Democrats: The Modern 'Know-Nothing' Party

[PoliticalChic]

So your argument is that doing something STUPID is better than doing NOTHING?

WRONG AGAIN!

The top chart shows what happens to the deficits if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.
The bottom? The GOP plan.


Don't you ever get tired of me pointing out that you are factually incorrect about virtually EVERYTHING you apparently believe?

I mean....right here.....DOING NOTHING is better than Ryan's plan.
The budget will be balanced in less than 10 years if CONGRESS NOTHING!

The truth remains the truth, no matter whether you accept it or not.

I posted NUMBERS. It doesn't get any more TRUTHFUL than that.
What did you post?
Your OPINION and NOTHING more.

Guess who wins in a battle of truthfulness ?
Me.

Unless you can provide NUMBERS which back up YOUR contentions?
I'll wait while you don't. As USUAL.

1. You appear to have missed this:
"Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter not a bit in informing belief.
Even hearing your champion promise the Russian that he will betray America after the election, you will race to the polls to pull the Democrat lever.
Isn't that true?"

2. But, if you insist on numbers, even though you will ignore same, those in the OP are from the NYTimes....
...so, your problem with them is????


Study them, and then you can prove that you have the uncanny ability to discover what has been discovered before.

 

[Erand7899]

I agree with the premise, but still find that Ryan's plan comes up really short on true cuts. A balanced budget by 2040?? That's like predicting 28 years into the future that all things remain equal in global and domestic economics of the country. Since that isn't going to happen and policies will shift within the next 4-6 years, I find the plan to simply be a blow hard.

If we're going to get serious about balancing the budget and paying down debt, the plan should be to cut far more and far deeper to achieve a balance within the next 3-4 years and begin paying down the debt. The plan does not move this fiscal conservative. It's better than democrats "no budget" policy, but it falls pretty far short of setting the country on a fiscally responsible course.

Four elements drive the debt. Social security, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, and the interest on the debt. These four eat up all revenue, and leave the remaining functions of government to be run on the credit card. Two of these are entitlement programs that have millions of Americans dependent upon them for their food, shelter and medical care. Budget cuts have to take this into consideration, and not leave millions of people out in the cold.

Defense can be cut, but carefully please. The interest on the debt is pretty well set by the amount of debt.

 

[edthecynic]

So, we should trust the party that ran UP the deficits to stop doing so in only 28 years.


Are you serious or is this a joke?

"...the party that ran UP the deficits..."

1. (Reuters) - Deficits for the next two fiscal years would be slightly higher than the White House envisions if President Barack Obama's budget plan were adopted, the Congressional Budget Office said on Friday.CBO sees higher near-term deficits under Obama plan | Reuters

2. Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2012: $1,327 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
US Federal Deficit by Year - Charts Analysis


Once again the definition of Liberal is an individual for whom data, facts, logic, nor experience have any bearing in decision making.


Brings to mind the historic term, 'yella' dog Democrat'....Someone (generally from the South) who would vote for a yellow dog if it was a Democrat.

The day a CON$erviNutzi uses honest and accurate data, facts logic or experience is the day the Earth will end!

If the deficit in 2008 was only 459 billion, how did the national debt increase 1 trillion in 2008??? And if the deficit in 2007 was only 161 billion, how did the national debt increase 500 billion in 2007???

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, we should trust the party that ran UP the deficits to stop doing so in only 28 years.


Are you serious or is this a joke?

"...the party that ran UP the deficits..."

1. (Reuters) - Deficits for the next two fiscal years would be slightly higher than the White House envisions if President Barack Obama's budget plan were adopted, the Congressional Budget Office said on Friday.CBO sees higher near-term deficits under Obama plan | Reuters

2. Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2012: $1,327 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
US Federal Deficit by Year - Charts Analysis


Once again the definition of Liberal is an individual for whom data, facts, logic, nor experience have any bearing in decision making.


Brings to mind the historic term, 'yella' dog Democrat'....Someone (generally from the South) who would vote for a yellow dog if it was a Democrat.

The day a CON$erviNutzi uses honest and accurate data, facts logic or experience is the day the Earth will end!

