And tell me that Democrats don't fully support these things....
Of course they did, as did Republicans. But you're suggesting that Democrats were responsible for the social spending increases that caused the deficits. To me, that implies that Democrats were increasing spending on new programs, or that they were at least voting on increasing spending on existing programs. Neither of those are true. As Towel's data show, discretionary spending, i.e., the spending that the Congress controlled and actually voted for, decreased. All the increases were in either military or auto-pilot spending.
That suggests to me that the debt was caused solely by Reagan. At best, you can say that previous Democrats are at fault for starting the programs in the first place, or that the government as a whole (Reagan and the Congress) were at fault for not sufficiently reforming social security and health care.
And that's even putting aside the fact that Republicans controlled the Senate.
Either way, Reagan's and Bush's fiscal policies are just fundamentally dishonest and cynical.
"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."
Please. Do you even KNOW what the economy was like wehen Reagan took office? And you are telling me the recovery was all due to the natural business cycle?
Quote:
That suggests to me that the debt was caused solely by Reagan.
Quote:
Either way, Reagan's and Bush's fiscal policies are just fundamentally dishonest and cynical.
I cannot accept that. Warning! I'm about to do it again. It's time to bring up Clinton again!
I'll keep bringing up Clinton because the kind of statement you just made is laughable when compared to what our former Presdient did when he took office. Clinton promised middle class tas CUTS when running for his first term. Then, he turned around and RAISED taxes more than anytime in history. He raised taxes on the middle class!
But you tell me that Reagan and Bush were dishonest fiscally?
Arguing that Reagan didn't cause an expansion is ludicrous. Arguing that Democrats don't tax and spend is even MORE ludicrous. This is exactly why the Democratoc party is in the shape it is in right now. They WON'T state what they're for. That's because if they really told us, they would never get elected. At least I'd have some respect for certain candidates if they simply presented their positions....even if they were the aforementioned "tax and spend" positions.
Please. Do you even KNOW what the economy was like wehen Reagan took office? And you are telling me the recovery was all due to the natural business cycle?
I can't even pretend to be able to understand the economics that goes into deciding how much of an impact a tax cut has on the economy. AFAIK, from a layman's perspective, it's open to debate, with the debate leaning towards tax cuts having a modest positive effect on the underlying business cycle, if done properly, and a larger psychological effect.
But the point is there are two assertions that even I can see the data does not back up: 1. Deficts in the 80s were due in significant part to non-defense spending increases and 2. Tax cuts ultimately increase government revenues. I think your last post, SDW2001, confused the latter with raising economic growth. The two do not, necesarily, go hand in hand, if you cut revenues more than you grow the economy. The data suggests that Reagan's overall tax cuts from 1980-1989 were revenue neutral - they raised revenues by the same as we would expect from very modest economic growth with no tax cut. Notably, though, before some of those cuts were rolled back in the late 80s, the effect on revenue was decidedly negative.
Again, I' not making moral judgements or saying it's a bad thing to grow the economy while government revenues stay nominally level and shrink as %GDP. Long-term, you want to grow GDP as much as possible while not compromising essential government functions. But if you're gonna sell a plan like that, it has to be on its merits, not as the "cures everything plus the common cold" tax cut plan.
"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."
Please. Do you even KNOW what the economy was like wehen Reagan took office? And you are telling me the recovery was all due to the natural business cycle?
I cannot accept that. Warning! I'm about to do it again. It's time to bring up Clinton again!
I'll keep bringing up Clinton because the kind of statement you just made is laughable when compared to what our former Presdient did when he took office. Clinton promised middle class tas CUTS when running for his first term. Then, he turned around and RAISED taxes more than anytime in history. He raised taxes on the middle class!
But you tell me that Reagan and Bush were dishonest fiscally?
Arguing that Reagan didn't cause an expansion is ludicrous. Arguing that Democrats don't tax and spend is even MORE ludicrous. This is exactly why the Democratoc party is in the shape it is in right now. They WON'T state what they're for. That's because if they really told us, they would never get elected. At least I'd have some respect for certain candidates if they simply presented their positions....even if they were the aforementioned "tax and spend" positions.
There you go again! Ignoring the facts that you like so much to bandy about. But, facts it seems aren't valid items if they aren't in line with your world view. I was in my 30's when Regan was in office. I remember very well how things went. You never heard of anything but the growing debt. I do remember him wanting to go ahead with costly military programs like Star Wars. Even when his experts told him it wouldn't work.
There you go again! Ignoring the facts that you like so much to bandy about. But, facts it seems aren't valid items if they aren't in line with your world view. I was in my 30's when Regan was in office. I remember very well how things went. You never heard of anything but the growing debt. I do remember him wanting to go ahead with costly military programs like Star Wars. Even when his experts told him it wouldn't work.
There you go again! Ignoring the facts that you like so much to bandy about. But, facts it seems aren't valid items if they aren't in line with your world view. I was in my 30's when Regan was in office. I remember very well how things went. You never heard of anything but the growing debt. I do remember him wanting to go ahead with costly military programs like Star Wars. Even when his experts told him it wouldn't work.
Yes, jimmac, and there is an abundance of facts in this post. "You never heard of anything but the growing debts".
pfflam:
No one ever said Star Wars won the cold war. At least, I didn't, Are you arguing against it now?
