My conclusion about repub/dem handling of the economy
I was bored so I did a little study.
Now i'm no expert but I do have a little intelligence so I reviewed some facts and came to some conclusions based on those facts and this is what I came up with. an informal study.
sorry if it's disorganized, i tried as best I could. i'm sure there's many grammer/spelling errors. oh and it might seem long but it isn't, it's many pics and spaces. enjoy
---------------------------------------------------
1. GDP and the President
---------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by jmjselect
-1 Democratic president left office with a higher gdp than when he entered office.
-5 democratic presidents left office with a lower gdp than when he entered.
conclusion: democratics generally leave office with a worse gdp than when they entered.
Originally Posted by jmjselect
-4(i'll count bush2 since the gdp is higher now than when he entered office) republican presidents left office with a higher gdp than when he entered.
-2 republican presidents left office with a lower gdp than when he entered.
conclusion: republicans generally leave office with a better gdp than when they entered.
overall conclusion: republicans generally handle the economy better than democrats.
---------------------------------------------------
2. tax increase compared to tax cuts:
---------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by jmjselect
-4 times when the top marginal tax rates were raised(more taxes) the gdp went up
-3 times when the top marginal tax rates were raised the gdp went up
conclusion: the gdp could really go either way when taxes are raised(other factors would have to be factored in as to why the gdp goes up or down compared to taxes)
Originally Posted by jmjselect
-4 times when the top marginal tax rates were cut the gdp went up
-4 times when the top marginal tax rates were cut the gdp went down.
conclusion: the gdp could really go either way when taxes are cut(other factors would have to be factored in as to why the gdp goes up or down compared to taxes)
Originally Posted by -------------pre-70's economy(bad economy tax effects)--------------
-2 tax increases gdp went up
-3 tax increases gdp went down
-1 tax cut gdp went up
-4 tax cuts gdp went down
conclusion: tax increases could affect a bad economy either way. tax cuts ruins gdp in a bad economy.
Originally Posted by -------------post 70's economy(good economy tax effects)--------------
-1 tax increase gdp went up
-1 tax increase gdp went down
-3 tax cuts gdp went up
conclusion: tax increases could go either way in a good economy. tax cuts have always increased gdp.
overall conclusion: in a good economy the best thing to do is to cut taxes. in a bad economy the best thing to do is the raise taxes(with the knowledge that it could go either way).
----------------------------------------------------
3. which party tends to enter a recession/depression? which party pulls the economy out of a recession/depression better than the other?
---------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by jmjselect
-5 democrats have entered a ression/depression and continued the ression/depression
-2 democrats have entered a great economy and leaving office with a recession/depression
-1 democrat has entered a ression/despression and turned it into a great economy.
conclusion: democrats tend to be the ones who enter recessions/depressions
Originally Posted by jmjselect
-2 republicans have entered a ression/depression and made the ression/depression worse.
-1 republican has entered a ression/depression and turned the economy around.
-3 republicans have entered a ression/depression and turned it into a great economy.
conclusion: Republicans tend to pull the economy out of recessions/depressions
conclusion: we need to kick some ass
---------------------------------------------------
my final thoughts: republicans handle the economy better, in general. tax cuts is more effective in a good economy than in a bad economy. like before, both parties suck(debt wise), and we need to kick some ass.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Location: Right here in the middle of "Fly-Over Country"
Posts: 383
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
OK, I have a question that I wanted to get everyones thoughts on.
According to the graph's, there seems to be no correlation between who is President and what the nations GDP is when related to national debt. What I mean is, that it appears that GDP is unrelated to the increase or decrease of debt. And same is true for whether it is Democratic or Republican president.
So, my question is...
If, as it appears, the President and the GDP don't influence the level of national debt. Could there be some other factor that is causing it to rise? I wonder if it is actually the people of the country demanding more from the government that is making the debt rise? Could it be that we, the people, are demanding too much? Like in the form of government handouts, pork barrel projects, etc etc etc?
What are your thoughts on this?
__________________
Quote:
"If you [America] become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I seem to remember one of Reece's dem blogger points that he pulled from somewhere that said the the evil GWB has the word nation debt in recorded history.
From the graphs, it seemed that at the time every president since Eisenhower had the worst national debt at the time as well... It seems to be growing exponetially since Reagan... of course that spending seemed to increase the GDP at the same time.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Like the Jefferson quote a lot, since we are (I think) one of the most apathetic nations when it comes to voting in elections, even presidential ones ...
Originally Posted by radimus
I seem to remember one of Reece's dem blogger points that he pulled from somewhere that said the the evil GWB has the word nation debt in recorded history.
From the graphs, it seemed that at the time every president since Eisenhower had the worst national debt at the time as well... It seems to be growing exponetially since Reagan... of course that spending seemed to increase the GDP at the same time.
OK, I have a question that I wanted to get everyones thoughts on.
According to the graph's, there seems to be no correlation between who is President and what the nations GDP is when related to national debt. What I mean is, that it appears that GDP is unrelated to the increase or decrease of debt. And same is true for whether it is Democratic or Republican president.
So, my question is...
If, as it appears, the President and the GDP don't influence the level of national debt. Could there be some other factor that is causing it to rise? I wonder if it is actually the people of the country demanding more from the government that is making the debt rise? Could it be that we, the people, are demanding too much? Like in the form of government handouts, pork barrel projects, etc etc etc?
What are your thoughts on this?
i'm trying to get some more data on exactly(or roughly) what debt is what(ratio of spending, to see where exactly our problem is with debt).
yes the growth of government and the change of people's idea of the government is what's causing this debt.
no where in the constitution does is state that the government is suppose to take from one and give to another, in fact the whole idea of our government was to be opposite to this(communism/socialism/...).
but people want the government to educate their children, care for their health, make sure they'll retire comfortably, pay for medication, this and that......... in the 20s the US was the richest nation in the world with the largest middle class, what's different from now and then? 2 things, taxes where much lower and were used to fund the government instead of funding the welfare state. and people relyed on themselves instead of turning to the governemnt to take care of them, this includes health, education, retirement, housing, food, clothing,....... they did it on their own without the government.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Well, there were some issues that came up in the 20s, 30s and 40s... Namely lack of income from the "breadwinners" in the households, while in the service during ww1 and ww2, the death of a significant portion of them, which endangered the families ability to support their elderly and widowed spouses. Don't forget the financial losses of peoples life savings during the stock market crash also.
Those items were the first time the American soceity needed to lean on social services.
Also the increasingly bad idea of Social Security... When instituted, the numbers of elderly that lived very long to collect were pretty marginal, but increasing medical care and such have really turned into a losing deal. SS payments into the system went into general funds, which were immediately spent, payouts were going to be managed in the future... once again out of general funds. There was no such thing as a lockbox.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Location: Right here in the middle of "Fly-Over Country"
Posts: 383
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JMJSelect
i'm trying ... [removed in the interest of saving space]... without the government.
Your right. It doesn't say anything at all about that in the Constitution. In fact the founding fathers had the idea of a limited government. Meaning that the smaller the government, then the better the people would be.
I'm interested to see what you find in figures on the national debt. But, I have a feeling that it will show that social programs and the things that you and Radimus mentioned will be the largest part of the reason for the increase.
And, if your among the younger generation. Then don't plan on even getting SSI when you retire. I've already come to the conclusion that there won't be anything left by the time I get to that age. A lot of people ought to be considering that for themselves as well. Start saving now!!
__________________
Quote:
"If you [America] become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It would be interesting to find the data for what the government has been spending money on. The graphs indicate a steady growth in debt since about 1982. Hmm, the economy sucked but there was no war. Military build up for the end of the cold war? I can't believe all that was given away on Welfare. The LBJ Great society was done by then and there was welfare reform.
Your right. It doesn't say anything at all about that in the Constitution. In fact the founding fathers had the idea of a limited government. Meaning that the smaller the government, then the better the people would be.
I'm interested to see what you find in figures on the national debt. But, I have a feeling that it will show that social programs and the things that you and Radimus mentioned will be the largest part of the reason for the increase.
And, if your among the younger generation. Then don't plan on even getting SSI when you retire. I've already come to the conclusion that there won't be anything left by the time I get to that age. A lot of people ought to be considering that for themselves as well. Start saving now!!
yeah and did you know that social security was/is/won't be garunteed(sp?). past present or future. it even says it on the ss checks. you put your money in and the sharks eat it all up, then if there's any left, they then distribute that.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
I hate to say your missing the whole point of the graph in the first post. The blue line is the debt expressed as a precent of GDP. You cannot claim that the GDP went up or down based on that blue line.
Also you do realize that the US government debt does not include future payments for social security and other social programs? The debt is MUCH MUCH worse then anyone in the government is going to be willing to admit for years. The reason this is not included is that the treasury considers them programs that can be dropped at any time.
I hate to say your missing the whole point of the graph in the first post. The blue line is the debt expressed as a precent of GDP. You cannot claim that the GDP went up or down based on that blue line.
Also you do realize that the US government debt does not include future payments for social security and other social programs? The debt is MUCH MUCH worse then anyone in the government is going to be willing to admit for years. The reason this is not included is that the treasury considers them programs that can be dropped at any time.
first, this is an informal study, not really trying to prove anything, just bored and looked at some things.
second looking at the %gdp you can roughly gauge how the economy did, you just have to understand it.
3rd, this is an informal study,...........
your right about the last statement: if the government gives a number/figure/percent/.... then it's a lie.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
I heard this before, something like 30% of americans pay attention to politics, 20-30 years ago it was like 60%.
the politicians no longer fear losing their jobs because the can easierly mold the public(because frankly the public is ignorant).
ask your self: who's the secertary of state?, who's your congressmen?, how many supreme court judges are there? name them. what's the 17th amendment, and how has it affected america? when did america win independence from great britian?......
you go out and ask people and the majority of them wont be able to answer most of those questions. the public is ignorant, and this is what politicians want. because the dumber the public the more money/power you can stuff in your pocket without knowledge. oh also politicians drove for a government run education(like communism, look it up in the communist's manifesto), creating a dumber and dumber public.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