If the deficit in 2008 was only 459 billion, how did the national debt increase 1 trillion in 2008??? And if the deficit in 2007 was only 161 billion, how did the national debt increase 500 billion in 2007???

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

I always appreciate it when the lesser members of our community, i.e., the Liberals, apply for instruction....


1. It should be enlightening, here, to explore accounting procedures…one of which is known as the Unified Cash Basis Budgeting. Just as with any one of us who writes a check, it is recorded as an expense, and when we receive a check, it is listed as income. Generally, government treats budgets in the same way. U.S. GAO - Search :: "Cash basis accounting"

a. So, a deficit means that the government spent more than it received during a specific fiscal year.

b. Now, think about this: using the cash basis method, you plan for a vacation in January by taking a $2,000 loan in December. This will appear as an asset in your bookkeeping- even though you will be obligated to repay this loan: it is actually a liability! This is exactly the situation that allowed Clinton to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, and claim this as revenue, even though it is an obligation to pay in the future. Beck, Balke, “Broke,” p. 172.

c. Now, watch the sleight-of-hand: using the money received now as revenue, even though it is supposed to be for paying future benefits! http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05958sp.pdf
It is the Social Security surplus that helps offset the huge deficits!

d. So, by this method we can pencil it in when cash is paid: it gives a picture of finances at a given moment…but fails to account for resources used but not yet paid for. Retirement costs of employees? No! This is the method used by the CBO for budgeting purposes. The federal budget: politics, policy, process - Allen Schick, Felix LoStracco - Google Books
e. This is the preferred method to use if you wish to convince folks that things aren’t as bad as they really are.

2. The Modified Accrual Basis Budget is more accurate, in that it measures income and expenses when they are actually earned or incurred, when the transaction is actually agreed to: buy two steaks, and pay on the spot. This method gives a longer-term view of all obligations, as well as resources used that year. But…it doesn’t show how much has to be borrowed for that year’s activities.

a. This method takes into consideration the cost of retirement benefits of federal employees; the method is generally used by private-sector corporations and businesses, as well as the federal government, for reporting- but not for budgeting.

b. This method does not include expected tax revenues, since it is difficult to estimate same…so it is not accounted for until it is officially collected.

3. The federal government uses both methods, as well as several other financial statements. But even this totality makes it difficult to account for long term commitments that include Social Security and Medicare. (Thus, some of those other statements). No. 282: Federal Government 2009 GAAP-Accounting

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, since you mention 'The Great Man,'.....

"By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy."
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

So? What's that have to do with Reagan promising to balance the budget (with a plan like Ryan's)
and giving us triple digit deficits instead?

1. "You can blame the (mostly) Democratic-controlled Congress of the time for that, of course, although Reagan himself never proposed a balanced budget, either — though he did often call for an constitutional amendment to require one."
http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2011/02/06/from-the-archives-reagans-balanced-budget-promise/

2. Reaganomics gave the American citizen a golden (economic) age...

3. ....and more importantly, he purchased freedom for the entire world by ending the 'Evil Empire' without firing a single shot...
...Priceless!
.

1. I guess we can blame the Republican Congress from 2011 on for the 'Obama' deficits, and we can blame the legacy of Bush tax policy and the 458 billion dollar deficit Bush left for creating the 2009 deficit, so what does that leave to blame Obama for?

2. Reaganomics did no such thing. No one has EVER shown cause and effect for Reaganomics itself for the 80's expansion.
Once you factor out the natural turn of the business cycle, the dramatic easing of Fed policy, and the dramatic fall in energy prices,

what's left for Reagan to take credit for? Stimulating the economy with a couple trilliion dollars worth of deficit spending???

3. Reagan did nothing to break up the Soviet Union except waste a lot of money on unnecessary defense spending.

 

[Claudette]

Oh Brother.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So? What's that have to do with Reagan promising to balance the budget (with a plan like Ryan's)
and giving us triple digit deficits instead?

