Democrats versus Republicans

[sck5]

erps said

"I think responsible democrats should send their tax rebate checks back in. At least then they would be practicing what they preach."

I am an irresponsible Dem. However, I am also law abiding and if the government says I should get a rebate check who am I to disagree?

But if Repubs really believe that people should personally support policies that they agree with but which not everyone likes, then why arent they or their kids fighting in Iraq? I hear the Army needs new recruits so badly they are even taking felons and old people. So step up you guys! Put your money where your mouth is! Go fight Bush's war if you think it is such a great idea.

There. I am trying to be imflammatory today. Hows it going?

[chucklesR]

Actually it's quite simple. His buddy Al invented the internet which created a growth spurt that was able to overcome the higher taxes for a while, but the legacy of his tax increase caused the house of cards to collapse even before he left office.
Also, seems that congress was in the hands of some lizard dude named Newt.

You see, presidents don't really control the economy.

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by sck5

There. I am trying to be imflammatory today. Hows it going?

I am going to help bolster the economy by investing in some Preperation-H... you're doing good

[erps]

But if Repubs really believe that people should personally support policies that they agree with but which not everyone likes, then why arent they or their kids fighting in Iraq?

I'd bet money that people serving are more likely to call themself a conservative rather than a liberal.

There. I am trying to be imflammatory today. Hows it going?

That's what I thought and I don't think it was limited to just today.

Regarding deficit reductions during Clinton administration, that was a period of time in recent history that the executive and legislative branch were successful. Wasn't the legislature republican during Clinton's second term? We have not seen that kind of fiscal responsibility lately either under the republican legislature or the democratic legislature and it's going to cost all of us.

[IMG][/IMG]



[IMG][/IMG]

[sck5]

erps

those are good graphs and illustrate my point. On the first one you can clearly see the effect of Reagans tax cuts after 1980. Revenue went down while spending continued more or less on its previous trend. Clinton raised taxes in 93 and revenue went up rapidly to the point where the deficit was completely wiped out while spending again continued more or less on its previous trend (or maybe a bit lower but not by much). The effect of the Bush tax cuts after 2000 are crystal clear. Revenue down while spending increased even faster than trend. Result: a huge deficit

Your second graph also makes clear my point that deficits get big under Repubs and Dems clean up the mess over the past four decades. Both Carter and Clinton (especially Clinton) had way lower deficits than the Repubs on either side of them. Also, the average Repub deficit is far larger than the average Dem deficit.

So, according to the data, Dems are the more fiscally responsible of the two parties. Both want to spend money but the Repubs want to stick our kids with the bill. Dems try to pay their own way.

[chucklesR]

After the tax cut revenues went down, of course Sck. Then in all cases they went back up at an acellerated rate because of an improving economy.
Even YOU can see that (notice the sharper angle?), Remember the crappy economy of the time.
Same thing after JFK's tax cut, down then rapidly increased?

Now, note your buddy's tax cut, Bush that is...note how it rapidly went back up again ?
Clinton, as I said previously got lucky with the .com boom, had nothing to do with the sitting president, as most things dealing with the economy have nothing to do with the sitting president.

The difference between Dem's and Rep's is only on what they want to spend money on, not whether or not they actually have any.

And I will AGAIN point out the 681 Billion per year in shortfall between revenue for entitlements and cost of entitlements as the primary cause of the deficit. Those entitlements being democratic party linchpins, just as much as defense spending a republican party mantra.
There's no difference.
Sooner or later it'll sink in and you'll admit publically as well as privately.

[sck5]

Chuck

At last. You have agreed that the tax cuts resulted in less revenue. Even if the trend then resumed at a higher rate (at least that is what it looks like) the inescapable result is that the tax cuts created a structural gap that remains with us to this day. Just hoping that the gap will close isnt a policy and it would have been far better not to have tried to fix what wasnt broken. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and he pissed it away.

And as for Dem party linchpins, it was Clinton who reformed welfare, not the repubs. But you are right that the data show spending increasing pretty much whoever is in charge - You have to admit though, that the trend under Bush looks higher than the trend under Clinton.

But there IS a difference. The Dems are responsible enough not to put all their spending on a charge card. To me, that is just plain irresponsible, especially when the creditor is the Communist government of China. (and a few oil sheikdoms)

And Chuck dont you think it is kind of a copout to say Clintons success was just luck while Bush's screwup was some brilliant plan that will someday erase our deficit? (just not in our lifetimes)

[sck5]

on defense spending - that will have to stay pretty high no matter who wins because the armed forces are a mess. I think everyone knows it, Dems included.

[erps]

At last. You have agreed that the tax cuts resulted in less revenue. Even if the trend then resumed at a higher rate (at least that is what it looks like) the inescapable result is that the tax cuts created a structural gap

Except this contradicts sck5 again. Tax rates falling over time without corresponding drop in revenue.

[IMG][/IMG]


House hold tax burden by president.

[IMG][/IMG]

[sck5]

erps

the population more than doubled over the period covered by that graph. The labor force more than doubled because women entered the workforce in far greater numbers as time went on. So it is no mystery why the graph looks like it does.