But the point is there are two assertions that even I can see the data does not back up: 1. Deficts in the 80s were due in significant part to non-defense spending increases and 2. Tax cuts ultimately increase government revenues. I think your last post, SDW2001, confused the latter with raising economic growth. The two do not, necesarily, go hand in hand, if you cut revenues more than you grow the economy. The data suggests that Reagan's overall tax cuts from 1980-1989 were revenue neutral - they raised revenues by the same as we would expect from very modest economic growth with no tax cut. Notably, though, before some of those cuts were rolled back in the late 80s, the effect on revenue was decidedly negative.
But economic growth DID happen...did it not? My question is, are you saying that Reagan's cuts did not cause this expansion?
I don't completely disagree with you. I do think that there is a a lot more to government spending than the numbers you provided. As I said, they still don't include pork. I do disagree that there is a case to be made for the cuts being revenue neutral. The numbers just don't show that. We're talking about 50% over nine years here. That didn't happen by chance. The last point about the cuts being "rolled back" doesn't necessarily wash. In 1980 revenues were 590.0 Billion. In 1985 they were 946.4 Billion. Decidedly negative?
But economic growth DID happen...did it not? My question is, are you saying that Reagan's cuts did not cause this expansion?
I don't completely disagree with you. I do think that there is a a lot more to government spending than the numbers you provided. As I said, they still don't include pork. I do disagree that there is a case to be made for the cuts being revenue neutral. The numbers just don't show that. We're talking about 50% over nine years here. That didn't happen by chance. The last point about the cuts being "rolled back" doesn't necessarily wash. In 1980 revenues were 590.0 Billion. In 1985 they were 946.4 Billion. Decidedly negative?
Ha, ha! I'll show them all! I'm right and they're wrong. The fools! Black really is white! I'll show them all!
Oh..oh..looks like the economy is starting to really roll and grow again. No amount of jumping on Reagan is going to help the Democratic candidates now.
Yep talking about the 1980's is sure going to help the candidates in 2004.
Oh..oh..looks like the economy is starting to really roll and grow again. No amount of jumping on Reagan is going to help the Democratic candidates now.
Yep talking about the 1980's is sure going to help the candidates in 2004.
See jimmac! Here's another poster who relies on economic DATA to make assertions. He doesn't use statements like "even my small college is hurting" or "there are a lot of unhappy people out there".
trumptman knows that we have to measure the economy with actual statistics. Jimmac, perhaps you'd like an explanation of leading and trailing indicators?
Keep thinking that Bush doesn't stand a chance in 2004. The economy is already improving. The Dems are really screwed.
I really don't get the point of this thread. IF the economy improves, then Bush SHOULD win the election handily. OK. So all the conditions will (or should) be there for Bush to win.
In other words, that would just make it that much more telling if he loses. He should win, by all objective standards. Bush has won two wars and pushed through huge tax cuts - it's hard to imagine anything more politically popular than that ( whether they are good or bad policy...). He should be in the upper 90s in approval. Instead, he's right around where Clinton was after the sex scandal.
Clinton's approval rating immediately after impeachment for a sex scandal? 73%.
Bush's approval rating after the fall of Baghdad? 72%.
All you've done, SDW, is clarify for all of us how utterly humiliating his defeat will be if he does lose.
Most political analysts say the country is basically split rock-solid right down the middle right now. A large number of states are basically locks for both parties: New York, CA, New England, Texas and the Bible Belt, much of the Rocky Mountain West, etc. Whoever can appeal to about 5% of moderates in a couple of states will win. And Bush is hardly appealing to moderates right now. As you've pointed out, all the conditions are set up for him to win. But man, what a defeat if it does happen - this guy sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politically popular, and the people still see right through it and throw him out, just like his dad whom he was supposed to avenge. It would certainly be one of the great, humiliating defeats in the history of American politics.
See jimmac! Here's another poster who relies on economic DATA to make assertions. He doesn't use statements like "even my small college is hurting" or "there are a lot of unhappy people out there".
trumptman knows that we have to measure the economy with actual statistics. Jimmac, perhaps you'd like an explanation of leading and trailing indicators?
Keep thinking that Bush doesn't stand a chance in 2004. The economy is already improving. The Dems are really screwed.
Come on I can't believe you're that shallow. I think I've mentioned this before. I used to own a book called : " How To Lie With Statistics ". It taught me a lot about how the world and persuasion works. Numbers can be bent to the shape of any argument. I could travel the web looking for numbers to counter your arguments. But I know it wouldn't persuade you. Even when other's here present you with well thought out arguments backed by numbers you still don't accept it. It's like you have a blind spot for the truth. It could be George is screwed by then. We'll just have to see. However I think it's to early to make a broad statement like " The economy is already improving " and translate it into a full recovery or even a minor one.. The experts ( not you ) aren't even doing that.
All you've done, SDW, is clarify for all of us how utterly humiliating his defeat will be if he does lose.
Most political analysts say the country is basically split rock-solid right down the middle right now. A large number of states are basically locks for both parties: New York, CA, New England, Texas and the Bible Belt, much of the Rocky Mountain West, etc. Whoever can appeal to about 5% of moderates in a couple of states will win. And Bush is hardly appealing to moderates right now. As you've pointed out, all the conditions are set up for him to win. But man, what a defeat if it does happen - this guy sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politically popular, and the people still see right through it and throw him out, just like his dad whom he was supposed to avenge. It would certainly be one of the great, humiliating defeats in the history of American politics.
1. Many analysts say that although we are very divided, the national electorate leans conservative.
2. I wouldn't count on NY. I wouldn't count on that for the Dems at all.
California will still probably go Democratic. But, Bush seems to be
popular with hispanics. CA could change. Who knows.
3. A defeat would be humiliating. The point of the thread was to
to discuss the possibility of Bush winning all 50 states if the
economy is on-track and foreign policy remains publicly popular.
