Which part?Originally Posted by notacon
Google presidential deficits, that will prove the former.
Search my post history, that will prove the latter.
Which part?
Google presidential deficits, that will prove the former.
Search my post history, that will prove the latter.
Long you live and high you fly And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry And all you touch and all you see Is all your life will ever be.
No, you put out the premise..,it's on you to prove what you write.
Well, if you want to play games, OK. I'll ask again...which part?
When he had surpluses.
No he didn't. He had three years and then the deficit tripled in '08 before going through the roof in '09...all, as I have said, due to his reckless foreign wars and the lousy overall governance by the administration and Congress.Yes, BushII's term was an anomaly also, though he did have four consecutive years shrinking the annual deficit, after he blew up the surplus and before the **** hit the fan.
If everything is an anomaly, they aren't anomalies.Each are unique if you want to break out the finer details, but generally speaking there are more consistent 'trends' such as...
Moving my goalposts again. Stop. From the beginning, I have said "since Reagan"....the bolded is not unique to republican administrations, the same can be said for LBJ and Carter
Last edited by gebobs; 11-12-2012 at 09:47 AM.
Gailey's history. He just doesn't know it yet.
jimmifli (11-12-2012)
Well, a surplus isn't a deficit now, is it?
From '03 thru '07, BushII's deficits were smaller than the year prior until, yes, disaster in '08 or '09. Not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise as to 'why', as that's not really part of the point.No he didn't. He had three years and then the deficit tripled in '08 before going through the roof in '09...all, as I have said, due to his reckless foreign wars and the lousy overall governance by the administration and Congress.
Not everything is a anomaly, if you are properly identifying the trend.If everything is an anomaly, they aren't anomalies.
To reiterate, your 'goalposts' included exactly one Democratic administration that fulfilled it's entire elected term(s). One. Obama isn't done yet, and other administrations have decreased the deficit only to see a reversal in their second term. Again...that is the trend. If Obama does manage to duplicate Clinton by the end of his tenure, than you might have something. Until then, though, it's incomplete.Moving my goalposts again. Stop. From the beginning, I have said "since Reagan".
Now you're getting it. One of your criteria that Clinton was an aberration was that he "shrunk the deficit every year". He didn't have a deficit every year. Furthermore, when there were surpluses, they didn't improve every year.
Look, I'm about done correcting your careless citation of facts. In 2003, the deficit grew by 140% from $158 billion to $378 billion. In 2004, it grew by another 10% to $413 billion. The deficits decreased for three years in 2005, 2006, and 2007 before going up in Bush's last two budgets.From '03 thru '07, BushII's deficits were smaller than the year prior until, yes, disaster in '08 or '09. Not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise as to 'why', as that's not really part of the point.
If you want to ignore the one administration that actually walked the fiscal walk, Clinton's, fine.To reiterate, your 'goalposts' included exactly one Democratic administration that fulfilled it's entire elected term(s).
If you want to discuss why it is that every Republican administration since Reagan has preached fiscal responsibility while driving up deficits, let's do it.
If you want to get all defensive about it, I'm not interested.
Last edited by gebobs; 11-12-2012 at 02:39 PM.
jimmifli (11-12-2012)
This Republican seems to agree.
Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson administration and claims that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE.
No, I don't want to play games. You can play with yourself.
Amazingly, we have Yardrat trying desperately to promote the idea that Republican presidents are more fiscally prudent then Democrats.
It's an absurd argument that has no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
In the macro, constantly putting forth fiscal policy solutions, no matter what actual economic conditions are present, of cutting taxes, cutting taxes, cutting taxes and, just for fun...cut taxes some more....while increasing defense spending, makes the Republican Party a laughingstock of the word "prudent" and "fiscally responsible".
They are not.
The GOP philosophy is...deficits are bad when a Democrat is in the White House...Deficits don't matter when a Republican is in the White House.
It's a pretty absurd ideology to defend....and Yardrat is doing a very poor job of it.
You have completely missed the point I'm making. Completely.
