"On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch."
-- CBS News, 9/29/08

Labels: bush, george w. mccain, john mc bush, national debt

"On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch."
-- CBS News, 9/29/08

Don't fall for that Republican crap about how 'liberals' spend too much and tax you to pay for it. As we can see, 'conservatives' spend more, spend faster than 'liberals' do, and don't have a way to pay for it.

Mr. Bush's reckless fiscal policy (or lack of policy) passes the payment for today's spend-spend-spend onto tomorrow's taxpayers. Our children and our children's children will carry Bush's Burden - with compound interest piling on.

Which would you really prefer: a tax-and-spend government or a borrow-and-spend government?

Labels: borrow-and-spend, conservative, national debt, reckless spending

A newsletter to which I subscribe recently asked "When is the last time you remember a balanced budget, or a surplus of money in the Government? I don’t know about you, but it hasn’t been in any of my 37 years on this Earth."

Ah, how quickly memories can fade.

Actually, the federal budget was balanced not long ago. It happened when that commie pinko fag junkie skirt chasing Bill Clinton was in office.

Clinton handed off a balanced budget to the "fiscally responsible" W (R-lying sack of s$%&). Clinton also signed into law the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Given those, and the fact the republicans constantly strut and preen about their fiscal superiority (that used to include me), how did we wind up with budget deficits that are increasing at astonishing rates?

Look at the 'leadership.'

While it's true that only Congress can appropriate money to be spent, the President

1. Sets provides the leadership that "sets the tone" for government
2. Submits budget proposals to Congress
3. Can veto any bill, including spending bills
4. Actually orders the spending of the dollars designated by Congress; only Congress can authorize spending specific sums on specific budget items, but the President can refuse to spend the amount designated by Congress. If you have trouble with that last item, keep in mind that the current president has gutted many federal agencies by not spending the money allocated by Congress. Examples: EPA, Food & Drug Administration, Customs, Coast Guard, FEMA
   

The national debt has continued to increase, even during the pre-Bush balanced budgets. Blame interest on the existing national debt. The interest expense paid on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense expense and the combined expenses of social services and agriculture are higher (some lump together social & ag because both categories involve subsides).

Reducing the National Debt is usually a good thing, and increasing the National Debt is usually a bad thing. Which major party does a better job of managing the National Debt? I'd have to go with the party whose rate of debt increase is the lowest and whose rate of decrease is the greatest. Which major party wins on this? Your answer is probably wrong.


In post-WWII America National Debt increases occur under Republican leadership, and decrease (dramatically) on the Democrats' watch.

Exceptions:

1. The slight decline in the Nixon/Ford years. Note that the rampant inflation of the money supply and the resulting devaluation of the dollar enabled Nix-ord the pay down the debt with cheaper dollars.
2. The slower decline (still a decline) under Carter. Skyrocketing interest rates raised the cost of existing debt and the somewhat "small" new debt.
   
   For those reasons, neither of those exceptions actually defies the trend of who handles YOUR money better.
   
   The Democrats suck, but the Republicans suck more.
   
   
3. The moderate Republican Eisenhower continued the trend started by the Democrat Truman. Good on him.

The only truly fiscally responsible Republican in modern times was Eisenhower. He also had the best defense policy- the old Republican concept of "speak softly, carry a big stick."

There is a graph that parallels the above is the rate of growth in, and hard-number growth in, the number of non-defense Federal employees. Democrats DECREASE the size of government, while Republicans INCREASE the size of the Federal government. Couple that with the generally-accepted notion that what the government does, it does better (for whatever that is worth) under Democrats. Democrats= smaller government AND more efficient government. Naturally, now that I need it, I can't find it. When I do find that graph, I'll repost this so that you can see the similarity.

Whodathunkit?

Now you know one of the reasons that I am a Recovering Republican: I discovered reality.

PS: none of this means that I am some kind of born-again Democrat. It merely means that I left Republican orthodoxy and fantasy behind. Would I ever go back? Maybe if there is a 2nd-coming of Ike.

Labels: balanced budget, Bill Clinton, eisenhower, Fiscal Responsibility, ideology, ike, national debt, problem with reality, recovering republican, smaller government

To Republicans, lower taxes masquerade as fiscal responsibility. Tax cuts, in the right-wing delusion, solve everything.

Lower taxes don't solve anything (unless you are part of one of the special interest group at whom tax cuts are typically aimed). Interestingly, good things happen after tax increases. I'm not advocating high taxes, but I'm pragmatic: go with what works.

