The deficit was $40b when Carter took office and $79b when he left. Close enough to 2x. You're right that Reagan didn't have to sign those budgets. Until GHW Bush, Reagan held the record for most vetoes. You might remember his "never again!" speech where he brought out the Dems' omnibus spending bill to show it to us all. And he asked for the line item veto and balanced budget amendments - both good ideas then and now. W rand about $400b deficits until the end. He spent half the tarp money, so his contribution would be about $800b his last year. And congress passed no budgets at all under Pelosi, so the fiscal year didn't matter. Obama submitted a $600b bigger budget 1st thing and then rammed the $800b stimulus bill through on top of that. I know your kind insists on blaming W for everything, but those things are on O.
Denny, you're doing an admirable job trying to explain that table, but it's kind of hard to argue against (people can disagree with me about it and that's fine.) Assume (just for fun, even if you're hard to the right) it's pretty accurate to the way spending changes during D and R presidencies. I know it's a hard stretch for some of you lol, but if you make that assumption, then how do you explain it? One theory might be that the D's have a reputation for being free spenders and they don't like it. On the other hand, R's have a reputation for cutting spending that they generally like. If that's true, then when a D is president they're doing what they can to prove the reputation wrong while the R's are hopping up on their soapbox talking about how good they are at cutting spending. In other words, they're both pre-disposed in the same direction of cutting expenses. On the other hand, when an R president is in power, they're not trying to prove anything about spending and they run up the bill. The D's don't have as much of a dog in the fight and go along for the ride. Spending goes up. Pretty much impossible to prove one way or another, but it's interesting to think about.
I don't see the number 40 anywhere on that chart. Or 79, for that matter. Am I missing something, or are you debating using your own set of books? Huh? My kind thinks the stimulus was a good thing. barfo
W was out to prove himself a compassionate conservative, and I guess that meant spending a lot. He is a republican, but not a conservative. His father wasn't a conservative either. Look at their first 100 days agendas. The first used his fresh political capital on an environmental bill (clean air act) and a civil rights bill (Americans with disabilities act). W used his on no child left behind and other lefty friendly social bills. But if you'll indulge an alternate conspiracy theory... Democrats will do almost anything to destroy republicans' presidencies. The whole 2000 recount thing was to make W somehow illegitimate, as with many other personal attacks against him. While the deficits grew under Reagan, revenues doubled. There was none of his agenda to increase spending by triple. Democrats were insistent upon making GHW go against his "no new taxes" pledge, to the point of adding some new tax to every bill passed (which was then vetoed). Yeah. To the point of sabotaging the economy. GHW had like 200 vetoes. He ultimately was cornered into signing a bill with new taxes and got creamed in his reelection bid. It seems to me the best times were had with the contract for America republicans running congress and writing the budgets, and a centrist democrat S president who was willing to adopt or co-opt good ideas from his opposition.
Lol, believe it or not, I agree!!! Two different parties and just enough mutual respect to get things done. Sure wish we could get from there to here during Obama's presidency.
And Looks like the debt was shrinking as % of GDP under several republicans (Ike, Nixon, Ford) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf $53.9B deficit 1977 $79.9B deficit 1981 $152B deficit 1989
Ok, glad you concede the point. Debt did not double under Kotter, not even close. As for debt shrinking under republicans, let's note that Gerald Ford left office 30 years ago. barfo
I've got a really simple question to ask. It seems that congress and Obama want to cut $3T or $4T or even more from the budget over 10 years. Why don't they just agree on a number and do it? The only thing stopping the Democrats from getting what they want (the budget cuts) is the Democrats insisting on something there isn't agreement on.
Because they don't agree on what to cut. It's not just a number. Similarly, the only thing stopping the Republicans from getting what they want (the budget cuts) is the Republicans insisting on something there isn't agreement on (no new revenue). barfo
I think the Republicans would be happy with any $4B Obama wants to cut, as long as it's real. The Republicans aren't standing in the way of anything. They've passed a bill that would raise the debt limit.
Oooooh myyyyy, what a prize that is! Obama doesn't need the GOP to up the debt ceiling. Essentially putting the burden on the poor, disabled & elderly to pay down the debt while the non-job creating "job creators" continue with their tax breaks that were suppose to "create jobs", doesn't really seem fair.
Bill Clinton says he can cut $1.5T without anyone even noticing the money wasn't being spent. So much for the "burden on the poor" myth.