What I'm saying is that in the wake of 9/11, it may be quite possible.
4. "sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politcally popular". WOW. Nice characterization, there. You seem to repeat this charge over and over again. It's not enough to just disagree with Bush, you have to accuse him of doing everything he does for political purposes. Agree or disagree with him, I generally believe that Bush makes decisions on his principals. Most pundits and analysts will tell you that the Bush administration does not take a poll on what to eat for breakfast. That, with all venom and partisan rhetoric aside, is how Clinton did things.
Finally: George H. W. Bush wasn't thrown out for "sinking the country into war and debt and having people see through it".
He was thrown out, as you put it, for these reasons alone:
1. The economy was in recession. Actually, it was recovering but was only at about the point we are at today when the election took place.
2. He broke his promise not to raise taxes. He was also weak in approaching Congress on budget issues.
3. Rose Perot claimed a good chunk of the popular vote, helping to hand Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!
4. Bush rain a lousy campaign. Period.
These are the reasons. #1 and #2 caused #3, in part. #4 was just lack of political savvy and over-confidence. Goerge W. Bush is not the same President as is father in any way. The economy will, I think, be at a different point in the cycle when the election takes place. There is no Perot. Bush is going to raise $200 million from what I hear...and with people Karl Rove on his team, I doubt it will be a poor campaign. He hasn't raised taxes, he's cut them. Twice. All this, coupled with 9/11 and the ensuing military action will probably make him literally unbeatable.
1. Many analysts say that although we are very divided, the national electorate leans conservative.
2. I wouldn't count on NY. I wouldn't count on that for the Dems at all.
California will still probably go Democratic. But, Bush seems to be
popular with hispanics. CA could change. Who knows.
3. A defeat would be humiliating. The point of the thread was to
to discuss the possibility of Bush winning all 50 states if the
economy is on-track and foreign policy remains publicly popular.
What I'm saying is that in the wake of 9/11, it may be quite possible.
4. "sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politcally popular". WOW. Nice characterization, there. You seem to repeat this charge over and over again. It's not enough to just disagree with Bush, you have to accuse him of doing everything he does for political purposes. Agree or disagree with him, I generally believe that Bush makes decisions on his principals. Most pundits and analysts will tell you that the Bush administration does not take a poll on what to eat for breakfast. That, with all venom and partisan rhetoric aside, is how Clinton did things.
Finally: George H. W. Bush wasn't thrown out for "sinking the country into war and debt and having people see through it".
He was thrown out, as you put it, for these reasons alone:
1. The economy was in recession. Actually, it was recovering but was only at about the point we are at today when the election took place.
2. He broke his promise not to raise taxes. He was also weak in approaching Congress on budget issues.
3. Rose Perot claimed a good chunk of the popular vote, helping to hand Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!
4. Bush rain a lousy campaign. Period.
These are the reasons. #1 and #2 caused #3, in part. #4 was just lack of political savvy and over-confidence. Goerge W. Bush is not the same President as is father in any way. The economy will, I think, be at a different point in the cycle when the election takes place. There is no Perot. Bush is going to raise $200 million from what I hear...and with people Karl Rove on his team, I doubt it will be a poor campaign. He hasn't raised taxes, he's cut them. Twice. All this, coupled with 9/11 and the ensuing military action will probably make him literally unbeatable.
George Sr. lost because of the economy. His son will lose next time for the same reason. While you wind around the back roads of logic the answer is really simple and right up front. Sorry SDW nobody's buying today.
Am I the only person who thinks SDW2001 is really GWB in disguise?
Then again, at least his arguments have 'some intelligence' behind them (unlike Bush who is a complete idiot)
Who are you SDW? Do you work for the man? You are nothing more than a rabid card carrying republican who is going to get stomped at the next election.
What other persident has had to revert to an abbreviation becausse they are too stupid to remember their own name. "dubya", he thinks its endearing. Personally it makes me vomit.
Luckily for me I don't live in your country, the 'land of the free'! Watch another episode of COPS while shoving donuts into mouth. The lies your government perpetrates is obsence.
Getting back to the thread, and the real reason for my total hate of your mentality, "Bush wins all fifty states in 2004". Get your head out of your arse and live in the real world.
Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!
Two-thirds, three-fifths...what's one-fifteenth among friends? Of course, the real number is 57%, which puts you 10% off. But if you look at that ten-percent miscalculation over a twelve-year period, with a sunset after two years, you could probably round down and say you were within 1% of the right math.
Am I the only person who thinks SDW2001 is really GWB in disguise?
Then again, at least his arguments have 'some intelligence' behind them (unlike Bush who is a complete idiot)
Who are you SDW? Do you work for the man? You are nothing more than a rabid card carrying republican who is going to get stomped at the next election.
What other persident has had to revert to an abbreviation becausse they are too stupid to remember their own name. "dubya", he thinks its endearing. Personally it makes me vomit.
Luckily for me I don't live in your country, the 'land of the free'! Watch another episode of COPS while shoving donuts into mouth. The lies your government perpetrates is obsence.
Getting back to the thread, and the real reason for my total hate of your mentality, "Bush wins all fifty states in 2004". Get your head out of your arse and live in the real world.
Naw! He's just another one of those dullsional conservative to the end types who has to invent a justification for his reasoning. If he didn't he be forced to reevaluate his entire life. After Bush loses he'll say it was a fluke.
Agree or disagree with him, I generally believe that Bush makes decisions on his principals.
I seem to recall a certain stem cell research issue where had he gone with his principles he would have simply banned it but instead chose to go right down the political middle with his decision.
