Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stop projecting you views as if they were Tip O'Neill's. During Reagan's time in the 1980s, the government's debt tripled.
Indeed it did, thanks entirely to Tip O'Neill. Or are you now going to suddenly pretend that the House does not originate all appropriation bills?
The Democrats controlled the House from 1955 through 1994, and during that time there was only deficit spending, never a balanced budget, and never a surplus.
The reason the National Debt went from $1 trillion to $4 trillion during the 1980s is because Reagan and O'Neill worked out a deal - Reagan got the Defense spending increases he wanted, and the Democrats got the increases in social programs they wanted. The National Debt was not the only thing that tripled during the 1980s, federal social spending also tripled during the same period. In 1989 the US became a "socialist nation," because more than 50% of the entire federal budget was now being spent on socialist programs, namely Social Security and MediCare/MedicAid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
When Tip O'Neill was in the House, the top marginal tax-rate was 50% and capital gains was 28% -- and that was a reduction from 70% and 40%, respectively.
You can rant about "Democrats destroying the nation" but examples are no place to be found except in the minds of the radical right. I don't agree that recapturing the country in favor of the middle-class, away from the plutocrats, is destroying the country.
When Congress passed that 25% tax reduction (10% in 1983, 10% in 1984, and 5% in 1985) it quadrupled federal revenues. From 1985 through 1989 the economy literally boomed. I am not referring to the fictitious media-definition of a "booming economy," like under Clinton, I am referring to an actual booming economy where the GDP increased by more than 5% per year.
Indeed it did, thanks entirely to Tip O'Neill. Or are you now going to suddenly pretend that the House does not originate all appropriation bills?
The Democrats controlled the House from 1955 through 1994, and during that time there was only deficit spending, never a balanced budget, and never a surplus.
The House may originate the bill but it is based upon the President's request. During that period that you mention, the debt was insignificant compared to GDP. It wasn't until Reagan ballooned the deficits did it become significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
The reason the National Debt went from $1 trillion to $4 trillion during the 1980s is because Reagan and O'Neill worked out a deal - Reagan got the Defense spending increases he wanted, and the Democrats got the increases in social programs they wanted. The National Debt was not the only thing that tripled during the 1980s, federal social spending also tripled during the same period. In 1989 the US became a "socialist nation," because more than 50% of the entire federal budget was now being spent on socialist programs, namely Social Security and MediCare/MedicAid.
The growth rate under Reagan was no greater than the revenue growth under Carter. Next, I can't help notice you start at 1983 -- two years after Reagan took office and after his 1981 tax-cut, which had no positive effect on growth or revenue.
There was no Reagan miracle. The delusion that we never had good growth until Reagan came along is very widespread on the right; somehow the whole postwar generation, in which everyone’s incomes doubled, has been erased from memory. But it’s still there in the national accounts:
....
In terms of a "booming economy" the GDP growth rate was no different than long term growth for a long period (and worse than the 1990s.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
When Congress passed that 25% tax reduction (10% in 1983, 10% in 1984, and 5% in 1985) it quadrupled federal revenues. From 1985 through 1989 the economy literally boomed. I am not referring to the fictitious media-definition of a "booming economy," like under Clinton, I am referring to an actual booming economy where the GDP increased by more than 5% per year.
I see, Clinton's growth doesn't count.
However, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.
But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.
Therein is the problem. For the last 15 years there have only been Continuing Resolutions, Continuing Appropriations, Omnibus, and Supplemental bills. There has been no budget passed by the House or the Senate since 1998. That includes when both Democrats and Republicans had control of the House.
Budget bills are not the same as appropriations bills. CRs, omnibus and supplementals are the latter.
Budget Resolutions
The annual budget resolution is an agreement between the House and Senate on a budget plan for the upcoming fiscal year and at least the following four fiscal years. The budget resolution is in the form of a concurrent resolution, so it is not sent to the president for his signature and thus does not become law, but it does provide a framework for subsequent legislative action on the appropriations bills.
Also, the 1998 allegation is ridiculously and demonstrably false.
The House may originate the bill but it is based upon the President's request. During that period that you mention, the debt was insignificant compared to GDP. It wasn't until Reagan ballooned the deficits did it become significant.
It is Congress that spends, not Presidents. This is basic grade-school civics, I thought you would have learned that by now.
A President can do nothing more than propose a budget, and even that is not a constitutional requirement. It was a tradition started by President Wilson in 1921. Since then, no President's proposed budget has ever been enacted into law by Congress. The only constitutional power the President has over the budget is his power of veto. However, no President is stupid enough to veto a bill that has passed Congress with a veto-proof majority.
It is just as stupid to blame Reagan for deficit spending as it is to blame Obama for deficit spending. It is Congress that enacts the budget and controls the nation's purse strings, not any President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The growth rate under Reagan was no greater than the revenue growth under Carter.
ROFL! Carter was President during the greatest recession since the 1930s. We had negative GDP growth, double-digit inflation and unemployment. Meanwhile the Democrat controlled Congress was spending irrationally exacerbating inflation, just as the have been today.
That dismal economy under Carter's term (which really began when Ford was President), continued under Reagan's first time. It was not until mid-1984 that the economy began turning around and finally growing with some energy. 1985 marked the first full year of economic growth in every quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Next, I can't help notice you start at 1983 -- two years after Reagan took office and after his 1981 tax-cut, which had no positive effect on growth or revenue.