Republicans have always laid claim to fiscal responsibility.

That is a myth. The facts say otherwise.

First, a quick summary

• Republican presidents
  1920-1932
  income taxes - negligible
  economy upward trend first 7 years
  then the biggest economic crash in history
  don't forget those really cool scandals & corruption
  

• Democratic presidents
  1932-1940
  higher income taxes on wealthiest
  economy recovered, slowly but steadily
  1941-1948
  higher income taxes on nearly everyone
  economy improved (war spending was a two-edged sword)
  

• Republican president
  1952-1960
  economy slowed
  deep recession
  
  
• Democratic presidents
  1961-1968
  economy soared
  

• Republican presidents
  1969-1972
  economy leveled
  1973-1976
  "stagflation" - stagnant economy and high inflation
  
  
• Democratic president
  1977-1980
  stagflation subsided, but the resulting credit crunch persisted
  

• Republican president
  1981-1992 borrow and spend like crazy under Reagan
  1981- biggest income tax cut in history
  budget deficits skyrocketed
  economy went backwards
  1982 - biggest income tax increase in history
  economy recovered
  1986 - shifted income tax burden away from wealthy to middle/lower classes
  1987 - 2nd largest wall st crash in history
  economy went into recession
  1989-1992, recession continued and worsened
  

• Democratic president
  1993-2001
  income tax hike
  economy went into best 9 years in historybudget deficits decreased every year, with 1997-2000 having budget surpluses (paid down national debt)
  

• Republican president
  2001-2008
  income tax cuts to wealthiest 10%
  went from budget surplus to biggest budget deficits in history
  economy slowed dramatically
  economy went into and stayed in recession
  

Now, let's back up the claims:

To measure fiscal responsibility, let's consider the change in the relationship between federal debt and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That relationship demonstrates growth (or decrease) in the government's debt in the context of growth (or shrinkage) of the economy as a whole. In other words, when times are good, does an administration use that as an opportunity to pay down debt? Or the opposite? Does fiscal policy cause increases or decreases in debt when times are bad?

Running up debt:

• Since 1945, every Democratic president presided over decreases in the debt-to-GDP ratio (that's good)
• Since 1945, every Republican president presided over
  1. in the best years, smaller decreases than under all Democrats
  2. in worst years (20 out of the last 36 years under Republicans), sharp INCREASES in the debt-to-GDP ratio (that's bad)
     

• 1977-1980, the Carter administration, was interesting in that
  1. his one term saw solid decrease in the debt-to-GDP ratio
  2. Nixon/Ford preceded him, and had deficit increases
  3. Reagan/Bush followed him, and had huge budget deficits
     

What about jobs?

• From 1929 to the present, job growth (net annual increase in number of jobs)
  1. under EVERY Democratic president, significant net increases in creation of new jobs
  2. under EVERY Democratic president, increases in rate over rate under preceding Republican
  3. under EVERY Republican president, smaller net increases than under ANY democratic president with one exception: 1945-1948, the net increase (under a Democrat) was smaller than those in 1969-1972 and 1985-1988 (under Republicans)
  4. Under two Republican administrations (but ZERO Democratic administrations) there were net job losses during their terms: specifically, 1929-1932 and 2001-2004; if the economy continues to fall this year, the small increase of 2005- part of 2007 could be erased.
     

So... can we conclude
Taxes = evil
Tax cuts = sacred & honorable
???

No and No.

• Borrow-and-spend (increase the national debt) is far worse than tax-and-spend.
• Borrow-and-spend creates the illusion of something good happening, but leaves it for future taxpayers to pick up the tab.

The facts:

1. Increases in income taxes always immediately precede economic improvement AND lower budget deficits.
2. Decreases in income taxes usually precede economic downturns AND higher budget deficits
3. Budget deficits fall, and the economy improves under Democratic presidents
   
4. Budget deficits increase and the economy nearly always slows (or worse) under Republican presidents
   

Let's face it:

• conventional wisdom about taxes is wrong: 'lower' does not mean 'better' and 'higher' does not mean 'worse'
  
• what matters is how the economy is doing, how many jobs are out there, how much money you have left at the end of the pay period, and whether or not we've prepared for the future (national debt increases or decreases).

Sorry, Republicans. Ouch!

Labels: borrow-and-spend, depression, economy, GDP, higher taxes, jobs, lower taxes, national debt, no longer a republican, recession, republican, tax cut, tax-and-spend