Economy Does Better Under Democrats

More wack-a-mole I see.

State and local governments had nothing to do with the federal budget.

So you opposed cutting federal spending which lowered the deficits but then praise Obama for cutting the deficit. Talking out both sides of your mouth[/QUOTE]

And again where did you get the idea Presidents alone control the budget and not Congress.

2008 and 2009 were Democrat budgets budgets. If Obama inherited anything it was budgets the Democrats passed and oh yes he was one of them. Noted how you delete the spending increases from 2007 to 2009 out of your numbers the two years where Democrats, including Senator and the President Obama, raised spending 9% and the 18%.

 

Funny! Yeah that Great Recession sure was GREAT!

 

I also gave you the National Taxpayers Union. Want the Federal Reserve?
https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publicat...pring-2006/Income-Taxes-Who-Pays-and-How-Much

CBO
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44604

 

Once again both are nefariously limited to federal individual/household income taxes that represent less than 1/2 of federal revenue and neither dispute the information on productivity v wages from the EPI study.

 

Its the recovery under the Democrats and Obama that has sucked. The recession ended over 6 years ago.

 

We are discussing INCOME TAXES and the share paid by the income groups. And yes that does make up the majority of general revenue for the government your statement is only true if you include SS and Medicare which are specific benefit programs which the lower income groups get reimbursed.

 

The distinction is he lied

 

The poster is fallaciously trying to atrribute ALL government employment, federal state and local, to Presidents and then leaves out the Democrat spending increases in 2008, 9%, and 2009, 18%.

A phony use of the numbers again.

 

I'm discussing taxation that funds government and not individual forms of taxation that can be nefariously used to draw false conclusions about who's carrying the tax burden when it comes to funding government.

It's also ironic to note that Social Security/Medicare funded by working Americans has never contributed to one dime of the national debt while general expenditures predominately funded by income taxes are responsible for all of the over $18 trillion in national debt because we don't generate enough revenue from income taxes to actually fund the expenditures they're supposed to pay for.

 

The 2008 and 2009 federal budgets were signed into law by a Republican President so they can't be blamed solely upon the Democrats in Congress. They were bipartisan budgets because both parties were responsible for them.

Only if Congressional Democrats over-rode a presidential veto could they be called Democratic budgets but that didn't happen.

 

Hint: You see where I put "source data" in my post? That means those are the links to the source data for my figures.

From which RW propaganda source did you get the bizarre notion that there are only federal government workers?

You're wrong again. The figures I posted are nowhere on that page.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know what poster you're referring to, but if it me, you're being fallacious again. I attributed no such thing.

 

What post are you referring to in which I praise Obama for cutting the deficit?

The partial repeal of the Bush tax cuts that Obama championed, however, were the largest factor in bringing the deficit down. There was no need to put the country through spending cut austerity.

Except to undermine the recovery for political purposes.

And again where did you get the idea that I got the idea that Presidents alone control the budget and not Congress

Your baseless blather has been disproven here too many times to count by conservative sources I've posted. But don't let the truth stop you. It never has in the past.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit


Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

 

This kind of partisan spin is just baloney. Presidents do not have that kind of control over the economy - Congress has far more control. Then there's the issue of lag - it's not as if economic policies which create bubbles see them explode in the same Congressional tetm. Likewise, economic policies which are good for the long term don't see massive short term positive benefits.

Then there's a lot of similar bogus talking points. "States run by Democrats are better off". Sure, that'd true by many measures - but that's correlation, not caudation. On the flipside, states run by Republicans are improving far faster, with far stronger gdp growth - but that isn't a good comparison either. States with super strong economies have, in a sense, peaked - it's far easier to play catch up. And many red states are benefiting from energy booms - not exactly a reflection of the quality of state policies.

Foe the most part, this is all partisan baloney, and most people babbling about this stuff aren't even interested in reality,just in playing the partisan game - just wanting to think they're right for the sake of thinking they're right.

 

I agree that people overestimate the President's role in the economy, though he (or she) certain can have a significant effect with their policies.

But a president can have a much more pronounced effect on the budget by their power or influence over the legislation.

Without Clinton, there was no major tax increase in 1993 and no surplus budget. Without Bush, there are no huge tax cuts and squandering the surplus.

 

Again, it's all just partisan baloney to me. Yeah, without Clinton there wouldn't have been a surplus - coincidentally something which happened only after the GOP took possession of Congress. And yeah, w/o Bush there wouldn't have been the massive deficits - something that coincidentally happened after Democrats took control of Congress (as far as the "squandered" surplus, the surplus was small, and it'd oh so widely acknowledged that the surplus was dead as soon as the Internet bubble popped, something completely beyond Bush's control). There was record deficit spending under Obama's first couple years, again coincidentally when the Democrats were in control of Congress, and then the deficit coincidentally plummeted when Republicans took control of Congress. ^_-

Again, the President's role in the economy is daily compared to the role of Congress, and as much as some patterns might seem to play out (even the GOP counter that deficit spending in the last couple decades was only horrible under Democratic legislatures), the underlying factors that make real good or bad years aren't the fault of the sitting Congress or President.

