Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

HAI GUYS! LET'S CUT THE TAX RATES TO 0% MOAR REVENUE!

ComputerNerd . . . is that you? :lol

 

[Karma Kramer]

"As percent of GDP"

Here's a real link...

lol... you seriously just linked us to something that proved "our" point!

nice research their bud!

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Yeah. Clinton inhereted a great economy:

In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever.

 

[speculawyer]

Not only that, but the site calls Trickle Down Theory a myth! The site is arguing for us.

Yeah, it is actually a great link. Thanks, SD!

In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration.

When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion[8]. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric.

Edit: I just bookmarked that page . . . it is awesome! :lol

 

[scorcho]

Why do I feel like it's 1994 again?

i know. i'm still amazed how much Clinton's tax policies held back the economy between 92-98.

 

[GhaleonEB]

SD is just jealous of Gaborn's tag.

 

[polyh3dron]

You're absolutely correct. Its called the piece dividend. Clinton reaped the benefits of the work that came before anyone even knew his name.

And you have the NERVE to call others ITT misinformed. That is the biggest crock of shit ever from the Republicans and you bought it.

Talk about cognitive dissonance, HOLY SHIT.

 

[reilo]

Yeah, it is actually a great link. Thanks, SD!


Edit: I just bookmarked that page . . . it is awesome! :lol

:lol

sogood.gif

 

[laserbeam]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080827184423.q4lvupif&show_article=1
"McCain camp gleefully mocks 'temple of Obama"

Republicans, who mock Barack Obama as a self-appointed divine savior, gleefully pounced Thursday on pictures of the set for his big convention speech, which appears to resemble a temple.

 

[siamesedreamer]

So, did the debt increase ~$2 trillion under Clinton or not?

That was my point. Of course the debt "ceased". Stats don't lie - he presided over a couple surplusses. Trying to credit him with those surplusses is just as ridiculous as trying to credit Reagan with ending the Cold War.

Edit: Gawd y'all are idots. Don't you think I specifically gave y'all that link to prove my point?

 

[The Librarian]

What time will Biden and Bill speak tonight?

 

[Drek]

Politics happened. McCain is already not the most popular guy on the block in the Republican party so he has to make himself look popular to them in what he says.

Honestly Id guess if he wins we will see the 2000 McCain in the White House.

What happened is that John McCain, as he has his whole life, put his own interests first.

He did it at the Naval Academy, when he exploited his family's legacy to be an underachiever who didn't try at anything he wasn't interested in, and graduated near the bottom of his class.

He did it when he came home from Vietnam and began cheating on his wife.

Now he's done it time and time again when he sold out the very things he used to champion in order to get the Republican nomination for POTUS.

The ONLY time John McCain ever stood up for something in his life was when he was a POW, and he hasn't let the American people forget it, not for one minute. But giving quality medical coverage and educational opportunities to the near 600 other men who were in those same POW camps? Hell no, why grow a spine then when it conflicts with Bush and Cheney's twisted ideal that every member in the U.S. armed services needs to be a lifelong toy soldier they can throw away?

He sold out because he wanted to be POTUS, he said as much in his own book, that he ran in '00 because he "it was his ambition to be president". He now calls Obama out for doing just that, when he's the one who has sold all of his once high ideals down the river.

I supported John McCain fervently despite his faults in 2000. I thought he was a truly good man who had some hard obstacles in life that he didn't always overcome in the best way. But since late 2003 he has become a dark, dark shadow of the man that got me as a 17 year old high school student to drive six hours south from northern Maine to hear him speak in New Hampshire.

 

[bob_arctor]

*cue Carrie's "They're all going to laugh at you!"*

 

[ronito]

 

[reilo]

So, did the debt increase ~$2 trillion under Clinton or not?

That was my point. Of course the debt "ceased". Stats don't lie - he presided over a couple surplusses. Trying to credit him with those surplusses is just as ridiculous as trying to credit Reagan with ending the Cold War.

No because Clinton never borrowed more than $18bil per year, as opposed to Bush's $133bil borrowed during his first year in office. Of course there will always be some increase within a 8 year span simply due to inflation.

And trust me, I do not credit Reagan for ending the Cold War.

 

[scorcho]

So, did the debt increase ~$2 trillion under Clinton or not?

That was my point. Of course the debt "ceased". Stats don't lie - he presided over a couple surplusses. Trying to credit him with those surplusses is just as ridiculous as trying to credit Reagan with ending the Cold War.

no one is crediting him with the surpluses per se, but illustrating how simply bringing the taxes back inline with the Clinton years won't seriously drag on the economy.

