Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

For what it's worth:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Note that during Clinton's administration, the trend goes from rising to decreasing, and when GWB is in office, the trend goes from decreasing to very-much-rising.

Not that this necessarily proves anything, but it seems relevant.

[mainiac]

Yep. Look at that staggering debt racked up between 2003 and 2004 when we first invaded Iraq, then watch what I can only presume is money from stolen oil squeezing that debt down during the expensive occupation that bankrupted us and the addition of conventional forces in Afghanistan. Then watch Obama inherit all that horrible debt in 2008. But don't worry. I'm sure that now the party of no is in power, they'll repeat 1995-2000 and 2004-2007's wizardry and let Obama take the credit in 2012's campaign.

... I wonder if any other typos can be used to draw web traffic to Toady...

I am so sick of conservatives acting like the GOP is responsible for the Clinton debt responsibility.  First of all, the debt didn't just go down under Clinton.  It went down under: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton.  n every words EVERY time we have a liberal president the debt goes down.  Pattern much?

Secondly, anyone who actually makes the slightest effort to actually look at the legislation responsible knows that the law most responsible was the tax hike of 1993.  And how did the republicans go on that one?  Oh yeah, EVERY ONE OF THEM VOTED NO.  In the entire congress.  Not a single republican in congress deserves even one scrap of credit for the most significant piece of deficit reducing legislature.  Not one.

But yeah, it was totally the divided congress of 1994 that rode into office on OPPOSITION to the tax hike of 1993 who were responsible for the balanced budget.  Totally.  The people who shut down government when they didn't get the tax cut they wanted are responsible for balancing the budget.  Because basically the man standing his ground against breaking the budget the people he narrowly prevented from breaking the budget with tax cuts were basically partners in the Clinton surplus... NOT.

If you actually consult the budget experts on the future of our debt (talking to experts not a bad idea!) you would know that were it not for skyrocketing medicare costs, the US would be at a sustainable level of deficit in about 10 years according to the projections.  However Medical inflation in this country is completely insane.  We are spending too much on medical avenues with too little, if any benefits at all and it's at a growing rate.  This is crippling not only the government but the private sector as well.  The only logical course of action would be to say, "Hey, let's reform the healthcare system" but a certain party of no earned their name for opposing any such reforms.  So dont be surprised as we continue to rack up debt.

[Nikov]

And when Clinton's tax rates got slashed under Bush II with his 2003 cuts, what happened?

This is also the first time I've heard of Nixon and Eisenhower referred to as liberals. Unless you'd rather say the far more accurate statement that, since WWII, and on average, the debt has gone down as a percent of GDP until Reagan. You can't assume 'pattern much' other than 'since the time our debt was 120% of GDP, we've had more Democratic presidents'.

Also say what you want about the Reagan buildup. It ended the Soviet Union without any nuclear warheads flying around. You can't put a price on that.

[Aqizzar]

Also say what you want about the Reagan buildup. It ended the Soviet Union without any nuclear warheads flying around. You can't put a price on that.

Sure you can.  An increase in federal debt to the tune of about 12% of GDP.  That's a pretty big chunk of money.

I'm a bit leery of taking an incredibly post-facto analysis of the 2003 tax cuts from the Washington Times.  Let alone that it's an incredibly myopic description of the effect of taxes.  A global boom in stock-trading is a little hard to attribute to one rather small decrease in American capital gains taxes, and I've never heard from any other source that median household wealth increased by $20K, especially if you cut the top 2% of households out of the equation.  And of course, all that economic gain vanished in a puff of smoke in 2008 once everyone noticed it was built on a debt-trading shell game.

[mainiac]

Nixon wasn't a liberal. Nixon also ended the trend towards debt reduction.  He didn't end the budget surplus as a share of GDP, but his tax cuts sure helped.  (Remember, before they were Regan economic, they were Nixon economics, a thing that got brushed under the rug after that whole, national disgrace thing.)  Of course, Nixon was to the left of Regan and both Bushes, so it's all relative.  (Did you know that Nixon wanted a government run health care plan?  That commie!)

Eisenhower is of course most famous for integrating schools, fighting the military industrial complex (a term he coined), investing in public infrastructure and starting the space program (the largest government R+D program in history).  So yeah, I'd call him a liberal.

The Bush boom is especially absurd when you consider that the average american family's income was no better the day Bush left office then the day he came in.  Nice one there, dubya.  First president since Hoover to pull that off.

And the whole Regan ended the cold war thing.  I'm sure that if you just keep shouting that over and over again, it will become true and we can just ignore half a century of history leading up to that event and attribute it all to Regan.

Of course, you can spin this and spin this and spin this till the cows come home.

[G-Flex]

Also say what you want about the Reagan buildup. It ended the Soviet Union without any nuclear warheads flying around. You can't put a price on that.

The USSR was almost certainly doomed economically by the time Reagan got into office.


Oh, and I can put a price on that; we played motherfucking Risk with entire regions of the globe (parts of the Middle East, Central/South America) in the name of anti-communism via secret/proxy wars and shady deals.

[Akura]

Also say what you want about the Reagan buildup. It ended the Soviet Union without any nuclear warheads flying around. You can't put a price on that.

O RLY?

Anyway, I try to stay away from politiks. Too much stupid flying around in Washington.

