Ronald Reagan was a great man

[Cancel 2016.2]

Whatever, we can agree to disagree about Bush and SS.

On Reagan and Clinton you're just plain wrong and it isn't even debatable. Seriously. Check out the historical budget data linked below. Under Reagan budgets, the debt exploded from $789 billion in 1981 to $2.1 trillion in 1989, an increase of roughly $1.3 trillion. Under Clinton, we went from $3.248 trillion in 1993 to 3.319 trillion in 2001, an increase of roughly $71 billion.

In what world are $1.3 trillion and $71 billion "exactly the same?"


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/March2009_HistoricalTables.pdf

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Take a look at the TOTAL national debt... Or do you really think our nations debt was just $5.8 trillion when Bush left office?

 

[DamnYankee]

This is precisely why I think your purported deficit-hawk stuff is ridiculous. The above is just plain absurd. Bush 43 wasn't much worse than Reagan if at all and the debt increased a very modest amount over Clinton's 8 years as compared to Regan, Bush I or Bush II.

It is ironic that liberals complain that Reagan wasn't a deficit hawk all the while ignoring that Obama has created more debt in one year than all other presidents combined.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is precisely why I think your purported deficit-hawk stuff is ridiculous. The above is just plain absurd. Bush 43 wasn't much worse than Reagan if at all and the debt increased a very modest amount over Clinton's 8 years as compared to Regan, Bush I or Bush II.

This is precisely why I think you are a kool-aid drinking hack who has no clue what he is talking about. You post a link to 'debt held by public' and then pretend that is somehow what we are talking about. We are talking about the TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT. Which includes debt held by public (which you linked to) AND intragovernmental holdings (which you left out).

Bush I was far worse than either Reagan or Clinton. He had 3/4 of their increases in half the time.

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Take a look at the TOTAL national debt... Or do you really think our nations debt was just $5.8 trillion when Bush left office?

Why? What relevance does "TOTAL national debt" have to presidential spending and contribution to debt that is not captured by the debt held by the public figures?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why? What relevance does "TOTAL national debt" have to presidential spending and contribution to debt that is not captured by the debt held by the public figures?

translation: "I am going to try to spin this into what I want to talk about so that I can proclaim Clinton wasn't as bad as Reagan, because that is the only way I get my daily glass of kool-aid"

 

[Damocles]

Whatever, we can agree to disagree about Bush and SS.

On Reagan and Clinton you're just plain wrong and it isn't even debatable. Seriously. Check out the historical budget data linked below. Under Reagan budgets, the debt exploded from $789 billion in 1981 to $2.1 trillion in 1989, an increase of roughly $1.3 trillion. Under Clinton, we went from $3.248 trillion in 1993 to 3.319 trillion in 2001, an increase of roughly $71 billion.

In what world are $1.3 trillion and $71 billion "exactly the same?"


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/March2009_HistoricalTables.pdf

None of this has anything to do with my last two sentences that you found "mind-blowing"...

 

[Bonestorm]

That had nothing to do with my last two sentences.

I realize that. I first addressed your last two sentences, then I made an observation about your claim that Reagan and Clinton were exactly the same. You offered a rejoinder on the last two sentences about which I agreed to disagree. I then offered a further assessment of the Regan and Clinton claim to which you have not responded.

 

[Damocles]

I realize that. I first addressed your last two sentences, then I made an observation about your claim that Reagan and Clinton were exactly the same. You offered a rejoinder on the last two sentences about which I agreed to disagree. I then offered a further assessment of the Regan and Clinton claim to which you have not responded.

I let SF's post respond for me. I do not like to be redundant.

 

[Bonestorm]

translation: "I am going to try to spin this into what I want to talk about so that I can proclaim Clinton wasn't as bad as Reagan, because that is the only way I get my daily glass of kool-aid"

Translation: No, there is no good reason whatsoever.


The bottom line is that if you want to look at what the president actually has control over, you should look to the historical budget data that I posted and the effect on debt held by the public of deficit spending during a particular year. Looking at total debt includes many other factors that the president has no control over.

I'd also note that looking at total debt, Clinton was better than Regan by about $500 billion notwithstanding that Clinton was saddled with interest on the ridiculous amount of debt racked up by Reagan and Bush I and without adjusting for inflation.