I am by no means promoting the fiscal prudence of Republican administrations. At all. As a matter of fact, I've pointed out more than once that Repubs have left office with larger deficits than they inherited.
My point is...now read this really carefully....it's too early in the Obama administration to declare that a trend exists for Democrat administrations being more fiscally responsible. That's it. Simply going back to Reagan gives exactly one data point of a complete democratic administration re: the deficit. One. The rest are Republicans. The OA showing a pattern of decreasing deficits during the first four years of his term is not unique, as repub administrations have displayed the same ability over their first four years. Even if you want to stick with the original premise of only going back to Reagan, every administration except for BushI has put forth budgets with deficits smaller than the prior year. Reagan did, Clinton did, BushII did, Obama has. Four out five...that's a trend.
Clinton's administration is absolutely an anomaly...no other administration can put to paper the track record he has with the deficit. He bucked the trend. If he didn't, he would've had increased deficits in his second go-round and ended up with a higher deficit than he inherited. He left a surplus, which in and of itself is atypical.
The question is, once again...will the OA end up being part of the real trend, or will they be able to duplicate Clinton and actually be able to establish a 'new' trend that the op is already taking for granted?
Meh...ticky tack. He shrunk the deficit every year until the surplus was created. He has a straight line shot, upward. Nobody else does.
You know what? You're right about three consecutive years of decreasing deficits during BushII, and I am wrong about four. I was using the On-Budget numbers, not totals including off-budget. My bad. Thanks, though, for recognizing that BushII had consecutive years of decreasing deficits.Look, I'm about done correcting your careless citation of facts. In 2003, the deficit grew by 140% from $158 billion to $378 billion. In 2004, it grew by another 10% to $413 billion. The deficits decreased for three years in 2005, 2006, and 2007 before going up in Bush's last two budgets.
Thanks, again, for recognizing that the Clinton administration was an anomaly. I haven't been ignoring it, I've been pointing it out.If you want to ignore the one administration that actually walked the fiscal walk, Clinton's, fine.
I don't believe I've ever disputed that point, so there is no reason to discuss it. However, if you want to discuss the fact that driving up deficits isn't a characteristic of only republican administrations, going back to JFK, than I am willing.If you want to discuss why it is that every Republican administration since Reagan has preached fiscal responsibility while driving up deficits, let's do it.
If you want to get all defensive about it, I'm not interested.
No more than your ticky tack criteria for being an "aberration". That was the point, bub.
No problem. It was never part of the discussion until you decided to move the goalposts to suit your defensive position.You know what? You're right about three consecutive years of decreasing deficits during BushII, and I am wrong about four. I was using the On-Budget numbers, not totals including off-budget. My bad. Thanks, though, for recognizing that BushII had consecutive years of decreasing deficits.
God you are dense. That's why it's worth discussing. Why is it the only fiscally responsible administration was Democrat when they are seen as big government socialists by you guys?Thanks, again, for recognizing that the Clinton administration was an anomaly. I haven't been ignoring it, I've been pointing it out.
You don't think it's worth discussing the hypocrisy of the GOP that campaigns on fiscal governance but does the opposite? That they blame the democrats for being fiscally irresponsible when they aren't?I don't believe I've ever disputed that point, so there is no reason to discuss it.
If you want to discuss that obvious and not at all enlightening point, feel free, buty I think it would be only fair that we discuss my topic first since I have spent two pages trying to get you to engage in this one.However, if you want to discuss the fact that driving up deficits isn't a characteristic of only republican administrations, going back to JFK, than I am willing.
Who cares? Then let's just discuss the Republicans track record going back to Reagan despite their campaign rhetoric.
Last edited by gebobs; 11-12-2012 at 08:39 PM.
Bingo. It is absurd, unless you consider that it got them elected five times and Yardrat is a perfect example of a core ideologue who buys in.
I wasn't going to address anything before making a final point, but I guess i will prior...
Clinton's 'success' is not ticky tack criteria, it's proven, and he's the only prez to achieve it. The numbers back that up.
