I would agree but my point in the first place was I don't think the so called "spending cut" had much to do with balancing the budget. Remember spending increased ever year during the Clinton terms. The National Journal rated Obama the most liberal senator for 2007. http://www.nationaljournal.com/ He so liberal this democratic representative will not even endorse him: Okla. Dem calls Obama liberal, declines to endorse - Yahoo! News He would increase taxes on the middle class in the form of a capital gains tax increase and dividend tax increase. The wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of overall taxes so of course they got a larger break. Yes as he was driven by the polls as a governor also.
Agreed. I backed my argument up with facts. Where's yours? I give the majority of credit to the American people whenever the economy is booming. No tax increase, whether on the wealthy or the poor, is going to make this nation prosper. A tax increase on the wealthy is not going to help you or me be more successful. It's just going to take more capital out of the economy and be spent inefficiently by the government. It's going to make this country as a whole less competitive in the world market. See my above post. Are you disputing the fact that revenue did increase? We are unstable because of an array of issues including oil prices, the mortgage crisis, and out of control government spending. I actually partially agree with you here. As a conservative republican I'm actually very disappointed in the republican party because it has acted more like the democratic party with regards to spending. However, with talks of universal health care and who knows what other big government programs Obama has up his sleeve he's the last person, democrat or republican, to reduce government spending.
I'm not a fan of huge government programs either, but right now instead of using taxes to pay for gubment spending we are just artificially inflating the value of the dollar. Spending has to be paid for or stopped, and there are no signs that we are suddenly going to be responsible and cut spending. You say that revenue is up - that sure doesn't seem to be translating to the real world. I think Americans, in general, are poorer now than they've been in quite a while. You are doing a good job of substantiating your claims. I, on the other hand, am talking out of my ass most of the time. That said, I don't put a lot of stock in "most liberal" labels. Votes can be more complicated than a simple yes/no. I don't like Obama's big government ideas, but at the end of the day, I think he'll involve us much less in the affairs of other nations and will have a calming affect on the US and the world, which will have a calming effect on our economy (to some degree). I think Obama will relate with other countries better and have better foreign relations, which I think we sorely need at this time. We spend a lot of money overseas right now, so I think if we can get control of the reigns of the military-industrial complex again we'll be saving a lot of money, which might come close to or even surpass the domestic spending Obama wants to do. When you consider that McCain will probably do his share of domestic spending as well, I really can't help but think we'll be better off with Obama in the White House. Especially considering that we were living better under the last Democrat than we are under the current Republican. I think presidents are something like football coaches, they get credit for the wins and blame for the losses and we'll never know for certain to what extent that credit or blame applies.
A reduction in the rate of spending is a reduction. Clinton reduced. Bush increased. It ain't rocket science. Your sad attempts to paint Cinton's achievements as actual republican achievements or on factors beyond his control is transparent. You surely can't talk about the achievements of the recent republican white house and Congress, can you? :lol: I know you're new, but that tired old claim has been shot down in earlier threads. The source of that "ranking" is a conservative site that always seems to move the current Democratic presidential candidate to the top of the list. They had Kerry as the most liberal in 2004, They've had Hillary as the most liberal last year when she looked like a shoo-in. Now Obama has lept 16 slots to become number one now that he's the democratic candidate. Amazing coincidence, eh? The source is just not credible, and "liberalness" is subjective anyway. This is an old republican talking point that they have already dropped. Well, you haven't produced any of these numbers that you claim. Post them (with a reputable source) for us to see and I'll comment on them. I'll also point out the immense increase in the national GDP which is far more likely to be the cause of increased tax revenues. Nope. The Clinton years were a huge economic boom. The economic downturn began in the spring of 2001. Who was President in 2001. From Wikipedia: Who was President from 1992-2000? Nonsense. Clinton has always run as a populist and a moderate. You just see what you want to see.
Facts? You backed up your argument with a conservative website's opinion. Try to find some subjective ranking and we can discuss it. The National Journal is just trying to influence people on the extreme right . . . people like you.