[mainiac]

Anyway, I try to stay away from politiks. Too much stupid flying around in Washington.

This attitude pisses me off. When you stay away because there is too much stupid, you encourage the stupid.  The ancient greeks called a person like you an idiot and I agree.  Hold your nose and pay attention.

[Nikov]

Here I go again...

Nixon wasn't a liberal. Nixon also ended the trend towards debt reduction.  He didn't end the budget surplus as a share of GDP, but his tax cuts sure helped.  (Remember, before they were Regan economic, they were Nixon economics, a thing that got brushed under the rug after that whole, national disgrace thing.)  Of course, Nixon was to the left of Regan and both Bushes, so it's all relative.  (Did you know that Nixon wanted a government run health care plan?  That commie!)

Nixon's economic policies were Keynesian (as are Obama's, to a far greater degree as well). If you think it is politically conservative to take the dollar off the gold standard and institute a health care mandate, this is going to be a difficult discussion.

Eisenhower is of course most famous for integrating schools, fighting the military industrial complex (a term he coined), investing in public infrastructure and starting the space program (the largest government R+D program in history).  So yeah, I'd call him a liberal.

Woodrow Wilson was the man who segregated the federal government. I'm curious if you'll recognize he was a liberal, or if you just use that as a term of endearment for any politician you agree with who isn't an obvious conservative. Bush, you know, did more for fighting AIDS in Africa than countless liberal presidents before him. Teddy Roosevelt was the most avid environmentalist we ever had in office (granted he wanted to preserve exotic species for shooting responsibly). Eisenhower, big liberal he was, funded the space program with the purpose of having the military edge over the Soviets in missile technology. Even Reagan, in his closet liberalism (that's what funding R+D makes you, right?), funded tremendous research projects for space militarization along with all sorts of new implements of democracy, which we now enjoy as GPS devices and FLIR night-driving aids in minivans. What progressives! On the flip side, Kennedy went nearly to the brink of a nuclear war to badger a helpless island nation into submission while starting an interventionist conflict in a third-world country to fight communism, costing the lives of thousands of draftees. I guess he's a regressionist conservative?

The Bush boom is especially absurd when you consider that the average american family's income was no better the day Bush left office then the day he came in.  Nice one there, dubya.  First president since Hoover to pull that off.

This has to be the most flaunted case of lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Real personal income for Americans - excluding government payouts such as Social Security - has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For comparison, real personal income during the first 15 months in office for President George W. Bush, who inherited a milder recession from his predecessor, dropped 0.4 percent. Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush’s eight years in office.

Saucery!

Seems per capita income increased while per household income decreased. I wonder if an expert like Thomas Sowell has like any explanation for us.

That man has to be my favorite former Marxist to quote.

And the whole Regan ended the cold war thing.  I'm sure that if you just keep shouting that over and over again, it will become true and we can just ignore half a century of history leading up to that event and attribute it all to Regan.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, but the arms race broke them. Bottom of page four. Previously the name of the game was detente. Nobody was even considering bringing down the Union anymore.

Of course, you can spin this and spin this and spin this till the cows come home.

Now is this the personal you or the general you? Because yes, you have, and no doubt you will, and no doubt I will spin it all back at you. I can't prove the facts any better than with newspaper articles, quotes from a former Marxist turned Senior Fellow at Stanford and Politburo transcripts. I'll let others decide which of us is spinning it back on straight.

Well, that's my massive post for the day.

[mainiac]

This is also the first time I've heard of Nixon and Eisenhower referred to as liberals.

And now you are arguing "Of course Nixon was a liberal".  Because it's liberal to follow what has been economic orthodoxy for the past 70 years among liberals and conservatives alike worldwide.  Dubya justified his tax cuts through Keynes, as did Regan.

You sir, are a liar and a scoundrel.  You say things with no conviction or care for the concept of truth simply to support your ideology.  What possible value can your arguments have?

And of course per capita income increased during the Bush years.  If the rich get richer and the middle class stagnates, that means per capita income goes up.  That's the difference between a mean (per capita income) and a median (the average household).

[G-Flex]

Bush, you know, did more for fighting AIDS in Africa than countless liberal presidents before him.

I have to single this out for being completely ridiculous.

AIDS is a modern phenomenon. There were not "countless liberal presidents before [Bush]" who had to deal with AIDS at all. The most recent Democrat in office prior to GWB was Clinton, but aside from him, the last was Carter, who left office in early 1981.

AIDS was first reported after Carter had already left office. So by "countless liberal presidents", I guess you mean exactly one: Clinton.

[Nadaka]

In defense... Some people can't count that high.

[Nikov]

Dear God, you found a solitary factual mistake and proceeded to ridicule my intelligence! Your powers of rhetoric are infallible. I surrender the debate.

[G-Flex]

You don't have to get offended just because I pointed out a rather obvious mistake you made... and no, I didn't insult your intelligence.

To be honest, though, I don't understand how you could think that "countless liberal presidents" have been in office since the 80's. That's a bit silly!

Seriously though, can you ever respond to criticism with a simple "you're right" or "my mistake" instead of getting all indignant or sarcastic about it? You act like you're in the right for being wrong here.

[Nadaka]

I was the one who cracked the joke. Neither one of you has to freak out about it.

Is my humor really that brutal?