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 blue line in your source is federal receipts, and the red line is federal expenditures. The following graph from your previous source clearly shows that no president has slowed inflationary federal spending like Obama has.
And I believe all the evidence shows that republicans spend more money than democrats.
Can you discredit the following sources?
You don't give your sources, but the second graph appears to be the Nutting/marketwatch work. It was widely debunked and discreditied when in first appeared. Even the liberal Washington post agreed that Nutting was nuts.
That claim ("935 untrue statements/lies") has been discredited. The Democrats in Congress were making the same exact statements; were they "lying," too?
But why are you bringing up wars when the topic of this thread is the economy?
Who discredited the source about the 935 Iraq lies told by the GW Bush White House?
But your correct this thread is about the economy, spending, and economic messes.
Your forgetting the fact Clinton handed GW Bush a balanced federal budget. Then GW Bush turned that balanced budget into huge deficits and high debt growth rates (with trickle down tax cuts and a unneeded Iraq war.)
#3 a recession that started 6 weeks into GWB's term, and declining industrial investment for the past half year of Clinton's presidency
#4 a NASDAQ dot-com bubble that had just blown up
#5 a Housing bubble that started forming in 1997
#6 Deregulation of Glass-Stegall (bipartisan, that Clinton asked for and was proud to sign into law)
The above things that Clinton left hurt the budget and the economy under GWB. GWB handled these Clinton-era messes poorly and made messes of his own...but let's not tell half truths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
Your above treasury department link contains the exact same information as this source.
I thought you were about finding the truth. You are about promoting Democrats regardless of the entire truth.
Clinton left GWB an economic mess that would hurt the budget and he actively worked against a balanced budget - in fact saying that he opposed a balanced budget AFTER the GOP won control of the House by promising to balance it.
Clinton largely benefited from the baby boomers in the peak spending years, the internet boom, and not being president long enough to see his disastrous policies take effect.
There is so much cognitive dissonance on the left it is mind boggling. Obama blames the bipartisan deregulation of Glass-Stegall as the primary cause of the current mess (that Clinton asked for, urged his party to vote for, and was proud to sign into law)...then Obama praises Clinton's economy. Obama will criticize outsourcing and then ignore that Clinton's policies sped it up.
GDP always climbs. Only in years where we're in deep recession does it drop. The point is that tax revenues did not climb with it.
Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP were at 20.6% in 2000. By 2004 they were down to 16.1%. That's a massive drop. Don't blame it on the early 2000's recession either--tax revenues stayed relatively steady during the early 90's recession, and that economic downturn was significantly worse.
Compounding matters was the fact that we were a nation at war. Who cuts taxes during war time? The worst president ever, that's who. Revenues rose briefly due to the housing bubble, but that was fool's gold, obviously.
And what happened after 2004? I love how you just pick random dates out of the clear blue and ignore facts which show you are wrong. How about 2005, 2006, 2007?
#3 a recession that started 6 weeks into GWB's term, and declining industrial investment for the past half year of Clinton's presidency
#4 a NASDAQ dot-com bubble that had just blown up
#5 a Housing bubble that started forming in 1997
#6 Deregulation of Glass-Stegall (bipartisan, that Clinton asked for and was proud to sign into law)
The above things that Clinton left hurt the budget and the economy under GWB. GWB handled these Clinton-era messes poorly and made messes of his own...but let's not tell half truths.
If Bill Clinton had opposed or stopped any of the things America's financial and business elite would have thrown a temper tantrum. Take the opening up of China to foreign business and its becoming the largest industrial power on Earth. American business viewed China as a vast undeveloped market potentiially 5 to 6 times larger than the US market. The Chinese market needed everything whereas the US market has been saturated since the 1960s ,America isn't one where most people don't have a car, all the home electrical gizmos and 70% of Americans live in a modern postwar homes. When China a Marxist style nation chose to let foreign business invest and build factories and in some cases whole new industries it was viewed as the Second comming by American businessmen and our high-net worth indivuals. The last Marxist state that counted was going to have a western economy and once Chinese had seen the miracle of Capitalism political liberalism would soon follow. China would exchange its Mao suits and Little Red Book for for Brooks Brother suits and the latest book dejure on the streets of the City or Wall Street. The fact that wishfull thinking guided American policy isn't Bill Clinton's fault, President Xi and Premier LI wear suits that would not bee out of place in Wall Street executive suites but China has always been a authoritarian place and has simply exchanged. the Imperial Court for the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Ther reason the Chinese elite and Americas elite get along so well is as we all should know businesses are not democracies.
