http://gamingtrend.com
October 22, 2014, 02:41:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Debts, per President  (Read 10123 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21075



View Profile WWW
« on: March 27, 2008, 04:27:59 AM »

I found this graph interesting.....any truth to it I wonder?

Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2008, 06:10:38 AM »

They aren't being very nice to Gerald Ford.

That and a single graph isn't very conductive to a informed discussion on these kinds of issues - for one the end of the Cold War was bound to result in a decrease of government expenditures.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2008, 06:33:32 AM »

Yeah, sure.  This had nothing at all to do with it.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2008, 12:12:28 PM »

Oh yeah its true.  I mention this every time people try to talk about "fiscal conservatives".

Being a fiscal conservative, as it's really practiced, means deficit spending like there's no tomorrow.
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11464


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2008, 01:10:04 PM »

I blame the Whigs.
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8992


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2008, 12:20:42 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 27, 2008, 12:12:28 PM

Oh yeah its true.  I mention this every time people try to talk about "fiscal conservatives".

Being a fiscal conservative, as it's really practiced, means deficit spending like there's no tomorrow.

I'm not sure if any Republican on that list would actually be considered a fiscal conservative.  I mean sure, Reagan popularized the term as well as Reaganomics, but that was pretty much an abject failure.  I don't think anyone would tag either Bush with that label.

What would be more interesting than the President's impact on spending would be the Congressional makeup.  That has a much larger impact, I think.  Also, the graph is for way, way too short a period of time for it to be statistically significant.

gellar
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2008, 11:10:48 AM »

Quote from: gellar on March 28, 2008, 12:20:42 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 27, 2008, 12:12:28 PM

Oh yeah its true.  I mention this every time people try to talk about "fiscal conservatives".

Being a fiscal conservative, as it's really practiced, means deficit spending like there's no tomorrow.

I'm not sure if any Republican on that list would actually be considered a fiscal conservative.  I mean sure, Reagan popularized the term as well as Reaganomics, but that was pretty much an abject failure.  I don't think anyone would tag either Bush with that label.

What would be more interesting than the President's impact on spending would be the Congressional makeup.  That has a much larger impact, I think.  Also, the graph is for way, way too short a period of time for it to be statistically significant.

gellar

Translation: The data is somehow wrong, even though it's right.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2008, 11:58:35 AM »

Republican Presidents have the tax cuts and deregulation right in my opinion.  It's all of the extra spending that is the big problem.  Bush is trying to fight a war and reduce taxes at the same time.  Any 10th grade economics student would see the flaw in that plan.  Alan Greenspan refers to Bill Clinton as the best Republican president he ever worked for. And I agree with him.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 12:00:43 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15519


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2008, 01:46:23 PM »

Well, the graphic is alarming, but for both Bush presidencies there were wars, so that would skew the numbers somewhat I think.

Also Regan inherited a desperate economy from Carter no?

Also Slick Willy inherited an upturning economy so there was more money to be had. Still a great achievement for sure. But after he left, the dot com bust hit..

I wonder what the numbers would look like absent 9/11.  They'd still trend up, sure, but not so drastically.

Edit. Wow 18 billion when Bill left. THat's impressive no matter how you look at it.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 01:49:41 PM by ATB » Logged
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2008, 02:33:16 PM »

The Republican debt is much more manly.  The Democrat debt is a little flaccid.
Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8992


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2008, 03:13:59 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on March 28, 2008, 11:10:48 AM

Quote from: gellar on March 28, 2008, 12:20:42 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 27, 2008, 12:12:28 PM

Oh yeah its true.  I mention this every time people try to talk about "fiscal conservatives".

Being a fiscal conservative, as it's really practiced, means deficit spending like there's no tomorrow.

I'm not sure if any Republican on that list would actually be considered a fiscal conservative.  I mean sure, Reagan popularized the term as well as Reaganomics, but that was pretty much an abject failure.  I don't think anyone would tag either Bush with that label.

What would be more interesting than the President's impact on spending would be the Congressional makeup.  That has a much larger impact, I think.  Also, the graph is for way, way too short a period of time for it to be statistically significant.

gellar

Translation: The data is somehow wrong, even though it's right.

Actually, having an economics background and an overall apathy towards politics allows me to look at data far more objectively than you, it would seem.  1975 - 2002 is nowhere close to a large enough sample size.  I also don't see any adjustments for inflation.  It's interesting data, nothing more, nothing less.

