Spending was increased and jobs were created. FARGLE FUCKING BARGLE.
Spending was increased and jobs were created. FARGLE FUCKING BARGLE.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Marking Reagan's 100th birthday earlier this year, Sarah Palin told the Reaganuts assembled by the Young Americans for Freedom, "We need to stop spending and cut government back down to size."
If that's the case, her role model should be Democrat Bill Clinton, and not Republican Ronald Reagan.
As USA Today pointed out five years ago, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product, average annual federal spending dropped far more under Bill Clinton (-1.8%) than Ronald Reagan (-0.6%).
Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered.
The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president's policies to take effect doesn't materially change any of these results.
Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million.
Federal spending grew by 11 percent in real terms--less than half as much as under Reagan.
As a share of GDP, federal spending shrank from 21.5 percent to 18.3 percent--more than double Reagan's reduction, ending up with a federal government share of the economy about a tenth smaller than Reagan left behind.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-fail-reagan-litmus-test
If that's the case, her role model should be Democrat Bill Clinton, and not Republican Ronald Reagan.
As USA Today pointed out five years ago, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product, average annual federal spending dropped far more under Bill Clinton (-1.8%) than Ronald Reagan (-0.6%).
Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered.
The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president's policies to take effect doesn't materially change any of these results.
Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million.
Federal spending grew by 11 percent in real terms--less than half as much as under Reagan.
As a share of GDP, federal spending shrank from 21.5 percent to 18.3 percent--more than double Reagan's reduction, ending up with a federal government share of the economy about a tenth smaller than Reagan left behind.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-fail-reagan-litmus-test
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
really....then how come we have less jobs now and obama is spending even more? tff how you ignore the bulk of the article...then again, it makes you uncomfortable because it doesn't support your myopic world view
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Both during and after the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican candidates and commentators blasted Barack Obama's proposals to offer Americans expanded tax credits as "socialism", "welfare" and worse.
If so, they should also be directing their ire at Ronald Reagan.
While virtually all working Americans pay the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes (levies increased by President Reagan), many don't pay federal income tax, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
While many of his conservative heirs now express disdain for the working poor, Ronald Reagan championed the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit. As the American Prospect recalled in 2006: Almost 20 years ago, as he signed into law the tax bill expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, President Ronald Reagan hailed it as "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-fail-reagan-litmus-test
If tax cuts create jobs then how come we have less jobs now after Obama cut taxes?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
On Tuesday, the House Joint Economic Committee Republicans unveiled a study that proves what we have known for a long time—less government spending lowers the deficit, which boosts economic growth and small business job creation. The study, entitled "Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy," affirms that reducing government spending as a percentage of GDP will accelerate economic growth and create an environment for hiring. The study looks at how a number of developed countries, such as Canada, Sweden and New Zealand, have successfully reduced government spending and stabilized the level of government debt through fiscal consolidation programs. Each country achieved their goals for government deficit reduction and GDP growth rates by drastically reducing government spending. We must do the same.
The philosophy in this study is consistent with what numerous small business owners have been telling me in our hearings: cutting spending, keeping taxes low, and reducing job-crushing regulations are all needed to unleash the power of the most dynamic elements of our economy– small businesses and entrepreneurs.
President Obama’s failed $862 billion stimulus bill is the perfect example of doing just the opposite. Democrats promised that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below eight percent and be the answer to all our economic woes. But based on the current job and economic climate— we all know that didn’t work. Spending taxpayer dollars on more big government programs does not create private sector jobs or foster real economic growth.
http://townhall.com/columnists/samg...n_more_small_business_job_creation/page/full/
The philosophy in this study is consistent with what numerous small business owners have been telling me in our hearings: cutting spending, keeping taxes low, and reducing job-crushing regulations are all needed to unleash the power of the most dynamic elements of our economy– small businesses and entrepreneurs.
President Obama’s failed $862 billion stimulus bill is the perfect example of doing just the opposite. Democrats promised that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below eight percent and be the answer to all our economic woes. But based on the current job and economic climate— we all know that didn’t work. Spending taxpayer dollars on more big government programs does not create private sector jobs or foster real economic growth.
http://townhall.com/columnists/samg...n_more_small_business_job_creation/page/full/
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
answer my question
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Well if the House Republicans say it, it must be true. By the way, the hilarious this about this post is that this is the study wherein the House Republicans said that the idea deficit reduction package would consist of 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases. Then Obama proposed a deficit reduction package compose of 83% spending cuts and 17% revenue increases and the Republican said no. Hilarious.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
attack the messenger when you can't attack the facts
boring ad hom is boring
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Does anyone have any empirical evidence to prove that spending cuts create jobs?
If so, let's see it.
If so, let's see it.
Why should I take that study seriously when the Republicans don't take it seriously? If they did, they would have accepted Obama's proposal.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Conservative Republicans hold as an article of faith that cutting government spending creates jobs, even in the midst of a recession.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the conservative zealot who has personally blown up the debt ceiling talks twice over the mere hint of closing tax loopholes, says, “All of our efforts are centered around jobs – starting with cutting spending and federal regulations – to grow the economy so that people can get back to work.”
But this is nonsense. There’s no economic theory that would suggest that in current conditions, cutting government spending would create jobs.
http://www.truth-out.org/gop-dogma-taxes-spending-andrevenue-vs-facts/1310649524
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the conservative zealot who has personally blown up the debt ceiling talks twice over the mere hint of closing tax loopholes, says, “All of our efforts are centered around jobs – starting with cutting spending and federal regulations – to grow the economy so that people can get back to work.”
But this is nonsense. There’s no economic theory that would suggest that in current conditions, cutting government spending would create jobs.
http://www.truth-out.org/gop-dogma-taxes-spending-andrevenue-vs-facts/1310649524
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
more boring ad hom attacking the messenger because you can't refute any facts
YAWN
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
another boring ad hom by the uber liberal walking human projector dunceler....
of course you and dung can't debate facts...much easier to throw out boring ad homs, much like you do in "every thread"
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
When Bill Clinton was president, jobs were created.
When Bush left office, we had tax cuts.
Of course, employment was down, we had a deficit instead of a surplus, and big banks and Wall Street got bailed out of the mess they created, while the middle class was left holding the bag.
Since no one can produce any examples of job creation that occurred as a result of spending cuts, spending cuts do not create jobs.
When Bush left office, we had tax cuts.
Of course, employment was down, we had a deficit instead of a surplus, and big banks and Wall Street got bailed out of the mess they created, while the middle class was left holding the bag.
Since no one can produce any examples of job creation that occurred as a result of spending cuts, spending cuts do not create jobs.