Discuss: Bush Wins all 50 states in 2004

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 111
    zouniczounic Posts: 53member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chinney

    Americans, it seems, like war providing it is foreigners who are dying.



    Further, this is not like 1992, because this time the Republicans have a continual war scenario. Lucky them.




    Couldn't say it better !

    And that really sucks 8-(
  • Reply 62 of 111
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zounic

    Couldn't say it better !

    And that really sucks 8-(




    I'm banking ( no pun intended ) on the idea that the economy ( by 2004 ) will be all that matters to the voting public. Unlike SDW I'm not so optimistic about things turning around by then.
  • Reply 63 of 111
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    Ah Reagan. We will FOREVER be in his DEBT.



    Ain't that the truth!
  • Reply 64 of 111
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,456member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    Junior will take California when they pry the very last fiber of common sense from our cold dead hands.



    Yes I'm sure the Davis poll numbers and Democrats allowing uncontrolled spending to blow a 35+ BILLION dollar hole in the budget is going to help a Democratic candidate.



    Likewise if Condi Rice or Ar-nald are running for governor at the same time, it could be very interesting.



    Nick
  • Reply 65 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Ain't that the truth!



    Come one. Reagan was only half responsible for the deficits. He contributed by pushing military spending...which I argue was necessary at the time. The other part, perhaps MORE than half actually, was the democratically controlled Congress spending like it was X-mas.



    You guys can use BS rheotric all you want. The numbers show Gov't revenue doubling in the 1980's. Spending was the problem, at that wasn't all or even most of Reagan's fault.
  • Reply 66 of 111
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001



    You guys can use BS rheotric all you want. The numbers show Gov't revenue doubling in the 1980's. Spending was the problem, at that wasn't all or even most of Reagan's fault.




    I agree---I distinctly remember Tip O'Neil telling The Gipper to shove it on several occasions.
  • Reply 67 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,038member
    It doesn't matter how many times I post it though ena....



    People don't listen. It's either ignorance or blatant intellectual dishonesty. Revenue went up. Congress spent it. Now we have the Left blaming Reagan for deficits..



    Interesting.
  • Reply 68 of 111
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Come one. Reagan was only half responsible for the deficits. He contributed by pushing military spending...which I argue was necessary at the time. The other part, perhaps MORE than half actually, was the democratically controlled Congress spending like it was X-mas.



    You guys can use BS rheotric all you want. The numbers show Gov't revenue doubling in the 1980's. Spending was the problem, at that wasn't all or even most of Reagan's fault.






    They also show the debt tripleing during his time in office. A result of bad decisions and way too much military spending. We've already been over the Fed. Savings and Loan thing ( yes, yes, I know the criminal liberal media blames him for this ). You can think of the 80's as a feel good ( have a tax cut ) decade that was living on credit. What happens when you only make the minimum payments on your credit card but keep buying? It could end only one way.......
  • Reply 69 of 111
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    It doesn't matter how many times I post it though ena....



    People don't listen. It's either ignorance or blatant intellectual dishonesty. Revenue went up. Congress spent it. Now we have the Left blaming Reagan for deficits..



    Interesting.




    Or maybe you're wrong.
  • Reply 70 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,038member
    No, Jimmac: Those are....wait for it....THE FACTS.





    Fact #1: Reagan increased military spending, which contributed to the deficits. You don't hear me arguing otherwise, because I know the FACTS.

    I fully admit this had something to do with deficits. Other than this, Reagan wanted LIMITED government. He wanted CUTBACKS in spending.



    Fact #2: Congress ultimately controls spending. Congress spent money on OTHER PROGRAMS like it was going out of style, as they say.



    Fact #3: Congress was controlled by the Democrats. They controlled the purse strings.



    Fact #4: GOVERNMENT REVENUE DOUBLED DURING THE 1980's. Read that part again jimmac, and hopefully it will sink in for once. It doubled AFTER his tax cut. Yes, jimmac, even after his "tax cut for the rich" government revenue went UP. Say it with me....UP!!!





    And who is to say what "too much' military spending is? At the time, Reagan's position was that we needed to negotiate from a position of strength. We therefore needed a more modern military. This cost money. This by itself did not cause the huge deficits.



