OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Yet, Republicans consistently elect Presidents who increase spending at irresponsible, and unsustainable rates..... the irony is astounding.

Jim,

Essentially, there is no way to fix our current problem.
If we elinated *every* government program, we still could not pay our current social security obligations. This is why when people release reports that say SS is broke, and WILL have to be fixed, this is what they mean.

On a somewhat different note..
I absolutely agree that the best of all possible worlds is spending less than our present taxes.

Deficit spending is not always a bad idea. This is why businesses take out loans - if you are going to make money on the transaction - its a good idea.

So for example deficit spending to fund the construction of the internet, or basic research - so long as their is a problable return is smart policy.

Deficit financing of consumption - ie., welfare, on the other hand is generally ridiculous.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Since the 90s republicans and democrats have BOTH been increasing taxes on the middle class, except Reagan who actually lowered taxes. There's plenty of charts showing who raised taxes and the democrats are not the 'pure good' which you believe.
The larger government grows the more it will need to raise taxes on its people and since the wealthy have loop holes the middle class people and middle class businesses will be suffering. The end result causes a smaller amount of middle class and a greater gap between the wealthy and the poor.

In any case the democrats now own the presidency, the majority of congress and the majority of governors... so let's see where we sit in 3 years.

I absolutely, never said that Democrats are "pure good". That is the only absolute I will offer you, other than this one.

However, statistically speaking, Republicans have consistently had greater rise in deficit spending, and in % of budget as deficit.

I don't care how much we get taxed, as long as there is something to show for it. But somehow Republicans manage to spend more, and do less. Explain that to me, please. I am sure you can, and I'm sure I'll disagree, but hey, evolution thrives on adversity.

[Agema]

I saw some stats collected from the Economic Report Of The President on the tax/spend trends of the two parties postwar. They suggest Republicans do indeed reduce taxes, but they don't actually reduce spending.

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

This is another article that suggests from the raw data that the US economy not only has historically grown more under the Democrats, but but more equally too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...in&oref=slogin

[JimMorrison]

In fact, they -increase- spending.

Of course, there are some who would argue that increasing wages is not indicative of a growing economy..... though, they are the same people who claim that providing tax breaks to the rich bolsters the economy, and leads to higher wages.

I think these figures are a bit misleading though. I'd venture to guess that under the Republicans, the top 5% does better than the NYT table shows, but through deregulation and tax loopholes, are more able to hide their income, during those administrations. :P Then when a Democrat takes office, they add some regulation back in, forcing the rich to declare more of their income.....


(Oh and Agema, apparently to Republicans, linking to Slate is something akin to how I might feel if they linked from O'Reilly..... Even if you are just trying to show them numbers that were compiled directly from the Economic Report to the President, complete with link to said document. )

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

In fact, they -increase- spending.

Of course, there are some who would argue that increasing wages is not indicative of a growing economy..... though, they are the same people who claim that providing tax breaks to the rich bolsters the economy, and leads to higher wages.

I think these figures are a bit misleading though. I'd venture to guess that under the Republicans, the top 5% does better than the NYT table shows, but through deregulation and tax loopholes, are more able to hide their income, during those administrations. :P Then when a Democrat takes office, they add some regulation back in, forcing the rich to declare more of their income.....


(Oh and Agema, apparently to Republicans, linking to Slate is something akin to how I might feel if they linked from O'Reilly..... Even if you are just trying to show them numbers that were compiled directly from the Economic Report to the President, complete with link to said document. )

These are the same canards floated the last time.
I don't actually dispute that over the period from 54 until the present that that statistics have favored the democrats.

I dispute they are factually relevent; to restate - I don't disbelieve figures on how the economies fared. I dispute that they are attributable to democrats or republicans.

Case in point- Clinton cut defense spending dramatically (the so called peace dividend). He cut it because the actions of Reagan led to the break up of the Soviet Union.

Again, the US economy performed well during the 50's as we had no significant opposition. This happened as a result of WWII - one can not statistically make any claim that was a result of the actions of the democrats.

Assume that there were 7 democratic and 5 republican administrations in 48 years. What are the chances if you flipped a coin that the democrats would get 3.5 heads and the republicans 2.5 (zero). So the odds are someone will get more heads - but getting more has nothing to do with being democrat or republican.

I don't say that there is no causal relationship - but I am saying it is nowhere near 1 - and probably much closer to .1. And that other factors are much larger.

[chrispedersen]

Oh and it turns out I was wrong. At least my local NPR claims that Martin Luther King was a republican.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

In fact, they -increase- spending.

Of course, there are some who would argue that increasing wages is not indicative of a growing economy..... though, they are the same people who claim that providing tax breaks to the rich bolsters the economy, and leads to higher wages.

Providing tax breaks to the rich won't bolster the economy or provide higher wages. Increasing minimum wage has not improved the lives of those working minimum wage as the rest of the market adjusts upwards as well... the $1 menu's from fast food restaurants have been disappearing as a result. Another bad side effect of increasing minimum wage is other businesses don't match the increase... thus if you're earning $6.25/HR and minimum wage is increased from $5.00 to $6.15 you're out of luck and closer to the poverty level.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I think these figures are a bit misleading though. I'd venture to guess that under the Republicans, the top 5% does better than the NYT table shows, but through deregulation and tax loopholes, are more able to hide their income, during those administrations. :P Then when a Democrat takes office, they add some regulation back in, forcing the rich to declare more of their income.....

Bill Gates found a way to pay zero in taxes for 1999 so those Democrats do a terrible job getting him and others at his level to pay taxes. If the Democrats were serious about improving the tax system they would attack the existing loopholes.

[HoneyBadger]

I would say-in my economic innocence-that the best way to attack poverty (it seems to me) would be to, yes, more heavily tax the very rich, but while attacking inflation, itself. That would cause everyone's money to be worth more, while reducing the gap between the very rich and the very poor. It *should*, I would think, also cause prices to drop, since the money itself would have more value.

[chrispedersen]

Honey, it is widely held that that *deflation* is a much greater risk right now.

There are lots of reasons, however if you deflate your money, you make it more difficult to service existing debt. This lends to market defaults -- such as the problem we are having now with the collapse of the housing market. Too many properties entering the market crushing the housing market.

Whereas if you *inflate* your money, you make it easier to pay off existing obligations.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Providing tax breaks to the rich won't bolster the economy or provide higher wages. Increasing minimum wage has not improved the lives of those working minimum wage as the rest of the market adjusts upwards as well... the $1 menu's from fast food restaurants have been disappearing as a result. Another bad side effect of increasing minimum wage is other businesses don't match the increase... thus if you're earning $6.25/HR and minimum wage is increased from $5.00 to $6.15 you're out of luck and closer to the poverty level.

I'm pretty sure that you're well aware that the purchasing power of "minimum wage" has been eroding for decades now?

That is to say, that we are not keeping pace with the cost of living. Not only that, but as you point out, many middle-wage jobs don't even see the corresponding increase, thus we experience the phenomenon of a shrinking middle class, and more people at or below poverty level.

But poverty, is a mutable point. If I were to pay 100% taxes, but have a decent place to live, healthful food on my plate, and an ID card that let me into movies, and let me pick up a few luxuries here and there, why would I complain? People ultimately complain about taxes because of how little they see in return.

Our approach to taxation and spending is entirely backwards for this day and age - and the lack of serious accountability ruins our government's chances of success.