Libs its not really about the DEBT

Discussion in 'Economy' started by JRK, Aug 11, 2011.

  1. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    It what we got for it


    Its like a business. This is where you and Obama just do not get it. Debt is part of doing business
    you do not want your debt to be 100% of your entire wealth for the year, but to grow one has to borrow money
    RR started the largest growth cycle in this countries history. After 9-11 GWB created 6 million jobs with a recession and the Nasdaq bubble busting
    His debt was about 50% to pay for the wars, the other 1/2 a large part came from 2 million jobs lost 01-03
    See BHO has spent all of this money and we have less than nothing to show for it

    How can you defend that?
     
  2. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    who was it that held two wars and never paid for them?
     
  3. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    Ok you want to play politics?
    All of the debt in GWB 8 years was caused by funding the welfare
    $294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare thats about 200 billion a year, the wellfare
    $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs

    That should cover it

    The wars had funding, these items did not and provided nothing or little in return
    2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  4. 8537
    Offline

    8537 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,754
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New England's West Coast
    Ratings:
    +729
    Where do you come up with this bullshit?

    And how do you defend it?
     
  5. BlindBoo
    Offline

    BlindBoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    19,618
    Thanks Received:
    2,195
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,394

    What do you mean? He paid for them. With borrowed money that is and Congress raised the debt ceiling 10 times for him without a hype up hysterical battle either. Funny to note that the debt ceiling was put in place to limit the president amassing of huge war debts. Now it's going to cost the progressives.
     
  6. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    AND an unfunded medical program for senior meds
     
  7. 8537
    Offline

    8537 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,754
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New England's West Coast
    Ratings:
    +729
    Pointing out two wholly unfunded wars is playing politics?


    What funding?

    Oh, and lest we forget: Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ. 1.2T, wholly unfunded.
     
  8. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    bull shit?

    why take this stuff so personal dude?
    total growth GDP was 36% from 83-90
    from91-99 it was 33
    jobs
    same period

    well look for yourself and also look at the sources before you go into your "heritage lying" rant
    The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

    HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
    Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
    Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
    As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
    Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
    HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?
    Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:
    Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
    As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
    Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
    Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)




    HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?
    Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
    This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
    The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
    From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12

    HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN?
    Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation:
    In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
    The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14
    Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15
    These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16
    Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.
    Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
    For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
    For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
    For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.
    On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:
    For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;
    For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;
    For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
    For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17
    CONCLUSION
    No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.
    If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.
    To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.
    Peter Sperry is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
     
  9. 8537
    Offline

    8537 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,754
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New England's West Coast
    Ratings:
    +729
    Reagan was President from 1981 to 1989.

    And 36% growth in 8 years? Pedestrian. The economy grew by 63% from 1933 to 1937, a four year period.

    Why do you continue to believe everything you read at Heritage? And trust me, i don't take proving you wrong personal.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2011
  10. 8537
    Offline

    8537 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,754
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New England's West Coast
    Ratings:
    +729
    Other periods of larger growth than "The largest growth cycle in this countries history.":

    1961 to 1969: 544 to 984B, growth of 81%

    Have I mentioned that you shouldn't believe what you read at Heritage?
     

Share This Page