    Once again, the facts are in direct opposition your point, whatever it is.
  • Reply 71 of 111
    Word to pfflam.



    However, national unity is WAY up.



    Of course that is at the expense of international unity.
  • Reply 72 of 111
    trick falltrick fall Posts: 1,271member
    Quote:

    Fact #2: Congress ultimately controls spending. Congress spent money on OTHER PROGRAMS like it was going out of style, as they say.




    I sort of remember Reagan asking for more money in his budgets than congress would give him. Of course Republicans seem to forget things like that, sort of like when that great proponent of limited gov't, New Gingrich, had more per capita federal dollars spent in his district than anyone. But hey, why demand value from your federal dollar when you can just cry about how taxes are too high and government too large.



    Here's a question, if there's so much waste in gov't and we spend so needlessly on things how come when it comes time for budget cuts it's things like fire houses and education dollars that get cut? Shouldn't there be all that waste to get rid of? Why aren't you screaming about that instead of endlessly droning on like some wannabe pundit about the awful Democrats?
  • Reply 73 of 111
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Or maybe you're wrong.



    In fact, SDW2001 is wrong, as is everyone who blames non-defense spending for any part in the Regan deficits. The relevant budget numbers can be foundhere.



    Spending as %GDP

    Year - Defense - Non-defense domestic

    1980 - 4.9 - 4.7

    1981 - 5.2 - 4.5

    1982 - 5.8 - 3.9

    1983 - 6.1 - 3.8

    1984 - 5.9 - 3.5

    1985 - 6.1 - 3.5

    1986 - 6.2 - 3.3

    1987 - 6.1 - 3.1

    1988 - 5.8 - 3.1

    1989 - 5.6 - 3.1



    See, what ACTUALLY happened is that defense spending increased by about 20% (relative to GDP) while domestic spending tumbled -50%. If you want to talk in nominal billions of dollars instead of %GDP, defense went from $134.6B in 1980 to $304B in 1989 - roughly tripling. Meanwhile, domestic spending went from $136.3B to $168.2B - not even a 25% increase (and these are nominal dollars, which do not take inflation into account).



    So can we please stop spewing this crap that the Democratic Congress helped cause the 80's deficits by giving too much money to pregnant crack-whores? It was 1. Tax Cuts and 2. Defense spending. THERE IS NO 3.



    [/rant]
  • Reply 74 of 111
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy

    However, national unity is WAY up.



    Of course that is at the expense of international unity.




    Word to DigitalMonkeyBoy.
  • Reply 75 of 111
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Fact #1: Reagan increased military spending, which contributed to the deficits. You don't hear me arguing otherwise, because I know the FACTS.

    I fully admit this had something to do with deficits. Other than this, Reagan wanted LIMITED government. He wanted CUTBACKS in spending.



    Fact #2: Congress ultimately controls spending. Congress spent money on OTHER PROGRAMS like it was going out of style, as they say.



    Fact #3: Congress was controlled by the Democrats. They controlled the purse strings.



    Fact #4: GOVERNMENT REVENUE DOUBLED DURING THE 1980's. Read that part again jimmac, and hopefully it will sink in for once. It doubled AFTER his tax cut. Yes, jimmac, even after his "tax cut for the rich" government revenue went UP. Say it with me....UP!!




    1. Congress controls spending? Reagan could have vetoed any spending bill he wanted.



    2. Congress was not controlled by Democrats in the 1980s. The Senate was Republican during almost all of Reagan's presidency (except the last two years). The Senate and the House have to agree on a bill before it gets sent up. (And now, Bush and the Republicans have control of everything, and the same thing is happening.)



    3. Revenues doubled - so what does that mean? Did Reagan's tax cuts and lack of spending cuts double that revenue? Of course not. Revenues increased because the economy grew, and the population increased, etc., just as it always does, regardless of what politicians do. It grew even more under Clinton, and he raised taxes. If anything, most economists believe that higher deficits raise interest rates in the long-term, which will hurt economic growth. One thing for sure is that increased debt adds to the federal budget through increased interest payments.



