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.
Which simply shows either that Regan was a better leader or better at selling his ideas, which worked so I'll assume they were good ideas. Perhaps the problem is that obummers ideas aren't good ideas. A "leader" who cannot get the cooperation of those he leads is not much of a leader and not much good to those he leads.
Even if the problem was everyone was out to get obummer as the libs like to insinuate, the problem is he's ineffective because he is unable to overcome the obstacles in front of him and that means he is not the man for the job. This job belonged to someone who could have gotten the cooperation of both parties not someone who couldn't. Unfortunately, it was given to obummer who lacked the clout, experience and ability to do the job at hand.
None of that makes a bit of sense if they (republican leaders) had planned to go against any and everything that Obama did BEFORE he even took office. So what were they using to determine what kind of leader that he was BEFORE he even took the job? Was because he did not look like them?
Government revenue almost doubled by the end of the Reagan years.
Again, government revenue grew by $785 billion from 2004-2007, the largest 4-year increase in the history of the U.S.
Government revenue almost doubled by the end of the Reagan years.
Again, government revenue grew by $785 billion from 2004-2007, the largest 4-year increase in the history of the U.S.
Reagan was in office from 1981-1988, where are the doubled revenues?
Carter was in office from 1977-1980.
Clinton was in office from 1993-2000.
Obama has been in office since 2009.
Carter, Clinton, and Obama all have higher revenues than Reagan.
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.
They didnt rise briefly, they rose and continued to rise until the economic collapse took place.
You arent suggesting that people being allowed to keep their caused an economic collapse are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
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.
Almost everyone I know understands that economic stimulations take several years before you see an effect.. Why dont you?
Carter was in office from 1977-1980, and Carter had (increased) tax revenues.
Reagan was in office from 1981-1988, and Reagan had (decreased) tax revenues.
Clinton was in office from 1993-2000, and Clinton had (increased) revenues.
GW Bush was in office from 2001-2008, and GW Bush had (decreased) revenues.
Obama has been in office since 2009, and Obama has (increased) revenues.
Why do revenues always decrease when republicans are in office?
And why do revenues always increase when democrats are in office?
They dont. Once again you show the ignorance of liberals to not comprehend that a lower percentage of GDP doesnt mean less revenues if the GDP increases..
A large issue in 1980 was the aging of the WWII generation. For those looking for work in the late70's and early 80's the need for that large group to retire so the boomers could move into the job market. So move forward forty years. The same issue is returning. Now though the crash of the monetary system in 2008and 09 has destroyed a large groups cash reserve. The current group has issues such as the feeling of not enough cash and a low interest environment. The boomer group needs to get out of the way and retire. It is happening at a rate which will only expand in the next ten years. Reagan's plans included tax increases, starting govt spending on war material. At this time wars are slowing down yet large bills from two wars are still occurring. The cry of lower taxes as a political agenda is wrong until the current bills are paid. The Pres. Has the right idea and no help from the Republicans in the house.
And your spin is not making this disappear either.
One has to consider income as well as spending. Given our unemployment rate for the past few years, we need a negative increase in spending because any increase is too much when your income has gone down. You cant' just consider outflow. You need to consider inflow too.
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.
