Left VS. Right on the economy

POSTED BY: MalBadInLatin
UPDATED: Thursday, April 3, 2025 18:58
VIEWED: 3693
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

MALBADINLATIN

Monday, October 27, 2008 8:22 PM

The common wisdom in most circles of American life is that Republicans in power are better for the economy than are Democrats.

But history shows us that's not true.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=Left-Vs-Right-On
-The-Econ-by-tabonsell-080918-997.html

I'm posting this because today John McCain in a very accusatory tone said Barak Obama is the most Liberal candidate for President ever. Unless someone can debunk the data I'm presenting with a credible (non-Fox) source...being a leftist Liberal is exactly what the economy needs!

Trolls against McCain

HERO

Monday, October 27, 2008 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
The common wisdom in most circles of American life is that Republicans in power are better for the economy than are Democrats.

But history shows us that's not true.

History shows that a person's party is not as relevant as his ideology.

Liberal Jimmy Carter (D) was terrible for the economy.

Conservative Ronald Reagan (R) had the longest period of sustained economic growth in the history of the world.

Moderate George Bush (R) was bad for the economy.

Liberal Bill Clinton (D) was bad for the economy.

Moderate Bill Clinton (D, post Jan 1995) was good for the economy.

George W. Bush (R) who taxed like a conservative and spent like a liberal was both good and bad for the economy (its hard to gauge given the unprecedented outside negative economic influences that came along such as Katrina and the war).

H

SWISH

Monday, October 27, 2008 9:33 PM

Thanks Malbad, this article is interesting. I've just got to quote some of it:

"Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenues by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenues are good because they will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending.

The numbers in the Economic Report undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.

Since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year under the GOP and $30 billion for Democrats. In an average Republican year the deficit increased by $36 billion. In an average Democratic year it shrank by $25 billion.

[snip]

The gross domestic product from 1960 to 2005 (taking inflation into account) rose an average of $165 billion a year in 2000 dollars under Republican administrations and $212 billion a year under Democrats. On the average yearly rise in per capita income, Democrats score about 30% higher.

On inflation Democrats average 3.13 % versus 3.89% for Republicans. On unemployment (5.33% under Democrats versus 6.38% for the GOP). Unemployment fell in the average Democratic year, rose in the average Republican one."

KIRKULES

Monday, October 27, 2008 10:16 PM

Hero has it right, it's the combination of relatively low taxes along with fiscal discipline that brings prosperity. Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001. If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side. It's pointless to raise tax rates when polititicians lack the fiscal discipline to work with the revenue available.

Most of the non-discretionary spending by the Fed is the result of programs originated and perpetuated by Democrats. We'll never be able to get our financial system in order for the long term prosperity until we slow the growth in spending. Raising taxes soon results in diminishing returns and this is even more true when the economy is doing badly. In this environment raising taxes will result in lower revenues and more deficit spending, exactly what we don't need now.

KWICKO

Monday, October 27, 2008 10:31 PM

Quote:
If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side.

And if it weren't for that unfortunate convertible ride, JFK's visit to Dallas would have gone swell...

MALBADINLATIN

Monday, October 27, 2008 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
History shows that a person's party is not as relevant as his ideology.

Liberal Jimmy Carter (D) was terrible for the economy.

Conservative Ronald Reagan (R) had the longest period of sustained economic growth in the history of the world.

Moderate George Bush (R) was bad for the economy.

Liberal Bill Clinton (D) was bad for the economy.

Moderate Bill Clinton (D, post Jan 1995) was good for the economy.

George W. Bush (R) who taxed like a conservative and spent like a liberal was both good and bad for the economy (its hard to gauge given the unprecedented outside negative economic influences that came along such as Katrina and the war)

So you're basically giving Bush II a pass, and asking me to accept your use of the terms moderate and liberal as they relate to the overall state of an economy along with the highly technical terms of bad, good, and terrible, along with pro conservative rightie commentary?

It sounds like you are trying to say that every Democratic Presidency that had a robust ecomomy wasn't that way because of Democrats...or if they were Democrats, and it was good, they weren't acting like Democrats. That's really effective rhetoric. Because my original point was that McCain should not say that being a leftist liberal is bad for the economy. But since you've shown me how all lefties are economic loosers...why I'll just vote for McCain.

Maybe if you standardized what good, bad, and terrible mean in terms of how they relate to the mind boggling set of measures for an economy, it would be helpful then might actualy mean something.

Also, if it's not too much thinking beyond good and bad...did you remember that Carter inherited a post Vietnem, post Watergate, post Arab Oil Embargo, Post energy shortage, highly inflationary economy from Nixon/Ford?

Trolls against McCain

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Hero has it right, it's the combination of relatively low taxes along with fiscal discipline that brings prosperity. Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001. If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side. It's pointless to raise tax rates when polititicians lack the fiscal discipline to work with the revenue available.

Most of the non-discretionary spending by the Fed is the result of programs originated and perpetuated by Democrats. We'll never be able to get our financial system in order for the long term prosperity until we slow the growth in spending. Raising taxes soon results in diminishing returns and this is even more true when the economy is doing badly. In this environment raising taxes will result in lower revenues and more deficit spending, exactly what we don't need now.