No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no basis for your (or Damo's) assertion that Regan and Clinton were the same (Damo) or that Clinton was somehow worse than Reagan (you).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Translation: No, there is no good reason whatsoever.


The bottom line is that if you want to look at what the president actually has control over, you should look to the historical budget data that I posted and the effect on debt held by the public of deficit spending during a particular year. Looking at total debt includes many other factors that the president has no control over.

I'd also note that looking at total debt, Clinton was better than Regan by about $500 billion notwithstanding that Clinton was saddled with interest on the ridiculous amount of debt racked up by Reagan and Bush I and without adjusting for inflation.

No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no basis for your (or Damo's) assertion that Regan and Clinton were the same (Damo) or that Clinton was somehow worse than Reagan (you).

Says the complete party hack....

No, Reagan and Clinton were both right at about $1.6 trillion added to the total debt.

You look at TOTAL debt because FUTURE obligations that are promised under an administrations time in office are JUST as much of a liability as public debt. Unless you are somehow suggesting that defaulting on SS or Medicare payments is somehow not going to count as a default???

As I also already stated.... looking at JUST the debt numbers without looking at what was going on DURING their tenures is absurd. The reason I stated Clinton was worse is that during his tenure he endured relative peace, had a great economy in place when he took office and yet STILL raised our nations debt by $1.6 trillion. I do applaud the effort that he and Congress made to try to stop the deficit spending habits. But the fact remains that he was every bit as culpable with regards to our nations debt as Reagan was and in my opinion more so.

There are many things within the PUBLIC debt that the President has little control over too. Budgets are passed by CONGRESS. Without a line item veto a President is forced to compromise or risk a shut down of the government (just ask Clinton). Bottom line is that left wingnuts like to pretend Reagan was this great evil when it came to the debt (among other things) and they cannot stand the fact that in reality... both parties played the game and are equally culpable. Pretending otherwise is nothing short of partisan hackery.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Star Wars didn't have to work, the soviets thought it might and were spending in ways to combat it if it did. Sgt York gun didn't work either. The barrels warp from heat and the unit became worthless. But the SOviets had to spend money on forward looking radars to find the Sgt York to protect its planes from them just in case they worked. By the time I joined the Army in 1987 there was no fucked up economy. The Military has always been a place where people went when they could not find a job or get into school, that doesn't mean that the men and women that make a carreer out of it are the FUNCTIONAL ILLITERATES. See once again, someone on the left that has to do whatever they can to demean military service. Our invasion of Grenada, while probably not earth changing in a geo-political sense was still a good thing. Cuba would have fucked up that little island the same way the communists fucked up Cuba itself. IF the world was suffering so much after Reagan's terms, why was his VP elected? Usually when you suffer you get rid of the cause of the suffering. Bush was Reagan 3: The Journey Continues. You may not have liked Reagan's politics, but to use a Reagan quote; Were we better off in 1988 than we were in 1980? The answer to that question to all but the most partisan of hacks is YES.

Are you shitting me? Star Wars didn't have to work? What the fuck is that....condoning countless millions wasted on a bogus defense program. As for the Soviets...they didn't spend what you think on radar improvement, because the old radar system COULD LOCATE STEALTH BOMBERS THAT ARE ONLY INVISIBLE TO THE MORE MODERN WAVELENGTH RADAR SYSTEM.

And what planet were you on in 1987? Reaganomics had fucked up the country and was NOT addressing the nearly 10% unemployment rate...if anything it exasperated it! Show me the numbers that say otherwise, and I'll show you were you're wrong using bonafide, documented facts.

Go back and read what I wrote....I was NOT demeaning the military, I was pointing out that the military was making public statements about the number of enlistments who were doing so because they COULD NOT get a better job or education opportunities in the civilian life....and those folk out numbered the volunteers doing it for sheer patriotism.

Grenada was a fucking lie....those students were NOT in danger.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/25966.html

Daddy Bush got elected because of the fear factor....fear of Iraq, fear of Willie Horton...and a host of othe reasons that we can discuss if you like.

And the ONLY people who were better off in 1988 than 1980 were the folk of a certain economic bracket, who sure as hell weren't depending upon anything to "trickle down", which it didn't.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Daddy Bush got elected because of the fear factor....

Republicans are always elected on the fear factor.....fear of what happens when Democrats get elected......