You can cut stats to look at data any way you like.  This is an extremely narrow cut.

gellar
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2008, 05:12:12 PM »

Quote
Also Regan inherited a desperate economy from Carter no?

sort of - gdp growth wasnt terrible, but unemployment was creeping up and of course inflation was about to go through the roof.  carter essentially lost an election because the fed had to engineer a recession (yay early 1980s 18% interest rates anyone?) to choke off inflation

and keep in mind that "post-911" spending isnt wholly factored in that graph (assuming the graph is correct).  most of the war funding has been off the budget and not factoring into the DEFICIT.  this is a pet peeve of mine - the graph says something like DEBT - but debt is the aggregate of EVERY deficit and surplus - each year is the deficit for that year.

and gellars right about inflation adjustments - they arent in there.  if you were to take 1975 dollars youd probably keep the general shape of the graph with the exception of maybe carter surpluses and early reagan deficits (but thats a guess).

as far as the time span - hmm it may have been worthwhile to do the '60s but high growth and higher tax revenues probably wont look very dramatic.  keep in mind that "deficit spending" is a fairly recent thing so the first 150 years are going to look pretty boring smile  maybe even wwii would be interesting to look at but im pretty sure the majority of that was funded with treasuries so they wont "exactly" show in (huge, glaring) deficits.

*edit* well i just checked and the 40s - 60s are much less boring (as far as increases go) than i expected
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 05:24:25 PM by Doopri » Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2008, 05:47:55 PM »

Quote from: ATB on March 28, 2008, 01:46:23 PM

Well, the graphic is alarming, but for both Bush presidencies there were wars, so that would skew the numbers somewhat I think.

What was Kosovo?

Quote
Also Slick Willy inherited an upturning economy so there was more money to be had. Still a great achievement for sure. But after he left, the dot com bust hit..

That's just more of the "OMG Clinton's success was because of Reagan" spin.  If economic changes take that long, then maybe we can just blame all GWB's economic woes on Clinton.

But notice how quickly the economy recovered from the dot com thing, compared to the shockwaves from the current loan fraud problems.  The dot com thing didn't effect the world economy all that much.  How about this one?

Quote
I wonder what the numbers would look like absent 9/11.  They'd still trend up, sure, but not so drastically.

I doubt it.  9/11 was just the trigger for all the deficit spending they already had planned, and were just awaiting an event to justify it.  How else can you explain Bush2 having $133 Billion in spending his very first year?  The chair in the oval office wasn't even cold from Clinton's ass before GWB started spending billions on crap like "star wars" missile defense (which still doesn't work good enough for a defense, BTW- it's only usefulness is as a retaliatory strike "defense").

The more time goes by, the greater of a President we see Carter was.  And likewise, the more times goes by, the worse presidents we see Reagan and Bush1 were.  I would imagine that's why the paper shredders in the Reagan Library have been going non-stop since GWB came in.
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2008, 05:54:42 PM »

oh one correction - i made it sound like the fed had rates at 18% - those were more mortgage - the fed still had rates "comfortably" in double digits in the 80s though
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2008, 06:36:48 PM »

hey its doopris personal presidential opinion time! (and damn im going wild in this thread huh?)

i think carter will always be a "meh" president.  he weathered some tough events without helping or hurting, he avoided some "what ifs" but all in all pretty lukewarm

bush i ive always had a soft spot for.  i think he had an awful lot of foresight in the way he handled iraq - at the time he took an ENORMOUS amount of flak for such "wussy" decisions like not finishing the job etc etc but what he really had was an awareness of the situation, its costs and its benefits.  in the end the mission was to push an invader out of kuwait and he did it, did it quickly and without a lot of regional ripples.  in hindsight his only mistake was establishing bases in saudi arabia - but hell at the time it was a great idea and who could have seen the downside?...

i think he also had a lot of situational integrity. sure he said no new taxes, but when it became obvious that govt was in a bad fiscal position, he took a back seat and let congress do what was needed.

reagan - well youll hear no arguments out of me about his terrible performance.  i do not, for the life of me understand the cult of personality that surrounds him and the tolerance for some of his policies that were downright terrible.  this is about as much of an attack anyone will hear out of me, but i really think it comes down to more of a fascination with celebrity than his qualities as a president.  he was "sold" to the people and the people bought it hook line and sinker.  awful president, excellent pr.

*edit* missed an e, drove me nuts - ocd much? smile
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 12:16:05 AM by Doopri » Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2008, 07:22:24 PM »

Quote from: Doopri on March 28, 2008, 06:36:48 PM

hey its doopris personal presidential opinion time! (and damn im going wild in this thread huh?)

i think carter will always be a "meh" president.  he weathered some tough events without helping or hurting, he avoided some "what ifs" but all in all pretty lukewarm

I would say that Carter was the Prez with the foresight.  He wanted to get us off a dependence on foreign oil.  Contrast that with the "big oil" policies of his predecessors, and you see why they found it so important to discredit him.  We can also check the record and see that the "gas crisis" was completely manufactured, as was the hostage crisis.

Quote
bush i ive always had a soft spot for.  i think he had an awful lot of forsight in the way he handled iraq - at the time he took an ENORMOUS amount of flak for such "wussy" decisions like not finishing the job etc etc but what he really had was an awareness of the situation, its costs and its benefits.  in the end the mission was to push an invader out of kuwait and he did it, did it quickly and without a lot of regional ripples.  in hindsight his only mistake was establishing bases in saudi arabia - but hell at the time it was a great idea and who could have seen the downside?...

