Libs its not really about the DEBT

[JRK]

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?

 

[Truthmatters]

who was it that held two wars and never paid for them?

 

[JRK]

who was it that held two wars and never paid for them?

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

 

[8537]

RR started the largest growth cycle in this countries history.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

And how do you defend it?

 

[BlindBoo]

who was it that held two wars and never paid for them?

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

AND an unfunded medical program for senior meds

 

[8537]

who was it that held two wars and never paid for them?

Ok you want to play politics?

Pointing out two wholly unfunded wars is playing politics?

The wars had funding,

What funding?

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

 

[JRK]

RR started the largest growth cycle in this countries history.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

And how do you defend it?

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.

 

[8537]

RR started the largest growth cycle in this countries history.

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

And how do you defend it?

bull shit?

why take this stuff so personal dude?
total growth GDP was 36% from 83-90

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.

 

[8537]

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?

 

[Truthmatters]

And what were the Taxes on the 1% in thosse years?

 

[8537]

Other periods of larger growth than "The largest growth cycle in this countries history.":

1950 to 1957: 293B to 461B, growth of 58%

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

 

[G.T.]

owned. I <3 the sidelines. lol

 

[Texanmike]

Not to be a bother but there is a problem with using GDP. There is ALWAYS a problem using GDP.

Are you using a constant dollar, first and second, how are you calculating inflation? If you don't consider those things then no measure of GDP is useful.

A big part of clinton-era GDP was from home purchases. The problem is (and its not specific to the home purchases and I'm not saying that his growth wasn't real -- I consider him to be the second best president of my lifetime) that you inflated the value of homes (and thus the price) by inflating the money supply.

I'll explain. I am not commening on my opinion of the posts, just trying to give some validity to the numbers for the sake of honest debate:

The fractional reserve banking system allows banks to loan money that doesn't exist. When you combine that with laxed credit requirements (influenced highly by community re-investment act) you have more potential home buyers. When that happens the prices for homes go up because there is more demand (desire + the ability to purchase). That causes a significant increase in the money supply because banks can loan out M1 and M2 currency for an almost 15fold increase in "vapor" currency. Bank has 1000 dollars and the ability to loan out 10,000 from that 1000. The M2 (the second banks- 10 of them for this example) have 1,000 each. From their 1000 they can loan out 5,000. (Keep in mind the dollar as a promisary note does not actually denote value, rather the promise that labor will occur in the future on behalf of the holder of the "note"-- whether that work actually happens, building the actual value of the money base is tied to inflation) and now suddenly from 1,000 there is 150,000 in currency)

Now consider what recently happened. The economy tried to swallow the money from the homes. A house that is actually valued at 100,000 but because of increased ability to borrow (and manufacture money) it is now worth 250,000. Once that catches up, and the velocity of money slows down... the buyer can't afford the 250,000 note and he gets forclosed on. That is what should have happened. Well that 150,000 of vapor money would disappear.

Those kind of statistics are not usually factored in, especially because we hid the deflation by keeping people in there homes (and actually increased the money supply even more without adding labor performed to the market).

Its proably poorly worded but its something to think about when you are trying to compare GDP increases to determine the success of economic policy.

Mike

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

Real GDP growth averaged 4.5% under Reagan's 8 years.
By comparison, it averaged 8.9% from 1933-1945 under FDR

 

[8537]

Not to be a bother but there is a problem with using GDP. There is ALWAYS a problem using GDP.

Are you using a constant dollar, first and second, how are you calculating inflation? If you don't consider those things then no measure of GDP is useful.

I'm using the same measure Heritage used so that we're comparing apples to apples - nominal dollars.

A big part of clinton-era GDP was from home purchases. The problem is (and its not specific to the home purchases and I'm not saying that his growth wasn't real -- I consider him to be the second best president of my lifetime) that you inflated the value of homes (and thus the price) by inflating the money supply.

Home purchases aren't part of GDP.

 

[Texanmike]

Not to be a bother but there is a problem with using GDP. There is ALWAYS a problem using GDP.

Are you using a constant dollar, first and second, how are you calculating inflation? If you don't consider those things then no measure of GDP is useful.

I'm using the same measure Heritage used so that we're comparing apples to apples - nominal dollars.

A big part of clinton-era GDP was from home purchases. The problem is (and its not specific to the home purchases and I'm not saying that his growth wasn't real -- I consider him to be the second best president of my lifetime) that you inflated the value of homes (and thus the price) by inflating the money supply.

Home purchases aren't part of GDP.

I don't think that you really read my post carefully.

First, if you don't use constant dollars (with a proper measure) then that is very problematic. Its a statistics game that is played with about every statistic published and you have to be careful with it.

Here is the simplified version of the problem.

If you have a money supply that contains a total of $1000 dollars and you calculate a GDP of $500 one year, then you increase the money supply (this is where home prices come into it) to $2000 and the GDP increases to $1000) you have a GDP increase of 100%!

The problem with that is that the economy did NOT grow at all. You have to factor in the increase in the supply of money.

Even using constant dollars you have to look at what the method was used to calculate the relative values of the money.

Mike

 

[8537]

Not to be a bother but there is a problem with using GDP. There is ALWAYS a problem using GDP.

Are you using a constant dollar, first and second, how are you calculating inflation? If you don't consider those things then no measure of GDP is useful.

I'm using the same measure Heritage used so that we're comparing apples to apples - nominal dollars.

A big part of clinton-era GDP was from home purchases. The problem is (and its not specific to the home purchases and I'm not saying that his growth wasn't real -- I consider him to be the second best president of my lifetime) that you inflated the value of homes (and thus the price) by inflating the money supply.

Home purchases aren't part of GDP.

I don't think that you really read my post carefully.

First, if you don't use constant dollars (with a proper measure) then that is very problematic. Its a statistics game that is played with about every statistic published and you have to be careful with it.

I understand the inherent problem with using nominal dollars. Again, I was simply using the methodology employed by Heritage to make the comparisons valid.

if we use real dollars, the comparison with Reagan would look even worse relative to the 1950's and 1960's when inflation was lower (or, better, the change in the GDP deflator was less).

 

[Texanmike]

I'm using the same measure Heritage used so that we're comparing apples to apples - nominal dollars.



Home purchases aren't part of GDP.

I don't think that you really read my post carefully.

First, if you don't use constant dollars (with a proper measure) then that is very problematic. Its a statistics game that is played with about every statistic published and you have to be careful with it.

I understand the inherent problem with using nominal dollars. Again, I was simply using the methodology employed by Heritage to make the comparisons valid.

if we use real dollars, the comparison with Reagan would look even worse relative to the 1950's and 1960's when inflation was lower (or, better, the change in the GDP deflator was less).

That's kind of my point. I would say that a comparison of raw GDP is fruitless. In football terms it is kind of like rating QB's according to Passing Yards.

Rather than use GDP, I would have pointed to something better to indicate health of the economy.

Mike

 

[JRK]

who was it that held two wars and never paid for them?

Ok you want to play politics?

Pointing out two wholly unfunded wars is playing politics?

The wars had funding,

What funding?

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

My point was simple to start with, but no the liberal has to play politics with it
ok show me where it is written that we borrow money for the wars and not for the items I I stated?
does it really matter?
do you feel that we should not defend our country?
this is about OBAMA