Left: WE NEED STEM CELL RESEARCH! WE MUST CURE DISEASES!
Right: BAN THE BABY KILLERS!
Bush: Umm...err...uhh...*shrugs* Stem cell research for some, tax cuts for others.
Give me a break. This has been the worst poll-based presidency we've had in ages.
1. Many analysts say that although we are very divided, the national electorate leans conservative.
Absolutely. That's why the Republicans are far to the right of mainstream right-wing parties in our peer countries, and Democrats are only a little bit to the right. The question is whether the Democrats or the Republicans are the right amount of conservative. Frankly, I don't care either way. I have my beliefs and they certainly aren't determined by where the rest of the population stands on things.
Quote:
2. I wouldn't count on NY. I wouldn't count on that for the Dems at all.
California will still probably go Democratic. But, Bush seems to be
popular with hispanics. CA could change. Who knows.
It's interesting to look at the exit polls from last time. He lost Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and women, all by sizable margins. He won whites, but broken down by gender he was tied on white women. The only demographic Bush won were white males.
Quote:
3. A defeat would be humiliating. The point of the thread was to
to discuss the possibility of Bush winning all 50 states if the
economy is on-track and foreign policy remains publicly popular.
What I'm saying is that in the wake of 9/11, it may be quite possible.
I think the demographics suggest that it will be close, no matter how good the economy is or how good the wars go.
Quote:
4. "sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politcally popular". WOW. Nice characterization, there. You seem to repeat this charge over and over again. It's not enough to just disagree with Bush, you have to accuse him of doing everything he does for political purposes. Agree or disagree with him, I generally believe that Bush makes decisions on his principals. Most pundits and analysts will tell you that the Bush administration does not take a poll on what to eat for breakfast. That, with all venom and partisan rhetoric aside, is how Clinton did things.
Yes, that's my opinion. But, as you have said numerous times, this Karl Rove is very important to Bush, and by all accounts this administration is more political than Clinton's. Supposedly, Karl Rove has unprecedented access to all types of policy-making. Bush is on permanent campaign.
Quote:
Finally: George H. W. Bush wasn't thrown out for "sinking the country into war and debt and having people see through it".
He was thrown out, as you put it, for these reasons alone:
1. The economy was in recession. Actually, it was recovering but was only at about the point we are at today when the election took place.
2. He broke his promise not to raise taxes. He was also weak in approaching Congress on budget issues.
3. Rose Perot claimed a good chunk of the popular vote, helping to hand Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!
4. Bush rain a lousy campaign. Period.
I wasn't saying H. W. was thrown out for those reasons. Perhaps it was poor sentence structure on my part. But I disagree that Perot got Clinton elected. Every study I've seen suggests Perot took more from Clinton than Bush. Clinton and Perot split the "we hate Bush" vote.
I seem to recall a certain stem cell research issue where had he gone with his principles he would have simply banned it but instead chose to go right down the political middle with his decision.
Left: WE NEED STEM CELL RESEARCH! WE MUST CURE DISEASES!
Right: BAN THE BABY KILLERS!
Bush: Umm...err...uhh...*shrugs* Stem cell research for some, tax cuts for others.
Give me a break. This has been the worst poll-based presidency we've had in ages.
That is compeltely and totally unsupported. That is simply not how things are with his admin. If anything, they should probably listen to public opinion a little MORE. You're nuts.
jimmac:
Quote:
Naw! He's just another one of those dullsional conservative to the end types who has to invent a justification for his reasoning. If he didn't he be forced to reevaluate his entire life. After Bush loses he'll say it was a fluke.
No, jimmac, if Bush loses there will be a clear reason. Of course, gore might try and steal it again!
jwri004:
Quote:
Am I the only person who thinks SDW2001 is really GWB in disguise?
Then again, at least his arguments have 'some intelligence' behind them (unlike Bush who is a complete idiot)
Who are you SDW? Do you work for the man? You are nothing more than a rabid card carrying republican who is going to get stomped at the next election.
What other persident has had to revert to an abbreviation becausse they are too stupid to remember their own name. "dubya", he thinks its endearing. Personally it makes me vomit.
Luckily for me I don't live in your country, the 'land of the free'! Watch another episode of COPS while shoving donuts into mouth. The lies your government perpetrates is obsence.
Getting back to the thread, and the real reason for my total hate of your mentality, "Bush wins all fifty states in 2004". Get your head out of your arse and live in the real world.
I like Bush. I don't worship him or think he infallable. You can call me a Bush apologist if you'd like, but it's not true.
As far as the next election, the facts don't support your statement. I have already listed my reaosns ofr thinking a sweep is possible. Disagree if you'd like.
As far as you not living here: Your idiotic impression of our country shows how incredibly narrow minded you must be. I suppose everyone from, say, Canada drinks Molson Ice and rides an Elk? I suppose all Russians live in a building that looks like the Kremlin and like to play with nutcrackers made out of wood? I'd like to go on more about your ridiculous stereotypical view of Americans, but I have to go eat my Big Mac and still have time to pick up a case of Bud, all so I can drink myself into a stupor at the demolition derby tonight! 8)
As far as getting my head out of my ass, my scenario is possible. Reagan nearly did it, and he didn't have 9/11, two wars, two tax cuts, etc. to run on. I'm wasting my time with you, though.
Quote:
George Sr. lost because of the economy. His son will lose next time for the same reason. While you wind around the back roads of logic the answer is really simple and right up front. Sorry SDW nobody's buying today.
