From Dembloggers - Republican Economic Spin exposed!

[Coexist]

A Refutation of Republican Economic Talking Points
http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/7/24/6278/65990
<snip>
Ronald Reagan started his term with total debt outstanding of 930 million and increased total debt outstanding to 2.7 trillion. This is a 13.71% compound annual increase. He never balanced a budget.

Bush I started his term with outstanding debt of 2.7 trillion and increased total debt to 4 trillion. This is a 10.32% compounded annual increase. He never balanced a budget.

Clinton started with total debt outstanding debt of 4 trillion and increased total debt outstanding to 5.6 trillion. This is a 4.2% compounded annual increase. He balanced his last three budgets.

Bush II started with 5.6 total outstanding debt and increased total outstanding debt to 7.7 trillion. This is a 6.5% annual increase. He has never balanced a budget.

For 25 years the Republicans have held the presidency for 17 of the last 25 years. They have never balanced a budget and have increased total debt outstanding 11.69% in each year they have held the White House.

The Democrats have held the White House for 8 of the last 25 years. They have balanced the budget 3 times and increased total debt outstanding 4.2%.

[BamaLefty]

1. But Gays Can't Get Married!

Damn, FLDem5, why can't you frikkin get it?!?!


:eyes:

[Coexist]

3. I must be dense!

LOL! I'll work on that. My priorities are so screwed up.

[BamaLefty]

24. You Do That

Liberal SOB :P

[fooj]

2. Don't forget Jimmy.

Peace.

[Coexist]

4. He balanced the budget too, didn't he?

I'll google it.

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/jec/chron.phtml
<snip>
March 14
Anti-inflation program announced; balanced budget sent to Congress

[fooj]

17. Woo hoo!

Peace.

[BrainRants]

5. Help me understand the term "total debt outstanding"

I'm Joe Six Pack, and I don't get that term.

For example in the last sentence "They have balanced the budget 3 times and increased total debt outstanding 4.2%" That means the Dems increased the debt 4.2% compared to 11.69 for Repubs?

It seems that we're the "least worst" at budgets, right?

(Not trying to start a flame, just trying to understand the numbers)

[Coexist]

9. the 4.2% number is for Clinton's early term before the balance

It was not (from what I read) an average of his 8 years. There was a projected surplus when Bush II took over.

[Union Thug]

6. To explain conservative economics...

to those that just don't seem to get it (and I live in a predominantly working class / low income area), I give them this simple fact...

The Repukes don't want you to have a minimum wage. They want you to compete wages against people in poverty stricken nations. They say that your declining wages and benefits are all part of a better, magical world of invisible hands that make us all the better...In short, and this is key...

The conservative message is this: The LESS money you make, the better off you are! Figure that one out!

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. Remind me again who the party of fiscal responsibility is?

Or rather who claims to be, while doing the exact opposite? Hey freeptards, care to comment on this? I won't hold my breath.

[Talismom]

12. Don't bother, they won't answer. Yes, which is the party of fiscal

responsibility, or that supports our veterans,or that knows how to keep the US secure, or "values" or. . .


The reality is, it's been the party of two-bit war-mongering thugs for the past 50 or so years and it's time to the public to wake up and smell the coffee!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[central scrutinizer]

22. Republican economics 101

1. Assume you are a Republican Congress critter. First off, auction off your vote to the highest bidders, then load up spending bills with enough greasy pork to keep them all happy. And don't forget to extort a lot of foreign junkets and golf trips, er, I mean, fact finding missions out of them as well. Let the "free market" (actually corporate socialism) steer the market wherever the hell it wants to go. You are too busy shacking up with your mistresses and interns in between photo ops with televangelists.

2. If the economy is doing well, despite your negligence, take credit. In fact, whichever branch of the government is controlled by Republicans, takes credit. This gets into a real turf war when the executive branch, House and Senate are all in Republican hands. Then you have to try to elbow your way in front of the cameras. If the economy is doing well, but Republicans are not in control of any branch of government, go back in time to the last time Republicans were in control and give them the credit and say that things would be going even better if the Democrats hadn't fucked it up.

3. If the economy is not doing well, and the Democrats are in power of even one branch of government, then obviously it is their fault and it is time to sweep them out of office. If the economy is not doing well, and Republicans are in power, go back in time and blame which ever branch of government was last controlled by Democrats and say that it would be doing a lot worse if you hadn't righted the ship.

[Pallas180]

8. The Federal REserve/Greenspan is a PRIVATE bank - your post indicates

republiCONS work for the Federal Reserve BAnk to increase their own profits.

[Coexist]

10. it's not my personal post, it's from Dembloggers.

and it is pretty damning to supply-siders, IMO.

[dogday]

11. Nominated because everyone needs to

see what the Republicans do when they have the power. They spend it.....

[Talismom]

14. They spend it on insuring that they can continue to steal it! n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

27. Don't you remember what Bush said November 3rd?

Remember that press conference? When he "won"? He said he got "political capital" and he was "going to spend it" and he obviously didn't give a damn. He said he would work with everybody but you know damn well he doesn't care anything about anyone. He said he would work with people who "share his goals" and I knew right then and there that wasn't us.

