National Debt Summary President Increase in Debt Annual Increase Debt as a % ofGDP Jimmy Carter 49.1% 10.5% 33.3% Ronald Reagan 188.2% 14.1% 52.6% George H. W. Bush 46.2% 9.9% 65.9% Bill Clinton 13.7% 1.6% 57.7% George W. Bush to 2004 26.0% 5.9% 64.8% I was just browsing through wikipedia, because I realized my knowledge is highly inadequate and found this figure. Does this mean Republicans are bad for the economy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_USA
It seems like the absolute worst combination you can have in government is a Republican controll of both the Executive and Leglistative branches. These guys give new meaning to the phrase, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic." Cheers, Will
How would we btw define economic success? The figure was an indicator of national debt. It would seem logical that less is better. What are other important factors in economic success?
It is more difficult to measure economic success of a presidency because things do not change overnight. Many policies/bills from the previous administration stay in effect in the new administration. Could the numbers reflect the previous presidency's policies? If so, then the numbers show that the democratic presidents caused more debt. At least it makes Reagan look great, Clinton look better than average, and Jimmy Carter the worst of them. Everyone knows that democrats want larger government. Larger government means more expenses, so IMO, the numbers reflect what we already know about the spending habits of Democrats vs Republicans. Not that debt is a bad thing, we have yet to establish on this thread what a healthy economy looks like and how to measure it.
So, Spurious, do you actually think that all congressional/governmental bills/laws/etc that were passed under the Clinton administration were suddenly cancelled as soon as President Bush took office? That nothing is held over from other administrations? Baron Max
I have been reading a few articles on the net. It's difficult to form an unbiased opinion. Most articles seem to be written with a political view in mind. Hence I do not dare to form an opinion yet. On the topic of Reagan it seems he did some very nice things for the economy. However, not everything was smelling like roses. On the budget deficit: Another side note: Is what is good for the economy also automatically good for society. The US is the strongest/biggest economy in the world. How come they can't afford a basic social welfare system? How come that an economy that is rated much lower, such as that of Finland, can afford to have an extensive social welfare system? What is the point of having the strongest economy if large subsets of society have to suffer for it?
In all seriousness, it's important to try and separate ones political beliefs from their economic ones. I’ll be upfront with you all; I’m not a big fan of the Republican Party. I’ve got a degree in Economics and am a current law school student. I am 22, so I’ve only had one chance to vote in a Presidential election, and during this past election I chose who I thought the best candidate was and voted for Kerry. However, I’m a big believe in conservative physical policy and liberal social policy. I know that sounds like a libertarian, but for reasons I won’t post here, I feel that it’s better to pick the lesser to two evils from the major political parties. Now that I’ve set up my background, I’ll get back to the topic at hand. Jaylee makes a great point that not everything that happens to a President can be directly attributed to their actions. Do we blame Bush I for the terrible economy Clinton inherited, or do we blame it for the inevitable failure of Regan’s Supply Side economic theories? It seems rather difficult to determine why the economy was bad when Clinton took office, but it certainly did get better after he did. So, how gets credit for that turn around? At face value, you credit the success to Clinton. But, Bush I did reign in the tremendous amount of Government spending somewhat, and he did have the courage to raise taxes before he left office. Those two facts do deserve some credit for the robust economy during Clinton’s term. But, what if Bush I had been elected for a second term? I think that the economy would have improved, but not like it did with Clinton. I think either Bush I or Clinton would have benefited from the Tech boom, but Clinton and more specifically Robert Rubin’s sound money management and physical discipline really added the framework for our nation to handle the tech catalysts given them. So much of being President in terms of running the economy is exercising physical discipline, and managing catalysts (either downward or upward) given them. A President can’t make a economy boom alone. They need smart moves by congress, business, and a dose of good luck to make it work. This doesn’t divorce them from responsibility for the economy though. When Bush II was elected, he downplayed the economy. I’ll never forget a press conference he had with Clinton shortly after he was elected. A reporter asked Bush what he planned to do about the economy when he took over. He said something to the effect that, “We need to stimulate the economy through a tax cut, we’re in a recession.” Clinton then jumped in and said that we hadn’t had enough quarters of negative growth to be in a recession. Besides the fact that Bush II couldn’t recognize a recession when it actually occurred, look at what economic message he was presenting. If you’re President is talking about a recession what does that do for consumer confidence? If you tell the public that you’re going to give them a tax cut because we’re about to go into a recession, what does that do? It certainly lowers consumer confidence and lowers the growth consumption levels. Either way, Bush came back in and began to implement some of Regan’s Supply Side economic initiates. On top of that, he threw physical discipline to the wind by cutting taxes dramatically while raising government spending. This policy only works in a few situations, depressions and world wars. We were and are not in either. To sum it up, do I give Clinton credit for the robust economy he presided over? Mostly. Do I think our economy would be better Clinton’s economic policies were still in effect? Absolutely. http://www.kirbyonfinance.com Please visit Kirby on Finance!
Republicans are thieves. People have memory like a sieve. The combination means the Republicans will be forever rich. During the Reagan era, the Republicans looted and destroyed the S and L industry. Find someone now who even remembers that. The main man behind most of it, the Israeli Michael Milken, went to a federal play camp for a year or two after he paid 500 million bribe to the government so he could keep the other 500 million he stole. This thief that destroyed the S and L industry is now a philanthropist in California. Spending his millions on PR that says Michael Milken is a good charitable man, instead of a crook that stole the life savings of thousands of people. It is mind boggling how these criminals get away with this stuff. Of course, Bush said Iraq had WMD. When Iraq had no WMD, nothing happened, Not even a slap on the wrist. Murdering thousands of people, destroying a country, all on a lie. With no punishment whatsoever. Someone stealing a soda from a mini mart would get more punishment that Bush or the neo con cabal recieved for lying about WMD and killing thousands of people.
Are there no rich Democrats? Are there no Democrats who own and operate companies/corporations? And since Democrats do actually get elected, does that mean that there are actually a lot of Democrats in the nation? If not, how do they get elected? Baron Max
It is a rich people thing, not a Republicans vs. Democrats thing, true the world over. About a year ago in Brazil a simple, illiterate farmer cut some bark from a tree to make a tea for his sick wife. (Folk medicine is very big here.) He of course went to jail for this environmental crime. In the Amazon, rich people employ 50 man strong crews of chain saw operators and bulldozers to get the logs out, but they are honored members of the community, and often either its elected officials or the ones who finance their campaigns. George will get his $100,000 "honoriums" for after dinner speeches to oil company executives etc, when he retires. All legal and earned - he did get the exclusively French and Russian oil contracts in Iraq all cancelled so his friends / campaign's biggest supporters could sign new ones.
