how long have Rs thought deficits matter?

Football Jersey said:
It doesn't matter what traitors like Paul Ryan believe about deficits. According to your own rhetoric, it only matters what Douchebag Donald believes about deficits. Who are we to go against your lord and saviour?

Also, which among the following are lies?
1) Trump was a registered Dem from 2001-2009, and before 1987.
2) Trump gave sizable contributions to the likes of Carter, Mondale, Hillary, Emmanuel, and Wiener.
3) Trump believes Education and Healthcare are two of the top three roles of the federal government.
4) Trump has supported Planned Parenthood and abortion.
5) Trump told lies about his primary opponents.
Click to expand...

anotherbabycrying.gif
 
cawacko said:
Mid century old school Republicans believed deficits mattered. They were true fiscal hawks. Then there was the movement that focused more on growth when supply siders started getting into fray during the '70's. We've reached a point where very few/if any politicians and voters truly care about the deficit. From a Republican perspective we had the same Congress (rightfully) battle President Clinton on spending give President Bush everything he wanted. Concern about the deficit went out the window.

You'll get some free market types that will argue growth is more important than deficits and if growth occurs then deficits are fine. There's no set in the sand line differentiating folks today.
Click to expand...

They didn't give Bush everything he wanted and the deficits where primarily caused by the recession BillyBob Clinton handed him, 9-11 and fighting two wars a majority in the Congress agreed with,.....before they disagreed with it.

Can you find me any nation that ever fought a war with a surplus? Of course you cannot.

Now for your history lesson; deficits were a way of life for the Congress for the more than forty years Democrats ruled the Congress. That changed when, for the very first time in decades, Republicans took control of the House and Senate during BillyBob, the philanderers, Presidency....and then, for the first time in decades, the budget was balanced and the economy was booming.

This notion that Republicans don't care about deficits can only be made in a massive vacuum of historical ignorance. Before the Democrats won back the House and Senate based on a lie they would being back fiscal responsibility, the deficit had been managed down to $161 billion. Democrats quickly increased those deficits over the next four years to the tune of $1.4 trillion.

Now you have the FACTS instead of the parroted nonsense we see from leftist dimwits.
 
cawacko said:
President Bush didn't veto one spending bill while Republicans controlled Congress. What spending did Republicans try to reduce?
Click to expand...

They were fighting a recession and two wars; what part of that do you have so much trouble comprehending? Perhaps you need to look at a chart showing the spending levels during that time to comprehend the FACT that the deficits began after we were attacked on 9-11.

cawacko said:
Yes, the roof blew off the budget when Pelosi and the Democrats took control. She and they were awful.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you're getting this much right.
 
cawacko said:
They cut nothing which is why you can't list anything. It's a big reason they got rocked in the 2006 election. Saying they cut spending is flat out false.
Click to expand...

Nothing in your post has a shred of truth in it. Why don't you prove it with some credible links? You keep asking for others to prove the obvious.
 
cawacko said:
Republicans in Congress under George W. Bush did not cut spending. That is a fact and it's why you can't show areas where they cut. They didn't cut spending in education or health care with the prescription pill bill. We didn't cut jack sh*t.
Click to expand...

No one CUTS Federal spending? As a result of mandatory entitlements, spending will always increase. It is when revenues do not match the spending you have a problem. By 2006, Republicans had whittled the deficit down to $161 billion from a high of over $400 billion. You think that happened by NOT reducing the amount being spent?
 
Truth Detector said:
Nothing in your post has a shred of truth in it. Why don't you prove it with some credible links? You keep asking for others to prove the obvious.
Click to expand...

Please show me any evidence that spending was cut. You're claiming is was cut but then justifying the higher spending because of the recession. That's Keynesian economics right there. That's what Obama did when he took office with the stimulus. That's how you're justifying Republicans soending as much as they did
 
cawacko said:
So even though Bush spent more money than the six Presidents prior to him you claim he cut spending because his first year in office spending fell as a share of the economy?

This is just Desh level dishonesty.
Click to expand...

No one has spent more than the ObamaTard. But during Bush's Presidency we had an event called 9-11. The result of that event and the subsequent hand wringing investigation, was to create and agency called Homeland security. EVERYONE wanted it.

This was the single greatest increase in Government at the time. Please stop pretending that you know what you are talking about, the deficits run up were under control and going down until Democrats took over the Congress once again.