[hfojvt]

13. I am not sure Clinton ever balanced a budget

Because the surplus in each of those last three budgets was from Social Security. It should never have been considered part of the budget because it came with the unfunded liability of future baby boomer retirements.

Also, remember that Bush II and Reagan inherited recessions unlike Clinton. You probably have forgotten the awesome economy that Clinton inherited from Reagan/Bush, so here is a real-time quote:
"Americans have been unable to mount a convincing economic recovery ... the economy is crawling forward so slowly that it appears to be standing still." (9/10/92 Washington Post, quoted by Begala)

No wait, that isn't right, how about this one: "First came the recession, which began in July '90 and seemed to end in early '91. Then there was the disappointing stall the second half of last year - not another recession, but enough of a slowdown in sales and rise in unemployment to get people talking about a double dip economy. Now there are rumblings of a triple dip." (7/23/92 USA Today ibid)

So, you can see how the economy started roaring in the early 90s until it was brought down by, by a blow-job. Yeah a blow-job, that's the ticket. Made things almost impossible for poor JR Bush, but he managed to get things revving with a couple huge tax cuts and a war or two. Yeah, tax cuts and wars, that's the ticket. Now everybody's happy. Yeah, happy, can't you feel the excitement?

[Coexist]

15. the surplus was supposed to pay for the Social security crisis

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/budget062999.htm
<snip>
"Clinton, for instance, matched Republican proposals that all Social Security taxes -- a significant source of the budget surpluses -- be spent solely on the retirement program, rather than diverted toward other purposes as they have been for many years. Without acknowledging it, he even borrowed the GOP's slogan about creating a "lockbox" to prevent raids on Social Security."

The rest of your post was very funny, though!!!

[Greyhound]

16. Sorry, but I've got to call your bullshit...

as one who ran a business during the last raygunz and king george the first administration, the economy was far from "awesome". if fact, it sucked. Real wages declined, disposable income was something we had vague recollections of. Sure the financial industry (can you say campaign contributor?) was booming, due entirely to the trillions going into 401(k)'s. They cynically skewed the calculations to give the finance sector disproportionate weight, so they could tell us how great we were doing. Similarly to how they "updated" the cost of living calculation, to tell us we're doing great. Your parents could buy a house, and a car, and food, and pay the bills, with 1 job, not even a great job, a factory line worker, for example. How many jobs does that take now?
I hate revisionists.
Unless you're being sarcastic. In that case, please disregard this.

[Pallas180]

18. The point is this country has been in the grips of the private banks

Federal Reserve since the 30's or was it the 40's? when Americans had to turn in all their gold and were not allowed to hold gold.

Where do you think the gold went to?

It was turned over to the consortium of banks called the Federal Reserve WHICH IS A PRIVATE BANK. IT IS NOT AMERICA'S BANK OR A FEDERAL GOVERNEMTN BANK.

And Greenspan and the Federal Reserve are in business to make money and have contro of the world, not make life cushy for Americans or any other country.

There's a whole history here, which I am not qualified to explain, but essentially what we are seeing is the Conservatives ARE the neocons ARE the "let's take control of the world and make everyone else "sharecroppers" as Warren Buffett tried to warn us.

[Greyhound]

20. You're writing to a real tinfoil hat enthusiast on this topic...

it was 1912 when the federal reserve banking act was passed in the middle of the christmas recess by, you guessed it, a republican cabal that had stayed in washington for just this purpose. It was the final objective of an open conspiracy that came out of the Jekyll Island meetings. It was required because of the constitutional requirements for congress to control the coining of money and prohibition of interest.
It was, many believe the last vestige of the America our founders envisioned. :tinfoilhat:

[Pallas180]

21. Nothing tinfoil about it... CAn you pls do links to the history of it

so that the many DU'ers who know nothing about it, can also understand?

Thanks Greyhound

[Greyhound]

23. sure, here's one

http://federal-reserve.net/secrets.htm

they tend to move around but it gives you the gist.
Also, reading the debates from the constitutional convention regarding section eight, clause 5 "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" makes their intentions quite clear to me. The reason for doing the census every 10 years was so they knew how much currency to put into the system.

[Pallas180]

19. recommended for greatest page - done

[ScamUSA.Com]

25. so in the last 25 years the national debt has gone up by 800000% ?

1 Billion -> 7.7 Trillion?

whatever that is... too many zeroes to track.

fuckin reagan

[oscar111]

26. OP needs simpler language if you want to reach the voters

too many unneeded adjectives.

eg "outstanding debt" shd be "debt"

eg instead of annual rate of things, just state the total increase over the four years.

That is if you want to reach the average voter, not just econ junkies and PhD's.

[Pallas180]

28. Oscar's right. The simpler it's made, the better understood by average joe

and jane..

and that includes me...nothing more boring than debenture debit to the withheld assets etc etc,....

[rniel]

29. Then why do people think of republicans as

The ones who balance the budget.

[Coexist]

30. Good question!

Wish I had the answer.