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.
Rep. John Kasich was Chairman of the House Budget Committee and the Chairman of the Congressional Committee on Welfare Reform, and chiefly responsible for the budget surpluses between 1997 and 1999. He left office in 2001 and is now the Governor of Ohio. Combined with Speaker Gingrich's departure in December 1998, the GOP House leadership (if you can call it that) ceased to be fiscally responsible.
I find it a partisan self-serving stretch to assert that the Chairman of the House Budget Committee was "chiefly responsible for the budget surpluses between 1997 and 1999" instead of the President of the United States, who submits the budget to Congress.
Now, I know you are desperate to not give Pres. Clinton any credit whatsoever, so who do you give the credit for the 2000 surplus of $230 billion and the 2001 surplus of $127 billion, Clinton's last budget, since Kasich was not in Congress by then?
First of all, you left out Bush 41. Secondly, your summation of their average GDP growth rate does not paint a very good picture of the economy during their administrations.
I don't think Bush 41 did anything to write home about in terms of economy. But speaking of GDP growth, you're correct in implying that we should consider the state of the economy during their administrations. Somehow, few, if any, are willing to do that with the current administration. What do you think?
Reagan's first term required a controlled demolition, to jump start a stagnant economy. I would say, it was an unprecedented event that resulted in short term contraction, followed by a turn around that would obviously appear larger than it would have been otherwise.
Clinton's era leaves very little to complain about, probably the only President to be in office without dealing with a recession. Sure, there was a slowdown in the third quarter of 2000 with a rebound in the fourth, but the economy was still doing well overall.
It wasn't just having proper republicans in office in late 90s that was responsible for those times, after all, these same republicans were engaging in pretty much the same practices I've noticed over last couple of years, and they were supporting Bush policies right from his candidacy. So the excuse that republicans somehow changed suddenly just as Clinton's second term came to an end doesn't make sense. Bush implemented policies that were on republican/right wing agenda for a while. In fact, Heritage Foundation had an analysis published, promoting the idea of Bush tax cuts being THE solution to exceptional growth (an idea, Pawlenty is also trying to sell) and so much growth in the economy that the country would be debt free by... 2011. Yeah, right!
Actually, he is promoting an idea taken seriously by many. To quote an example, we've been presented with "proof" in this thread that tax revenue grew from 2003 to 2006. It isn't exactly false.
He's just a politician, doing his job. The problem is with the people buying into his whim without thinking.
Well of course he is, but what sticks in my craw is the constant reference to bygone administrations who faces economic issues FAR less structural than what we are confronting to day. Its like arguing with people who swear by their grandmothers home remedies for the flue when you are trying to deal with a malignant melanoma.
I don't think Bush 41 did anything to write home about in terms of economy. But speaking of GDP growth, you're correct in implying that we should consider the state of the economy during their administrations. Somehow, few, if any, are willing to do that with the current administration. What do you think?
Reagan's first term required a controlled demolition, to jump start a stagnant economy. I would say, it was an unprecedented event that resulted in short term contraction, followed by a turn around that would obviously appear larger than it would have been otherwise.
Clinton's era leaves very little to complain about, probably the only President to be in office without dealing with a recession. Sure, there was a slowdown in the third quarter of 2000 with a rebound in the fourth, but the economy was still doing well overall.
It wasn't just having proper republicans in office in late 90s that was responsible for those times, after all, these same republicans were engaging in pretty much the same practices I've noticed over last couple of years, and they were supporting Bush policies right from his candidacy. So the excuse that republicans somehow changed suddenly just as Clinton's second term came to an end doesn't make sense. Bush implemented policies that were on republican/right wing agenda for a while. In fact, Heritage Foundation had an analysis published, promoting the idea of Bush tax cuts being THE solution to exceptional growth (an idea, Pawlenty is also trying to sell) and so much growth in the economy that the country would be debt free by... 2011. Yeah, right!
Pawlenty, Romeny, Hermain Cain = George W. Bush Jr. version 2.0
No Thank You!
Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum = The American version of the Taliban.
No thank you!
Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani = A bunch of egotistical blowhards.
