Liberal Forum

Zeets2 » 18 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm

No, Obama also had a Democrat House and Senate for part of his first term and Carter had a Democrat House and Senate for all 4 years of his administration.

Thank you for acknowledging that. 

Carter grew the economy in the four years of HIS budget 78,79, 80 and 81 (he took office in 77, but that was ford's year - and a good one) faster than reagan did in his eight years 81-89. If anyone wants to swap years (pretend 77 was Carter's, even though the fiscal year runs from October to October) that's fine, too. Either way, Carter ROMPS on Reagan - I just want to be accurate.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm

In 4 years, carter grew the economy to 154% of where he took over. It was 2.086 trillion in 77 when he took office, and 3.211 trillion for 81 - his last fiscal budget. The numbers are even better if you run it by election year rather than fiscal year.

In his 8 years, Reagan took the economy from 3.211 trillion - Carter's last fiscal year - to 5,6577 trillion in 1989 - his last fiscal year, That's an increase to 177% of what it was when he took over - in EIGHT years. Carter almost made that figure in FOUR years.

Aided and abbetted by a willing conservative (at that time) MSM, republicans have floated a false narrative about Carter and Reagan, playing the former as befuddled and incompetent and the latter as an economic goliath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. 

CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. 

Let's see what Forbes has to say: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/ ... -creation/



Carter's economy produced 10 million jobs in four years, against 16 million in 8 years in Reagan's economy. That's a win for Carter on jobs.

Just WAIT until I show you what Carter did to government (Spoiler alert - he shrunk it) compared to what Reagan did to government (spoiler alert - he BALLOONED it. Biden considered shooting it down).
 
 

Zeets2 » 18 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm

No, Obama also had a Democrat House and Senate for part of his first term and Carter had a Democrat House and Senate for all 4 years of his administration.

And you can't seriously compare FDR's socialist programs in his "New Deal" with anything that either Bush presidency brought us, in which FDR created the Social Security Act, the creation of the FDIC, the TVA, the Works Progress Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Emergency Banking Act, the Government Economy Act, the Beer/Wine Revenue Act, the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, the Federal Emergency Relief Act, the Civil Works Administration, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Glass-Steagall Banking Act, the National Housing Act, the Federal Communications Act, the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, the Emergency Relief Appropriation of 1935, the Rural Electrification Act, the National Labor Relations Act/Wagner Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Security and Exchange Commission among them.

You just named many of the the most cherished and popular programs ever. The positivity toward the TVA and Social Security is WAY over 50% of the populace. The only reason Bush's foolhary **** did NOT cause a great depression when he blew up our economy with his massive spending in PRECISELY the wrong places is many of those programs that you named. 

Here - watch bush destroy the economy by pledging trillions to unemployed blacks, the real estate industry, property developers, and bankers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEmf780PGCA
 
 

Zeets2 » 18 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm

No, Obama also had a Democrat House and Senate for part of his first term and Carter had a Democrat House and Senate for all 4 years of his administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ublic_debt

Reagan grew the debt by ALMOST 7 TIMES what Carter grew it by. 

Carter added 288 billions to the national debt - which actually REDUCED the debt as a portion of the GDP (due to how much it grew by under his hand, with a democrat congress).

Reagan added 1.873 TRILLIONS to the national debt, which GREW our national debt, as a function of GDP, for the first time since WW!! - TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT as measured in dollars (does not account for inflation), and grew it by a whopping 23.5% as a function of GDP (ACCOUNTS FOR INFLATION)!

In summary, Reagan oversaw a stagnant economy (at least, as measured against Jimmy Carter's or Bill Clinton's), AND he added to our national debt.

The conservatives in the right wing media on this board can spin and spin, but they cannot make these numbers go away.

Here is one snapshot of the reality in a simple graph:

ScottMon » 17 Feb 2023, 7:53 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2023, 7:53 am

Every time there's a Republican president, the Fiscal Conservatives go silent.  But when there's a Democratic President, They cry out that the government is spending too much money.  Thing is, Democrats have a track record of reducing the deficit and Republicans have a history of ramping it up.  Reagan is a good example.  He ramped up the deficit by 184%.

The one's your party is currently actively claiming is trying to end Socialist Security and Medicare?
 

Trumprules » 18 Feb 2023, 8:00 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2023, 8:00 pm

The right wing conservative is a myth. The right wing only cares about creating debt by tax cuts and spending. They do it everytime.

Conservatives forced Bill Clinton into a balanced budget, after taking over Congress.
Conservative stopped Obama's wild spenidng after taking over Congress. 
Now they're going to have to do it again, with Biden. 

You're welcome.

Trumprules » 18 Feb 2023, 8:36 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2023, 8:36 pm

There is no such thing as fiscal conservative.