Well, considering Bush was one of Saddam's best friends prior to the invasion of Kuwait, it's pretty obvious that had the Bush administration clearly indicated what the consequences of an invasion would be, that war would have never happened.  It's not like Saddam's conquest ambitions were a secret.

It was simply another manufactured crisis, and like all Bush-led foreign policy, it was a huge win for Saudi Arabia.  Republican-championed foreign policy during the past 30 years has been VERY Saudi-centric... shamelessly so, in fact.

Quote
i think he also had a lot of situational integrity. sure he said no new taxes, but when it became obvious that govt was in a bad fiscal position, he took a back seat and let congress do what was needed.

And made zero attempt to cut spending.

To his credit, however, he did get America's costs in the Gulf War lowered, but since that was a manufactured event which reasonably would have been avoided, on the balance it doesn't end up as a good thing.

Quote
reagan - well youll hear no arguments out of me about his terrible performance.  i do not, for the life of me understand the cult of personality that surrounds him and the tolerance for some of his policies that were downright terrible.  this is about as much of an attack anyone will hear out of me, but i really think it comes down to more of a fascination with celebrity than his qualities as a president.  he was "sold" to the people and the people bought it hook line and sinker.  awful president, excellent pr.

Obviously I agree completely.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15519


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2008, 09:21:46 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 28, 2008, 05:47:55 PM

  9/11 was just the trigger for all the deficit spending they already had planned, and were just awaiting an event to justify it. 

Ugh.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2008, 09:27:13 PM »

Quote from: gellar on March 28, 2008, 03:13:59 PM

Actually, having an economics background and an overall apathy towards politics allows me to look at data far more objectively than you, it would seem.  1975 - 2002 is nowhere close to a large enough sample size.  I also don't see any adjustments for inflation.  It's interesting data, nothing more, nothing less.

You can cut stats to look at data any way you like.  This is an extremely narrow cut.

gellar

I'll take your "economics background" and raise you a Financial Management degree and a current job as a consultant that trains CPAs for a healthy living.  Would you like to compare knowledge of GAAP or an understanding of WIP?  Besides, anyone with an "economics background" would understand that inflation is of little consequence here.  Percentage of GDP would be a much more useful in comparing debt over time.  Finally, given that most relevant economic factors are measured post-war (meaning post WWII, which also means post-Great Depression), a sample size of 30 years in a modern economy of 61 years is more than a sufficient sample size.  So much for your vaunted "economic background"...   eek

That's also shown in this graph (http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF) - spending as a percentage of GDP.  See the big growth during the Reagan administration?  How about Bush 1?  See the uptick for Bush 2?  How about Ford?  See the decline for Clinton and Carter?  Here's another: (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) - debt as a percentage of GDP.  Starting to see a trend yet?  Simply put, modern Republican economic theories do not work very well.  Supply-side economics ("voodoo economics") without regard to Keynesian economics is a dead-end.  The data is what it is - and it shows that Republicans long ago lost the right to call themselves "fiscal conservatives".  Trying to dispute that is akin to being a "flat Earther" - the data just isn't going to be in your favor.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2008, 09:29:41 PM »

Quote from: ATB on March 28, 2008, 09:21:46 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 28, 2008, 05:47:55 PM

  9/11 was just the trigger for all the deficit spending they already had planned, and were just awaiting an event to justify it. 

Ugh.

Ugh, indeed.
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8992


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2008, 10:40:19 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on March 28, 2008, 09:27:13 PM

That's also shown in this graph (http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF) - spending as a percentage of GDP.  See the big growth during the Reagan administration?  How about Bush 1?  See the uptick for Bush 2?  How about Ford?  See the decline for Clinton and Carter?  Here's another: (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) - debt as a percentage of GDP.  Starting to see a trend yet?  Simply put, modern Republican economic theories do not work very well.  Supply-side economics ("voodoo economics") without regard to Keynesian economics is a dead-end.  The data is what it is - and it shows that Republicans long ago lost the right to call themselves "fiscal conservatives".  Trying to dispute that is akin to being a "flat Earther" - the data just isn't going to be in your favor.

Your 2nd paragraph was far more interesting than anything else you've contributed in this thread.  The first graph is interesting.  It shows the Reagan REALLY spent some money relative to Carter, while overall gov spending has gone up 25% as a % of GDP since WW2.  What's really interesting is that state/local gov spending (Red/Black) has DOUBLED during that same time period.  I wonder if that speaks to more about government as a whole rather than partisan items.  You can't look at just this data in a vacuum, but it is interesting.

The 2nd graph is WAY interesting.  Based on that data, Bush II has really not increased the debt by nearly as much as I was expecting.

Quote
The data is what it is - and it shows that Republicans long ago lost the right to call themselves "fiscal conservatives".  Trying to dispute that is akin to being a "flat Earther" - the data just isn't going to be in your favor.

