Debt limit will be reached on Monday...government shut down

yes, the best leaders have more for their constituents

 

Just so we are clear... You feel under every circumstance, the leaders who have the most money will do better for their country?

 

just so we're are clear

your idiotic assertions have no merit

 

just so were are clear

your idiotic replies have no merit

 

parrot please

 

I see you are still a pale comparison to Kojak.

 

Like this?

 

Think about that question for a second.........

 

i'm nothing like kojak

 

I would like to make a case for the specifically enumerated power to pay the debts of the United States; that may merely be faithfully executed by the executive branch.

Part of the doctrine of separation of powers is a federal Congress, that can deliberate the exigencies of the Union; and a function and Obligation of the House of Representatives, to ensure that appropriations provide the means to achieve the end.

 

GDP growth slowed after his tax rate increase went into effect. So what about the bubble, the dot.com boom, he tried to squash when he sent his DOJ after Microsoft?

The recovery was strong than predicted yet his tax increase slowed the recovery and slowed the growth of GDP and tax revenues. Remember he even admitted he raised taxes too much.

Yes, if they had been Democrats and claimed that tax revenue growth would increase if we raised taxes and that GDP growth would increase if we raised taxes.

 

I think the liar is the one who tried to use statistics to prove a lie. Clinton INHERITED a strong recovery, he didn't create it. Did the GDP growth go higher or lower after the Clinton tax rate increases went into full effect? It was headed for 5% it fell to 2.5%.

1991 -0.2
1992 3.4
1993 2.9
1994 4.1
1995 2.5
1996 3.7
1997 4.5
1998 4.4
1999 4.8
2000 4.1
2001 1.1
2002 1.8
2003 2.5
2004 3.6
2005 3.1
2006 2.7
2007 1.9
2008 0.0
2009 -2.6

It got back on track AFTER he was forced to sign the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts. And you already know that tax revenue growth slowed AFTER he increased the rate when according to yours and his economic theory that growth rate should have increased dramatically. Then during the Bush43 recovery where we had full employment for 52 months we had solid GDP growth but more importantly productivity growth. When everyone is working business invest in productivity.

Productivity gains
1947-1973 2.8
1973-1979 1.1
1979-1990 1.4
1990-2000 2.1
2000-2007 2.5
2007-2011 1.8

 

Where is a similar accomplishment by the republicans?

 

Average GDP growth under Clinton was better than Reagan, Bush or Bush.

Average GDP growth after the Bush tax cuts were supposed to spur the economy has been well below the average of the last 6 decades.

Well golly, good point. I mean, why would anyone expect tax revenues to increase if you raise taxes? .

- - - Updated - - -

So what if Clinton inherited a growing economy?

Conservatives all told us that his tax increase which flooded the Treasury with revenues and balanced the budget would wreck the economy and destroy jobs.

Could they have been more wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

So what if Clinton inherited a growing economy?

Conservatives all told us that his tax increase which flooded the Treasury with revenues and balanced the budget would wreck the economy and destroy jobs.

Could they have been more wrong?

 

The reason for those numbers are BECAUSE of republican accomplishments. Clinton came in on a strong recovery, not a stagnant economy. He slowed that recovery and resultant tax revenues with his tax rate increase. It was the welfare reform he was FORCED to sign that brought unemployment down and created more tax payers and it was the capital gains tax rate cut he OPPOSED that sent revenues soaring and spurred the economy into even stronger growth and the spending restraint the Republicans FORCED on him that balanced the budget.

 

He didn't create it as asserted, his tax rate increase did not cause it as asserted.

The recovery was even stronger than predicited, but what it did was slow that recovery costing jobs and tax revenues. As you know even Clinton admitted he raised taxes too much as he was getting flak for the tepid recovery as it slowed down.

Slowed that growth in revenues which did not get back on track and hit the double digits it WAS headed before the Clinton tax increase until he was forced to sign welfare reform and tax rate cuts, thank you Republicans.

Yes they could have been Democrats and claimed the tax rate hikes would increase the growth in tax revenues and economic growth. It slowed it.

- - - Updated - - -

He didn't create it as asserted, his tax rate increase did not cause it as asserted.

The recovery was even stronger than predicited, but what it did was slow that recovery costing jobs and tax revenues. As you know even Clinton admitted he raised taxes too much as he was getting flak for the tepid recovery as it slowed down.

Slowed that growth in revenues which did not get back on track and hit the double digits it WAS headed before the Clinton tax increase until he was forced to sign welfare reform and tax rate cuts, thank you Republicans.

Yes they could have been Democrats and claimed the tax rate hikes would increase the growth in tax revenues and economic growth. It slowed it.

 

Why have the republicans been unable to achieve anything similar, with republican administrations?

 

Here the data on how the economy "slowed" with the Clinton tax increase compared to other recent periods:

Average annual real growth during Carter: 3.26%
Average annual real growth during Reagan: 3.40%
Average annual real growth during Bush1: 2.15%
Average annual real growth during Reagan & Bush1: 3.0%
Average annual real growth during Clinton: 3.87%
Average annual real growth during Bush2: 2.03%

Source data: BEA.gov.