The ecnonomy was, I agree, the #1 reason. It was not the only one though. All of those factors contributed.
Quote:
Two-thirds, three-fifths...what's one-fifteenth among friends? Of course, the real number is 57%, which puts you 10% off. But if you look at that ten-percent miscalculation over a twelve-year period, with a sunset after two years, you could probably round down and say you were within 1% of the right math.
I was wrong. It was 43%, now that I actually looked it up.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
And tell me that Democrats don't fully support these things....
Of course they did, as did Republicans. But you're suggesting that Democrats were responsible for the social spending increases that caused the deficits. To me, that implies that Democrats were increasing spending on new programs, or that they were at least voting on increasing spending on existing programs. Neither of those are true. As Towel's data show, discretionary spending, i.e., the spending that the Congress controlled and actually voted for, decreased. All the increases were in either military or auto-pilot spending.
That suggests to me that the debt was caused solely by Reagan. At best, you can say that previous Democrats are at fault for starting the programs in the first place, or that the government as a whole (Reagan and the Congress) were at fault for not sufficiently reforming social security and health care.
And that's even putting aside the fact that Republicans controlled the Senate.
Either way, Reagan's and Bush's fiscal policies are just fundamentally dishonest and cynical.
"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."
Please. Do you even KNOW what the economy was like wehen Reagan took office? And you are telling me the recovery was all due to the natural business cycle?
That suggests to me that the debt was caused solely by Reagan.
Either way, Reagan's and Bush's fiscal policies are just fundamentally dishonest and cynical.
I cannot accept that. Warning! I'm about to do it again. It's time to bring up Clinton again!
I'll keep bringing up Clinton because the kind of statement you just made is laughable when compared to what our former Presdient did when he took office. Clinton promised middle class tas CUTS when running for his first term. Then, he turned around and RAISED taxes more than anytime in history. He raised taxes on the middle class!
But you tell me that Reagan and Bush were dishonest fiscally?
Arguing that Reagan didn't cause an expansion is ludicrous. Arguing that Democrats don't tax and spend is even MORE ludicrous. This is exactly why the Democratoc party is in the shape it is in right now. They WON'T state what they're for. That's because if they really told us, they would never get elected. At least I'd have some respect for certain candidates if they simply presented their positions....even if they were the aforementioned "tax and spend" positions.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Please. Do you even KNOW what the economy was like wehen Reagan took office? And you are telling me the recovery was all due to the natural business cycle?
I can't even pretend to be able to understand the economics that goes into deciding how much of an impact a tax cut has on the economy. AFAIK, from a layman's perspective, it's open to debate, with the debate leaning towards tax cuts having a modest positive effect on the underlying business cycle, if done properly, and a larger psychological effect.
But the point is there are two assertions that even I can see the data does not back up: 1. Deficts in the 80s were due in significant part to non-defense spending increases and 2. Tax cuts ultimately increase government revenues. I think your last post, SDW2001, confused the latter with raising economic growth. The two do not, necesarily, go hand in hand, if you cut revenues more than you grow the economy. The data suggests that Reagan's overall tax cuts from 1980-1989 were revenue neutral - they raised revenues by the same as we would expect from very modest economic growth with no tax cut. Notably, though, before some of those cuts were rolled back in the late 80s, the effect on revenue was decidedly negative.
Again, I' not making moral judgements or saying it's a bad thing to grow the economy while government revenues stay nominally level and shrink as %GDP. Long-term, you want to grow GDP as much as possible while not compromising essential government functions. But if you're gonna sell a plan like that, it has to be on its merits, not as the "cures everything plus the common cold" tax cut plan.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh My God.
"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."
Please. Do you even KNOW what the economy was like wehen Reagan took office? And you are telling me the recovery was all due to the natural business cycle?
I cannot accept that. Warning! I'm about to do it again. It's time to bring up Clinton again!
I'll keep bringing up Clinton because the kind of statement you just made is laughable when compared to what our former Presdient did when he took office. Clinton promised middle class tas CUTS when running for his first term. Then, he turned around and RAISED taxes more than anytime in history. He raised taxes on the middle class!
But you tell me that Reagan and Bush were dishonest fiscally?
Arguing that Reagan didn't cause an expansion is ludicrous. Arguing that Democrats don't tax and spend is even MORE ludicrous. This is exactly why the Democratoc party is in the shape it is in right now. They WON'T state what they're for. That's because if they really told us, they would never get elected. At least I'd have some respect for certain candidates if they simply presented their positions....even if they were the aforementioned "tax and spend" positions.
There you go again! Ignoring the facts that you like so much to bandy about. But, facts it seems aren't valid items if they aren't in line with your world view. I was in my 30's when Regan was in office. I remember very well how things went. You never heard of anything but the growing debt. I do remember him wanting to go ahead with costly military programs like Star Wars. Even when his experts told him it wouldn't work.
Originally posted by jimmac
There you go again! Ignoring the facts that you like so much to bandy about. But, facts it seems aren't valid items if they aren't in line with your world view. I was in my 30's when Regan was in office. I remember very well how things went. You never heard of anything but the growing debt. I do remember him wanting to go ahead with costly military programs like Star Wars. Even when his experts told him it wouldn't work.
ummm . . . but starwars won the Cold War . . . .
..not
Originally posted by jimmac
There you go again! Ignoring the facts that you like so much to bandy about. But, facts it seems aren't valid items if they aren't in line with your world view. I was in my 30's when Regan was in office. I remember very well how things went. You never heard of anything but the growing debt. I do remember him wanting to go ahead with costly military programs like Star Wars. Even when his experts told him it wouldn't work.