That line I absolutely agree with, which is why I long ago ceased calling myself a Republican.  I just think it's more of a bipartisan issue than anything else... we spend a fuckton of money no matter who is in office (Big Bill's Boom is probably the only exemption).

gellar
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2008, 11:19:01 PM »

Quote from: gellar on March 28, 2008, 10:40:19 PM

The 2nd graph is WAY interesting.  Based on that data, Bush II has really not increased the debt by nearly as much as I was expecting.

I think that's because it's out of date.  And, as mentioned previously, the wars are being kept separate from the budget figures.


Actually, what I found interesting about the State & Local figures wasn't that it doubled a while back, but that it's remained essentially flat for so long.  But I guessthat's more because it's a composite figure made up of thousands and thousands of state and local governments, whereas the federal is the figure of a single government.  There would likely be many peaks and valleys if we zoomed in on specific places, whereas everything gets rounded out when you look at the big picture.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 11:21:01 PM by unbreakable » Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8992


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2008, 11:45:52 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 28, 2008, 11:19:01 PM

Quote from: gellar on March 28, 2008, 10:40:19 PM

The 2nd graph is WAY interesting.  Based on that data, Bush II has really not increased the debt by nearly as much as I was expecting.

I think that's because it's out of date.  And, as mentioned previously, the wars are being kept separate from the budget figures.

Yeah I was afraid that might be the case.

Quote
Actually, what I found interesting about the State & Local figures wasn't that it doubled a while back, but that it's remained essentially flat for so long.  But I guessthat's more because it's a composite figure made up of thousands and thousands of state and local governments, whereas the federal is the figure of a single government.  There would likely be many peaks and valleys if we zoomed in on specific places, whereas everything gets rounded out when you look at the big picture.

I think that's accurate.  CA for example spends money like it's GOING OUT OF STYLE.  At least it seems that way.

gellar
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2008, 12:25:44 AM »

Quote from: gellar on March 28, 2008, 11:45:52 PM

CA for example spends money like it's GOING OUT OF STYLE.  At least it seems that way.

gellar

I'm sure the Enron thing didn't help.

It's also kind of funny- all the exact same stuff Arnold was tearing into Gray Davis for... he's now asking for the voter's patience and understanding on.  Apparently Arnold found out it's easier to talk about how great you can drive when you're in the back seat.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 12:28:33 AM by unbreakable » Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2008, 12:33:33 AM »

Local politicians and congressmen get elected on the basis of money, infrastructure, and jobs delivered to their constituency.  There are no political points scored for cutting spending.  Generally speaking that rule applies to Republicans, Democrats,and Independents. There are very few "fiscal conservatives," regardless of political party.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2008, 12:50:59 AM »

Quote from: denoginizer on March 29, 2008, 12:33:33 AM

Local politicians and congressmen get elected on the basis of money, infrastructure, and jobs delivered to their constituency.  There are no political points scored for cutting spending.  Generally speaking that rule applies to Republicans, Democrats,and Independents. There are very few "fiscal conservatives," regardless of political party.

That's kind of why the term is very much bullshit right from the start.  Politicians and governments should be rated based on how well they do what they are supposed to do, not based on how much they can cut taxes or how hard they can wave the flag or any other arbitrary rubric conservative discourse continues to come up with.

It's really quite illuminating how much the book The Shock Doctrine explains about global politics.
Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2008, 05:41:47 PM »

You absolutely need to look at Congress, since they're the ones with budget control.  For example, I think George W. Bush's spending is more reflective of one party having control of both the Legislative and Exec branches.  I'm almost 100% certain that if Democrats had a united Legislative & Exec branch, they'd also spend like it was going out of style.  It's when you have one party in control of Congress & another in control of the Exec branch, when you start to see some budget reconciliation (see Clinton).

Article in today's Washington Post about defense spending on new weapons.  It blew my mind.

Quote
The Government Accountability Office found that 95 major systems have exceeded their original budgets by a total of $295 billion, bringing their total cost to $1.6 trillion, and are delivered almost two years late on average. In addition, none of the systems that the GAO looked at had met all of the standards for best management practices during their development stages.

Quote
The Pentagon has doubled the amount it has committed to new systems, from $790 billion in 2000 to $1.6 trillion last year, according to the 205-page GAO report.

That made my jaw drop.  In comparison, look at our total spending on health care.  For researching cancer, the National Cancer Institute receives roughly 5 billion a year.  Total investiture in cancer research, both industry and government, we spend about 11 billion a year.  The FDA (which is critically underfunded; supposed to ensure our foods are safe, and our drugs/medical devices are safe and effective) gets 2 billion a year.

Quote from: gellar on March 28, 2008, 11:45:52 PM

I think that's accurate.  CA for example spends money like it's GOING OUT OF STYLE.  At least it seems that way.

gellar

Gotta love running a 16 billion deficit!  Yay.

And perhaps more germane:

Quote
Unlike the federal government, which can run deficits, almost all states are required by their own laws and constitutions to balance their budgets.