    4. According to links I've posted in the past, they claim now that they knew tax cuts would decrease revenue. Reagan even raised taxes in 1982 when they saw what was happening after his 1980 cut.



    I just really don't understand why Republicans like you SDW buy into this nonsense. You have to pay for what you spend. Real spending cuts are hard, and Republicans don't have the political will to do it. Or maybe they just don't really believe in cuts, I don't know. It's fine if you say you'd like "spending cuts" to go along with the tax cuts, but at least admit that that's not what Reagan did and Bush is doing. (I put spending cuts in quotes because it seems like no one ever says where those cuts are going to come from.)



    What ticks me off is just the fundamental dishonesty and cynicism of the whole thing. Republicans can do what's politically popular with tax cuts, obtain short-term political benefit, and let others do the hard work with spending cuts and/or tax increases somewhere in the future.





    [edit]Towel that's a nice link. It's now in my bookmarks bar.
  • Reply 76 of 111
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,456member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    In fact, SDW2001 is wrong, as is everyone who blames non-defense spending for any part in the Regan deficits. The relevant budget numbers can be foundhere.



    Spending as %GDP

    Year - Defense - Non-defense domestic

    1980 - 4.9 - 4.7

    1981 - 5.2 - 4.5

    1982 - 5.8 - 3.9

    1983 - 6.1 - 3.8

    1984 - 5.9 - 3.5

    1985 - 6.1 - 3.5

    1986 - 6.2 - 3.3

    1987 - 6.1 - 3.1

    1988 - 5.8 - 3.1

    1989 - 5.6 - 3.1



    See, what ACTUALLY happened is that defense spending increased by about 20% (relative to GDP) while domestic spending tumbled -50%. If you want to talk in nominal billions of dollars instead of %GDP, defense went from $134.6B in 1980 to $304B in 1989 - roughly tripling. Meanwhile, domestic spending went from $136.3B to $168.2B - not even a 25% increase (and these are nominal dollars, which do not take inflation into account).



    So can we please stop spewing this crap that the Democratic Congress helped cause the 80's deficits by giving too much money to pregnant crack-whores? It was 1. Tax Cuts and 2. Defense spending. THERE IS NO 3.



    [/rant]




    Have you noticed the little fault with your reasoning here regarding the debt. Do a little math.



    Percentage of GDP right? Defense and nondefense right?



    So we take 1980.... 4.9+4.7 and that gives us 9.6% of GDP spent on both defense and nondefense...



    So then we take 1988...5.6+3.1 and that gives us 8.7% of GDP being spent on both defense and nondefense...



    This would point to deficits exactly how? Looks to me like by your own numbers less is being spent.



    Oh wait... there is this little area of the budget you aren't looking at called...



    Outlays for Entitlements and Other Mandatory Spending



    It encompasses little things like.. medicaid, medicare, unemployment, social security, etc.



    Those happen to be some pretty important things.



    Nick
  • Reply 77 of 111
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Oh wait... there is this little area of the budget you aren't looking at called...



    Outlays for Entitlements and Other Mandatory Spending



    It encompasses little things like.. medicaid, medicare, unemployment, social security, etc.




    Yeah I was thinking that was probably what was going on there. But still, the deficits didn't occur because of "out of control spending by congress" if the spending increases were in the mandatory category. Blaming it on "Democrats in congress" suggests it was due to some kind of pork barrel or other discretionary spending initiated by those Congresses.
  • Reply 78 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    In fact, SDW2001 is wrong, as is everyone who blames non-defense spending for any part in the Regan deficits. The relevant budget numbers can be foundhere.



    Spending as %GDP

    Year - Defense - Non-defense domestic

    1980 - 4.9 - 4.7

    1981 - 5.2 - 4.5

    1982 - 5.8 - 3.9

    1983 - 6.1 - 3.8

    1984 - 5.9 - 3.5

    1985 - 6.1 - 3.5

    1986 - 6.2 - 3.3

    1987 - 6.1 - 3.1

    1988 - 5.8 - 3.1

    1989 - 5.6 - 3.1



    See, what ACTUALLY happened is that defense spending increased by about 20% (relative to GDP) while domestic spending tumbled -50%. If you want to talk in nominal billions of dollars instead of %GDP, defense went from $134.6B in 1980 to $304B in 1989 - roughly tripling. Meanwhile, domestic spending went from $136.3B to $168.2B - not even a 25% increase (and these are nominal dollars, which do not take inflation into account).