Yes, jimmac, and there is an abundance of facts in this post. "You never heard of anything but the growing debts".
pfflam:
No one ever said Star Wars won the cold war. At least, I didn't, Are you arguing against it now?
But the point is there are two assertions that even I can see the data does not back up: 1. Deficts in the 80s were due in significant part to non-defense spending increases and 2. Tax cuts ultimately increase government revenues. I think your last post, SDW2001, confused the latter with raising economic growth. The two do not, necesarily, go hand in hand, if you cut revenues more than you grow the economy. The data suggests that Reagan's overall tax cuts from 1980-1989 were revenue neutral - they raised revenues by the same as we would expect from very modest economic growth with no tax cut. Notably, though, before some of those cuts were rolled back in the late 80s, the effect on revenue was decidedly negative.
But economic growth DID happen...did it not? My question is, are you saying that Reagan's cuts did not cause this expansion?
I don't completely disagree with you. I do think that there is a a lot more to government spending than the numbers you provided. As I said, they still don't include pork. I do disagree that there is a case to be made for the cuts being revenue neutral. The numbers just don't show that. We're talking about 50% over nine years here. That didn't happen by chance. The last point about the cuts being "rolled back" doesn't necessarily wash. In 1980 revenues were 590.0 Billion. In 1985 they were 946.4 Billion. Decidedly negative?
Originally posted by SDW2001
But economic growth DID happen...did it not? My question is, are you saying that Reagan's cuts did not cause this expansion?
I don't completely disagree with you. I do think that there is a a lot more to government spending than the numbers you provided. As I said, they still don't include pork. I do disagree that there is a case to be made for the cuts being revenue neutral. The numbers just don't show that. We're talking about 50% over nine years here. That didn't happen by chance. The last point about the cuts being "rolled back" doesn't necessarily wash. In 1980 revenues were 590.0 Billion. In 1985 they were 946.4 Billion. Decidedly negative?
Ha, ha! I'll show them all! I'm right and they're wrong. The fools! Black really is white! I'll show them all!
Still in check.
Yep talking about the 1980's is sure going to help the candidates in 2004.
Rolling, rolling, rolling...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Oh..oh..looks like the economy is starting to really roll and grow again. No amount of jumping on Reagan is going to help the Democratic candidates now.
Yep talking about the 1980's is sure going to help the candidates in 2004.
Rolling, rolling, rolling...
Nick
See jimmac! Here's another poster who relies on economic DATA to make assertions. He doesn't use statements like "even my small college is hurting" or "there are a lot of unhappy people out there".
trumptman knows that we have to measure the economy with actual statistics. Jimmac, perhaps you'd like an explanation of leading and trailing indicators?
Keep thinking that Bush doesn't stand a chance in 2004. The economy is already improving. The Dems are really screwed.
In other words, that would just make it that much more telling if he loses. He should win, by all objective standards. Bush has won two wars and pushed through huge tax cuts - it's hard to imagine anything more politically popular than that ( whether they are good or bad policy...). He should be in the upper 90s in approval. Instead, he's right around where Clinton was after the sex scandal.
Clinton's approval rating immediately after impeachment for a sex scandal? 73%.
Bush's approval rating after the fall of Baghdad? 72%.
All you've done, SDW, is clarify for all of us how utterly humiliating his defeat will be if he does lose.
Most political analysts say the country is basically split rock-solid right down the middle right now. A large number of states are basically locks for both parties: New York, CA, New England, Texas and the Bible Belt, much of the Rocky Mountain West, etc. Whoever can appeal to about 5% of moderates in a couple of states will win. And Bush is hardly appealing to moderates right now. As you've pointed out, all the conditions are set up for him to win. But man, what a defeat if it does happen - this guy sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politically popular, and the people still see right through it and throw him out, just like his dad whom he was supposed to avenge. It would certainly be one of the great, humiliating defeats in the history of American politics.
Originally posted by SDW2001
See jimmac! Here's another poster who relies on economic DATA to make assertions. He doesn't use statements like "even my small college is hurting" or "there are a lot of unhappy people out there".
trumptman knows that we have to measure the economy with actual statistics. Jimmac, perhaps you'd like an explanation of leading and trailing indicators?
Keep thinking that Bush doesn't stand a chance in 2004. The economy is already improving. The Dems are really screwed.
Come on I can't believe you're that shallow. I think I've mentioned this before. I used to own a book called : " How To Lie With Statistics ". It taught me a lot about how the world and persuasion works. Numbers can be bent to the shape of any argument. I could travel the web looking for numbers to counter your arguments. But I know it wouldn't persuade you. Even when other's here present you with well thought out arguments backed by numbers you still don't accept it. It's like you have a blind spot for the truth. It could be George is screwed by then. We'll just have to see. However I think it's to early to make a broad statement like " The economy is already improving " and translate it into a full recovery or even a minor one.. The experts ( not you ) aren't even doing that.
Still in check
All you've done, SDW, is clarify for all of us how utterly humiliating his defeat will be if he does lose.
Most political analysts say the country is basically split rock-solid right down the middle right now. A large number of states are basically locks for both parties: New York, CA, New England, Texas and the Bible Belt, much of the Rocky Mountain West, etc. Whoever can appeal to about 5% of moderates in a couple of states will win. And Bush is hardly appealing to moderates right now. As you've pointed out, all the conditions are set up for him to win. But man, what a defeat if it does happen - this guy sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politically popular, and the people still see right through it and throw him out, just like his dad whom he was supposed to avenge. It would certainly be one of the great, humiliating defeats in the history of American politics.