I think I read CA is looking to slash 4.5 billion from their education budget for next year.  Wow.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2008, 06:04:10 PM »

Quote from: Eightball on April 01, 2008, 05:41:47 PM

You absolutely need to look at Congress, since they're the ones with budget control.  For example, I think George W. Bush's spending is more reflective of one party having control of both the Legislative and Exec branches.  I'm almost 100% certain that if Democrats had a united Legislative & Exec branch, they'd also spend like it was going out of style.  It's when you have one party in control of Congress & another in control of the Exec branch, when you start to see some budget reconciliation (see Clinton).

Except that, for the most part, it's always been either Republican-dominated or mixed.  So since we've never recently seen a Dem-dominated Exec and Congress... there's no data to support that kind of "they all do it" conclusion.

Even looking farther back in US history, there's hardly any data to support that kind of "they all do it" conclusion.

---

One thing which REALLY pisses me off, however, is the priorities of this administration.  They just shrug that an entire US city has been destroyed on their watch, and say there isn't any money for rebuiling... but then they start bailing out banks which make highly risky (to the point of probably being fraudulent) investments for hundreds of billions.

Instead of trying to look at "how mistakes were made", and trying to pretend that the government somehow needs to be changed... the answer is really that changes were already made, they didn't work, and the current problems are the proof of that.  Deregulation has failed- the answer is going back to how things had been done before.

But just like they are making Iraq into a "do-over" of the changes made after the Vietnam war, so they are making the current economic crisis a "do-over" of the 1929 stock market crash.  Except this time, they are making sure the changes benefit them, rather than the American people.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2008, 06:11:18 PM by unbreakable » Logged
DamageInc
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2412


Starts with s and ends with litting their throats


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2008, 03:06:45 PM »

Well as always graphs can show whatever you want them to show.

Perhaps the Republicans have to spend more to fix all the giant cluster bleeps that the Democrats did.

Parties are just a way of creating balance to our world and although they appear to be different they all row in the same boat.

Logged

The freaks come out at nine and it's twenty to ten
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2008, 03:17:02 PM »

Quote from: DamageInc on April 02, 2008, 03:06:45 PM

Well as always graphs can show whatever you want them to show.

Perhaps the Republicans have to spend more to fix all the giant cluster bleeps that the Democrats did.

Care to elaborate on what those might be?

Quote
Parties are just a way of creating balance to our world and although they appear to be different they all row in the same boat.

That isn't borne out by any facts.  It seems more like the division of labor goes something like "Republicans steal from America, Democrats forgive them for doing it".
Logged
DamageInc
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2412


Starts with s and ends with litting their throats


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2008, 03:57:44 PM »

Sure.

In a nutshell the Democrats, other than Welfare refrom which I applaud them for, haven't landed anything that they really wanted to implement. The reason why welfare reform was so successful is it had most of the backing from the Republican party.

George Bush has the one of worst approval ratings ever and the Republicans continue to make laws that the Democratic Party can't do anything about. The Democratic Party sticks up for the lowest common denominator while the Republicans continue to foster a money making machine. Sure the war has put us into debt, but I didn't hear anyone complaining the day after 911.

You want to perserve your way of life like gaming (gee who are the groups opposing that?) fancy cars and all the other things we are able to have in this world, but people generally don't want to make the sacrifices needed to do so.

Listen to the "Dumb Blonde" on You Tube and you'll get an earful of how pathetic most people's stances are.

The bottom line is that the Democratic party keeps the money making machine in check, but in the end we need to spend what we need to spend to perserve our way of life.

Here's an intersting artcile that highlights some of this. I'm not saying the Republicans are perfect, but they are the reason for our wealth and don't kid yourself otherwise.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/3032
Logged

The freaks come out at nine and it's twenty to ten
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2008, 06:09:32 PM »

Quote from: DamageInc on April 02, 2008, 03:57:44 PM

but in the end we need to spend what we need to spend to perserve our way of life.

A statement you will never hear "slash and spend and spend and spend" Republicans make.

For all the money Republicans spend, they have extraordinarily little to show for it.

Quote
Here's an intersting artcile that highlights some of this. I'm not saying the Republicans are perfect, but they are the reason for our wealth and don't kid yourself otherwise.

That's a completely insane statement to make, and not just because it's completely false.

The "failures" people are fed up with aren't Democratic policies... it's the failure to stand up for liberal policies, and the failure to stand up to GWB and his rubber-stamp toadies in Congress.

And, IMO, had Congress started impeaching people like madmen... they would have had an overwhelming approval rating.  The problem wouldn't have been having something to impeach for, it would have been picking a reason.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 06:14:14 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2008, 07:24:27 PM »

Quote from: DamageInc on April 02, 2008, 03:57:44 PM

Sure.

In a nutshell the Democrats, other than Welfare refrom which I applaud them for, haven't landed anything that they really wanted to implement. The reason why welfare reform was so successful is it had most of the backing from the Republican party.

