State of the Union

[Thrawn]

Hey Sikboy, they don't need a majority, just more then the next guy.

$5,656,270,901,615.43??  Heheh, that's like saying a million bajillion dollars.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Social Security?

Oh yeah... that's where he's gettin' it.

Let's be fair here. Daschle is/was the first one since the recent election to propose cracking open the Social Security lock box.

That would be Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader. Democrat.

He proposed that anyone that didn't pay income tax should also not have to pay the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. They would still get full benefits of both programs, however. Therefore, their benefits and "premiums" as it were would be coming straight out of the old Social Security lock box.

So far, Bush has NOT proposed using SS lockbox money.

He said in last night's speech that there would be a deficit budget, however.

See the chart in the Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 2000 link in the post up-thread. Nothing new here, is there?

[Sandman]

Daschle ain't the guy wearing the big hat.

[midnight Target]

Skernsk,

Are Canadian elections held in Downtown Canada? Do all 4 people vote at once?

[Sandman]

Whooo... that'll leave a mark.

[Toad]

Yeah, I know. Thank Cod.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Toad
Debt increases and taxes go DOWN

or

Debt increases and taxes go UP

Which do you choose?

I think the proper way to frame this would be to say:

Debt increases a little bit when taxes go up.

or

Debt increases A LOT when taxes go down.

I was reading about this the other day, actually, and under Reagan the debt increased at a percentage rate of growth almost twice as much as any other president in history.  He "enjoyed" an average annual growth in debt of about 23% compared to Gerald Ford, who came in a distant second place at about 15% increase per year.  Those numbers under Clinton appear to hover around an average growth of 5%.

Incidentally, the annual interest paid on the debt right now is about $350 billion, more than we spend on our military.  That's about 3-4% of GDP.  Ouch.

Unfortunately, Udie, "Reaganomics" did not produce increases in revenue for reasons discussed in other threads (increase in money does not necessarily increase demand, nor does it necessarily offset higher taxes with increased income or productivity), and in fact it created massive budget shortfalls.  These coupled with massive increases in defense spending led to record growth in the national debt.

Of course, whether or not this was a price worth paying to win the Cold War is up for another discussion elsewhere.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[newguy]

real funny Target. You should try to get a copy of Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans Any other Canucks that watch "this hour has 22 minutes" will know what I'm talking about. Next time its on I'm taping it for sure. (I can do that now that we've legalized VCR's  )

newguy

[Udie at Work]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying


I think the proper way to frame this would be to say:

Debt increases a little bit when taxes go up.

or

Debt increases A LOT when taxes go down.

I was reading about this the other day, actually, and under Reagan the debt increased at a percentage rate of growth almost twice as much as any other president in history.  He "enjoyed" an average annual growth in debt of about 23% compared to Gerald Ford, who came in a distant second place at about 15% increase per year.  Those numbers under Clinton appear to hover around an average growth of 5%.

Incidentally, the annual interest paid on the debt right now is about $350 billion, more than we spend on our military.  That's about 3-4% of GDP.  Ouch.

Unfortunately, Udie, "Reaganomics" did not produce increases in revenue for reasons discussed in other threads (increase in money does not necessarily increase demand, nor does it necessarily offset higher taxes with increased income or productivity), and in fact it created massive budget shortfalls.  These coupled with massive increases in defense spending led to record growth in the national debt.

Of course, whether or not this was a price worth paying to win the Cold War is up for another discussion elsewhere.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

 And just what role does the congress play in all of this?  Afterall the congress controls spending right?   I'm still waiting to hear 1 democrat admit that the congress went haywire on spending in the 80's, Reps and Dems alike.  Sure the president signed the bills into law, but the congress is who porked them up with defecits.  His tax cuts did have an effect too, if i rember right (I was a kid then) I remember that we came out of a recession just after the cuts.  The Democrats controlled congress then right?  I think the Republicans had the senate for 2 years, but the rest of the time it was the donkey running the show in the congress.