 

This is the same figure you posted

The point is he never cut employment by the federal government. It has done nothing but grow.

 

Nope, you're wrong once again. As anyone can see, the number 518,000 appears nowhere on my post:

No, the point is that you are wrong about where I got my numbers, you're wrong about government employment falling by more than half a million, you're wrong because no one said anything about just federal workers, and in fact, you're even wrong about federal government workers:

Total federal government workers
Jan 2009 2.786 million
Oct 2015 2.733 million
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

The point is, when Reagan and Bush were in office, spending and government employment increased dramatically, helping power the economy into robust economy.

Yet with Obama in office, since the Republican took the House, spending has been cut (dramatically relative to GDP) and government employment has declined dramatically.

Why has there been a net decrease in about 1.4 million government workers under Obama compared to Reagan or Bush?

So the economy will be weaker so conservatives can blaaaame Obaaaaaama for the recovery has not been robust enough.

As we see here most every day.

 

Your facts are a little off which is why it may seem like "partisan baloney".

The truth is the deficit was already falling dramatically after Clinton's tax increase, and before the Republicans took Congress, we were well on our way to the surplus, and nothing the Republicans did changed that. In fact, they were pushing massive tax cuts, which Clinton's veto blocked until Bush got into office.

The truth is that while the the surplus may have declined due to a slower economy (which never grew less than 3.3% in any year in the early 2000s), the surplus was squandered by a combination of huge tax cuts and huge spending increases that were quickly employed under Bush and the Republicans.

The truth is, the surplus had been squandered and we had new record deficits well before the Dems took Congress in 2007.

What I see is conservatives making false equivalencies and making claims such as your because they refuse to acknowledge what is only logical -- liberal policies such as the large tax increase in 1993 (combined with controlled spending growth) is what got us to the surplus. They don't acknowledge that obvious fact because, for ideological and political purposes, they cling to the "voodoo economics" notion that Republicans sell that we can not increase but massively cut taxes and somehow have better revenue growth. They're selling the same nonsense today because they want to cut taxes ever more, because apparently they're not satisfied with the richest one percent getting about 20% of the nation's income have having about 40% of the nation's wealth.

There is one point I'll agree with you -- what we have not seen is any significant improvement in economic growth after massive tax cuts or decline after tax increases. The contrary, actually. But tax policies most definitely affect the budget.

 

Yes yours says 540000. Pretty close.

 

Sure you do as I have refuted your phony statement in the past many times over.

 

It was the full employment and rising private sector incomes and lower tax rates that drove the economy. Once the Democrats took back control in 2007 it all went to pot and there HUGE spending increases did nothing except drive up the deficits to $1,400B.

Yes the spending restraint he opposes, the sequester he opposes, both of which you have opposed.

Why? You say it has hurt the economy.

 

The truth is Clinton came in on strong revenue growth and his tax increase slowed that growth and he requested MORE spending that Congress authorized and it took the Republicans to get it back on track which produced the surpluses.

The truth is the revenue drop occurred before the tax rate cuts were fully implimented and after they were accelerated revenues soared and had us on track to a balanced budget again, a 2007 defelicit of a measly $161B which the new Democrat Confess squander and in just two years increased it to a WHOPPING $1,400B and kept it over $1,000B for the next 4 years.

2007 deficit was $161B, his close did the Democrats get to that?

Wrong again, the 1993 rate increase cost us tax revenue.

History proves you wrong.

While you are satisified with the worst unemployment, falling incomes, more people on welfare, highest deficits and HUGE debt increase under the Democrats as opposed to the 52 months of full employment, rising incomes, rapidly falling deficits that tbw Democrats couldn't even come close to the WORST under the Republicans.

 

The Democrats took control of the congress and the budget in 2007, why do you keep misrepresenting that fact?

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.



Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-, that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.”
http://dailysignal.com/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/

Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

 

Those surpluses were a result of massive borrowing from social security and Medicare surpluses. As far as number of federal workers employed means nothing until you add in all state workers as well. Between state and federal workers they employ the highest number of workers compared to other areas of employment.

 

Wrong again, revenues exploded after the Clinton tax increase, getting us to a surplus, that was quickly squandered by the Bush tax cuts and spending spree.

The truth is as I proved revenues exploded after the Clinton tax increase leading to a 236 billion surplus and sucked after the Bush tax cut.

236 billion surplus. How close did Bush get to that? Oh yeah, he squandered it and wasted a golden opportunity to pay down the debt.

Wrong again, revenues exploded after the 1993 rate increase.

Bluesguy made up history.

Bush and the Republicans controlled the government while the housing bubble blew up to absurd levels causing the Great Recession, sorry.