1. Many analysts say that although we are very divided, the national electorate leans conservative.
2. I wouldn't count on NY. I wouldn't count on that for the Dems at all.
California will still probably go Democratic. But, Bush seems to be
popular with hispanics. CA could change. Who knows.
3. A defeat would be humiliating. The point of the thread was to
to discuss the possibility of Bush winning all 50 states if the
economy is on-track and foreign policy remains publicly popular.
What I'm saying is that in the wake of 9/11, it may be quite possible.
4. "sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politcally popular". WOW.
Finally: George H. W. Bush wasn't thrown out for "sinking the country into war and debt and having people see through it".
He was thrown out, as you put it, for these reasons alone:
1. The economy was in recession. Actually, it was recovering but was only at about the point we are at today when the election took place.
2. He broke his promise not to raise taxes. He was also weak in approaching Congress on budget issues.
3. Rose Perot claimed a good chunk of the popular vote, helping to hand Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!
4. Bush rain a lousy campaign. Period.
These are the reasons. #1 and #2 caused #3, in part. #4 was just lack of political savvy and over-confidence. Goerge W. Bush is not the same President as is father in any way. The economy will, I think, be at a different point in the cycle when the election takes place. There is no Perot. Bush is going to raise $200 million from what I hear...and with people Karl Rove on his team, I doubt it will be a poor campaign. He hasn't raised taxes, he's cut them. Twice. All this, coupled with 9/11 and the ensuing military action will probably make him literally unbeatable.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Brussell:
1. Many analysts say that although we are very divided, the national electorate leans conservative.
2. I wouldn't count on NY. I wouldn't count on that for the Dems at all.
California will still probably go Democratic. But, Bush seems to be
popular with hispanics. CA could change. Who knows.
3. A defeat would be humiliating. The point of the thread was to
to discuss the possibility of Bush winning all 50 states if the
economy is on-track and foreign policy remains publicly popular.
What I'm saying is that in the wake of 9/11, it may be quite possible.
4. "sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politcally popular". WOW.
Finally: George H. W. Bush wasn't thrown out for "sinking the country into war and debt and having people see through it".
He was thrown out, as you put it, for these reasons alone:
1. The economy was in recession. Actually, it was recovering but was only at about the point we are at today when the election took place.
2. He broke his promise not to raise taxes. He was also weak in approaching Congress on budget issues.
3. Rose Perot claimed a good chunk of the popular vote, helping to hand Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!
4. Bush rain a lousy campaign. Period.
These are the reasons. #1 and #2 caused #3, in part. #4 was just lack of political savvy and over-confidence. Goerge W. Bush is not the same President as is father in any way. The economy will, I think, be at a different point in the cycle when the election takes place. There is no Perot. Bush is going to raise $200 million from what I hear...and with people Karl Rove on his team, I doubt it will be a poor campaign. He hasn't raised taxes, he's cut them. Twice. All this, coupled with 9/11 and the ensuing military action will probably make him literally unbeatable.
George Sr. lost because of the economy. His son will lose next time for the same reason. While you wind around the back roads of logic the answer is really simple and right up front. Sorry SDW nobody's buying today.
Still in check.
Then again, at least his arguments have 'some intelligence' behind them (unlike Bush who is a complete idiot)
Who are you SDW? Do you work for the man? You are nothing more than a rabid card carrying republican who is going to get stomped at the next election.
What other persident has had to revert to an abbreviation becausse they are too stupid to remember their own name. "dubya", he thinks its endearing. Personally it makes me vomit.
Luckily for me I don't live in your country, the 'land of the free'! Watch another episode of COPS while shoving donuts into mouth. The lies your government perpetrates is obsence.
Getting back to the thread, and the real reason for my total hate of your mentality, "Bush wins all fifty states in 2004". Get your head out of your arse and live in the real world.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!
Two-thirds, three-fifths...what's one-fifteenth among friends? Of course, the real number is 57%, which puts you 10% off. But if you look at that ten-percent miscalculation over a twelve-year period, with a sunset after two years, you could probably round down and say you were within 1% of the right math.
Originally posted by jwri004
Am I the only person who thinks SDW2001 is really GWB in disguise?
Then again, at least his arguments have 'some intelligence' behind them (unlike Bush who is a complete idiot)
Who are you SDW? Do you work for the man? You are nothing more than a rabid card carrying republican who is going to get stomped at the next election.
What other persident has had to revert to an abbreviation becausse they are too stupid to remember their own name. "dubya", he thinks its endearing. Personally it makes me vomit.
Luckily for me I don't live in your country, the 'land of the free'! Watch another episode of COPS while shoving donuts into mouth. The lies your government perpetrates is obsence.
Getting back to the thread, and the real reason for my total hate of your mentality, "Bush wins all fifty states in 2004". Get your head out of your arse and live in the real world.
Naw! He's just another one of those dullsional conservative to the end types who has to invent a justification for his reasoning. If he didn't he be forced to reevaluate his entire life. After Bush loses he'll say it was a fluke.
SDW says...
Agree or disagree with him, I generally believe that Bush makes decisions on his principals.
I seem to recall a certain stem cell research issue where had he gone with his principles he would have simply banned it but instead chose to go right down the political middle with his decision.
Left: WE NEED STEM CELL RESEARCH! WE MUST CURE DISEASES!
Right: BAN THE BABY KILLERS!
Bush: Umm...err...uhh...*shrugs* Stem cell research for some, tax cuts for others.
Give me a break. This has been the worst poll-based presidency we've had in ages.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Many analysts say that although we are very divided, the national electorate leans conservative.