1. "You can blame the (mostly) Democratic-controlled Congress of the time for that, of course, although Reagan himself never proposed a balanced budget, either — though he did often call for an constitutional amendment to require one."
http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2011/02/06/from-the-archives-reagans-balanced-budget-promise/

2. Reaganomics gave the American citizen a golden (economic) age...

3. ....and more importantly, he purchased freedom for the entire world by ending the 'Evil Empire' without firing a single shot...
...Priceless!
.

1. I guess we can blame the Republican Congress from 2011 on for the 'Obama' deficits, and we can blame the legacy of Bush tax policy and the 458 billion dollar deficit Bush left for creating the 2009 deficit, so what does that leave to blame Obama for?

2. Reaganomics did no such thing. No one has EVER shown cause and effect for Reaganomics itself for the 80's expansion.
Once you factor out the natural turn of the business cycle, the dramatic easing of Fed policy, and the dramatic fall in energy prices,

what's left for Reagan to take credit for? Stimulating the economy with a couple trilliion dollars worth of deficit spending???

3. Reagan did nothing to break up the Soviet Union except waste a lot of money on unnecessary defense spending.

1. Post #51 provided the data that you profess to request...

2. "Reagan did nothing to break up the Soviet Union..."

a. "By cutting tax rates, Reagan was able to fund a 50 percent increase in defense spending. This expansion of the military was crucial to winning the Cold War. Social spending also grew by some 25 percent—although I should hasten to add that Reagan sharply reduced the nation’s debt by negotiating a Social Security Commission regime that extended the age of retirement and cut back the implicit liabilities in the Social Security program by some six trillion dollars. These reforms radically improved the fiscal position of the government compared to the 1970s, when real Social Security liabilities doubled."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=08

b. "Many forces contributed to the fall of the "Evil Empire", but foremost among them was the deployment of those 464 cruise and 108 Pershing II missiles slated to offset triple-warhead Soviet SS-20s and Backfire bombers that could reach all of Western Europe (but not the American homeland). Needless to say, it was not the "theo-logic" of deterrence that drove the counter-deployment. The drama was not really about "circular-errors probable" or "hard-target kill capabilities." The name of the game was as old as Thucydides' disquisitions on Peloponnesian power politics. It was a pure test of will and strength, and on its outcome hung, as it turned out, history. Yet what a slender thread it was.

Euromissiles, massive aid to the Afghan rebels, the Strategic Defense Initiative, the arms build-up, the INF deployment, the demonstrated willingness to use force (Libya), support for Poland's Solidarity moment and Soviet dissidents--these all added up to what Kennan termed an "unalterable counter-force at every point" while Reagan's even-keeled leadership minimized "indecision, disunity and internal disintegration within this country" ..."
The "amazing and mysterious" life of Ronald Reagan - page 6 | National Interest, The


Will the facts convince you and your ilk?
I doubt it.
As the old saying goes, if Ronald Reagan showed he could walk on water, you'd claim.."see, he can't swim!"

 

[Katiegrrl0]

1. In "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One," Dr. Thomas Sowell points out that many politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.


The truth can be clearly seen in the economic policy that will be voted on in November.

2. The NYTimes verifies that the Obama economic plan is less beneficial than the Ryan Plan:

a. Deficit in 2016
Obama: $529 billion
Ryan Plan $241 billion

b. Added debt over the next ten years:
Obama $6.4 trillion
Ryan $3.1 trillion

c. Balances the budget:
Obama: never
Ryan: by 2040
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/politics/house-republicans-release-budget-blueprint.html


Not even close!
To vote for the Obama economic plan, one would have to subscribe to 'I know nothing...I vote Democrat.'


Obama: When you find yourself in a hole.....stop digging.

In 1835 Andrew Jackson was the last President to pay off the debt.
Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus and the debt was -9.0.
Truman between 1945 and 1949 actually lowered the debt by 8 billion dollars. So since Jackson no one has done anything with the debt to speak of.
What makes you think someone will turn this around now?

"Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus..."
A myth.

The national debt increased 41% during the Clinton term...even with the 'peace dividend' that Reagan provided.