Total Revenue in Billions: Government Taxes and Revenue in United States 1902-2013 - Federal State Local Charts 1981 1,015.7 (Reagan Tax Cuts) 1982 1,078.2 1983 1,103.90 1984 1,221.50 1985 1,348 You're half way right. Of course an increase of the GDP goes hand and hand with increased tax revenue but you're leaving out the other half of the equation and that is the tax cut was the catalyst to the increase in GDP which led to higher tax revenue. The huge Reagan tax cuts led to the immense increase in GDP you speak of. I know you will disagree with this because you disagree that tax cuts are good for the economy so explain why after this giant tax cut the economy boomed whereas before the tax cuts the economy was in a recession. GDP Growth under Clinton: 3rd qrt 2000 -0.5 4th qrt 2000 2.1 1st qrt 2001 -.05 Certainly you can't blame the negative growth in the 1rst quarter of 2001 on Bush since his policies had not been put in place yet. Bush inherited an anemic economy from Clinton just like I said. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
More than half way, amigo. GDP and tax income go hand in hand. Now there is a leap. Your numbers offer nothing to support this. Do you seriously believe that tax revenues alone drive the economy? Of course, I'll disagree with it, because it is a inadequate analysis. Lots of things happened to drive the 90's economic boom. The Soviet Union fell and we were able to reduce military spending greatly; we won the Gulf War--stabilizing the Persian Gulf oil industry for a decade; the Internet revolution sent stock prices soaring; our two wars were quick, smart, low-casualties and we won; we had a popular, fiscally responsible president; . . . and on and on. Talk about deceptive numbers! That isn't the GDP growth under Clinton, that's the last two quarters of his last year in office! Plus Bush's first quarter! But you are right about one thing--the economy peaked just before Clinton left office. Total GDP growth under Clinton was 34%. And because he had one quarter with a -0.5% loss, you call it an anemic. You seem to misunderstand the word. What utter nonsense. You keep trying to credit republicans for Clintons success and now you're trying to credit Clinton for Bush's failures. :lol: Anemic economy, my ass! It grew 34% during Clintons administration versus 32% under Reagan, 4.5% under Bush I and 20% under Bush II. US GDP 1947-2008 Answer this then--was there a recession under Clinton? No. Was there one under Bush? Yes.
Of course not but common sense tells you that the more people are taxed the less money they have to spend and 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending silly. I asked you to explain why the economy boomed in the 80's after the Reagan tax cuts and you went on a tangent about the 90's. FYI, Reagan was not president in the 90's. The Soviet Union still existed in the 80's, military spending increased, there was not an internet revolution, and the cold war continued. So the opposite of everything you just said occurred and yet the economy boomed. Explain. Not even an ounce of deception. I clearly listed the year and the quarter. After all you refuted my point that the economy slowed down during the end of Clinton's term. I clearly supplied facts to the contrary and you say I'm being deceptive. I love debating politics but you must be rational. I never claimed that Clinton didn't reside over economic prosperity. My only point is the prosperity slowed down considerable by the time Bush took over. No is correct. What is your point? Yes, during the start of his first term which was a continuation of the slow down that started at the end of the Clinton term.
Common sense does not tell me that, nor does your argument. Sooo, the Reagan tax cuts didn't produce an economic boom under Bush I? Why not? The economy flourished under Reagan for many reasons, as stated before, economic health depends on many factors. One of the reasons for the good 80's economy was the end of the "stagflation" of the Nixon era. Carter started phasing our price controls on petroleum and Reagan also abandoned Nixons wage and price controls. The Federal Reserve under Voelker contracted the money supply in Carters and Reagan's administrations reducing inflation, and Reagan oversaw the easing of prices and controls during the oil glut of the 80's. There was a distinct shift toward liberal market economies and the glastnost and perestroika of the Gorbachev USSR reduced international tensions. Also the baby boomers entered the most economically productive period of the lives. It wasn't just tax cuts. It was not all roses either, there was a recession in 1982 under Reagan. Then you must be sensible. You are focusing on a late half-point drop in a 32% GDP increase and trying to make it into an economic downturn. At least you stopped trying to call it anemic . . . -0.5 % is NOT considerable in anybody's book. Think about it. Recessions are not an indicator of a good economy. Lack of one is a good thing.
So when a tax cut is initiated where does that extra money in people's pockets go? Are you saying none of it is spent by the consumer? Are you saying none of it is invested in new machinery? Are you saying none of it is invested in the market? Bush I raised taxes. So are you admitting here it was partially tax cuts that led to the booming economy? I was focusing on per quarter. After all, 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is considered to be a recession by economist. Clinton's last quarter had anemic growth by any measurement. I'm not placing the blame on Clinton for the slow down though. It was mainly due to a typical economic cycle slow down.