As for the Housing, Dot com bubbles and irrational exuberance, we were laughing all the way to the bank. Who didn't want to strike it rich and buy a stock or even better work for stock options a in a dot com venture that had a laughable business model and we didn't understand that seemed to increase in value not 10 or 20 % but 400%. Heck you could be a multimillionare by the time you turned 26. Unfortunately I wasn't one whose ship came in but I was able to retire at the ripe old age of 53. If Bill Clinton had wanted to stand between Americans and visions of Enron suger pies and Worldcom stock offerings he would have been run over.
Lastly you need to understand that the repeal of Glass-Stegall was demanded by all the players in finance and was America's response to something our British friends did in 1992 called the Big Bang. It was a massive deregulation of British finance, banking and insurance by the Conservative Government and the Bank of England. The British who depend even more on financial business since thay junked their industries nearly 8 decades before were concerned the axis of global finance had shifted to New York and even worse, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo and that London was becoming a minor player. The Big Bang had the desired effect as the City became a freewheeling place were no financial insturment no matter how complex or comic could be passed with the tip of a bowler hat and the assurance of several hundred years of banking experience. It had no problem getting billions of new capital from third world, Chinese or Russian billionaires who helped revive London's Luxury Housing market. Now the shoe was on the other foot, Wall Street was alarmed their customers were sending billions of dollars across the Pond and London was resuming its role as the center of World finance. They couldn't wait to get Government financial regulators off the Street, get their hands on Money Center Banks like City Bank, Chase-Manhattan Bank and the Bank of America, tap into the hundreds of billions and in some cases trillions of dollars managed by insurance giants like AIG and the quasi public outfits known as Fanny mae or Ginne Mae and to be able to gamble with unsuspecting Annuity or Bond holders money. There was a lot of political pressure on boths sides of the aisle to get America to this blissful state of financial deregulation and nobody was very happy if one pointed out all the regulation was a reasoned response to the fact these mavens of finance had used such practices to blow the US economy up in the late 1920s and early 1930s. And so it was done. It is only remarkable that it took a decade to blow up in their faces again and we were lucky Ben Bernake, Timmy Gaitner and Hank Poulson remembered when they learned about what happened in the period 1923-1932 as college undergrads several decades earlier.
Who discredited the source about the 935 Iraq lies told by the GW Bush White House?
But your correct this thread is about the economy, spending, and economic messes.
I would like to talk about the following.
And to backup your lies, you post another chart with even more lies..
Do you even understand reality anymore? Once again, those charts attributed Obama spending to Bush.
ITS A LIE..
Do you REALLY want to talk about that, because we've got dozens of threads ridiculing and laughing at people who think Bush is to blame for Obama signing spending bills into law, while attributing 9 years of spending to Bush even though he was only President for 8..
And what happened after 2004? I love how you just pick random dates out of the clear blue and ignore facts which show you are wrong. How about 2005, 2006, 2007?
Revenues have been steady for DECADES..
Even when tax rates were in the 90% rates.
They rose briefly (I acknowledged this in my post), but never again to the rates they were at in the late 90's. More instructive is the gigantic 4.5% drop they experienced from 2000-2004. Not even during the early 80's recession, which saw 10.8% unemployment at its peak, were tax revenues as a percentage of GDP so low. That money went straight into the pockets of the wealthy, never to be seen again.
Considering we were at war and our economy was propped up by a massive, ultimately disastrous housing bubble, I'd hardly call 2005-2007 a vindication of the Bush Tax Cuts. They were a costly failure.
Not true, Democrats openly said that Bush would have to give in more, would be opposed, and etc BEFORE he was sworn in. It wasn't news because this behavior is normal and even more so after a controversial election. Obama is different in that he is treated with kid gloves. His lies and flip flops always have an excuse...like his shortcomings.
Did Bush or Reagen have to contend with this? I wonder why not? Perhaps we should a little closer.
No. They count clotures. Anytime you ask for proof of record filibusters they show all clotures. Clotures are on the rise in large point because people want to get their sound byte in. The GOP has filibustered, but this is widely exaggerated.
I remember during the government shut down when the Senate voted to end it, there was overwhelming support in both parties - senators were talking too much to get their sound bytes in for the TV, internet, and etc...and they used cloture - I pointed it out at the time that it would be used as evidence of Obama filibusters, which count clotures and not flilibusters.
Ted Cruise Control and his Nutty buddies took credit for the government shutdown which cost the American people paychecks and lowered our national credit rating, but you are talking about "sound bytes" REALLY???? House Republicans Credit Ted Cruz As Government Shutdown
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.