George Bush has the one of worst approval ratings ever and the Republicans continue to make laws that the Democratic Party can't do anything about. The Democratic Party sticks up for the lowest common denominator while the Republicans continue to foster a money making machine. Sure the war has put us into debt, but I didn't hear anyone complaining the day after 911.

You want to perserve your way of life like gaming (gee who are the groups opposing that?) fancy cars and all the other things we are able to have in this world, but people generally don't want to make the sacrifices needed to do so.

Listen to the "Dumb Blonde" on You Tube and you'll get an earful of how pathetic most people's stances are.

The bottom line is that the Democratic party keeps the money making machine in check, but in the end we need to spend what we need to spend to perserve our way of life.

Here's an intersting artcile that highlights some of this. I'm not saying the Republicans are perfect, but they are the reason for our wealth and don't kid yourself otherwise.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/3032


Let's hit a few high points:

The Republicans are the reason for our wealth.

You mean the "wealth" that has the average mid-30s man making about 15% less (inflation-adjusted) than his father?  You mean the "wealth" that has continually squeezed the middle class for over 30 years while the gap between the super-rich and the average citizen has continued to grow?  You mean the "wealth" that has eroded any sembelance of a safety net or funded retirement plan?  Simply put, you don't want to talk about Republicans growing the "wealth" of this country.  It hasn't grown.  However, much more of the pie has been concentrated in the hands of the superrich while the working guy struggles from paycheck to paycheck.

You really don't want to see the "wealth" of this country.  If China calls in the paper it's holding, this country is bankrupt.  In other words, your wealth is illusionary.  That's directly attributable to the fiscal policies of the last 40 years.  And, as the chart shows above, the only party that's had any success in reversing those policies are the Democrats.

Sure the war has put us into debt, but I didn't hear anyone complaining the day after 911.

No, because that war was against the Taliban in Afganistan, who had helped facilitate the attacks on 9/11.  That was has been relatively inexpensive.  However, the war that put us deeper in debt is the Iraq war, which had nothing to do with 9/11, terrorism or even WMDs.  And many of us were vehimently against that war.  Do not even ATTEMPT to equate the war with 9/11.  It's an insult to every American to try to do so.

In a nutshell the Democrats, other than Welfare refrom which I applaud them for, haven't landed anything that they really wanted to implement.

Civics 101 - there is this thing called "checks and balances" and part of that is this thing called Presidential veto power.  And given Bush's policies of unilateral action and the Republican party's continued lockstep with "worst approval ratings ever" Bush, it's not like they can do much.  At this point, the Dems best hope is to wait out the Bush term and hope whomever takes office - Obama, Clinton or McCain - isn't an obstructionist. 

Listen to the "Dumb Blonde" on You Tube and you'll get an earful of how pathetic most people's stances are.

No need after reading your post.



---
As an aside, I'm finding it amuising - if pathetic and sad - watching the some folks here and elsewhere trying to come up with convoluted reasons to refute very simple data.  Comments like "graphs can show whatever you want them to show" or "you can cut stats to look at data any way you like" are so absurd that it's almost funny.  I guess some people will continue to drink the kool-aid, no matter what flavor it is.  It reminds me of a couple of people in my office who insist "global warming isn't real" or my in-laws who worked for RJR insisting that "smoking doesn't cause cancer".  While all of our views are shaped by our environments and experiences, I often wonder what possesses someone to try to refute data that's as cut-and-dried as the earth is round. 
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 07:34:39 PM by Blackadar » Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8992


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2008, 07:40:56 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on April 02, 2008, 07:24:27 PM

You mean the "wealth" that has the average mid-30s man making about 15% less (inflation-adjusted) than his father?

That's fascinating if true.  Any chance I could get you to source the data?  I'm genuinely curious.

Quote
As an aside, I'm finding it amuising - if pathetic and sad - watching the some folks here and elsewhere trying to come up with convoluted reasons to refute very simple data.  Comments like "graphs can show whatever you want them to show" or "you can cut stats to look at data any way you like" are so absurd that it's almost funny.  I guess some people will continue to drink the kool-aid, no matter what flavor it is.  It reminds me of a couple of people in my office who insist "global warming isn't real" or my in-laws who worked for RJR insisting that "smoking doesn't cause cancer".  While all of our views are shaped by our environments and experiences, I often wonder what possesses someone to try to refute data that's as cut-and-dried as the earth is round. 

It's a valid argument that you absolutely can cut data to show what you want it to show.  I don't think that's the case with the majority of the items posted in this thread, but the first graph is easily the most questionable.

gellar
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2008, 08:46:46 PM »

Certainly alot of the blame for the massive budget deficeits goes to Reagan and the two Bushes.  But in many of those years there was a Democratic majority in Congress.  The Budget deficits are a result of stupidity by both parties.  As I have stated before I am in favor of tax cuts and letting people decide how to spend their own money.  But the federal spending is out of control.  Especially under George W Bush.  He is trying to pay for a war and cut taxes.  You can't have it both ways.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 10:33:53 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2008, 08:51:29 PM »

Quote from: CSL on March 27, 2008, 06:10:38 AM

They aren't being very nice to Gerald Ford.