I did not start in 1983, that is when Congress enacted a 25% across the board tax cut. You will note that I said "Congress enacted" a tax cut, not the President. Once again, we get back to basic civics - Congress enacts the laws, raises or lowers taxes, does all the spending, not Presidents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
There was no Reagan miracle. The delusion that we never had good growth until Reagan came along is very widespread on the right; somehow the whole postwar generation, in which everyone’s incomes doubled, has been erased from memory. But it’s still there in the national accounts:
No, it is only a widespread misinformed belief of the left. Considering your utter lack of understanding of basic civics, it does not surprise me in the least you think there was some kind of "Reagan miracle."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
In terms of a "booming economy" the GDP growth rate was no different than long term growth for a long period (and worse than the 1990s.)
I see, Clinton's growth doesn't count.
From 1985 through 1989 the economy grew better than 5% per year. There was not a single year during the 1990s when the GDP grew by more than 5%. If the GDP does not increase by more than 5%, it is not a booming economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
However, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.
Federal revenues declined significantly from 1977 through 1983. It was only after the 25% across the board tax cut was enacted into law by Congress that federal revenues began to increase beginning in 1984.
A President can do nothing more than propose a budget, and even that is not a constitutional requirement. It was a tradition started by President Wilson in 1921.
It's not a Constitutional requirement, but it's far from a mere "tradition." The president's budget request is required by law. 31 U.S.C. 1105(a)
All thirteen appropriation bills must originate with the House, but may be amended just like any other bill by the Senate. So sayeth Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.
Whenever Congress enacts a Supplemental, Omnibus, or Continuing Resolution/Appropriation bill it is because they failed to include the amount in the budget. Those bills do not constitute a budget, they constitute Congress' failure to enact a budget.
It's not a Constitutional requirement, but it's far from a mere "tradition." The president's budget request is required by law. 31 U.S.C. 1105(a)
A law which the President can completely disregard, if he so chose. Since Congress has no constitutional authority to compel the President to produce a proposed budget, and since there is no constitutional requirement for a President to produce a proposed budget, the law is unconstitutional.
It is Congress' constitutional responsibility to enact a budget, nobody else.
The federal budget consists of thirteen appropriation bills.
I don't know that most people count the District's, but otherwise, yes.
Quote:
For Fiscal Year 2013 those thirteen appropriation bills are:
Very good. Are you working up to a point?
Quote:
All thirteen appropriation bills must originate with the House, but may be amended just like any other bill by the Senate.
Sure, but see if you can convince roysoldboy of this.
Quote:
Whenever Congress enacts a Supplemental, Omnibus, or Continuing Resolution/Appropriation bill it is because they failed to include the amount in the budget.
Those bills do not constitute a budget, they constitute Congress' failure to enact a budget.
Not necessarily. That's certainly true in the case of a CR. Sometimes the omnibus is just a convenient way to pass several approps bills at once. But the amounts they fold into the omnibus can be what they passed out of committee earlier in the year. A supplemental is for unanticipated spending. For example, the fact that Congress had/s to pass a Hurricane Sandy supplemental relief spending bill isn't really an indictment of their "failure" to budget for it or to pass a budget. It just means that Hurricane Sandy was not anticipated.
A law which the President can completely disregard, if he so chose. Since Congress has no constitutional authority to compel the President to produce a proposed budget, and since there is no constitutional requirement for a President to produce a proposed budget, the law is unconstitutional.
This is not how laws become unconstitutional. It's when they contradict the Constitution. Otherwise, there could be no law in the country that wasn't specifically addressed by the Constitution. In case you hadn't noticed, there are thousands and thousands.
Neither the 1921 nor the 1974 budget acts are unconstitutional.
Quote:
It is Congress' constitutional responsibility to enact a budget, nobody else.
Yes (no one is disagreeing with this). And it's the president's legal obligation to propose one.
I don't know that most people count the District's, but otherwise, yes.
Very good. Are you working up to a point?
Sure, but see if you can convince roysoldboy of this.
Not necessarily. That's certainly true in the case of a CR. Sometimes the omnibus is just a convenient way to pass several approps bills at once. But the amounts they fold into the omnibus can be what they passed out of committee earlier in the year. A supplemental is for unanticipated spending. For example, the fact that Congress had/s to pass a Hurricane Sandy supplemental relief spending bill isn't really an indictment of their "failure" to budget for it or to pass a budget. It just means that Hurricane Sandy was not anticipated.
Omnibus bills are in effect several Continuing Resolutions/Appropriations combined into one appropriation bill. They are not any of the thirteen appropriation bills, or they would have passed them separately. You will also note that the overwhelming majority over Omnibus bills that have passed Congress since 1998 have been with a veto-proof majority, leaving the President no choice but to accept whatever Congress chooses to spend.
It does not matter what other appropriation bills pass, like disaster relief bills, while they do add to the deficit, they are not part of the original thirteen appropriation bills. If Congress does not pass all thirteen appropriation bills, then they have failed to enact a budget. It does not matter what else they have to pass in order to keep government functioning, they still failed to pass a budget.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....