Repeating yourself isn't going to make you suddenly look smart. 
It's just liberal hubris. 
 

Trumprules » 18 Feb 2023, 8:49 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2023, 8:49 pm

Name the republican presidents that cut debt or deficit. You can't do it quit dodging

Nope.  They haven't. 
But I just named 3 Republican Congresses who have/are. 


 

Trumprules » 18 Feb 2023, 8:55 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2023, 8:55 pm

Name them. Show me.

Post 46 above.  Don't you read?

Trumprules » 18 Feb 2023, 8:56 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2023, 8:56 pm

You're just going to run around and falsely claim the republican cit deficits or debt which our party has done neither. No oroof of this happening can be found.

You're claiming Gingrich didn't cut spending and force Bill Clinton into a balanced budget?
 

Zeets2 » 18 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm

No, Obama also had a Democrat House and Senate for part of his first term and Carter had a Democrat House and Senate for all 4 years of his administration.

And you can't seriously compare FDR's socialist programs in his "New Deal" with anything that either Bush presidency brought us, in which FDR created the Social Security Act, the creation of the FDIC, the TVA, the Works Progress Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Emergency Banking Act, the Government Economy Act, the Beer/Wine Revenue Act, the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, the Federal Emergency Relief Act, the Civil Works Administration, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Glass-Steagall Banking Act, the National Housing Act, the Federal Communications Act, the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, the Emergency Relief Appropriation of 1935, the Rural Electrification Act, the National Labor Relations Act/Wagner Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Security and Exchange Commission among them.

I'm not about to claim that Republicans are overwhelmingly more fiscally responsible than Democrats, but in the present day, I seriously doubt that any other administration will compare with the wild spending of Obama and Biden, especially if the current nitwit completes his remaining two years.  And the one major factor involved causing that is the fact that Democrats notoriously cut the military budget to the bone in favor of social spending, leaving Republicans who follow them to be forced into spending a fortune rebuilding it, while the Democrat social programs never get cut and receive increased spending every year.

Here's another slice - using nonpartisan numbers, as in my other posts:

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversig ... ince-1962/

Carter inherited a federal government with 5,005,000 total employees at all levels, including military. In 1981, it had been reduced to 4,982,000. The reductions came from the civilian side. Contrary to popular belief, there were MORE people serving in the military, not less. 

Reagan inherited a government with a total of 4,982,000 employees, and left it in 1989 with 5, 292,000. MIND YOU, that does not reflect the massive build up in jobs whose only customer was government. 

AGAIN: That's what the OP is about. It's about - finally - an attempt at HONEST comparison of the two parties' Dear Leaders regarding fiscal conservatism, instead of the conservative spin/narrative that folks seem to take for granted.

The OP asks, "Where are the fiscal conservatives?" My answer : NOT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 

And I back that answer up by a comparison of Carter, whom the majority of republicans consider the left's worst, to Reagan, whom the majority of republicans consider their best. Reagan FAILS in a side by side comparison of his economy to Carter's. Less jobs, more debt, bigger government on the civilian side, which is the regulatory side. Reagan's "booming economy" was smoke and mirrors. The foundation of what growth he DID manage was a national debt that he tripled, taking it from hundreds of billions into trillions for the first time in our history. 

You are cordially invited to dispute the numbers and rescue Reagan from this drubbing. Is THIS fiscal conservatism?
 

 

https://media.snopes.com/images/politic ... /debt2.jpg

And that's just the money he BORROWED. Let's discuss the money he STOLE. The Social Security Amendment of 1983 was rammed through congress as a 30 year "fix" for social security. Instead, it was a tax hike on working people. In 1983, Reagan ginned up a panic that Social Security might be in trouble. He hiked withholding rates to the highest in history - punishing labor while cutting taxes on capital - and he KEPT THE SURPLUS. It was not deposited into the SSA account, and used to buy T-Bills. No. It was flat-out stolen and spirited directly into the treasury, to replace the money the richest were no longer contributing. He did it again in 1984. and in 1985. Then 86, 87 and 88. His first two years were the only two that he did not steal the ENTIRE SURPLUS from Social Security - after raising the rate.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

"Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted."

Let's look at deficits.

GEORGE W BUSH DEFICITS
FY 2008 - $1.270 trillion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

BILL CLINTON
FY 2001 - $133 billion.
FY 2000 - $18 billion.
FY 1999 - $130 billion.
FY 1998 - $113 billion.
FY 1997 - $188 billion.
FY 1996 - $251 billion.
FY 1995 - $281 billion.
FY 1994 - $281 billion.

GEORGE H W BUSH
FY 1993 - $347 billion.
FY 1992 - $399 billion.
FY 1991 - $432 billion.
FY 1990 - $376 billion.