That and a single graph isn't very conductive to a informed discussion on these kinds of issues - for one the end of the Cold War was bound to result in a decrease of government expenditures.

Didn't the cold war end in 1987 ? IIRC, that's when the Wall came down, triggering the fall of the Iron Curtain.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2008, 10:34:08 PM »

Quote from: Purge on April 02, 2008, 08:51:29 PM

Quote from: CSL on March 27, 2008, 06:10:38 AM

They aren't being very nice to Gerald Ford.

That and a single graph isn't very conductive to a informed discussion on these kinds of issues - for one the end of the Cold War was bound to result in a decrease of government expenditures.

Didn't the cold war end in 1987 ? IIRC, that's when the Wall came down, triggering the fall of the Iron Curtain.

A reduction in expenditures won't ever be very quick, especially in this case when those kinds of programs and expenditures fostered in the Cold War would have taken years to rid - the Soviet Union technically lasted until 1991 or thereabout after all. Plus, there was that pesky little Gulf War to think of.
Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2008, 01:53:49 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 01, 2008, 06:04:10 PM

Quote from: Eightball on April 01, 2008, 05:41:47 PM

You absolutely need to look at Congress, since they're the ones with budget control.  For example, I think George W. Bush's spending is more reflective of one party having control of both the Legislative and Exec branches.  I'm almost 100% certain that if Democrats had a united Legislative & Exec branch, they'd also spend like it was going out of style.  It's when you have one party in control of Congress & another in control of the Exec branch, when you start to see some budget reconciliation (see Clinton).

Except that, for the most part, it's always been either Republican-dominated or mixed.  So since we've never recently seen a Dem-dominated Exec and Congress... there's no data to support that kind of "they all do it" conclusion.

I base my opinion from having worked for a lobbying organization in DC in the past, and my current work at a law firm in the heart of DC that has a substantial lobbying practice.  For disclosure purposes, I'm a registered independant, but I almost always vote Democrat.

One really fine example:  ever wonder why hedge fund managers are taxed at the capital gains rate (15%), and do not pay the normal income tax rate of 35%?  Me too.  It's thanks to a loophole in the tax law. 

It's an incredibly insane loophole, but it's one that persists, and will continue to persist.  Why?

The hedge fund guys give a crapload of money to the Democratic party.

Article

Quote
But the wealth of the Democrats' target has proven to be a treasure trove for party fundraisers. Hedge funds and investment firms have been pouring money into Washington, contributing $11.8 million in the first nine months of this year to candidates, party committees and leadership political action committees.

That is more than the $11.3 million they gave in all of 2005 and 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. More than two-thirds of that money has gone to Democrats.

Their contributions to congressional candidates, congressional campaign committees and congressional leadership PACs total nearly $4.8 million this year, well over the $3 million given in 2005 and 2006. Eighty-three percent has gone to Democrats, compared with the 53 percent they received in the last election cycle.

They're the money-men of the DNC.

Quote
The legislation would plug two obscure but highly controversial tax loopholes, deftly exploited by an industry that leans heavily Democratic. Private-equity fund managers earn much of their compensation by taking a cut of clients' earnings. It is pay for work, but critics of the arrangement note that it is taxed as capital gains, at 15 percent instead of the 35 percent income tax rate that they would otherwise pay.

Good old Chuck Schumer and the DNC.  That tax reform initiative, along with every other reform initiative targeting that loophole, has died thanks to Schumer and the Democrats in Congress.

How much in tax revenue is lost every year because these uber-rich hedge fund guys aren't (and will not be) taxed at the regular rate?

Quote
At the current 15% capital gains tax rate, the taxable amount would result in $4.75 billion in tax payments; at the top rate (35%) on ordinary income, it would sum to $11.05 billion. The loss to the U.S. Treasury, therefore, amounts to at least $6.3 billion a year.

Both parties are tied to their own corporate masters.  They are just different corporate masters.

Oh and your mention of deregulation isn't correct in this sense.  The current economic mess is because i-banking has NEVER been regulated (and it absolutely should be).
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 05:26:16 PM by Eightball » Logged
DamageInc
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2412


Starts with s and ends with litting their throats


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2008, 03:49:14 PM »

The Democrats usually cut spending in high cost area such as defense and then apply it to education, the people in need, and what not.

Naturally when the Republicans get back in they have to spend even more money just to get defense back to where it needs to be.
Many of the items consumers enjoy today came from research by the defense and space industries. These industries which would also include health care make up the majority of jobs that are available to Americans (key word being Americans)

What is the core belief system of each party

Republican -- Big Business
Democrats -- The common person, especially people in need

Hmm, I wonder what makes more money?

As far as wealth goes, I don't know too many people when I was growing up that had 3500 sq foot homes, multiple TVs and computers, more than one gaming system, etc, etc. I am not saying everyone has these things but many do. How many kids out there wear designer clothes and shoes or have a personal cell phone?