Sure it was. You're claim is that democrats are the only ones with a track record of shrinking deficits, and that's not true. BushII accomplished it also, three years consecutively. That shouldn't be dismissed.No problem. It was never part of the discussion until you decided to move the goalposts to suit your defensive position.
He's the only prez, dem or repub, and party necessarily isn't a factor. That is the trend you continue to ignore.God you are dense. That's why it's worth discussing. Why is it the only fiscally responsible administration was Democrat when they are seen as big government socialists by you guys?
You have exactly one full-term democrat to back that up. One. That's the point. Leaving office with a deficit larger than you inherited has not been a characteristic of repub admins only, unless you restrict the data set to a period that includes only one data point with Clinton, and a half of one with Obama. That's like taking last year's Bills games against NE, at half time of the second game, and 'establishing a trend' that Buffalo kicks NE's ass. It just isn't there, yet.You don't think it's worth discussing the hypocrisy of the GOP that campaigns on fiscal governance but does the opposite? That they blame the democrats for being fiscally irresponsible when they aren't?
My final point...If you want to discuss that obvious and not at all enlightening point, feel free, buty I think it would be only fair that we discuss my topic first since I have spent two pages trying to get you to engage in this one.
We agree on many aspects of this conversation...
Clinton was very successful consistently reducing the deficit.
Obama, thus far, has been working in a direction consistently reducing the deficit.
Reagan, BushI and BushII left office with higher deficits than they inherited.
BushII had a run of three consecutive years where he was successful reducing the deficit also.
If you would just acknowledge that LBJ, Ford and Carter left office with deficits larger than they inherited, and also that Reagan and Nixon had periods where they reduced the deficit, we can agree on that as well.
Basically the only thing we disagree on is what the actual trend is. I will make a deal with you. Come back in four years...if Obama continues to track with annual deficit reductions a la Clinton throughout the rest of his term, I will acknowledge that the trend you are attempting to establish does indeed exist. If, however, Obama's deficits reverse course and begin to grow at the end of his administration you will acknowledge that is the dynamic that actually is the trend, regardless of party.
Sound fair?
You don't think it's worth discussing the hypocrisy of the GOP that campaigns on fiscal governance but does the opposite? That they blame the democrats for being fiscally irresponsible when they aren't?No that's not the point. Look at what I asked. I wasn't talking about Obama or the Democrats but you can't get over your uber defensiveness to see through the blood in you eyes. Republicans preach fiscal responsibility and over five terms have bloated the deficit every time. Why is that?You have exactly one full-term democrat to back that up. One.
jimmifli (11-12-2012)
You asked that before to which I responded...
If you want to discuss that obvious and not at all enlightening point, feel free, but I think it would be only fair that we discuss my topic first since I have spent two pages trying to get you to engage in this one.No. Apparently you think there's no disconnect between Republican claims of fiscal responsibility and their actual results.Basically the only thing we disagree on is what the actual trend is.
jimmifli (11-12-2012)
This is your original comment...
Your getting all defensive and arguing against the facts: Republicans...deficits go up. Democrats...deficits go down.
Which is incorrect (deficits went up with Carter and LBJ also), unless you restrict the data set to one administration...Clinton. If you can't acknowledge and accept that you were indeed talking about Dems vs Repubs, than there really is nothing more to say.
No. What I originally posted:
If you want to leave the Democratic side of the discussion off the table, fine. Shall we discuss the disconnect between Republican claims of fiscal responsibility and their actual results?If we go by the results of the past 3+decades, it's going to be less than if Romney was elected. Since Reagan, deficits have increased under every Republican president and decreased under every Democrat.
I gotta side with gebobs on this.
If you look at the modern landscape of American politics (Reagan and beyond), Republicans are fiscal nightmares and Democrats are left with the miserable job of cleaning up the mess.
And Reagan is an important starting point since the 80s gave birth to the moral majority (which is neither) which now defines the GOP.
Ever since that pairing was made, the GOP transformed into a force for evil. Sorry Republicans, but it's true.
I'm hoping Jeb Bush becomes more relevant and brings the party back to the center. I don't like one party rule, so it's important to me that the GOP regains its sanity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote