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.
But the interesting thing is actually the trend during each administration. It took time for Clinton to get the budget under control after the Reagan/Bush I spending spree.
The real news is the trend during Reagan's term, the "father of modern conservatism."
You mean the Democratic-controlled Congress spending spree. The same Democratic Congress who, on average, spent 2.8% more than Reagan asked for and a huge 24.5% cumulative 8-year figure.
You mean the Democratic-controlled Congress spending spree. The same Democratic Congress who, on average, spent 2.8% more than Reagan asked for and a huge 24.5% cumulative 8-year figure.
Do you have any evidence to back that up? I hope so because I have plenty that proves the opposite is true.
America hasn't had a surplus since, well, nearly forever. It had a balanced budget (income to expenses) but even then I don't think it included debt service.
And it's more like $12,000,000,000,000 in debt. And if you really care about debt, how do you address Obama increasing it at almost 2x the rate of any recent prez?
Uh, if by "Obama increasing it at almost 2x the rate of any recent prez" you mean "Obama increasing it at almost 2x the rate of any recent prez DURING HIS FIRST MONTH IN OFFICE" I'm going to laugh you off the forum. Come back in four years.
To be fair, Bush inherited $5.6T in national debt which he managed to double during his tenure. He did inherit a nation that had seen budget surplus for a few years and quickly turned it around... leading to more than five trillion deficit that got added under his watch.
Supply-siders dispute the claim that Reagan requested more spending than Congress actually passed. To show that Congress was actually the Big Spender, they commonly give the following chart, which shows that Congress outspent Reagan's budget requests in 7 out of 8 years:
Chart above!
The problem with this chart is that the proposal numbers are phony. Reagan's proposals were based on such optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to reality.
To understand how the ruse works, a brief review of the budget process is helpful. A budget passed by Congress is not written in stone; there are actually many flexible items in it. One example is unemployment. The budget says, "Pay each unemployed person XXXX amount in unemployment compensation." If the unemployment rate rises higher next year than anticipated, the budget automatically pays these extra individuals without requiring Congressional action.
Another example of a flexible budget item is interest on the debt. If interest rates soar or receipts drop more than expected, then interests costs are going to be greater. These are paid without Congressional action (unless the debt limit is reached).
In the president's budget proposals, he must estimate next year's unemployment rate, interest rates, and several other economic indicators. We have already seen that in Reagan's first budget, David Stockman came up with a super-optimistic forecast that predicted 5 percent economic growth. (The higher the growth, the less government has to spend on unemployment, welfare, stimulus packages, etc.) Today, Stockman derisively refers to his first budget as the "Rosy Scenario." Although Reagan's remaining budgets were not quite as far-fetched as the Rosy Scenario, they were indeed much too optimistic. In fact, the only reason why spending surpassed the requests in only 7 instead of all 8 years was because one year -- 1984 -- actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth.
What supply-siders are doing with the above chart, then, is comparing what was spent in the real world with what Reagan proposed in 8 Rosy Scenarios. They then blame the difference on Congressional action -- despite the fact that Congress didn't act on these increases.
The ruse is akin to a President proposing to spend one dollar on the budget next year, and blaming Congress for (inevitably) exceeding this proposal. Even if it turns out that Congress cuts the real budget, and the economy does better than normal!
As reported on the previous page [Budgets and Deficits], the House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.
____________________
Budget Message of the President, FY's 81 to 89. Budget of the United States, FY 1993, Part 5, Table 1.3, page 5-18. Proposed outlays for 1981 from 1981 FY 1982 Budget Revisions.
When Bush came into office eight years ago, America had a surplus, today, were 1,000,000,000,000 dollars in debt...
Your math is off. So is your terminology.
A "dollar bill" is not a dollar. (See Title 12 USC Sec. 411)
The so-called budget surplus only meant that Congress didn't borrow more that fiscal year. However, since the only way new FRNs are authorized is when Congress borrows more, the static money supply contributed to the Dot.Com bust.
Current public debt is in excess of 10 trillion dollars. (10 x 10 ^ 12)
However, that debt is not payable in "dollar bills", since they're borrowed, at usury, into existence. Based on the Coinage Act of 1792, and 1873, that debt computes to an obligation of the Congress to pay the creditor 500 billion ounces of gold. Unfortunately, all the gold that was ever mined is estimated to be 5.5 billion ounces. (Fort Knox repository has 147 million ounces). Obviously, that debt is impossible to pay.
Pursuant to the 14th amendment, the public debt cannot be questioned, even if it is insane.
Supply-siders dispute the claim that Reagan requested more spending than Congress actually passed. To show that Congress was actually the Big Spender, they commonly give the following chart, which shows that Congress outspent Reagan's budget requests in 7 out of 8 years:
Chart above!
The problem with this chart is that the proposal numbers are phony. Reagan's proposals were based on such optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to reality.
To understand how the ruse works, a brief review of the budget process is helpful. A budget passed by Congress is not written in stone; there are actually many flexible items in it. One example is unemployment. The budget says, "Pay each unemployed person XXXX amount in unemployment compensation." If the unemployment rate rises higher next year than anticipated, the budget automatically pays these extra individuals without requiring Congressional action.
Another example of a flexible budget item is interest on the debt. If interest rates soar or receipts drop more than expected, then interests costs are going to be greater. These are paid without Congressional action (unless the debt limit is reached).
In the president's budget proposals, he must estimate next year's unemployment rate, interest rates, and several other economic indicators. We have already seen that in Reagan's first budget, David Stockman came up with a super-optimistic forecast that predicted 5 percent economic growth. (The higher the growth, the less government has to spend on unemployment, welfare, stimulus packages, etc.) Today, Stockman derisively refers to his first budget as the "Rosy Scenario." Although Reagan's remaining budgets were not quite as far-fetched as the Rosy Scenario, they were indeed much too optimistic. In fact, the only reason why spending surpassed the requests in only 7 instead of all 8 years was because one year -- 1984 -- actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth.
What supply-siders are doing with the above chart, then, is comparing what was spent in the real world with what Reagan proposed in 8 Rosy Scenarios. They then blame the difference on Congressional action -- despite the fact that Congress didn't act on these increases.
The ruse is akin to a President proposing to spend one dollar on the budget next year, and blaming Congress for (inevitably) exceeding this proposal. Even if it turns out that Congress cuts the real budget, and the economy does better than normal!
As reported on the previous page [Budgets and Deficits], the House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.
____________________
Budget Message of the President, FY's 81 to 89. Budget of the United States, FY 1993, Part 5, Table 1.3, page 5-18. Proposed outlays for 1981 from 1981 FY 1982 Budget Revisions.
Fascinating, I had no idea! Thank you for posting this!
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.
America hasn't had a surplus since, well, nearly forever. It had a balanced budget (income to expenses) but even then I don't think it included debt service.