Absolutely. That's why the Republicans are far to the right of mainstream right-wing parties in our peer countries, and Democrats are only a little bit to the right. The question is whether the Democrats or the Republicans are the right amount of conservative. Frankly, I don't care either way. I have my beliefs and they certainly aren't determined by where the rest of the population stands on things.
2. I wouldn't count on NY. I wouldn't count on that for the Dems at all.
California will still probably go Democratic. But, Bush seems to be
popular with hispanics. CA could change. Who knows.
Bush lost Hispanics 62 to 35% in 2000. And I'd bet you right now that he'll lose them much worse in 2004.
It's interesting to look at the exit polls from last time. He lost Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and women, all by sizable margins. He won whites, but broken down by gender he was tied on white women. The only demographic Bush won were white males.
3. A defeat would be humiliating. The point of the thread was to
to discuss the possibility of Bush winning all 50 states if the
economy is on-track and foreign policy remains publicly popular.
What I'm saying is that in the wake of 9/11, it may be quite possible.
I think the demographics suggest that it will be close, no matter how good the economy is or how good the wars go.
4. "sinks the country into war and debt in a bet that it will be politcally popular". WOW.
Yes, that's my opinion. But, as you have said numerous times, this Karl Rove is very important to Bush, and by all accounts this administration is more political than Clinton's. Supposedly, Karl Rove has unprecedented access to all types of policy-making. Bush is on permanent campaign.
Finally: George H. W. Bush wasn't thrown out for "sinking the country into war and debt and having people see through it".
He was thrown out, as you put it, for these reasons alone:
1. The economy was in recession. Actually, it was recovering but was only at about the point we are at today when the election took place.
2. He broke his promise not to raise taxes. He was also weak in approaching Congress on budget issues.
3. Rose Perot claimed a good chunk of the popular vote, helping to hand Clinton a victory with only 40% of the popular vote. This is one reason I laugh when I hear Dems bitch about gore winning the popular vote. Clinton was elected with 2/3 of the voters voting against him!!!
4. Bush rain a lousy campaign. Period.
I wasn't saying H. W. was thrown out for those reasons. Perhaps it was poor sentence structure on my part. But I disagree that Perot got Clinton elected. Every study I've seen suggests Perot took more from Clinton than Bush. Clinton and Perot split the "we hate Bush" vote.
I seem to recall a certain stem cell research issue where had he gone with his principles he would have simply banned it but instead chose to go right down the political middle with his decision.
Left: WE NEED STEM CELL RESEARCH! WE MUST CURE DISEASES!
Right: BAN THE BABY KILLERS!
Bush: Umm...err...uhh...*shrugs* Stem cell research for some, tax cuts for others.
Give me a break. This has been the worst poll-based presidency we've had in ages.
That is compeltely and totally unsupported. That is simply not how things are with his admin. If anything, they should probably listen to public opinion a little MORE. You're nuts.
jimmac:
Naw! He's just another one of those dullsional conservative to the end types who has to invent a justification for his reasoning. If he didn't he be forced to reevaluate his entire life. After Bush loses he'll say it was a fluke.
No, jimmac, if Bush loses there will be a clear reason. Of course, gore might try and steal it again!
jwri004:
Am I the only person who thinks SDW2001 is really GWB in disguise?
Then again, at least his arguments have 'some intelligence' behind them (unlike Bush who is a complete idiot)
Who are you SDW? Do you work for the man? You are nothing more than a rabid card carrying republican who is going to get stomped at the next election.
What other persident has had to revert to an abbreviation becausse they are too stupid to remember their own name. "dubya", he thinks its endearing. Personally it makes me vomit.
Luckily for me I don't live in your country, the 'land of the free'! Watch another episode of COPS while shoving donuts into mouth. The lies your government perpetrates is obsence.
Getting back to the thread, and the real reason for my total hate of your mentality, "Bush wins all fifty states in 2004". Get your head out of your arse and live in the real world.
I like Bush. I don't worship him or think he infallable. You can call me a Bush apologist if you'd like, but it's not true.
As far as the next election, the facts don't support your statement. I have already listed my reaosns ofr thinking a sweep is possible. Disagree if you'd like.
As far as you not living here: Your idiotic impression of our country shows how incredibly narrow minded you must be. I suppose everyone from, say, Canada drinks Molson Ice and rides an Elk? I suppose all Russians live in a building that looks like the Kremlin and like to play with nutcrackers made out of wood? I'd like to go on more about your ridiculous stereotypical view of Americans, but I have to go eat my Big Mac and still have time to pick up a case of Bud, all so I can drink myself into a stupor at the demolition derby tonight! 8)
As far as getting my head out of my ass, my scenario is possible. Reagan nearly did it, and he didn't have 9/11, two wars, two tax cuts, etc. to run on. I'm wasting my time with you, though.
George Sr. lost because of the economy. His son will lose next time for the same reason. While you wind around the back roads of logic the answer is really simple and right up front. Sorry SDW nobody's buying today.
The ecnonomy was, I agree, the #1 reason. It was not the only one though. All of those factors contributed.
Two-thirds, three-fifths...what's one-fifteenth among friends? Of course, the real number is 57%, which puts you 10% off. But if you look at that ten-percent miscalculation over a twelve-year period, with a sunset after two years, you could probably round down and say you were within 1% of the right math.
I was wrong. It was 43%, now that I actually looked it up.
http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/diss/node19.html
I'm not sure how 3% matters. He still had 57% of the voters NOT vote for him. That's a very significant number.