RONALD REAGAN
FY 1989 - $255 billion.
FY 1988 - $252 billion.
FY 1987 - $225 billion.
FY 1986 - $297 billion.
FY 1985 - $256 billion.
FY 1984 - $195 billion.
FY 1983 - $235 billion.
FY 1982 - $144 billion.

JIMMY CARTER
FY 1981 - $90 billion.
FY 1980 - $81 billion.
FY 1979 - $55 billion.
FY 1978 - $73 billion.

Carter never hit 100 billion. Reagan was under 200 billion only twice. Clinton's deficits were smaller than Reagan's and Poppi Bush's. ON WHAT PLANET are republicans fiscal conservatives?

Rand Paul is with me - watch him savage Reagan relative to Carter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6u960RL7Q

Reagan raised taxes in 7 of 8 years. He raised taxes on workers while cutting them on capitalists. Here are 11 examples of Reagan tax increases - have fun:

Billions of Dollars

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
57.3

Highway Revenue Act of 1982
4.9

Social Security Amendments of 1983
24.6

Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983
1.2

Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
25.4

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
2.9

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
2.4

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
0.6

Continuing Resolution for 1987
2.8

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
8.6

Continuing Resolution for 1988
2.0

Total cumulative tax increase
132.7

The above increases represent, all by themselves WITHOUT other manipulations and gouges, just over half of Reagan's cumulative tax cuts. So for every buck he cut, he took back a half a buck from a different pocket. And again, these increases don't include the fact that Reagan stalled the start of tax indexing, which was part of the 1981 tax bill, until 1985 so as to capture a lot of anticipated bracket-creep for the Treasury.

Even EXCLUDING defense department civilians, Reagan increased the size of government by 300k over Carter's government. CARTER HAD CUT federal employment 500K from Nixon-Ford. Bush Senior maintained Reagan's bloated federal bureaucracy. Clinton cut government back down to size, reducing by 200,000. 

Where are the fiscal conservatives?

Okay - ONE more throw:

TOTAL NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, BY ADMINISTRATION

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh ... ince-1962/

Year........Exec Civilians..........Military..........Judicial and legislative..........Total Federal Employees

1977........2,840,000..........2,112,000......53,000...............................5,005,000.....................Ford's last Budget
1981........2,806,000 ..........2,122,000......54,000...............................4,982,000 .....................Carter's last Budget
1989........3,064,000..........2,168,000......60,000...............................5,292,000.....................Reagan's last Budget

Carter's civilian bureaucracy shrank and his military grew

As a % of population, Reagan's military SHRANK. Civilian employees - federal bureaucrats - grew by leaps and bounds.

Let's look at population. https://www.google.com/fusiontables/Dat ... #rows:id=1 Ford's last year was 220,239,425 people in '77. Carter's last year was 229,465,714 - a population growth of 4.189% during his presidency. Reagan ended 1989 with 246,819,230 people - a population growth of 7.57%. Reagan's military forces (see above) grew by an anemic 2.2% (Carter's only grew by half a point, but Carter was CUTTING civilians, not padding the government employment roster with bureaucrats).

While Reagan was growing the population by 7.57% and the debt by 300% and the military by 2.2%, he was growing the CIVILIAN side of government - the part that focuses on we the people - by a whopping 9.2%. The man who promised to shrink government - who told Americans that government was the problem and that he was going to get government out of their way - grew that government faster than the population it served grew. The debt grew, the economy grew, the federal government's control of education grew, the federal labor force grew. The only thing that grew slower than the population was the military.

LincolnNebraska » 18 Feb 2023, 7:04 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2023, 7:04 am

 Lol no.  Pre-WWI presidents have run surpluses.  Clinton is the only post-19th century prez to run a surplus.  It might make you feel better to know that just two republicans match Clinton.

Never mentioned surplus.  Clinton aggressively cut the budget.  That is documented fact.
 

ScottMon » 19 Feb 2023, 7:52 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2023, 7:52 am

Never mentioned surplus.  Clinton aggressively cut the budget.  That is documented fact.

Clinton was impeached

FJB » 19 Feb 2023, 8:12 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2023, 8:12 am

Clinton was impeached

So was Trump, twice.  
 

ScottMon » 17 Feb 2023, 11:08 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2023, 11:08 pm

Uh, Yes.  Bill Clinton was a fiscal conservative.  He cut budgets when he was the Governor of Arizona and He was just as prolific when he worked the budget for the US.

Governor of "ARIZONA"???? WOW SHILLY YOU REALLY ARE STUPID

FJB » 19 Feb 2023, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2023, 8:14 am

Governor of "ARIZONA"???? WOW SHILLY YOU REALLY ARE STUPID

Arkansas.  My mistake.
 

ScottMon » 19 Feb 2023, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2023, 8:13 am

So was Trump, twice.

No one mentioned trump