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Are you shitting me? Star Wars didn't have to work? What the fuck is that....condoning countless millions wasted on a bogus defense program. As for the Soviets...they didn't spend what you think on radar improvement, because the old radar system COULD LOCATE STEALTH BOMBERS THAT ARE ONLY INVISIBLE TO THE MORE MODERN WAVELENGTH RADAR SYSTEM.

And what planet were you on in 1987? Reaganomics had fucked up the country and was NOT addressing the nearly 10% unemployment rate...if anything it exasperated it! Show me the numbers that say otherwise, and I'll show you were you're wrong using bonafide, documented facts.

Go back and read what I wrote....I was NOT demeaning the military, I was pointing out that the military was making public statements about the number of enlistments who were doing so because they COULD NOT get a better job or education opportunities in the civilian life....and those folk out numbered the volunteers doing it for sheer patriotism.

Grenada was a fucking lie....those students were NOT in danger.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/25966.html

Daddy Bush got elected because of the fear factor....fear of Iraq, fear of Willie Horton...and a host of othe reasons that we can discuss if you like.

And the ONLY people who were better off in 1988 than 1980 were the folk of a certain economic bracket, who sure as hell weren't depending upon anything to "trickle down", which it didn't.

Wow... you really should check the ACTUAL facts before posting bullshit like the above.

The unemployment rate was about 7.3% when Reagan took office. As Volcker put the clamps down on inflation, unemployment jumped to just under 11% in 1983. By the end of 1988, unemployment was at 5.3%. THAT (along with some blunders by Dukakis) is why Bush was elected.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

As for inflation... we went from double digit inflation under Carter (and the first year of Reagans tenure) to a more normalized 3-4% for the remainder of Reagans terms. To be clear... this had to do more with Volcker (appointed originally by Carter and then again by Reagan) than the Presidents, but as you know, the public looks at what occurred when a President was in office and attributes the improving (or declining) economy to the person in office.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=2

If you don't think the decline in both inflation and unemployment helped the vast majority of this country to become better off in 1988 than they were in 1980, then quite frankly you are simply a party hack.

 

[The Dude]

Dodd and the other retiring dems will likely go into Lobbying.
You won't here too many dems bitching about the millions they pay out in bribes.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is not correct. Ike was the last President to preside over a decrease in our national debt.... 1957 was the last year it declined. Though to his credit, Clinton did come close in 2000 as he was only off by $20b or so.

Yes it is correct. Our national Debt after WWII as a percent of GDP declined begining with Truman and continued to decline through Nixon where it leveled out and began a significant rise under Reagan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The debt has not declined since Eisenhower. I think you are making the mistake of deficit and debt or are using charts that do not state that the debt rose, but its percentage of the GDP in many years dropped. The actual debt has risen every single year since Kennedy took office.

as a percentage of GDP that's simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It is ironic that liberals complain that Reagan wasn't a deficit hawk all the while ignoring that Obama has created more debt in one year than all other presidents combined.

Strawman! Obama also inherited Bush's economic disaster. I also find it ironic that anyone who has objective data that contradicts the claims of the right wing conservatives is a "Liberal".

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This is precisely why I think you are a kool-aid drinking hack who has no clue what he is talking about. You post a link to 'debt held by public' and then pretend that is somehow what we are talking about. We are talking about the TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT. Which includes debt held by public (which you linked to) AND intragovernmental holdings (which you left out).

Bush I was far worse than either Reagan or Clinton. He had 3/4 of their increases in half the time.

I know but look what happened to him when he raised taxes to pay for some of that debt.

 

[Damocles]

as a percentage of GDP that's simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

Were you deliberately trying to be funny? I specifically pointed out that he is likely using charts that use the "percent of GDP" rather than directly pointing out that our debt has risen every single year since Eisenhower.

GDP ebbs and flows with cycles of the economy, yet the debt rises regardless. Ignoring debt we owe to our own citizens isn't very smart either unless you believe that the government really should stop paying SS and Medicare.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Republicans are always elected on the fear factor.....fear of what happens when Democrats get elected......

and Democrats get re-elected on the fuck up factor....that the Republicans can fuck up a wet dream.

Until Republicans can bridge the credibility gap and change the public perception of them as a group or ideologicaly reactionary incompetent fuck ups, they'll have a hard time competing with Democrats regardless of whatever ideological labels they attempt to stick on Democrats.

Until Republicans can show me then cay walk and chew gum at the same time....I have a hard time taking them seriously.