Had Republicans not taken back the Congress, those same Democrats and the ObamaTard would have buried us with another massive unfunded spending bill to the tune of half a billion. Since then, the deficits have been coming down thanks to Republicans.

This notion that they are no different than Democrats is historically stupid.
 
cawacko said:
So being truthful about what we did means I hate my own party? So I should lie and not acknowledge reality? Maybe this is a Michigan thing? Y'all have to lie about how bad your state is to make people feel better that live there
Click to expand...

You're far from being truthful; rather, you've been duped. History does not support your efforts.
 
cawacko said:
Please show me any evidence that spending was cut. You're claiming is was cut but then justifying the higher spending because of the recession.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, no one CUTS the budget; one manages the increased spending to those mandated by law with entitlement spending. The deficit at it's peak during the Bush Presidency was $412 billion. BY 2006 it had been reduced to $160.7 billion. NOw anyone with a grade school math education would call that a reduction. This could only have been achieved by REDUCING the amount being spent compared to revenues.

I stated that it was the recession, which hurts revenues, 9-11 and two wars being fought. Please do not try to dishonestly represent what I am saying to make specious claims about Republicans.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

cawacko said:
That's Keynesian economics right there.
Click to expand...

Wrong; Bush didn't use Keynesian economics. Now you're being absurd.

cawacko said:
That's what Obama did when he took office with the stimulus.
Click to expand...

Correct; and as we have seen, they do not work and it has been a disaster. Not only economically, unless you are a fat cat wall street banker, but from a deficit standpoint as well and straddling the American sheeple with massive debt.

cawacko said:
That's how you're justifying Republicans soending as much as they did
Click to expand...

Not even close; please stop being dishonest just because you're historically ignorant about what actually happened. I still haven't seen your response on what nations have ever fought a war with a surplus.
 
And the lie continues about deficits 7 years later


Republicans only pretend to care about deficits so the can ruin the economy when Dems control the white house
 
evince said:
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/reagan-proved-deficits-dont-matter







"Reagan," Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, "proved deficits don't matter." Unless, that is, a Democrat is in the White House. After all, while Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W. Bush doubled it again, each Republican was rewarded with a second term in office. But as the Gallup polling data show, concern over the federal deficit hasn't been this high since Democratic budget balancer Bill Clinton was in office. All of which suggest the Republicans' born-again disdain for deficits ranks among the greatest - and most successful - political double-standards in recent memory.
The triumph of the GOP messaging machine is reflected in a new Washington Post/Pew Research poll. In just the four months since the Republican majority took control of the House, the percentage of Americans believing the budget deficit is a major problem which must be addressed now catapulted from 70% to 81%. But even more revealing is an April Gallup survey which showed the deficit (17%) rivaling the unemployment (19%) and the overall state of the economy (26%). And as it turns out, those cyclical swings in budget angst reflect the complete victory of the conservative deficit narrative.
ADVERTISING


As predicted at the time, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. Ultimately, Reagan was forced to repeatedly raised taxes to avert financial catastrophe, including the last major bipartisan tax code overhaul in 1986. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan nonetheless more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It's no wonder the Gipper cited the skyrocketing deficits he bequeathed to America as perhaps his greatest regret.
Of course, President George H.W. Bush would come to lament them even more. Despite his legendary 1988 campaign pledge of "read my lips - no new taxes," Bush the Elder just two years later was forced to break his promise. As PBS recounted:
This "could mean a one term Presidency," he confided to his diary, "but it's that important for the country."
Bush 41 was right on both counts.
For his part, Bill Clinton faced a double-whammy on the deficit issue. He was, after all, a Democrat. And in 1992 and again in 1996, Clinton was confronted with the third party candidacy -and the pie charts - of Ross Perot. But when President Clinton proposed boosting the top tax rate to 39.6% to help close the yawning Reagan/Bush budget gaps, every single Republican in the House and Senate voted no. While then Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) told Clinton and the Democrats, "your economic program is a job killer," Dick Armey looked into his crystal ball to claim:
"Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy."
Most dramatic of all was Texas Senator Phil Gramm. The same man who led the 1990's crusade to gut regulation of Wall Street and the IRS and later called America a "nation of whiners," boldly - and wrongly - predicted:
"I believe hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs...I believe Bill Clinton will be one of those people."
As it turned out, not so much. In 1996, Bill Clinton buried Bob Dole. Then in his second term, he buried the budget deficit as well.
Then came George W. Bush, who promised in his 2001 message to Congress:
At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.
Instead, President Bush produced red ink as far as the eye can see. After inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast of a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Bill Clinton. Even with two unfunded wars and the similarly unpaid Medicare prescription drug benefit, Bush's $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a $550 billion second round in 2003, accounted for half of the yawning budget deficits he produced. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained, if made permanent those Bush tax cuts if made permanent, would add more to the national debt over the next decade than the impact of Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, the stimulus and TARP - combined.
During his presidency, Republicans in Congress voted seven times to raise the debt ceiling, the last to $11.3 trillion. By the time George W. Bush ambled out of the White House, he left his successor a $1.2 trillion budget deficit for 2009.
Barack Obama inherited two wars, a doubled national debt, and that $1.2 trillion deficit from George W. Bush. (As Orrin Hatch described the Bush years, "it was standard practice not to pay for things.") But one thing was new: Republican concern about the budget deficit.

"President Obama's agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying," the New York Times' David Leonhardt explained in 2009, adding, "The economic growth under George W. Bush did not generate nearly enough tax revenue to pay for his agenda, which included tax cuts, the Iraq war, and Medicare prescription drug coverage." That fall, former Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett offered just that kind of honesty to the born again deficit virgins of his Republican Party. Noting that the FY2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion was solely due to lower tax revenues and not increased spending, Bartlett concluded:
"I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending - real spending on things like public works - has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts."
Which is exactly right. Thanks to the steep recession, as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and others have documented time and again, the overall federal tax burden as a percentage of GDP is now below 15%, "levels that low have not been seen since 1950." And as Jonathan Cohn and Paul Krugman each explained, it is not a mythical Obama "spending binge" but the drastic loss of revenue combined with automatic increases in mandated safety net outlays that is producing the current budget gaps.
Nevertheless, only now - with Democrat Barack Obama in the Oval Office - Republicans like John Boehner warn Americans that "unsustainable debt and deficits threaten the prosperity of our children." But despite their fear-mongering, the GOP would make the situation much, much worse. December's two year tax cut compromise will add $800 billion to the deficits this year and next. And by making the Bush tax cuts permanent and lowering the top rate to 25%, the Ryan budget just passed by the House would drain over $4 trillion from the U.S. Treasury.
Back in June, Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse lamented the double-standard at work in the Republicans' posturing on the national debt:
"I understand the point about the debt and the deficit and the spending," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "But to me, that doesn't have an enormous amount of credibility, because when President Clinton left office, he left an annual surplus... At the end of [George W. Bush's] term, we had $9 trillion in debt."
"We would have none of this if it hadn't been for the Republican debt orgy that they went through," Whitehouse said.
Apparently, Sheldon Whitehouse and his Democratic allies don't understand how this game works. As Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Unless, of course, a Democrat is in the White House.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)
Click to expand...

They have been doing this fake dance all my adult life
 
Minister of Truth said:
The GOP believes what Trump believes. No one can belong to the GOP who does not believe as Trump does. Hence, the GOP does not believe that deficits matter, lifelong lefty.
Click to expand...

The reds have always claimed to be fiscal conservatives while governing the opposite. They jack up military spending and cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations when they have power. it is easy to see what that does to the deficits. It is not an accident. It is the plan. Make the debt big enough that they can end all public programs. They are after Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps. They defunded as much of the IRS that they could get away with, so the wealthy would not have to worry about audits. The Repubs are the party of the super-rich and corporations. Deficits do matter to Repubs. They are their weapon to change America into a plutocracy.
 
Phil Gramm was the guy who got the removal of Glass Steagal bill through at that last minute in Clinton's admin. I believe it was 3 AM when it finally passed. He was trying to remove it for many years. His wife was an Enron Exec. It was a huge contribution to the worldwide 2008 economic crash. He called it the Financial Modernization Bill.
 
Nordberg said:
Phil Gramm was the guy who got the removal of Glass Steagal bill through at that last minute in Clinton's admin. I believe it was 3 AM when it finally passed. He was trying to remove it for many years. His wife was an Enron Exec. It was a huge contribution to the worldwide 2008 economic crash. He called it the Financial Modernization Bill.
Click to expand...

Phil Gramm was truly evil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top