 You talk about 5% debt growth under Clinton. What was it durring his first 2 years compaired to after the 94 elections when the Reps took the congress?   That's not just coinsidence that the Republicans controlled spending when the budget was ballanced for the first time in 30 years.  I guess it's a whole lot easier to just blame Raygun huh.  That's an intellectually dishonest thing to do.  Reagan bares some of the responsibility, maybe even half since he signed the bills, but no way in Hell should he be pegged with 100% of the blame.  And yes the increase in military spending was worth winning the cold war.  Though no screw or toilet seat was or is worth $5000

 Come on democrats throw me a bone here, admit congress' roll in the debt from the 80's, yeah big chance of that happening....

[Sikboy]

The President submits a budget to congress, congress suggests changes, the president either makes some changes or says "screw you." If the latter we might wind up like in 1995(?) and have a government shutdown because of failure to come to an agreement. The trick with the Reagan budget is that he was elected with such a mandate, that I don't think congress thought it too wise to argue. So in a sense, the Voters got the budget they wanted, and the results are their fault.

-Sikboy

PS: Can anyone thing of "Voodoo Economics" Without thinking of Ben Stein?

[Toad]

From the  same thread the other numbers came from,


Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual

09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66      

09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03      

09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25      

09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32      

09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16      

09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00      

09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42      

12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88      

12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00    *

12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00    *

12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00    *

12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00    *

12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00    *


These are the Reagan/Bush1 years right?

Looks like Public Debt was LOWER.  

[skernsk]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Skernsk,

Are Canadian elections held in Downtown Canada? Do all 4 people vote at once?

LOL!  No only 2 out of the 4 show up, BUT all four will squeak and complain AFTER the election is wrapped up:rolleyes:

[Toad]

Originally posted by skernsk


LOL!  No only 2 out of the 4 show up, BUT all four will squeak and complain AFTER the election is wrapped up:rolleyes:

ahhhh.. So it IS like a US election except a higher percentage actually vote up there.  

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Udie at Work
And just what role does the congress play in all of this?  Afterall the congress controls spending right?   I'm still waiting to hear 1 democrat admit that the congress went haywire on spending in the 80's, Reps and Dems alike.

[/B]

Congress, especially the House under O'Neill's leadership, went absolutely nuts with cutting taxes and increasing spending under Reagan.  Republicans and Democrats alike share responsibility for the massive debt burden from the 1980s.  However, there's also no doubt that such freewheeling occurred in part due to Reagan's highly effective legislative agenda when he came into office.  Only Lyndon Johnson shows a similarly high level of achieving his policy objectives, but he did it with an unprecedented partisan advantage in Congress.  That Reagan was able to accomplish this during divided government speaks well to his abilities as the Great Communicator, and it suggests a finely-honed political sense for which most don't give him enough credit.

You talk about 5% debt growth under Clinton. What was it durring his first 2 years compaired to after the 94 elections when the Reps took the congress?   That's not just coinsidence that the Republicans controlled spending when the budget was ballanced for the first time in 30 years.  I guess it's a whole lot easier to just blame Raygun huh.  That's an intellectually dishonest thing to do.  Reagan bares some of the responsibility, maybe even half since he signed the bills, but no way in Hell should he be pegged with 100% of the blame.

[/B]

I wasn't pegging Reagan with 100% of the blame.  However, his policies, enacted by a willing Congress, certainly had a lot to do with the ballooning budget deficits and unprecedented growth in the national debt.  You're being naive if you believe that presidents don't have a powerful place in the budget-making process.  The Executive Branch even has its own accounting and budget projection office around which it bases the annual budget that it submits to Congress.  The president is the single most important actor in the entire budget process, and presidents deserve both credit and scorn for effective or ineffective fiscal policies.  It's not surprising that the state of the economy is the single greatest predictor of several political events:  How well the incumbent president does in a reelection bid, and how well his party does during the midterm elections.

And yes the increase in military spending was worth winning the cold war.  Though no screw or toilet seat was or is worth $5000

[/B]

Hey, keep this in another thread!  

Come on democrats throw me a bone here, admit congress' roll in the debt from the 80's, yeah big chance of that happening....

Well, I can't speak for Democrats since I'm not one, but Congress certainly deserves some of the blame.  With that in mind, it's curious how Democrats got stuck with the "tax and spend" label when it should instead be "cut taxes and spend."  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Toad
[BThese are the Reagan/Bush1 years right?

Looks like Public Debt was LOWER.   [/B]

Nice try, Toad.  

-- Todd/Leviathn