- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 4,810
- Reaction score
- 2,250
- Location
- is everything
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Under Clinton42, federal outlays as a percentage of GDP fell from 21.1% in 1992 to 17.4% in 2000. The figure is now less than it was was when Bubba was inaugurated.
View attachment 67205328
Republicans will very likely maintain control of the House over the next four years. Is it reasonable to fear that a Clinton45 administration would push the ratio back up much higher than 20%, where it was every single year 1981-93 under Reagan and his unfortunate successor?
Read the Constitution. Congress, and the party in control of Congress, control both the amount of money appropriated for spending, and the amount of money borrowed or taxed to cover the spending - not the President.
any politician. Spending is the basis for their power.
Read the Constitution. Congress, and the party in control of Congress, control both the amount of money appropriated for spending, and the amount of money borrowed or taxed to cover the spending - not the President. Clinton-42 agreed, after having his arm twisted almost completely off, to negotiate with the US House of Representatives (specifically Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich since the House is the chamber where revenue bills must originate) to lower spending and balance the budget. The problem, is that the GOP used to be the party of fiscal responsibility - they are no longer even close to fiscally responsible, and spend money just about as fast as Democrats. Not quite as fast, but damned near. With the current Speaker of the House of Representatives, we as a country have the best chance of lower spending, balancing the budget to stop deficit spending, and get the National Debt under control since the time that Gingrich and Clinton-42 agreed to work together, because Ryan is arguably the most capable and intelligent budget expert to grace the House in over 50 years.
Under Clinton42, federal outlays as a percentage of GDP fell from 21.1% in 1992 to 17.4% in 2000. The figure is now less than it was was when Bubba was inaugurated.
View attachment 67205328
Republicans will very likely maintain control of the House over the next four years. Is it reasonable to fear that a Clinton45 administration would push the ratio back up much higher than 20%, where it was every single year 1981-93 under Reagan and his unfortunate successor?
Expressing outlays as a percent of GDP during periods of time when GDP is going ape**** says more about GDP than federal outlays.
I figure it says something about both. The economy expanded at a healthy rate, but I sure wouldn't call it ape****.
Completely unsupported.
Supply a different time frame if you don't like mine.
What the economy did between 1992 and 2000 is not "a healthy rate" by any historical standard.
Completely unsupported. What would you say is a healthy rate?
>>That it happens to coincide with a Democratic Party presidency is super convenient for partisan fools.
Clinton benefited from the Information Revolution. He also did things to help the economy in other ways.
>>Extend Clinton's presidency to 2003 and see how convenient your little storyline would be.
What happened to tax rates on wealthy households under Bush43? What happened to the economy in Sept 2001?
>>It's completely unsupported that a tech and stock bubble had something to do with GDP in the nineties?
You provide nothing to back that up.
>>You're dismissed.
I graciously accept yer rather pathetic surrender.
>>I just did.
No you didn't. You just gave some time frames. What about them?
>>I segmented the timeframe in a way that is inconvenient for your partisan rhetoric.
You didn't say anything about them. What's yer point?
Is it your goal to dumb down this discussion?
If Obama had become President in 2005, the storyline of his presidency would be vastly different. In 2005 he'd have had no hope of preventing the housing bubble
If a Democrat had been elected in 2000 or even in 2004, there never would have been a god damn housing crisis. Who do you think yer fooling? You think it fell out of the sky?
First of all, given the degree of segmentation of people's posts you engage in, you really need to learn to multi-quote. << >> is no good. The way to do it is to type [] with the world quote between them and the [] with /quote between them. Just do that for each segment of a person's post your want to quote.
Read the Constitution. Congress, and the party in control of Congress, control both the amount of money appropriated for spending, and the amount of money borrowed or taxed to cover the spending - not the President. Clinton-42 agreed, after having his arm twisted almost completely off, to negotiate with the US House of Representatives (specifically Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich since the House is the chamber where revenue bills must originate) to lower spending and balance the budget. The problem, is that the GOP used to be the party of fiscal responsibility - they are no longer even close to fiscally responsible, and spend money just about as fast as Democrats. Not quite as fast, but damned near. With the current Speaker of the House of Representatives, we as a country have the best chance of lower spending, balancing the budget to stop deficit spending, and get the National Debt under control since the time that Gingrich and Clinton-42 agreed to work together, because Ryan is arguably the most capable and intelligent budget expert to grace the House in over 50 years.
Ryan … his proposal for social security and medicare … I don't think he is qualified to run a lemonade stand.
Look at your own data without thinking about who the President happened to be at any particular point in time. It tells a different story. If Obama had become President in 2005, the storyline of his presidency would be vastly different. In 2005 he'd have had no hope of preventing the housing bubble, and it would look as if the world was falling apart shortly after he took over the world's most powerful country. If Bob Dole had become president in '97 it would appear to a lot of fools that he was the most successful president ever, unless he was still President between '01 and '03 in which case it would have appeared that he destroyed the country.
If you stop convincing yourself that the President determines everything that happens in the world by virtue of his occupation of the Oval Office, you'll look at economic trends and think about policies, not figureheads. Tax policy, monetary policy, financial sector regulation, and so forth. To even attempt to frame the economic discussion of the US over the past 25-35 years in terms of who was President when inherently dumbs down the discussion of what is economically best for the country.
Of course there will be a large expansion of federal spending under Hillary.
Read the Constitution. Congress, and the party in control of Congress, control both the amount of money appropriated for spending, and the amount of money borrowed or taxed to cover the spending - not the President. Clinton-42 agreed, after having his arm twisted almost completely off, to negotiate with the US House of Representatives (specifically Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich since the House is the chamber where revenue bills must originate) to lower spending and balance the budget.
What's yer reason for saying that?
>>Ridiculous thread.
So don't post in it. I know I won't miss yer … input.
Look at it this way — when there is no big increase, you can claim it's only because Republicans in Congress were there to stop her and her fellow librul Demecrats.
Ridiculous thread. Of course there will be a large expansion of federal spending under Hillary. Same could be said for Trump. Vote Johnson!
The nation would greatly benefit from a federal (as well as state and local government) spending stimulus targeted on infrastructure. Lack of government spending is partially to blame for an economy that is growing, but comparatively slowly.
Now's the time. The federal government can borrow at low interest rates: 10-year, inflation-protected bonds yielded just 0.09 percent on Friday. Unlike repeated claims that tax cuts for the rich will stimulate the economy, federal spending will ensure a bigger economy later, which would mean more tax revenue. This additional revenue would probably be larger than any rise in future interest payments.
Is our debt already to large? Not in comparison to our economy. Federal interest payments are only 1.3 percent of G.D.P., low by historical standards.
It's such a no-brainer that even The Donald has embraced the policy. The only ones standing in the way of this win-win for the country are House Republicans who are willing to sink the nation rather than see a Democratic president be successful.
Help the nation be successful. Vote Democratic across the board in November.
Disclosure: I adapted several sentences from this article by Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman.
Mother Jones? Hilarious how you guys can come up with facts from such irreputable sources and then claim that they are not cherry picked.
This is the myth conservatives believe. The truth is different. Democrats held the House and the Senate for the first two years of the Clinton presidency. By the time the GOP took control of the House and Senate in January, 2005, and passed budgets that took effect in FY2006, the trajectory of the deficit was already close to being eliminated. The GOP merely showed up to claim credit, but the matter was already decided.
And then George W Bush happened.
Are you saying that the graph, using data from the NBER and Fed Reserve of St. Louis is incorrect? Then please provide the "true" data.
Waiting...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?