The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Facts are stubborn things||Date: 11/29/2012 7:36 PM|
|Author: MadCapitalist||Number: 1841036 of 2122279|
Yes, facts are stubborn things. More stubborn facts:
1) We haven't had a budget surplus when Democrats controlled Congress since 1969.
And we haven't had a budget surplus with a GOP president since Eisenhower in 1960.
So what? I'm not defending Republicans. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of pretending that Democrats are fiscally responsible. You can't say that Democrats are fiscally responsible when they are voting these deficits into law. The President can't spend money that hasn't been voted into law by Congress. This isn't difficult to understand.
2) The Democrats controlled the House in every year of Reagan's Presidency and controlled Congress in 2 years.
In Reagan's 1982 budget, Congress, including the GOP controlled Senate spent 103.12% of Reagan's requests. The other seven years, Congress spent less than Reagan requested. In the two years the Dems controlled both the House and the Senate, they spent an average of 92.71% of Reagan's requests.
Once again, so what? The fact is that Reagan couldn't have spent so much without the help of Democrats to vote for the spending.
3) Spending as a percentage of GDP hit a 35-year low (18.2%) in FY 2000 after 6 years of Congress being controlled by Republicans.
Actually, it was 17.98% in 2000 under President Clinton, who signed those budgets. As soon as Bush-II got into the White House, and with the cooperation of the GOP House and the GOP Senate, those percentages began to rise. It was 25.24% of the GDP in Bush-II's last budget year.
No, it was 18.2% of GDP in FY 2000 and FY 2001.
* Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2017 - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
And it was 25.2% of GDP only *after* Obama signed an additional half trillion or so of spending that increased the FY 2009 budget. Democrats always insist on assigning responsibility for Obama's spending in FY 2009 to Bush, even though it is obviously absurd.
* Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Appropriations_Act,_200...
* American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestm...
Face it. You are outmatched when it comes to knowledge of the budget. But don't worry. The lemmings obviously don't care when you are blatantly wrong, so they will give you a Rec anyway.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|