quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

From 1993-2000 the Clinton budget started out at: $1,409,386 (1993) and ended up in 2000 at $1,788,950 (in millions of dollars.)

The US Government budget went up 26% in eight years. That about a 3.3% growth rate a year.

Let's compare that to Reagan and GWB.

Reagan went from $599,272 (1981) to $1,064,416 (1988). (in millions of dollars.) The US government budget under Reagan went up 77% increasing at a pace of about 9.5% a year.

GWB went from 1,862,846 (2001) to 2,982,544 (2008). The US government budget went up about 60% increasing year over year by about 7.5%. A lot of that money was $$ poured down the drain in poorly executed wars.

These are the numbers. As you can clearly see, Clinton Controlled spending better than any of his peers by a significant margin of at least 2.5 - 1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I don't believe it, but here's the argument. The whole concept of trickle-down is that, if money does not go to the government, it will go to the private sector and spur economic activity. Trickle-down holds that at the proper location on the Laffer curve, each dollar of tax cuts simulates enough economic activity that the marginal increase in taxes directly due to that activity is worth MORE than a dollar.

I could buy that if taxes were so high that most people could never afford to buy anything and a business could never possibly make a profit. Like if everybody's income tax were 80%. I mean, look at communist countries where the government basically takes everything everyone makes, like North Korea or Cuba. That's put a big damper on their economy.

But obviously that's not the case here, so I'll think about a more realistic case. Let's say someone's making $40,000 and paying 20% in taxes which get cut 20%, and businesses also pay 20% in taxes. That's kind of hypothetical but we'll go with it. So that guy pays $8,000 in income tax, and then because of tax cuts now pay $6,400 and uses that $1,600 to buy some stuff at Best Buy.

Best Buy's profit would have to grow by $8,000 to make up for the tax cut. Really they'd probably make like $500 or $1,000 from that guy. You could say, well, they use that money to help pay a new cashier which would cause growth, but minimum wage workers aren't going to pay income tax anyway, so that doesn't help make up the tax. I guess that cashier would spend some money that would stimulate another business a little, and some factory in Japan would make some more profit too because they built another TV, but I dunno, I just can't quite believe either that $1,600 in spending could create $8,000 in economic growth in the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Cute, one does not reduce outlays by reduction of income.

Of course not. One must reduce outlays to a sustainable outlay of one tax dollar in one tax dollar out. It's impossible to outlay two or three out for each one in. Even the wealthy cannot support that bill.

But that is exactly what is being demanded by the entitlement class, and it's going to be hell when it collapses.

Sure. Which is why I think you need both spending cuts and revenue increases to balance the budget. If we go from $1 in per $1.56 out (last year's actual figure) to 80¢ in per $1.20 out, we haven't really solved the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

Good fucking Lord. That's abso-fucking-lutely re-cock-ulous. You're going to compare Clinton's Presidency to Reagan's and W's? Care to compare the global events of those Presidency's to put everything in context?

Of course not.

We know you don't like the comparison b/c it impeaches your views. You just laughed at the notion that Clinton controlled spending, but then when you are shown the hard numbers you dismiss them. But, this comparison shows the mythology of Republican Fiscal Conservatism better than anything. Reagan, during peacetime, turned the US from the world's largest creditor into the world's largest debtor nation. Bush turned a surplus into a massive deficit.

Reagan could have foregone his massive military buildup, which was based on the exaggerated threat of the USSR (which imploded from within), and BUSH could have cleaned Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and then used proxies to hold power. Instead, he elected to occupy two (2) hostile countries at astronomical tax-payer cost while slashing taxes for the wealthy. (That had never been done before in the history of the USA.)

Clinton kept spending low. He did not send troops overseas to occupy Somalia, Rhwanda, or Yugoslavia, and he did not exaggerate foreign threats to ramp up defense spending.

Clinton can do the SUNDAY NYT Crossword puzzle in about two minutes; GWB was a recovered alcoholic, fundamentalist Christian, who spoke poorly. Reagan had Alzheimer's during his second term.

These are the facts, jack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

O/T.... Could Clinton stand again?

ED to add...

No crazyml, he can't. Fuck, why don't you google shit before asking stupid questions?


Ed to add...

Doh, sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

How is it possible that we've had a net increase in tax revenues even while tax rates have plummeted (and, Obama has even cut taxes)?

---

In terms of Obama, more people are at work, and enforcement of scofflaws is up.
......................


I like how you kept Bush 41 out of the picture, too.

---

We have read his lips.
...................................

Shall we chat a bit about Bush 43 and Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq?

---

We went into Iraq because of a knowing lie told by W.  No other reason, if one is going to bring up UN Resolutions (which the UN did not want us to enforce at that time, but wanted to deal with further diplomatic methods, and Saddam was beginning to comply)
then I must ask you why the the great champions of the world the neo-con imbeciles have not over the years invaded Israel forcing them to comply with UN resolutions, or if you prefer invade America and force us to comply with UN resolutions?
.....................................

Nah, when Powell went up there and repeatedly showed the crop duster airplane, the jig was up, and the UN told us so and demanded we wait for further action in the UN.

We ignored it.

---

But enough of Paul Ryans innumeracy. And the entire republican parties ineptness and innumeracy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

The claim of CLinton being lucky is BS of the highest order!
4% economic growth per year
Most jobs created under any administration
Raised medianfamily income by $6000
Lowest unemployment in 30 years...You truly believe the net did all of that, and tne some?....BULLSHIT!

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I can cite multiple scenarios where it has increased revenues (and therefore, taxes), thereby allowing these masturbatory fucks to spend even more.

By "scenarios," you you mean instances in which it's actually happened in history? If so, please do cite away. That would be interesting to learn about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I can cite multiple scenarios where it has increased revenues (and therefore, taxes), thereby allowing these masturbatory fucks to spend even more.

By "scenarios," you you mean instances in which it's actually happened in history? If so, please do cite away. That would be interesting to learn about.

Google is your friend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I can cite multiple scenarios where it has increased revenues (and therefore, taxes), thereby allowing these masturbatory fucks to spend even more.

By "scenarios," you you mean instances in which it's actually happened in history? If so, please do cite away. That would be interesting to learn about.

Google is your friend.

LOL! I didn't actually expect a substantive reply from you--does anyone?--but I thought you might surprise us, given that you claimed to have examples handy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Lookie, post 49: "I can cite multiple scenarios where it has increased revenues . . ."

Lookie, post 70: "I don't believe I claimed to have them handy in even the remotest sense."

Res ipsa loquitur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Not one Republican voted for his budget and all claimed it would ruin the economy. Blanket wrong in every regard, and you chose to give credit to Newt Gingrich instead of Clinton. His policies worked, and this drove the Republicans crazy. True to their form, they sicked Ken Star on him. Fuckwits all.

Then you steal the 2000 election and send the USA over a cliff with GWB at the helm. Any self respecting person who voted Republican in 2000 and 2004 should have his tail between his legs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

If you recall the Secretary of State of Florida at the time did her best to make sure that Bush won the election.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


The Republicans won but the country lost with two bad wars and the great recession in 2008. Without a doubt they are the amnesia party. As a final kick in the head we have Citizen's United.

This thread reminds me of Gover Norquist on Bill Maher; all facts and figures are rapidly explained away by Grover so that he never has to change or modify his position or give credit or acknowledgement to rival policies superior to his own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
If you recall the Secretary of State of Florida at the time did her best to make sure that Bush won the election.

And she was a Republican.
Case closed.
The Supreme Court decided.
End of discussion.

LOL for you maybe but there is a solid majority of this country that knows what went on down there counting "chads". Secretary of State of Florida ran that show. Now. that is the end of the discussion. Thanks

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)