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.
The devil is in the details here. It would have been nice to have a table of growth rates under all post WWII presidents. Economic policy does not correlate well to whether a prez is D or R. Consider these numbers :
Real annual growth rate of total federal spending:
D LBJ 5.7%
R W Bush 4.9
D Carter 4.1
R Nixon/Ford 3.0
R Reagan 2.6
R HW Bush 1.9
D Clinton 1.5
So you've got both D's and R's all over the map. Saying that a prez is D or R really doesn't tell much about his economic policies. Kennedy was an ardent tax cutter. Nixon imposed wage/price controls, which would have been either equal, or to the left of, Pres. Obama.
Those numbers refer to the growth in Federal spending, not the growth of the economy.
And you will note that, from Carter thru Clinton, chronologically, the rate of growth in Federal spending went DOWN.
Carter 4.1
Reagan 2.6
H W Bush 1.9
Clinton 1.5
Then look at Dubya's number.
4.9
And you Tea Partiers scream about the deficit? Gimme a break!
At least be honest with yourselves, if not with us...you don't REALLY have a problem with the deficit...as long as the deficit is created by things YOU like (war, lower taxes on the wealthy, subsidies to big oil and other corporate welfare), and not by things you don't like (personal welfare, investment in infrastructure, investment in green energy, etc.)
Those numbers refer to the growth in Federal spending, not the growth of the economy.
And you will note that, from Carter thru Clinton, chronologically, the rate of growth in Federal spending went DOWN.
Carter 4.1
Reagan 2.6
H W Bush 1.9
Clinton 1.5
Then look at Dubya's number.
4.9
And you Tea Partiers scream about the deficit? Gimme a break!
At least be honest with yourselves, if not with us...you don't REALLY have a problem with the deficit...as long as the deficit is created by things YOU like (war, lower taxes on the wealthy, subsidies to big oil and other corporate welfare), and not by things you don't like (personal welfare, investment in infrastructure, investment in green energy, etc.)
Exactly it's growth in federal spending. That's why I clearly labeled it 'Growth in Federal Spending,' not 'growth in GDP.' I just meant it as an example of how economic policy and party often diverge.
Many tea party types were screaming about spending under Bush. If you didn't notice it, you weren't paying attention. Here's a snippet from a 2004 interview of W Bush by Tim Russert that I've posted before. It renders your last paragraph as nonsense.
Russert: But your base conservatives — and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history. President Bush: Well, they're wrong.
Hummm....not sure where you got your verified transcript of what occurred, regardless, anything said by Rush Limbaugh is IMMEDIATELY discredited in my eyes.
Hummm....not sure where you got your verified transcript of what occurred, regardless, anything said by Rush Limbaugh is IMMEDIATELY discredited in my eyes.
NBC news, and the quote was from Tim Russert, not Rush Limbaugh.
Your Bushie boy had CONSISTENTLY rotten approval ratings. This is but a blip, and you WISH it were a trend, because people who think as you do are on the wrong side of history.
I never voted for Bush, but it appears that you still obsess about him. The turd that you voted into office, however, is the biggest failure in recent history. Obama will be the bottom of the barrel against which every future president will appear to be wildly successful.
I never voted for Bush, but it appears that you still obsess about him. The turd that you voted into office, however, is the biggest failure in recent history. Obama will be the bottom of the barrel against which every future president will appear to be wildly successful.
Wrong again, Teak.
We got the first step towards universal health care in place.
If not for an obstructionist Congress, we'd have made significant progress over the last five years. The failure belongs to Boehner and the Tea Party. MOST of America does not want what mean-spirited people like you do.
Bush was a jerk. He crashed the economy.
And I bet you voted for McCain in 08 and Romney in 12.
In both cases, I'm not sure who was worse for America...the top of the ticket or the VP pick.
Both were awful.
You seriously wanted Palin a heart attack away from the button?
You seriously want that heartless bastard Paul Ryan in the White House?
I voted for hope and change.
I so far have not yet gotten the change I was hoping for. But I know the reason WHY is the obstructionist buttholes in Congress. The ones with R's in front of their names. The ones who shut down our government and had a public temper tantrum because they could not have 100 percent of their way 100 percent of the time.
Wrong--he's not quoting Limbaugh. He just names him as one of a number of people on the right who were critical of spending under Bush. This shatters your prior implication that tea party types didn't mind it when Bush increased spending.
But when you're powered by magical thinking, I don't suppose it is possible to see this.
We got the first step towards universal health care in place.
... which hasn't worked anywhere else in the world.
Don't you realize how deluded you are? The Dim D@mn Dumb Dems in the Senate are the ones who shut down the government. Harry Reid is a dupe for Obama, and refused to bring up any of the spending bills that were passed by the House. In fact, the Dem-controlled Senate failed to pass any spending bills for around 4 1/2 YEARS!!
I can only reason that you are an Obama bot because you must benefit from the wealth transfer that he has been trying to affect.
... which hasn't worked anywhere else in the world.
Don't you realize how deluded you are? The Dim D@mn Dumb Dems in the Senate are the ones who shut down the government. Harry Reid is a dupe for Obama, and refused to bring up any of the spending bills that were passed by the House. In fact, the Dem-controlled Senate failed to pass any spending bills for around 4 1/2 YEARS!!
I can only reason that you are an Obama bot because you must benefit from the wealth transfer that he has been trying to affect.
A. Because the House spending bills cut all the wrong things and gave ever more pork and waste the the effing Pentagon.
B. I can only reason you hate Obama like poison because you feel that other people benefiting means you suffering. You are obviously a member of the privileged distressed in this country.
Google the term sometime. I would guess it fits you to a T. Privileged Distressed.
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.
The turd that you voted into office, however, is the biggest failure in recent history. Obama will be the bottom of the barrel against which every future president will appear to be wildly successful. 