Not a myth at all. He left a budget surplus that could have been used to pay toward the debt. That money was not used to pay to the debt. It was returned by Bush to taxpayers.
Now, do you know how you can still add to the debt while still balancing the budget. It seems you failed this part of economics.
The budget was set up as in most administrations higher than the amount the US would take in. He stayed inside the budget and there remained a surplus of money. Had that money been paid toward the debt where it should have gone it would have brought the number down.
Bush did not use it properly and returned it to taxpayers.
There are two different pieces to making the budget. The problem is that even when the budget is balanced the debt gets added to. Most President's fail to do even that much. Reagan is the first one to start to mass the nation's debt. Do you recall him saying the debt didn't matter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. "You can blame the (mostly) Democratic-controlled Congress of the time for that, of course, although Reagan himself never proposed a balanced budget, either — though he did often call for an constitutional amendment to require one."
http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2011/02/06/from-the-archives-reagans-balanced-budget-promise/

2. Reaganomics gave the American citizen a golden (economic) age...

3. ....and more importantly, he purchased freedom for the entire world by ending the 'Evil Empire' without firing a single shot...
...Priceless!
.

1. I guess we can blame the Republican Congress from 2011 on for the 'Obama' deficits, and we can blame the legacy of Bush tax policy and the 458 billion dollar deficit Bush left for creating the 2009 deficit, so what does that leave to blame Obama for?

2. Reaganomics did no such thing. No one has EVER shown cause and effect for Reaganomics itself for the 80's expansion.
Once you factor out the natural turn of the business cycle, the dramatic easing of Fed policy, and the dramatic fall in energy prices,

what's left for Reagan to take credit for? Stimulating the economy with a couple trilliion dollars worth of deficit spending???

3. Reagan did nothing to break up the Soviet Union except waste a lot of money on unnecessary defense spending.

1. Post #51 provided the data that you profess to request...

2. "Reagan did nothing to break up the Soviet Union..."

a. "By cutting tax rates, Reagan was able to fund a 50 percent increase in defense spending. This expansion of the military was crucial to winning the Cold War. Social spending also grew by some 25 percent—although I should hasten to add that Reagan sharply reduced the nation’s debt by negotiating a Social Security Commission regime that extended the age of retirement and cut back the implicit liabilities in the Social Security program by some six trillion dollars. These reforms radically improved the fiscal position of the government compared to the 1970s, when real Social Security liabilities doubled."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=08

b. "Many forces contributed to the fall of the "Evil Empire", but foremost among them was the deployment of those 464 cruise and 108 Pershing II missiles slated to offset triple-warhead Soviet SS-20s and Backfire bombers that could reach all of Western Europe (but not the American homeland). Needless to say, it was not the "theo-logic" of deterrence that drove the counter-deployment. The drama was not really about "circular-errors probable" or "hard-target kill capabilities." The name of the game was as old as Thucydides' disquisitions on Peloponnesian power politics. It was a pure test of will and strength, and on its outcome hung, as it turned out, history. Yet what a slender thread it was.

Euromissiles, massive aid to the Afghan rebels, the Strategic Defense Initiative, the arms build-up, the INF deployment, the demonstrated willingness to use force (Libya), support for Poland's Solidarity moment and Soviet dissidents--these all added up to what Kennan termed an "unalterable counter-force at every point" while Reagan's even-keeled leadership minimized "indecision, disunity and internal disintegration within this country" ..."
The "amazing and mysterious" life of Ronald Reagan - page 6 | National Interest, The


Will the facts convince you and your ilk?
I doubt it.
As the old saying goes, if Ronald Reagan showed he could walk on water, you'd claim.."see, he can't swim!"

No. You want to prove cause and effect for Reaganomics causing the 80's expansion? (as an aside, who caused the 80's recession that began six months AFTER Reagan took office?)

then you have to first eliminate all other factors as causative.

You can start by proving that Fed policy had nothing to do with economic growth in the 80's.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. When you hear Ryan promise to balance the budget, just remember,

Reagan promised to balance the budget,

with essentially the same plan Ryan is proposing.