 

[siamesedreamer]

SD is just jealous of Gaborn's tag.

Says a guy who snipes but won't ever respond.

 

[The Librarian]

Says a guy who snipes but won't ever respond.

wat

 

[thegreyfox]

Those charts are still missing one more thing.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

 

[painey]

As a spectator on this election, all be it a very interested one, I cannot fathom how, or why John McCain could win this election, it makes little to no sense in every form, yet at the same time there is something about the Obama camp I just cannot abide.. Im not sure what. I think also for a very selfish reason, a republican in the white house yields a higher chance of the dollar weakening to the £, which is advantageous to me.. Im just not sure who to root for.

 

[Gaborn]

SD is just jealous of Gaborn's tag.

Hey! what'd I do! leave me out of this :lol :lol

 

[scorcho]

As a spectator on this election, all be it a very interested one, I cannot fathom how, or why John McCain could win this election, it makes little to no sense in every form, yet at the same time there is something about the Obama camp I just cannot abide.. Im not sure what. I think also for a very selfish reason, a republican in the white house yields a higher chance of the dollar weakening to the £, which is advantageous to me.. Im just not sure who to root for.

heh. root for our decline since it's better for you! a couple of economists are noting that with the depressed global economy the dollar has reached its bottom versus foreign currency. then again they've been saying this for years.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Trickle down economics does not work? Well, someone help me out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

During Reagan's tenure, income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years,[9] while payroll taxes increased as well as the effective tax rates on the lower two income quintiles.[10][11] Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during Reagan's remaining years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year,[12] slightly lower than the post-World War II average of 3.6%.[13] Unemployment peaked at over 10.7% percent in 1982 then dropped during the rest of Reagan's terms, and inflation significantly decreased.[14] A net job increase of about 16 million also occurred (about the rate of population growth).

According to a 1996 study[26] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagans years.

Besides the massive debt and payroll increase on the middle class, was it really bad during the Reagan years?

 

[The Librarian]

As a spectator on this election, all be it a very interested one, I cannot fathom how, or why John McCain could win this election, it makes little to no sense in every form, yet at the same time there is something about the Obama camp I just cannot abide.. Im not sure what. I think also for a very selfish reason, a republican in the white house yields a higher chance of the dollar weakening to the £, which is advantageous to me.. Im just not sure who to root for.

You're damn right that's fucking selfish.
Wishing to gain advantages at the expense of other's troubled times is always morally correct!

 

[painey]

You're damn right that's fucking selfish.
Wishing to gain advantages at the expense of other's troubled times is always morally correct!

Not really anything I can do but take the good from the bad, especially as am not able to influence the election even by voting. I do fear for petrol prices under a McCain presidency though, I can only see huge price hikes under him.

 

[siamesedreamer]

wat

You're 16 right? And you can't spell.

In about three decades, you're going to be paying my Social Security. I fear for my country...

 

[Gaborn]

You're damn right that's fucking selfish.
Wishing to gain advantages at the expense of other's troubled times is always morally correct!

Or... perhaps it's simply rational to seek to be better and someone else being slightly worse off is simply a byproduct? I've never quite understood the desire to make "selfishness" a synonym for "self interest" the two are inherently different. (selfishness implies appropriation of an excess of an evenly divided resource, self interest implies protecting what is yours and hoping that your material situation improves)

 

[Mandark]

It ignores the fact that Clinton's total debt was ~$2.0 trillion.

Please stop making things up.

 

[Tamanon]

Trickle down economics does not work? Well, someone help me out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics





Besides the massive debt and payroll increase on the middle class, was it really bad during the Reagan years?

To be fair, the whole concept of trickle-down was that the tax cuts and spending to big business would translate into more wealth for the lower and middle class. Is that libertarian study balanced with inflation?

 

[polyh3dron]

wat

I second your wat by appending an additional wat to the argument.

 

[adamsappel]

Seriously...murdering people ain't got nuthin' on child molesters.

Not to defend him, but Ayers didn't actually kill anyone. At least get the tar to the correct consistency before you brush with it.

 

[scorcho]

To be fair, the whole concept of trickle-down was that the tax cuts and spending to big business would translate into more wealth for the lower and middle class. Is that libertarian study balanced with inflation?

can also be explained by the cyclical nature of the economy - there was a recession till ~82 and the economy rebounded, as such GDP grew, employment % went down, etc.

the problem, as you alluded to, was that income for the middle class stagnated till the mid 90s (when compared to the late 70s) and that the poverty rate, while improving post-82, never got back down to the lows of the mid-late 70s.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Does anyone have any information on our history of military spending? Perhaps in the last 60 or so years?