LOL, no, let's get our history straight. What conservatives of the time predicted was that Clinton's tax increase would wreck the economy and kill jobs.



Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL), Los Angeles Times, 5/28/93: They will remember who let loose this deadly virus into our economic bloodstream.

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93: I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 8/5/93: Do you know what? This is your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter...

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) 2/2/93: I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93: This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to become a Democrat...

Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), 8/5/93: The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse.

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), 5/27/93: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy.

Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL), 8/5/93: ...This bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), 3/17/93: ...will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit.

Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), 3/18/93: ...a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster.

On jobs:

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 5/27/93: ...your economic program is a job killer.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), 8/5/93: The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates. Like so many of the President's past promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax.

Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA), 8/4/93: The simple fact is that the Clinton plan will not lower interest rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it will no lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), 5/27/93: The votes we will take today will not be soon forgotten by the American voter. [They] will lead to more taxes, higher inflation, and slower economic growth.

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), GOP News Conference, Senate Gallery, 8/3/93: Come next year... we're going to find out whether we have higher deficits, we're going to find out whether we have a slower economy, we're going to find out what's going to happen to interest rates, and it's our bet that this is a job killer.

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy.

Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93: It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending.

Rep. Dick Armey, CNN, 2/18/93: I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction. It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy.

Rep. Clifford Stearns (R-FL), 3/17/93: ...It will be the kind of impact that this country can't absorb. It will slow economic growth, contribute to the massive federal deficit....

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), 8/4/93: ...It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over one million jobs.


http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/15/92441/0913/399/636
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/08/10/173450/1993-quotes/?mobile=nc

++++

Instead of these (same) predictions coming true, we had the longest period of sustained growth post GD, 22 million net jobs added, the lowest level of poverty ever, stock markets tripled, unemployment dropping to the lowest level in decades, and the best average GDP growth since the 1960s.

Could the conservatives have been more wrong?

 

Not even that. US Debt obligations mature and become due every day. As soon as they are paid, new debt obligations of the same amount would be issued to take their place, without exceeding the debt limit.

 

Who asserted that? Quote and link please.

You are fabricating again.

See above. Despite conservative bogus claims that Clinton's tax increase would wreck the economy and kill jobs, and your bogus claim that economic growth slowed, Clinton had the longest and strongest GDP growth since the 1960s after his tax increase.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

LOL, this same old fib.

Year - Revenues 2005$:

Reagan
1980 1197.6
1988 1421.1
% growth revenues: +18.6%

Clinton
1992 1467.5
2000 2310.0
% growth revenues: +57.4%

Bush
2000 2310.0
2008 2286.8
% growth revenues: -1.0%


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Everyone can see how slow revenue growth was under Clinton compared to his tax cutting contemporaries.

They did increase revenues and we had the strongest and longest GDP growth under Clinton with the best job growth. How would that make them more wrong than the Republicans' claims that the Clinton tax increase would wreck the economy and kill jobs?

 

Iriemon

Clinton had a good economy because Newt and the republicans demanded a balanced budget, and shut down the govt to make clinton pay attention.

unlike obama, clinton was smart enough to understand what needed to be done.

 

And, here are the changes in Revenues as a percentage of GDP for the three presidents' terms. The beginning years differ from yours by one year since, if a president were elected in say 19xx, then 19xx+1 would represent the results of their first fiscal year performance.

Changes in Revenues - % GDP

Reagan
1981 19.6% GDP
1988 18.2% GDP
% growth revenues: -1.4% GDP

Clinton
1993 17.5% GDP
2000 20.6% GDP
% growth revenues: +3.1% GDP

Bush
2001 19.5% GDP
2008 17.6 %GDP
% growth revenues: -1.9% GDP

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z3.xls

 

Thanks for the right wing propaganda version.

The truth is that Clinton passed the Deficit Reduction act in 1993 against the opposition of every Republican.

They economy was already growing well, and the then record deficit Clinton inherited was already dramatically reduced, before the Republicans took power in 1995.

Newt and the Republicans tried to force Clinton into accepting huge tax cuts, but Clinton, knowing these tax cuts would drive the deficits back up, used his veto power to stop their efforts, though he did compromise with a small capital gains tax cut in 1997.

In 2001, the Republicans got their way, and the golden opportunity of a surplus was squandered and we had new record deficits within a couple years.

Agreed. Clinton used the Democratic majority he had in the first couple years to pass the tax increase. Though conservatives claimed it would wreck the economy and kill jobs, the economy boomed, and the extra revenues from the tax increase changed a record deficit into a surplus.

Obama should have done the same. However, he promised to keep the Bush tax cuts for folks making less than $250k, and faced with the worst recession in 80 years, he compromised with the Republicans and extended the Bush tax cuts. And unfortunately, recently compromised again, and extended the Bush tax cuts on incomes less than $450k. That has essentially gutted the revenue producing capability.

That was the main reason I supported Clinton over Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice job. As we can see from the figures you posted, revenues related to GDP fell with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, and grew with the Clinton tax increase.

As any objective person would expect.

 

So did we actually hit it?

It's Wednesday and the USA is still here.

 

Maybe we should try to convince our federal Congress, to simply change their rules to prohibit themselves from running for re-election, whenever they find it too difficult to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States?