2. Keep in mind, Obama's deficits are all occurring under Republican tax plans; Obama's deficits are the result of Obama acting like a Republican on taxes.

You seem to be forgetting something: Obama's spending. You can't blame that on anyone but Obama -- but you'll try, just as programmed.

What spending? The spending portion of the stimulus? Fine. That 450 billion contribution is just about all you can pin on Obama and the Democrats.

The rest is Obama being a Republican.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. In "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One," Dr. Thomas Sowell points out that many politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.


The truth can be clearly seen in the economic policy that will be voted on in November.

2. The NYTimes verifies that the Obama economic plan is less beneficial than the Ryan Plan:

a. Deficit in 2016
Obama: $529 billion
Ryan Plan $241 billion

b. Added debt over the next ten years:
Obama $6.4 trillion
Ryan $3.1 trillion

c. Balances the budget:
Obama: never
Ryan: by 2040
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/politics/house-republicans-release-budget-blueprint.html


Not even close!
To vote for the Obama economic plan, one would have to subscribe to 'I know nothing...I vote Democrat.'


Obama: When you find yourself in a hole.....stop digging.

In 1835 Andrew Jackson was the last President to pay off the debt.
Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus and the debt was -9.0.
Truman between 1945 and 1949 actually lowered the debt by 8 billion dollars. So since Jackson no one has done anything with the debt to speak of.
What makes you think someone will turn this around now?

"Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus..."
A myth.

The national debt increased 41% during the Clinton term...even with the 'peace dividend' that Reagan provided.

You obviously don't know the difference between an annual budget and the national debt.

That is very sad.

 

[Full-Auto]

So, we should trust the party that ran UP the deficits to stop doing so in only 28 years.


Are you serious or is this a joke?

"...the party that ran UP the deficits..."

1. (Reuters) - Deficits for the next two fiscal years would be slightly higher than the White House envisions if President Barack Obama's budget plan were adopted, the Congressional Budget Office said on Friday.CBO sees higher near-term deficits under Obama plan | Reuters

2. Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2012: $1,327 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
US Federal Deficit by Year - Charts Analysis


Once again the definition of Liberal is an individual for whom data, facts, logic, nor experience have any bearing in decision making.


Brings to mind the historic term, 'yella' dog Democrat'....Someone (generally from the South) who would vote for a yellow dog if it was a Democrat.

The day a CON$erviNutzi uses honest and accurate data, facts logic or experience is the day the Earth will end!

If the deficit in 2008 was only 459 billion, how did the national debt increase 1 trillion in 2008??? And if the deficit in 2007 was only 161 billion, how did the national debt increase 500 billion in 2007???

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

War costs off the books. The same method can be applied to the alleged surplus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In 1835 Andrew Jackson was the last President to pay off the debt.
Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus and the debt was -9.0.
Truman between 1945 and 1949 actually lowered the debt by 8 billion dollars. So since Jackson no one has done anything with the debt to speak of.
What makes you think someone will turn this around now?

"Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus..."
A myth.

The national debt increased 41% during the Clinton term...even with the 'peace dividend' that Reagan provided.

Not a myth at all. He left a budget surplus that could have been used to pay toward the debt. That money was not used to pay to the debt. It was returned by Bush to taxpayers.
Now, do you know how you can still add to the debt while still balancing the budget. It seems you failed this part of economics.
The budget was set up as in most administrations higher than the amount the US would take in. He stayed inside the budget and there remained a surplus of money. Had that money been paid toward the debt where it should have gone it would have brought the number down.
Bush did not use it properly and returned it to taxpayers.
There are two different pieces to making the budget. The problem is that even when the budget is balanced the debt gets added to. Most President's fail to do even that much. Reagan is the first one to start to mass the nation's debt. Do you recall him saying the debt didn't matter.

1. "It seems you failed this part of economics."
Actually, I've never failed anything.

2. I understand both economics, and flim-flam.
The debt increased 41% under Clinton, exactly as I've stated.
You must agree, since you didn't deny it.

a. "He left a budget surplus...."
This bogus claim appears with metronomic regularity among the apologists for the Left.

