the "raising spending" and "paying it back later" diatribes. As I said before on the blog, the 2000s resembled the 1960s, in which taxes were cut and defense spending was increased. The result of the 1960s and 1970s was a budget deficit and eventually stagflation (which was worsened by an energy crisis). What I find troubling is that somehow the enormous deficit is Obama's legacy, not Bush's, and that increased spending is something that only began in early January 2009.
-- WIV
I dispute that there was a surplus under Clinton. That was Democrat arithmetic.
Every president since Kennedy has been an irresponsible spender. But obama has/will take irresponsibility to a new level.
There will never again be a balanced budget. Neither will the national debt ever be paid off. obama will run ENORMOUS deficits EVERY year of his presidency. Let's see how that works out.
I love the denial of the surplus. That has become the conservative approach. Facts mean nothing. Instead, we will simply impose what we want to believe. Evolution, climate change, torture, whatever.
Here is a link to a story about this issue:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
Here is also a link to those who deny the Clinton surplus (for the sake of showing both sides of the argument):
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Still, "Louie" still did not address the crucial points of the essay to which Streak linked: the spending that may be increased/decreased are crucial programs that all of "the people" use. That is, of course, to be excepted if "Louie" and other conservatives do not drive on interstate highways, send children to schools, colleges, etc., eat fruits and vegetables, and fly on airplanes.
Furthermore, every action of cutting spending has consequences. For instance, take subsidized agriculture. Perhaps the federal government should subsidize farmers; perhaps not. However, if those subsidies are cut/reduced, then there will be consequences. In all likelihood, the United States would import more food from other countries.
I guess it strikes me as disingenuous to make a complaint on a blog without really addressing the issue that was put forth. Then again, that might be the attraction of a blog such as this - one can parrot red herrings in anonymity. One is not responsible to actually engage in the issue because one can "vanish" after making the attack.
Anyway - football is on. Go SOONERS!
-- WIV
It makes no long term difference to the nation whether any program is cut or increased. We are bankrupt, right now, today. The economy IS going to crash sometime in the next few months or years.
What does that mean? Well, I've never lived through the collapse of an economy before, so I don't exactly know. I guess it will be very unpleasant. Inflation, and a lower standard of living for some. For others, loss of jobs, social disorder, riots, hunger, homelessness, etc..
Can obama stop it? Not only can he not stop it, he is hastening it.
WIV, you make a great point. Louie hasn't read anything we have posted here. I am beginning to think he is just a troll.
Louie, shouldn't you be frothing at the mouth at some town hall--waving pictures of Obama with a mustache?
Going to town hall meetings is like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I'm trying to get ready for the coming chaos, it's too late to prevent it.
Ignoring facts must be part of that prep. You are a perfect conservative. Republicans blow the economy up, and you blame the Democrats and Obama for trying to fix it.
Go away. You are not a serious person.
According to the article, the government isn't going to cut spending. O.K., then what? Raise taxes? Fine, raise 'em. That will hurt the economy and bring in even LESS in taxes! The these incompetent democrats and republicans have themselves in a no-win situation! They can't cut spending and they can't raise taxes! Hooray!
So what's left to do? Borrow money? Yes. Borrow like there is no tomorrow.(Which there soon won't be) That untouchable item in the budget(interest) just keeps getting BIGGER. Another hooray!
And when they can no longer borrow? Why, crank up the printing presses and print like hell! Can you say inflation?
How long can this insanity continue before reality refuses to be ignored any longer?
Yeah, you clearly can't read. Or won't. Bartlett has noted in other articles that raising taxes isn't the worst thing in the world. Only Republicans think taxes are evil, and you clearly have bought into that stupidity.
Like I said, you are not honest and not serious. Go away. Unless you are serious about conversation (clearly not so far) then I will start deleting your stupidity. You have been warned.
One of your many problems is that you think anyone who isn't a liberal isn't serious. You probably know where you can stick your arrogance, and your liberalism.
Go ahead and raise taxes! Help yourself. Have at it! Let's see how successful that is.
No, I think assholes like you are not serious. Several serious conservatives comment here. But you wouldn't know that. Plus, it would require that you be able to read.
Bye bye.
Post a Comment