Well of course he is, but what sticks in my craw is the constant reference to bygone administrations who faces economic issues FAR less structural than what we are confronting to day. Its like arguing with people who swear by their grandmothers home remedies for the flue when you are trying to deal with a malignant melanoma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
Pawlenty, Romeny, Hermain Cain = George W. Bush Jr. version 2.0
No Thank You!
Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum = The American version of the Taliban.
No thank you!
Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani = A bunch of egotistical blowhards.
Well of course he is, but what sticks in my craw is the constant reference to bygone administrations who faces economic issues FAR less structural than what we are confronting to day. Its like arguing with people who swear by their grandmothers home remedies for the flue when you are trying to deal with a malignant melanoma.
I don't necessarily disagree with your results but I do disagree with how you got there.
Namely, I think it's a fallacy that we're facing structural unemployment. We don’t have high unemployment because workers lack the necessary skills, or are stuck in the wrong industries or the wrong locations; the hypothesis that we’re mainly suffering structural unemployment is evidence free. This is a demand-side slump. Businesses just don't have enough demand, so they don't need to hire. All we need to do is create more demand but nobody wants a second stimulus and cutting the government doesn't create demand.
I don't necessarily disagree with your results but I do disagree with how you got there.
Namely, I think it's a fallacy that we're facing structural unemployment. We don’t have high unemployment because workers lack the necessary skills, or are stuck in the wrong industries or the wrong locations; the hypothesis that we’re mainly suffering structural unemployment is evidence free. This is a demand-side slump. Businesses just don't have enough demand, so they don't need to hire. All we need to do is create more demand but nobody wants a second stimulus and cutting the government doesn't create demand.
Spot on! Hiring is a demand issue. We wouldn't be having this conversation if stimulus monies would have somehow benefited the consumer.
The Bush 43 adminstration could only get quarterly GDP growth of 4% or better TWICE, compared to TWENTY times for the Clinton administration, FIFTEEN times for the Reagan administration, THIRTEEN times for the Nixon-Ford adminstration, TWENTY THREE times for the Kennedy-Johnson adminstration and TWELVE times for Eisenhower adminstration.
I think you miscounted there, I looked at the same data you did, and found:
Bush-43: 4%+ x3
Clinton: 4%+ x13
Bush-41: 4%+ x5
Reagan: 4%+ x13
I counted a rate of exactly 4.0% toward the total, if that makes a difference. 1970-2009 average is 2.95%. Not sure what qualifies as a "boom". 50% of the average? Double the average? 5%? 6%?
Spot on! Hiring is a demand issue. We wouldn't be having this conversation if stimulus monies would have somehow benefited the consumer.
Well, it did benefit the consumer, me included. The stimulus allowed me to put solar panels on my roof that saves the country burning fuel and saves my electric bill. It also provided work for the contractor, who hired people and multiplied the effect once they spent their earnings.
What was wrong with the stimulus was that it was too small. It was heavily laden with tax-cuts and not enough pure stimulus. I would have added more aid to the states.
I find it a partisan self-serving stretch to assert that the Chairman of the House Budget Committee was "chiefly responsible for the budget surpluses between 1997 and 1999" instead of the President of the United States, who submits the budget to Congress.
Now, I know you are desperate to not give Pres. Clinton any credit whatsoever, so who do you give the credit for the 2000 surplus of $230 billion and the 2001 surplus of $127 billion, Clinton's last budget, since Kasich was not in Congress by then?
All the President does is propose a budget, and none of Clinton's proposed budgets were ever enacted into law by the GOP. It is the constitutional responsibility for the House of Representatives to originate all budgets. The Senate may amend the budget, like any other bill, but it is the House that starts them, not the President.
If you think the President has anything to do with the budget beyond making suggestions or vetoing, you need to read the US Constitution. Begin with Article I, Section 7, Clause 1.
John Kasich was a member of the House until 2001, and there was no surplus in FY2001 or FY2000. There were only three budget surpluses, all of them while the GOP controlled the House. Just like the last time, from 1947 to 1949 there were three budget surpluses, all of them while the GOP controlled the House. When Democrats controlled the House, there has never once been a balanced budget, ever.
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.