3.Post #51 will explain how the flim-flam is accomplished...you would do well to peruse
it. I'll save you embarrassment by not testing you about it.

4. The Reagan-Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform is the source of the funds that Clinton 'borrowed' to claim surplus.

In colloquial terms, if there was no reduction in the debt, then the use of the term 'surplus' as a political term of art is a fabrication.

For your edification:
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.

It should be referred to as 'smoke and mirrors.'

I bet there are days you feel it’s not even worth chewing through the restraints.

 

[sniper_m4]

I am tired of this conservative- liberal fighting!!! They are all corupt and it is designed to divide and conquer. Gay rights and abortion and other stuff is up to the sovereign states and not the Federal Govt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. In "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One," Dr. Thomas Sowell points out that many politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.


The truth can be clearly seen in the economic policy that will be voted on in November.

2. The NYTimes verifies that the Obama economic plan is less beneficial than the Ryan Plan:

a. Deficit in 2016
Obama: $529 billion
Ryan Plan $241 billion

b. Added debt over the next ten years:
Obama $6.4 trillion
Ryan $3.1 trillion

c. Balances the budget:
Obama: never
Ryan: by 2040
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/politics/house-republicans-release-budget-blueprint.html


Not even close!
To vote for the Obama economic plan, one would have to subscribe to 'I know nothing...I vote Democrat.'


Obama: When you find yourself in a hole.....stop digging.

In 1835 Andrew Jackson was the last President to pay off the debt.
Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus and the debt was -9.0.
Truman between 1945 and 1949 actually lowered the debt by 8 billion dollars. So since Jackson no one has done anything with the debt to speak of.
What makes you think someone will turn this around now?

"Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus..."
A myth.

The national debt increased 41% during the Clinton term...even with the 'peace dividend' that Reagan provided.

Under Reagan the national debt increased by about 200%. Under Bush by about 90%.

 

[daveman]

3. Reagan did nothing to break up the Soviet Union except waste a lot of money on unnecessary defense spending.

Yes, the Soviet Union broke up voluntarily out of the collective goodness of its heart because they were so kind and peaceful and loving. And they invented puppies.

You mean people stop picking on the Communists!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I guess we can blame the Republican Congress from 2011 on for the 'Obama' deficits, and we can blame the legacy of Bush tax policy and the 458 billion dollar deficit Bush left for creating the 2009 deficit, so what does that leave to blame Obama for?

2. Reaganomics did no such thing. No one has EVER shown cause and effect for Reaganomics itself for the 80's expansion.
Once you factor out the natural turn of the business cycle, the dramatic easing of Fed policy, and the dramatic fall in energy prices,

what's left for Reagan to take credit for? Stimulating the economy with a couple trilliion dollars worth of deficit spending???

3. Reagan did nothing to break up the Soviet Union except waste a lot of money on unnecessary defense spending.

1. Post #51 provided the data that you profess to request...

2. "Reagan did nothing to break up the Soviet Union..."

a. "By cutting tax rates, Reagan was able to fund a 50 percent increase in defense spending. This expansion of the military was crucial to winning the Cold War. Social spending also grew by some 25 percent—although I should hasten to add that Reagan sharply reduced the nation’s debt by negotiating a Social Security Commission regime that extended the age of retirement and cut back the implicit liabilities in the Social Security program by some six trillion dollars. These reforms radically improved the fiscal position of the government compared to the 1970s, when real Social Security liabilities doubled."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=08

b. "Many forces contributed to the fall of the "Evil Empire", but foremost among them was the deployment of those 464 cruise and 108 Pershing II missiles slated to offset triple-warhead Soviet SS-20s and Backfire bombers that could reach all of Western Europe (but not the American homeland). Needless to say, it was not the "theo-logic" of deterrence that drove the counter-deployment. The drama was not really about "circular-errors probable" or "hard-target kill capabilities." The name of the game was as old as Thucydides' disquisitions on Peloponnesian power politics. It was a pure test of will and strength, and on its outcome hung, as it turned out, history. Yet what a slender thread it was.