I looked through that United States National Debt article but failed to see much information on the relation of our spending between military and domestic spending?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

can also be explained by the cyclical nature of the economy - there was a recession till ~82 and the economy rebounded, as such GDP grew, employment % went down, etc.

Like post Bush Sr., there was a recession when Clinton took office, right?

 

[Clevinger]

Not to defend him, but Ayers didn't actually kill anyone. At least get the tar to the correct consistency before you brush with it.

I think the only people killed were members of their own group due to an accident.

 

[frankthurk]

So, did the debt increase ~$2 trillion under Clinton or not?

Not, it seems.

Please stop making things up.

You're 16 right? And you can't spell.

Says the man who can't add.

I fear for my country...

Tell us about it.

 

[Gaborn]

I think the only people killed were members of their own group due to an accident.

Indeed, Ayers is on record saying he wishes they could've done more than bomb a police station.

 

[Stinkles]

You're 16 right? And you can't spell.

In about three decades, you're going to be paying my Social Security. I fear for my country...

In the last three pages, you've made at least three horrific spelling errors, including the gem, "extent" and you've linked to a post diametrically opposed to your argument and ironically accused Ghaleon of not responding to your posts.

Dax is 16, what's your excuse?

And I thought you wanted Social Security privatized?

 

[reilo]

In the last three pages, you've made at least three horrific spelling errors, including the gem, "extent" and you've linked to a post diametrically opposed to your argument.

Dax is 16, what's your excuse?

And I thought you wanted Social Security privatized?

:lol

 

[Cyan]

You're 16 right? And you can't spell.

In about three decades, you're going to be paying my Social Security. I fear for my country...

lols X2

P.S. If you're actually counting on Social Security to help you out when you retire, you're deluded.

Edit: d'oh, beaten

 

[Gaborn]

And I thought you wanted Social Security privatized?

If I had to guess (not to speak for SD) but even if you want SS privatized or eliminated entirely political reality is that it's a very unlikely thing to happen. I mean, I'd like to see the war on drugs end entirely in the next 20 years but I don't think THAT's very likely either...

 

[adamsappel]

Besides the massive debt and payroll increase on the middle class, was it really bad during the Reagan years?

I was a poor teenager in West Virginia during the Reagan years. It fucking sucked.

 

[Incognito]

In the last three pages, you've made at least three horrific spelling errors, including the gem, "extent" and you've linked to a post diametrically opposed to your argument and ironically accused Ghaleon of not responding to your posts.

Dax is 16, what's your excuse?

And I thought you wanted Social Security privatized?

Hehe.

 

[Gaborn]

I was a poor teenager in West Virginia during the Reagan years. It fucking sucked.

It would've been better for you if you were a poor teenager in West Virginia during the Carter years I'm sure.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I'm not sure what SD is getting his panties in a twist over.

"wat" is a pretty common intentional misspelling to emphasize disbelief+ridicule.

As in:

Joe: "I'm voting for Nader!"
Jane: "wat?!?!1"

Get with the program, dude.

 

[reilo]

It would've been better for you if you were a poor teenager in West Virginia during the Carter years I'm sure.

You sound like that guy from the crowd Mathews interviewed yesterday. He asked him "are we better off today than we were 8 years ago?" and the dude answers "we are better off than we were under Carter", and Mathews just cuts him off.

 

[Stinkles]

You sound like that guy from the crowd Mathews interviewed yesterday. He asked him "are we better off today than we were 8 years ago?" and the dude answers "we are better off than we were under Carter", and Mathews just cuts him off.

I call the Carter reminders the Mr. Fantastic reach.

 

[Gaborn]

You sound like that guy from the crowd Mathews interviewed yesterday. He asked him "are we better off today than we were 8 years ago?" and the dude answers "we are better off than we were under Carter", and Mathews just cuts him off.

I don't think it makes sense to compare today to Carter because that's a long time span, Conditions between today and 30 years ago when Carter was El Presidente are vastly different, but I don't think it's unfair to compare Reagan to Carter because that timespan is much closer together. Just as it wouldn't be unfair to compare LBJ to Nixon or Ford and Carter if you wished.

 

[Tamanon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOZKeOauNI

I didn't realize that there was video of McCain saying that regular Americans can't pick lettuce for $50/hour.

 

[siamesedreamer]

In the last three pages, you've made at least three horrific spelling errors, including the gem, "extent"...

Like I said, I fear for my country...

How about you go hide behind your couch now?