Doing the math

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

EdGreene

Thread Starter
Banned
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
1,788
Jimmie Carter left office with a $37,000,000,000 surplus. In less than six months, Reagan had tuned that into a $150,000,000,000 deficit.

Clinton turned Bush senior's deficit into a budget surplus. Clinton left office with a booming economy and growing budget surplus.

"Junior", true to form, (just like his "Daddykins" and Reagan), has ballooned that surplus into a projected $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollar) deficit in five years.
*One Trillion = one thousand BILLIONs.
**One Billion = one thousand MILLION.

I'm doing the math and something stinks.

And don't give me "he was (or about to) fighting a war." Clinton went out of his way to "commit war" damn near anywhere he could.

Strange: Clinton cut taxes a couple of times and the economy took off. Baby Bush cut taxes a couple of times and the economy is sliding down the toilet. Make me understand why people continue to vote for Republicans who get us in so much economic trouble while they take good care of their friends?

Are you better off in 2003 with Junior than you were in (pick a year) with Clinton?

Is your retirement safe under Baby Bush or will it go the way of your dwindling 401K?

How much IS your 401K worth today? Two years ago? 1995?

You could buy more with Jimmie Carter's hugely inflated 1980 dollars than you can with Junior's 2003 post-Clinton money.

When new houses* stop selling so briskly, this economy would slide down the slippery slope of depression.
*The number of new housing starts is at a plateau. When we run out of people to buy new housing, the depression will start.
**New housing is selling briskly for one reason: no one trusts the stock market and real estate is always a good investment, even ina depressed stock market.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
2,620
You are quite correct. The "fiscally responsible" Republicans have a deliberate policy of deficit spending. It doesn't happen by accident.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 1999
Messages
51,022
Ed, don't know where you got your crackpot numbers from (did you pull them out of your arse?), but its clear you have no understanding of economics.

For anyone really interested in an excellent factual and unbiased analysis our economy over the past 40 years or so, see this:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

You'll find criticisms where valid and credit where valid to various presidents and administrations. As an example, this shows the very successful economic policies of John F. Kennedy, which was spearheaded first and foremost by sweeping tax reoforms:

<img src="http://forums.techguy.org/attachment.php?postid=697297">

and this shows the growth of family income during the Reagan Growth years:

<img src="http://forums.techguy.org/attachment.php?postid=697300">

This shows how many of the key economic indicators improved during Reagan's term and then worsened after.

<img src="http://forums.techguy.org/attachment.php?postid=697311">

And there are some that did not do better such as personal savings rates showing that the sources are credible. The analysis is based on facts, not on rhetoric.

The country enjoyed much economic prosperity during the Reagan years. There deficit was the fault of the Democrats who controlled Congress and just kept spending. Republicans are always trying to cut government spending. Reagan had to go along with the Democrats increased budget to get them to pass his economic reforms. Or do you believe the Democratic-controlled congress just did everything Reagan told them to do?

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it
experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
Bottom line is you can obfuscate if you want, but spending is controlled by the Congress and Democrats controlled the Congress during the Reagan Presidency.

EdGreene—here’s the bumper sticker you and your fellow liberals should display proudly:

<img src="http://forums.techguy.org/attachment.php?postid=697321">
 
Joined
May 10, 2002
Messages
564
Thanks for the info and Keep up the good work...When did Mr. Clinton cut taxes
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Messages
541
I can't believe anyone would dare to compare Reagan to Carter, in any context ! :rolleyes:

Would anyone care to tell me what exactly Carter did to end the Cold War ?? Oh, that's right, he did absolutely nothing to end the Cold War, unless you consider Iranians taking American hostages as progress in the Cold War.

Perhaps the Democrats would've preferred to have the Cold War extended and continue to this day ? I'm starting to think that Democrats are actually closet Communists. :D
 
Joined
Feb 20, 1999
Messages
51,022
Ed, you do recognize the Trade Deficit is significant too, don't you:

<img src="http://forums.techguy.org/attachment.php?postid=714510">

Looks like Bush Senior did a good job and then Slick Willie blew the trade deficit out of the water!!! What's your comment on that?
 

Attachments

EdGreene

Thread Starter
Banned
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
1,788
That post sure brought out the Right Wing Loonies! I noticed that not one of you addressed what I posted, just flew off in a Loonie rage at the effrontery in the post.

I have this to say about ‘ol Ronnie "I never saw a Teleprompter I didn't like" Reagan: Nancy is a brave lady to put up with that dufus for so long. Must be love.
I've noticed that Junior, like Reagan, doesn't have any original thoughts. He just spouts whatever his spin-doctors (and Dick Chaney) tell him to say. Pitiful.

Here's another thought on you Republican's (and Reagan's) "Trickle-down" theory": "The less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."
Trouble is, Republicans never feed the horse enough. On the other hand, “Bubba” Clinton’s horses dropped stuff all up and down the road… sure made for fat Sparrows.

One last shot before I go: When it comes to I.Q. points, Republicans lose them every time they go to the bathroom.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
2,620
Mulder: we were discussing BUDGET deficits, not TRADE deficits.

We were discussing BUDGET deficits, not Economic Growth rates.
 

EdGreene

Thread Starter
Banned
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
1,788
Originally posted by DNeurococo:
Mulder: we were discussing BUDGET deficits, not TRADE deficits.

We were discussing BUDGET deficits, not Economic Growth rates.
You've just been pimp-slapped Mulder!

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2002
Messages
1,683
I've seen a lot said here. Although you claim them to be off topic Mulders facts and charts seem to be all very reliable with credible sources. I wonder, where did the numbers from the original post come from? Not trying to take sides here only trying to learn a few facts.:)
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
2,910
I got a question, since when did the economy respond immediatly? The way I look at it. What happens this year, is the result of whay happened years ago. Drastic events, such as a war or the terror attacks do have a more immediate impact, but I still think whats happening to our economy now was set in motion years ago.
 
S

smile88

Clinton did not leave office with a booming economy.

I distinctly remember the spring before the election, my job was in danger, and already people were being laid off through out the nation and I was concerned about economic conditions then. I was very tuned in to what was happening because of employment concerns.


I'm 100% sure the economy was starting to come down while Clinton was still in office. although the news media will not agree with that. I saw it.
 
B

Balzac

EdGangGreene is high on Crack.

Carter was one of the worst Presidents in our nations history, next to Blister Dick Bill Cliton, LBJ, FDR and a few others.

Tell me rumpswab, how DEMONCRAT policies like higher taxes, massive federal regulations/red tape, DNC trial lawyer shake downs of companies, and mob union demands help the economy?

If DEMONCRATS were left to run roughshod, our nation would go the way of the old Soviet union (and it has to some extent). For 40 plus years the bottom-feeding Socialists DEMONCRATS did control congress. That's why we have the massive juggernaut of a federal gubbermint.

Staggers the imagination
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Top