Euromissiles, massive aid to the Afghan rebels, the Strategic Defense Initiative, the arms build-up, the INF deployment, the demonstrated willingness to use force (Libya), support for Poland's Solidarity moment and Soviet dissidents--these all added up to what Kennan termed an "unalterable counter-force at every point" while Reagan's even-keeled leadership minimized "indecision, disunity and internal disintegration within this country" ..."
The "amazing and mysterious" life of Ronald Reagan - page 6 | National Interest, The


Will the facts convince you and your ilk?
I doubt it.
As the old saying goes, if Ronald Reagan showed he could walk on water, you'd claim.."see, he can't swim!"

No. You want to prove cause and effect for Reaganomics causing the 80's expansion? (as an aside, who caused the 80's recession that began six months AFTER Reagan took office?)

then you have to first eliminate all other factors as causative.

You can start by proving that Fed policy had nothing to do with economic growth in the 80's.

Which reminds me of something I wrote quite a while back, but is clearly still in effect:

Here, from the "Liberal Playbook,"....rule 6:

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.


Looks like rule 6b fits you to a 't"....As in Tea Party?

 

[daveman]

1. When you hear Ryan promise to balance the budget, just remember,

Reagan promised to balance the budget,

with essentially the same plan Ryan is proposing.

2. Keep in mind, Obama's deficits are all occurring under Republican tax plans; Obama's deficits are the result of Obama acting like a Republican on taxes.

You seem to be forgetting something: Obama's spending. You can't blame that on anyone but Obama -- but you'll try, just as programmed.

What spending? The spending portion of the stimulus? Fine. That 450 billion contribution is just about all you can pin on Obama and the Democrats.

The rest is Obama being a Republican.

To a Marxist, a socialist looks like a fundy rethug.

You will not understand this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus..."
A myth.

The national debt increased 41% during the Clinton term...even with the 'peace dividend' that Reagan provided.

Not a myth at all. He left a budget surplus that could have been used to pay toward the debt. That money was not used to pay to the debt. It was returned by Bush to taxpayers.
Now, do you know how you can still add to the debt while still balancing the budget. It seems you failed this part of economics.
The budget was set up as in most administrations higher than the amount the US would take in. He stayed inside the budget and there remained a surplus of money. Had that money been paid toward the debt where it should have gone it would have brought the number down.
Bush did not use it properly and returned it to taxpayers.
There are two different pieces to making the budget. The problem is that even when the budget is balanced the debt gets added to. Most President's fail to do even that much. Reagan is the first one to start to mass the nation's debt. Do you recall him saying the debt didn't matter.

1. "It seems you failed this part of economics."
Actually, I've never failed anything.

2. I understand both economics, and flim-flam.
The debt increased 41% under Clinton, exactly as I've stated.
You must agree, since you didn't deny it.

a. "He left a budget surplus...."
This bogus claim appears with metronomic regularity among the apologists for the Left.

3.Post #51 will explain how the flim-flam is accomplished...you would do well to peruse
it. I'll save you embarrassment by not testing you about it.

4. The Reagan-Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform is the source of the funds that Clinton 'borrowed' to claim surplus.

In colloquial terms, if there was no reduction in the debt, then the use of the term 'surplus' as a political term of art is a fabrication.

For your edification:
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.

It should be referred to as 'smoke and mirrors.'

I bet there are days you feel it’s not even worth chewing through the restraints.

How many times does your nonsense have to be debunked before you quit posting it?

We've gone through this months ago. Everything you're claiming was comprehensively disproven, and yet, here you are back, in classic rightwing myth-mongering style,

spewing it all out again as if it were true.

 

[daveman]

In 1835 Andrew Jackson was the last President to pay off the debt.
Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus and the debt was -9.0.
Truman between 1945 and 1949 actually lowered the debt by 8 billion dollars. So since Jackson no one has done anything with the debt to speak of.
What makes you think someone will turn this around now?

"Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus..."
A myth.

The national debt increased 41% during the Clinton term...even with the 'peace dividend' that Reagan provided.

Under Reagan the national debt increased by about 200%. Under Bush by about 90%.

GOP debt = bad.

Obama debt = good.