Debt by President

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

I believe that the folks that identify themselves with the Tea Party are not happy with the Republican party. The Democrat party is clearly tax and spend. The Republican party members at least say that they want smaller government (and thus less spending) and lower taxes. Neither party has demonstrated any fiscal responsibility. The Republican party could see a serious third party if they thwart the efforts of the Tea Party candidates to bring those principles to a vote. There is so much entrenched power in both parties that I am not sure that a third party would be ultimately successful but such a movement would clearly wreck the Republican efforts. So the Tea Party folks are working in the party that is most closely aligned with its view point. The level of debt that the Democrat party led by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi is not sustainable and if continued will lead to economic collapse.

 

WWII was much different because when the war was over, the USA was the only industrial power not substantially destroyed in the war. So while we had a substantial debt as compared to GDP, we could sell to everyone else to rebuild their countries. The politicians have allowed our industrial base to leave so we cannot rebuild the world to get ourselves out of this. Both parties have led to the current situation - the Democrats wanting to do so and the Republicans saying that they do not want to do so but doing it anyway. Both are disgusting.

[GernBlansten]

If the democrats are tax and spend, why do their administrations historically do better at controlling the debt? Why do republicans do so bad? REALLY? Look at the numbers! Why do the Teapartiers align themselves with the republicans? Are they just bad at history?

[evmori]

We are still paying for Reganomics!

[vol_scouter]

I did look at the numbers of the debt as a function of GDP. Reagan was not able to cut spending because he had a democrat controlled congress.

[GernBlansten]

So Obama gets a pass from this point on?

[packsaddle]

Vol, not according to David Stockman who was the architect of those budgets:

 

"Mr Stockman, now an investment banker with the Blackstone Group on Wall Street, explained how 'tax-cutting soon became a movable feast for special interests'; how the spending cuts meant to match the tax cuts never materialised; how Mr Reagan skirted responsibility for the fiscal doomsday machine he had created.

 

When a secret deal was cut with key Democrats to deal with the burgeoning budget shortfall in 1982, Mr Reagan vetoed it, suggesting 'the deficit would 'serve a good purpose',' concurs Mr Weidenbaum. ' 'They keep the liberals from new spending programmes',' he quotes the former president as saying."

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/the-price-of-reaganomics-1464121.html

 

This is the first time Stockman admitted this ulterior motive. He made this first admission just a few years after he left the administration. I'm also glad he's owning up to the deception again recently. Too bad he couldn't have been more honest at that time he was IN the administration.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[JoeBob]

Gern,

Look here for a chart showing what party was in control when:

 

http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm

 

Correlate the deficit ratios to the party in control, and it becomes patently obvious that all the fiscally responsible years (1996 - 2002) were when the Rs controlled the House.

There was tolerance for the Repubs high spending after 911, but when they never came home fiscally in the last years of Bush; the Tea Party was born.

[Woapalanne]

Good points. We only show our ignorance when we blame a President (ANY President) for debt. Spending and tax bills MUST originate in the House of Representatives. Neither the Senate nor the President can make us tax or spend. It takes the House, then the others agreeing. So if you want to blame party, see what party is in control of the House. The President can only sign or veto, and his/her veto can be overridden.

[Woapalanne]

"We are still paying for Reganomics!"

 

Please explain how "we are still paying" for large increases in Federal revenue 20+ years ago.

 

[GernBlansten]

If the president doesn't veto and signs the budget, doesn't he agree to it?

How many budgets have been vetoed by the past 5 presidents?

[packsaddle]

Woapalanne, this figure might help:

http://www.outshine.com/images/national_debt_small.jpg

 

[GernBlansten]

Try this one...

 

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/US-National-Debt-GDP.gif

 

Oh, and Reagan vs. congress budgets...

 

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Reagan-Not-Congress.png

 

 

Facts have a liberal bias!

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/23/business/0124-biz-websubCHARTS.gif

 

Tell me again why the TeaPartiers (neo debt hawks) align with Republicans?

[Woapalanne]

"Facts have a liberal bias!"

 

WRONG!! Facts, by definition, have NO bias. Otherwise they are not facts. (And that's a tired old lie, by the way.)

 

And thanks for the charts proving my points. Your chart showed the proposed budget (which is fiction) vs the actual budgets passed by the Congress, which is real life. And only the ones passed by Congress generated any debt.

[GernBlansten]

How about the budgets signed by the presidents?

[Woapalanne]

What about the budgets passed by Congress and then signed by the president? He/she can't change a thing (no line-item veto - another place the Confederates had a superior Constitution).

 

"The President proposes, Congress disposes" was the ditty they taught us in Civics (wish they still had those courses in HS).