Argue With Everyone Political Forums - View Single Post - Why does Obama hate average Americans so much?

RASTAMAN · #28 (**permalink**) 05-04-2008, 12:17 AM

[quote=kgpoolerev;402621]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RASTAMAN

Brother Rasta, your bong has been spiked. Bush has outspent any other president when it comes to welfare. Bush is LOVED in Africa for all of his spending programs there. You are hung up on only the military. Which the Democratics voted for before 06 and after the took over in 06, including Obama.

The only reason Clinton had a balanced budget was Newt and the Contract with America. You need to vote for Newt if you liked the 90s.

FDR, started new government programs that wasted taxpayer dollars. Bush did the same. FDR ran a very ineffect war that led to the needless deaths of many Americans. Bush did the same, but not as badly. FDR was a socialist. Well, Bush is just a liberal and not as far left as FDR. The media loved FDR and would never report anything negative about him. Well, the media cannot get over Bush (R), the R makes the media despise Bush. FDR spent a lot of money to get us out of a depression. Bush spent a lot of money to get us out of the recession at the end of Clinton's era which was deepned due to 9/11. FDR believed the government was the solution to everything. Bush believes the government is the solution to most things. FDR interred thousands of Americans, abolished Habeaus Corpus, and set up POW camps in the US. Bush made it possible to listen to 2 terrorists talking outside the US with their signal simply going through the US. Your right FDR was much worse than Bush, it was an unfair comparison as FDR had no respect for the Constitution. FDR even tried to get more justices added to the Supreme Court to stack it in his favor.

FDR did believe that the government spending would bring the US out of the Great Depression. Your boy FDR was a supply sider.

Name one thing the government runs well and does not cause massive inflation by wasteful spending.

Sister KP, FDR never spent and borrowed nor increased the National debt the way Reagan-Bush I and Bush II have done. In 1980, Ronald Reagan promised that, if elected, he would cut taxes, raise military spending AND balance the budget—all at the same time. His opponent, George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics”. But Reagan won the election and kept his promise. He cut the marginal tax rate on the highest income earners from 75% to 38%. What happened?

In 1982, the first full year for Reagan’s policies, the economy shrank by 2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. Investment — the magic transmission belt through which all other Supply Side benefits were supposed to flow — actually declined as a percent of GDP over the 1980s. Worse, Reagan’s Supply Side policies created the biggest budget deficits in history. The numbers tell the story.

Jimmy Carter’s last budget produced a deficit of $77 billion. At the time, it seemed huge. Reagan’s first budget swelled the deficit to $128 billion. By the next year, 1983, it had exploded to $208 billion and was creating severe problems for the economy. By 1992, at the end of the “Reagan Revolution,” (under Reagan’s Vice President and successor, Bush, Sr.) the deficit was approaching $300 billion a year.

Annual deficits, of course, accumulate to the national debt. In 1980, the national debt amounted to less than $1 trillion. By the end of 1992, it had reached $4.35 trillion. In other words, the debt, which had taken over 200 years to reach $1 trillion, quadrupled in the 12 years of Supply Side Economics.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. This Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?

The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.

It wasn’t even close. The economy performed dramatically better in almost every way once Supply Side policies were replaced with Demand Side policies.

The most dramatic outcome was the reversal of the Reagan-era Supply Side deficits. Clinton’s Demand Side policies not only paid down the Reagan/Bush deficits, they produced the first budgetary surpluses since 1969. By the time Clinton left office, the government was running surpluses of almost $140 billion per year. This is what he turned over to George W. Bush in January of 2001.

Bush, of course, returned to the Supply Side policies of Reagan and his father. He lowered taxes on the very rich — his “base” as he calls them. His $1.6 trillion in tax cuts give 45% of the benefits to the top 1% of the population. It is classic Supply Side economics.

KP the reality is, since 1981, Republican's since 1981 have increased our national debt from one trillion dollars, which took over 200 years to accumulate, to over 9-10 trillion dollars in 28 years; of which 20 of those years we had Republican Presidents. At least in the 8 years of Clinton with the use of Demand Side Economics, he was able to balance the budget, created a surplus and began to pay down the National debt