Katrina and 911 were necessary perhaps the war in Afghanistan was as well. Iraq was not, is not and will not be necessay

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

MALBADINLATIN

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Hero has it right, it's the combination of relatively low taxes along with fiscal discipline that brings prosperity. Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001. If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side. It's pointless to raise tax rates when polititicians lack the fiscal discipline to work with the revenue available.

Most of the non-discretionary spending by the Fed is the result of programs originated and perpetuated by Democrats. We'll never be able to get our financial system in order for the long term prosperity until we slow the growth in spending. Raising taxes soon results in diminishing returns and this is even more true when the economy is doing badly. In this environment raising taxes will result in lower revenues and more deficit spending, exactly what we don't need now.

I hear that all the time. I don't doubt you've bought into it. But as far as the OP question...Do you think all Democratic Liberal Presidencies have had nothing to do with the economic prosperity they enjoy, and it's only Republicans who know how to make economies thrive?...and can you prove it? and then answer follow questions?

Trolls against McCain

KIRKULES

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Hero has it right, it's the combination of relatively low taxes along with fiscal discipline that brings prosperity. Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001. If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side. It's pointless to raise tax rates when politicians lack the fiscal discipline to work with the revenue available.

Most of the non-discretionary spending by the Fed is the result of programs originated and perpetuated by Democrats. We'll never be able to get our financial system in order for the long term prosperity until we slow the growth in spending. Raising taxes soon results in diminishing returns and this is even more true when the economy is doing badly. In this environment raising taxes will result in lower revenues and more deficit spending, exactly what we don't need now.
I hear that all the time. I don't doubt you've bought into it. But as far as the OP question...Do you think all Democratic Liberal Presidencies have had nothing to do with the economic prosperity they enjoy, and it's only Republicans who know how to make economies thrive?...and can you prove it? and then answer follow questions?

Trolls against McCain

I never said that we haven't experienced prosperity under the Democrats, but I do believe the they are responsible for the bulk of our spending problems. When you start huge bureaucracies it's almost impossible to keep Government spending from growing out of control.

JFK understood how to create economic prosperity, but most Democrats since think Government is the answer to all problems and punishing the rich is worthy goal even if it results in lower revenues.

One of the reasons I said "relatively low taxes" is because the level to which taxes can be raised without hurting growth and reducing revenues is dependent on the current economic conditions. If the economy is booming and you raise taxes a few percentage points you will increase revenues to a certain point. Even in a booming economy there's a point at which raising tax rates will actually reduce revenues. In a slow economy raising tax rates will almost always reduce revenues.

The problem with the liberal approach to the economy is that they believe the higher the tax rate the higher the revenues. If they were smart they would cut capital gains and corporate taxes to stimulate long term growth in the economy and then raise income taxes on all Americans making 60k up. Broad based tax increases are the only kind that raise significant revenues. This would provide the massive revenues they desire and with a booming economy nobody would even notice. Instead they will cut taxes for those that don't pay taxes anyway and raise the capital gains tax resulting in stagnant growth. There are plenty of Democrats out there that understand this is the wrong approach, Obama, Pelosi and Reid just doesn't happen to be among them.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Hero has it right, it's the combination of relatively low taxes along with fiscal discipline that brings prosperity. Even with the Bush tax cuts Federal revenues are up 30% since 2001. If it wasn't for excessive spending, some of which was necessary because of 911, Katrina and two wars, we would be in good shape on the revenue side. It's pointless to raise tax rates when politicians lack the fiscal discipline to work with the revenue available.

Most of the non-discretionary spending by the Fed is the result of programs originated and perpetuated by Democrats. We'll never be able to get our financial system in order for the long term prosperity until we slow the growth in spending. Raising taxes soon results in diminishing returns and this is even more true when the economy is doing badly. In this environment raising taxes will result in lower revenues and more deficit spending, exactly what we don't need now.
I hear that all the time. I don't doubt you've bought into it. But as far as the OP question...Do you think all Democratic Liberal Presidencies have had nothing to do with the economic prosperity they enjoy, and it's only Republicans who know how to make economies thrive?...and can you prove it? and then answer follow questions?

Trolls against McCain

I never said that we haven't experienced prosperity under the Democrats, but I do believe the they are responsible for the bulk of our spending problems. When you start huge bureaucracies it's almost impossible to keep Government spending from growing out of control.

JFK understood how to create economic prosperity, but most Democrats since think Government is the answer to all problems and punishing the rich is worthy goal even if it results in lower revenues.

One of the reasons I said "relatively low taxes" is because the level to which taxes can be raised without hurting growth and reducing revenues is dependent on the current economic conditions. If the economy is booming and you raise taxes a few percentage points you will increase revenues to a certain point. Even in a booming economy there's a point at which raising tax rates will actually reduce revenues. In a slow economy raising tax rates will almost always reduce revenues.

The problem with the liberal approach to the economy is that they believe the higher the tax rate the higher the revenues. If they were smart they would cut capital gains and corporate taxes to stimulate long term growth in the economy and then raise income taxes on all Americans making 60k up. Broad based tax increases are the only kind that raise significant revenues. This would provide the massive revenues they desire and with a booming economy nobody would even notice. Instead they will cut taxes for those that don't pay taxes anyway and raise the capital gains tax resulting in stagnant growth. There are plenty of Democrats out there that understand this is the wrong approach, Obama, Pelosi and Reid just doesn't happen to be among them.

Did you read the information that was linked?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE