Fiscal Conservatives vs. Tax and Spend Liberals

2008-10-02 09:35:53

#1

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6520|Global Command

https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/2739434687_a4d190dcbf.jpg?v=0

CREDIT TO MEK_SKIZZIL FOR FINDING THE CARTOON IN QUESTION> MASS KARMA ASSAULT ON HIS POSITION!!!

Jimmy Carter, tax and spend liberal. Decreased national debt by -3.2%

Ronald reagan, fiscal conservative. Increased national debt by +11.3% in his first term and 9.2% in his second term.

george H. W. Bush, fiscal conservative. Increased national debt by +13.1%.

Bill Clinton, tax and spend liberal. Decreased national debt by -0.6% in his first term and -8.2% in his second.

George W. Bush, compassionate conservative. Increase national debt by +6.9% in his first term and uncouted trillions in his second.

So, by all rights, the republican party will be a punchline to a bad joke for generations.
Their policies clearly saddle our nation with debt, potus after potus.

Somehow, it's all the liberal medias fault.

Last edited by ATG (2008-10-02 11:09:18)

2008-10-02 09:47:30

#2

CaptainSpaulding71: Member; +119|6348|CA, USA

i don't think it is as easy as you make it out to be. in some of those cases, the policies of the previous administration (ie, democratic) require time to take effect and then pass on to the incoming administration. so some of the increase under a fiscally conservative watch were due to the previous guy.

even this is not so straightforward when you take into consideration the world economic climate of the times and political motivations for spending.

2008-10-02 09:50:54

#3

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6520|Global Command

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
i don't think it is as easy as you make it out to be. in some of those cases, the policies of the previous administration (ie, democratic) require time to take effect and then pass on to the incoming administration. so some of the increase under a fiscally conservative watch were due to the previous guy.

even this is not so straightforward when you take into consideration the world economic climate of the times and political motivations for spending.

Sorry, no sale.

The " fiscal conservatives " have ass raped us everytime they have been in office in the last 30 years.

The republican name brand is dead. RIP.

2008-10-02 09:51:58

#4

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6623|949

I consider myself a fiscal conservative. I think it is stupid not to be.

I like the blame game though. Do more!

2008-10-02 09:55:09

#5

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6520|Global Command

No blame.
Just the facts mamm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d … tial_terms

2008-10-02 09:58:10

#6

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6573|SE London

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
i don't think it is as easy as you make it out to be. in some of those cases, the policies of the previous administration (ie, democratic) require time to take effect and then pass on to the incoming administration. so some of the increase under a fiscally conservative watch were due to the previous guy.

even this is not so straightforward when you take into consideration the world economic climate of the times and political motivations for spending.

So it's all just coincidence? Of course. It's just the fact that the Republicans were unlucky with the economic climate and got left with crappy policies from the previous adminstration, even in the instances when the previous administration was Republican too (as it was 3 times over the span of the administrations listed and only once for the Democrats). Pure coincidence that every Republican administration in my lifetime has increased US debt and every Democrat administration has reduced it.

2008-10-02 09:58:33

#7

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6612|London, England

ATG, you, you picture stealer

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-10-02 11:05:12)

2008-10-02 10:10:36

#8

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|6687|NJ

I really love the whole ever positive thing that happens during an administration is from the Reps and everything bad is From the Dems the previous year mentality. It's like creativism, hey who needs proof when you have faith.

2008-10-02 10:31:27

#9

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|6727|Salt Lake City

GOP = Borrow and spend.

Dems = Tax and spend.

Neither is desirable, but which is going to have the least desirable effect in the long run?

2008-10-02 10:42:32

#10

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6592|132 and Bush

George W Bush is a fiscal conservative? lol

That's about as funny as invoking Jimmy Carter's name into a topic about the economy.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-10-02 10:42:43

#11

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6533|Texas - Bigger than France

Looking at the deficit is interesting, but what about comparing the other economic measurements?

2008-10-02 10:44:42

#12

topal63: . . .; +533|6710

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
GOP = Borrow and spend.

Dems = Tax and spend.

Neither is desirable, but which is going to have the least desirable effect in the long run?

No...

GOP = Borrow, Tax and Spend.
DEM = Tax and spend.

They both tax and spend. There wouldn't be a military; infrastructure; schools; not a single service. If we didn't collect some tax then spend it on some social institution or service.

2008-10-02 10:50:18

#13

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6520|Global Command

Pug wrote:
Looking at the deficit is interesting, but what about comparing the other economic measurements?

I can best look at mine.

2006 employees 8
gross sales $879000.00

personal income $110000.00

2008 employees 3
gross sales ( projected ) $300000.00

personal income ( projected ) $60000.00

Of note, two years ago democrats took majority in the house and senate.

2008-10-02 10:53:54

#14

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6573|SE London

Pug wrote:
Looking at the deficit is interesting, but what about comparing the other economic measurements?

What, like inflation?

That throws the trend a little, since Reagan kept inflation down and Carter managed to push it up, but overall the Dems have the better record there too. GDP/capita growth has been fairly consistent too, with the biggest gains under Clinton.

2008-10-02 10:56:47

#15

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6592|132 and Bush

Reagan kept inflation down? .. er no he brought it down from an insanely high level... as well as bringing unemployment down significantly.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-10-02 10:59:00

#16

topal63: . . .; +533|6710

Kmarion wrote:
Reagan kept inflation down? .. er no he brought it down from an insanely high level... as well as bringing unemployment down significantly.

Or something far more important and larger economically happened in the 80's. The technological revolution surrounding the invention of PC.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-02 10:59:15)

2008-10-02 10:59:32

#17

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6573|SE London

Kmarion wrote:
Reagan kept inflation down? .. er no he brought it down from an insanely high level... as well as bringing unemployment down significantly.

"Kept" was a poor choice of wording. It's still pretty clear what I meant - since I've mentioned how Carter pushed it up and Reagan brought it down. So long as you know the order of the administrations the point is still clear.

2008-10-02 11:05:50

#18

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6592|132 and Bush

topal63 wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Reagan kept inflation down? .. er no he brought it down from an insanely high level... as well as bringing unemployment down significantly.
Or something far more important and larger economically happened in the 80's. The technological revolution surrounding the invention of PC.

You still need the proper economic environment.. although maybe the explosion of the internet can be attributed to Clinton's economic success. Two can play that game my brotha.

People seem to be forgetting that the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Reagan's tax cuts) had bipartisan support.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-10-02 11:09:58

#19

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6520|Global Command

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
ATG, you, you picture stealer

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/273 … bf.jpg?v=0

OP up dated gracias to Mek.

2008-10-02 11:11:37

#20

topal63: . . .; +533|6710

Kmarion wrote:
topal63 wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Reagan kept inflation down? .. er no he brought it down from an insanely high level... as well as bringing unemployment down significantly.
Or something far more important and larger economically happened in the 80's. The technological revolution surrounding the invention of PC.
You still need the proper economic environment.. although maybe the explosion of the internet can be attributed to Clinton's economic success. Two can play that game my brotha.

People seem to be forgetting that the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Reagan's tax cuts) had bipartisan support.

You're comparing a second industrial revolution to an Internet fad that went bust (the dot com bubble that burst).

Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-02 11:12:21)

2008-10-02 11:12:18

#21

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6592|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:
Mek-Stizzle wrote:
ATG, you, you picture stealer

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/273 … bf.jpg?v=0
OP up dated gracias to Mek.

lol@fighting over something neither one of you created

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-10-02 11:17:15

#22

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6520|Global Command

Dang me. Get a rope and hang me. _{Audience cheers}

2008-10-02 11:22:51

#23

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6592|132 and Bush

topal63 wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
topal63 wrote:
Or something far more important and larger economically happened in the 80's. The technological revolution surrounding the invention of PC.
You still need the proper economic environment.. although maybe the explosion of the internet can be attributed to Clinton's economic success. Two can play that game my brotha.

People seem to be forgetting that the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Reagan's tax cuts) had bipartisan support.
You're comparing a second industrial revolution to an Internet fad that went bust (the dot com bubble that burst).

I'm fully aware of the dot.com bust.. it wasn't exactly a complete bust neither (in the sense that you are thinking of). The retail industry is still and always has been booming as a result of the internet. I can't tell you how many amazon.com deliveries I made when I worked at UPS. The internet revolutionized the way people shop. To say it didn't impact the economy is ridiculous.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-10-02 11:26:13

#24

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6592|132 and Bush

The answer I feel is a little of both. You don't drive 55 all the time. Sometimes the country needs to adjust to fit the times. Recognizing what and when is the key.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-10-02 11:32:32

#25

topal63: . . .; +533|6710

Kmarion wrote:
topal63 wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
You still need the proper economic environment.. although maybe the explosion of the internet can be attributed to Clinton's economic success. Two can play that game my brotha.

People seem to be forgetting that the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Reagan's tax cuts) had bipartisan support.
You're comparing a second industrial revolution to an Internet fad that went bust (the dot com bubble that burst).
I'm fully aware of the dot.com bust.. it wasn't exactly a complete bust neither (in the sense that you are thinking of). The retail industry is still and always has been booming as a result of the internet. I can't tell you how many amazon.com deliveries I made when I worked at UPS. The internet revolutionized the way people shop. To say it didn't impact the economy is ridiculous.

To say I said that - means you're being ridiculous. But go ahead and assume all-encompassing comprehensive absolutes were stated.

The former created more wealth than anything that could be attributed to Reagan; or even should. The former created far more wealth than what a different (oh.. and new) channel for commerce has created. You say Amazon or whatnot revolutionized they way people shop. So what. That is good and bad in the same breath. Bad for the retailer with a store-front; good for those who just want the cheapest price and can find a vendor that will comply.

How many millionaires did Microsoft alone make?
How many millions are just redirected from one vendor to another via the Internet?

PS: All of that dot.com money wasn't lost nor did I say that speculative nonsense evaporated. If anything the frenzy of money made with NOTHING but market-gains on paper - was shifted into the housing bubble (dot.com fad money migrated into the housing bubble).

PS#2: The former is wealth created by the PC revolution. Not the Internet, I assumed you'd understand. My bad.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-02 11:48:14)

BF2S Forums Fiscal Conservatives vs. Tax and Spend Liberals

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Pug wrote:

Pug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Board footer