Democrats want to spend more money on education and health care when the real issue is poor parenting and poor lifestyle management.

Let's see, I will let my kids do whatever they please, have no respect for authority, educate them on important values like a false sense of entitlement and feed them Mickey Dee's and Taco Bell. When it all goes to hell I'll just blame the education and health care systems and then further deflect that blame on the government. The Democratic response is to put more money into the systems that won't work no matter how much money you throw at it because your not fixing the real problem, the family unit and personal responsibility.

You want to put someone on trial, then put bad parents on trial because they are the ones that are making our country weak.

Video games is a perfect example. My son went to school and killed 7 people and it's because he played video games. Oh wow, yeah that must be the answer, not that you never taught your son values, like for instance the value of human life or a sense of personal responsibility, because you feel guilty about your divorce or that you never spend time with your child because your either at a bar or work too much. You drink and work too much because you live above your means and can't live with the horror so drinking will make it all better.

I don't need political experts or interweb articles to validate what I see with my own ears and eyes every day. Get out of the victim loop and start doing the right things and maybe, just maybe we can save this great country before it goes down the tubes.

As Tool would say: "I have a suggestion, learn to swim"

Logged

The freaks come out at nine and it's twenty to ten
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2008, 08:46:45 PM »

Quote from: Eightball on April 03, 2008, 01:53:49 PM

One really fine example:  ever wonder why hedge fund managers are taxed at the capital gains rate (15%), and do not pay the normal income tax rate of 35%?  Me too.  It's thanks to a loophole in the tax law.

Yeah, I really got attacked by the far-righters from GoneGold about 9-10 years ago when I started questioning that one.  It wasn't pretty.

Quote
It's an incredibly insane loophole, but it's one that persists, and will continue to persist.  Why?

The hedge fund guys give a crapload of money to the Democratic party.

So replace "them" with better Democrats.  It's quite simple, just look at how we kicked Lieberman out of the party.

Quote
Good old Chuck Schumer and the DNC.  That tax reform initiative, along with every other reform initiative targeting that loophole, has died thanks to Schumer and the Democrats in Congress.

Oh, so it's ALL the Democrats?  None of it had to do with, say, Grover Norquist and his idiot cronies?  It was ALL the Democrats?  Wow... they are way more influential than I thought.

Quote
Both parties are tied to their own corporate masters.  They are just different corporate masters.

Oh and your mention of deregulation isn't correct in this sense.  The current economic mess is because i-banking has NEVER been regulated (and it absolutely should be).

It hasn't been regulated, in the capacity that it wasn't legal to have the 'shadow economy' there is now.  Deregulation allowed it to be created, thus the root cause IS deregulation.


Quote from: DamageInc on April 03, 2008, 03:49:14 PM

Democrats want to spend more money on education and health care when the real issue is poor parenting and poor lifestyle management.

People haven't somehow magically become different than they were in the past.

I'd gladly wager that there are just as many bad parents now as there were 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago.  Actually... I'd also be willing to wager might be BETTER parents now, just because there is so much more access to resources now.

I've just never agreed with the "blame Americans first" mentality, and hopefully never will.  If you give more people more access to health care, education, and jobs... the country simply can't do anything BUT get better (so long as you don't allow other people to fuck it all up, that is).

I also can't accept the "bad parenting" line of thought.  My father died when I was young, and my mother was simply horrible.  However, I was fortunate enough to be both smart and have access to education.  It wasn't the best possible education, but it was good enough.  I moved out when I was 18, and proceeded from there.  Sure it wasn't easy, but life isn't easy except for the privileged few.

So my concern is simply making sure the potential for people to get ahead is there, and that there aren't unfair impediments to their progress.  If our system is one with a fundamental social justice (which it's not, and has gotten much farther away in the past 8+ years), everything else will fall into place.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 08:49:08 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2008, 03:22:24 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 03, 2008, 08:46:45 PM

So replace "them" with better Democrats.  It's quite simple, just look at how we kicked Lieberman out of the party.

See below.

Quote
Oh, so it's ALL the Democrats?  None of it had to do with, say, Grover Norquist and his idiot cronies?  It was ALL the Democrats?  Wow... they are way more influential than I thought.

Let me know when Grover Norquist can actually vote on proposed bills. 

Democrats could have pushed the tax reform bill through, but it failed in the Senate because Democratic superstars voted against it.



And it wasn't just him.  It was Chris Dodd, John Kerry, and Ron Wyden, all of whom were publicly against closing that hedge fund loophole.  That's pretty much a who's who of the powerful Democrats in the Senate.  They know who pays their bills.

Those are blue blood democrats, the party thoroughbreds.  I mean hell, Schumer is the moneyman for the Democrats in the Senate.  You don't get a lot more powerful in the party than that.  They aren't outcasts like Lieberman was. 

Lol @ the idea of the Democrats actually kicking Schumer, Kerry, Dodd, and Wyden out of the Democratic Party.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.205 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.04s, 2q)