    So can we please stop spewing this crap that the Democratic Congress helped cause the 80's deficits by giving too much money to pregnant crack-whores? It was 1. Tax Cuts and 2. Defense spending. THERE IS NO 3.



    [/rant]




    While I won't question your figures' accuracy, we cannot rely on % of GDP alone. It's a valid number to use, but not the only one. I agree defense spending was a part of the deficits. But to say that it was only Defense spending and tax cuts is just factually inaccurate.



    Tax cuts acutally had NOTHING to do with deficits. They doubled revenue. I'm not sure how doubling revenue increases debt. Are you? the very same link you use proves the revenue issue. Scroll down a bit...



    You numbers are valid, but they also don't include "entitlements" and "mandatory" spending, and/or pork-barrel spending. Reagan couldn't veto a lot of things because if he did, he would have stricken the whole spending bill. That's why we need a line-item veto.



    The point is it's very difficult to blame deficits on Reagan alone. One must include Congress. Reagan WAS primarily responsible for the Defense spending increases, which DID contribute to the deficit...I agree. As I have argued though, I believe such spending was necessary at the time. The military was in pretty bad shape when he took office, and the Soviet Union was beginning to sense it.
  • Reply 79 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Yeah I was thinking that was probably what was going on there. But still, the deficits didn't occur because of "out of control spending by congress" if the spending increases were in the mandatory category. Blaming it on "Democrats in congress" suggests it was due to some kind of pork barrel or other discretionary spending initiated by those Congresses.



    And tell me that Democrats don't fully support these things....



    This is the party that tried to nationalize healthcare. If that happened, it would be lumped in with "mandatory" spending. I think you'd be suprised at what the government calls "manadatory" spending.
  • Reply 80 of 111
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    You numbers are valid, but they also don't include "entitlements" and "mandatory" spending, and/or pork-barrel spending. Reagan couldn't veto a lot of things because if he did, he would have stricken the whole spending bill. That's why we need a line-item veto.



    Mandatory spending remained constant through the 80s at about 10-11% of GDP. Actually, it dipped a bit from 1980-1989. The only spending that increased was defense. Renvenue dropped, relative to GDP, because of the tax cuts. I'm not saying that the pot wasn't bigger in absolute terms by 1989 - the economy did grow. But defense spending grew far faster, while other spending dropped slightly.



    As for revenues increasing because of the tax cut, that's not so cut and dried either. In nominal dollars, revenues rose from $517.1B to 991.2 from 1980-1989. According to the DoL, the CPI rose 155% from 1980-1989. So inflation alone would have boosted revenue to 801.5, all else being constant. Social insurance taxes (whose rates actually increased and which are not used for general spending) rose from 157.8 to 359.4. Adjusting for inflation, that increase accounts for another $114.8B. So we're left with general revenues outpacing inflation by only $74.9B (991.2-801.5-74.9) in nonimal dollars by 1989. So, if we're generous and give Regan credit for ALL economic growth in the US in the 1980s, his tax cuts boosted general revenues by $75B a year. If tax rates remained constant, then the economy would have had to outpace inflation by only 1% a year to match that increase in revenues. Verdict? Tax cuts did not increase revenues beyond that which would have happened with middling economic growth. Controlling inflation by the Fed was far more important in assuring future revenue than cutting taxes.



    As for spending, let's adjust everything for inflation so it's clearer. Defense spending increased by $96B, after adjusting for inflation. Non-defense domestic spending dropped by -$14B. Mandatory spending increased by $97B, but almost all of that (90.5) was from SS and Medicare, and was facilitated by FICA rate increases in the 80s to put the SS fund well in surplus. The only thing that increased significantly was defense spending (and, of course, interest payments).



    Please realize that I'm not making a moral judgement that this was "bad". But it has to be judged on its own merits, based on real numbers and what actually happened. It's clear that whatever merits the cut-taxes-and-spend-on-defense paradigm has, raising government revenues is not one of them.
Sign In or Register to comment.