Presidential Election

[Flyer_PE]

^^ One of the things that everybody always forgets is that almost all spending is controlled by congress. Every budget Reagan submitted was DOA in congress. The economy he inherited in 1981 wasn't exactly booming and it got worse before it got better.

 

[benbo]

Didn't Reagan oversee the largest growth in National debt ever? Kinda makes all that ^^^ ring a little hollow.

THat's true.

Reagan himself considered the increase in the debt to be a failure of his administration. However, to be balanced you have to also consider that a great deal of the deficit spending was to defeat the Soviet Union. If you look at the Debt/GDP during WWII I think you will see it dwarfs the debt Reagan ran up in the Cold War. Granted, things haven't gone that great vis a vis Russia since then, but I don't think you can blame Reagan for that. Plus Reagan added millions of jobs and had a fairly booming economy for most of his administration. President Clinton reaped a peace divdend.

President Bush doesn't really have any excuse for the way he ran up the debt, however.

 

[mudpuppy]

While anyone can run, only one of two parties can win...
When do you think will be the first time a non-Democrat and non-Republican becomes president? When will both the Democrats and Republicans lose control of the House or Senate?

Read more at Wikipedia and everything2

That's an interesting question. If you look back to the last time there was a change in political parties in the White House was just before the Civil War. The Whigs disappeared and the Republicans came on the scene. I would think it take something Earth-shattering for a non-Demipublican president to make it into the White House. Hopefully not another Civil War.

On the other hand, the Republican and Democratic parties seem to have evolved over the past 150 years (under what president was the income tax instituted?) so one could argue that they are not the same parties as they were--just that they have the same names.

 

[Dleg]

^ (in response to benbo & FlyerPE) Agreed. But the deficit spending to run up the national defense systems and provoke the USSR into going bankrupt trying to match it, isn't that what everyone likes to give Reagan credit for? And if so, how can anyone genuinely claim Congress acted alone in running up the deficit? It was part of Reagan's grand strategy. That's all I'm saying - read his inaugural speech above for yourself. It seems to contradict what he actually did. Perhaps it worked out for the best, or perhaps its full aftereffects have yet to be seen.

 

[Dleg]

Reagan's creation of jobs - here is another interesting set of statistics from wikipedia.

Once again, it doesn't seem to live up to the hype. (take a look at the figures during the Carter admin, for isntance)

 

[Flyer_PE]

I never claimed congress acted alone. I was responding to a chart regarding government spending and who the president was at the time. That chart doesn't appear to account for who was in charge of congress at any particular time. My point is that no president operates in a vacuum.

 

[benbo]

^ (in response to benbo & FlyerPE) Agreed. But the deficit spending to run up the national defense systems and provoke the USSR into going bankrupt trying to match it, isn't that what everyone likes to give Reagan credit for? And if so, how can anyone genuinely claim Congress acted alone in running up the deficit? It was part of Reagan's grand strategy. That's all I'm saying - read his inaugural speech above for yourself. It seems to contradict what he actually did. Perhaps it worked out for the best, or perhaps its full aftereffects have yet to be seen.

Yeah, I don't buy that it was all Congress fault myself. And I don't think Reagan did either. He blamed himself too. I am certainly no expert on any of this, but it seems to me the deficit almost always increases because of the spending rather than the taxes. I think to a certain point lower taxes bring more revenue, but they always seem to spend it.

Right now politicians are arguing over a few percentage points in the top rate. I personally don't think that matters that much. But what blows my mind is that I think the top rate has always been around 200K. From WWII to Reagan the top bracket was anywhere from 95 to 70%. I can't see how anybody could care that much about making extra money above 200K if the gvt was going to take 70% of it.

 

[benbo]

Reagan's creation of jobs - here is another interesting set of statistics from wikipedia.
Once again, it doesn't seem to live up to the hype. (take a look at the figures during the Carter admin, for isntance)

That's reasonable job growth when you start in a horrible economy.

You can't look at a President's record without examining the trends of what happened before and after his term. A president comes in operating on the prior presidents economy and budget, and gets his policies in then later they effect the economy. It's not an instantaneous thing. Otherwise, if Obama gets in we'd have to blame him for all of the problems we are having right now. I don't like Obama but I'd give him a chance to turn it around. Those are GWBs and the current congresses fault to the extent they are not just cyclical.

Look at these unemployment numbers

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When Carter came in he had UE rates around 6 or so because of the people who came before him The economy went into recession during his term and unemployment ran up to 9% by the time he left, and under basically his economy ran up to over 10% at the beginning of the Reagan term. By the time Reagan left UE was back down to around 5%.

But that aside, I think Carter is primarily blamed for the double digit inflation rate and the 20% prime interest rate he left Reagan with, not so much jobs.

 

[Flyer_PE]

From WWII to Reagan the top bracket was anywhere from 95 to 70%. I can't see how anybody could care that much about making extra money above 200K if the gvt was going to take 70% of it.

I think 70% is confiscatory in just about anybody's book. Back in my utility days, I was well paid for OT. During my first stint of 80hr weeks, I guestimated what my take-home pay should be based on the percentage of my gross I took home on a normal paycheck. I was pretty pissed about a 39% tax burn. I wouldn't have bothered to put in that much time again if it had been 70%.

The other part of it isn't so much that people will just stop trying to make money above that line, they will put much more effort into avoiding the tax since the incentive to do so is much greater.

 

[Dleg]

Where is the 70% figure coming from? Once again, according to wikipedia (and the link you psoted the other day, benbo), the top tax bracket these days is paying 35%.

The top bracket went over 90% during WWII, and stayed above 70% until Reagan came in (I was shocked to see this "socialist" level of taxation occuring during our country's most "anti socialist" period).

During Reagan's first term, it dropped to 50%. Then to 38.5% during his second. It gradually dropped to 31% during George HW's term, jumped to 39% during Clinton's, and then marginally down again during W's terms, to where we are today, at 35%.

Edit: nevermind. I see you were saying essentially the same thing, benbo.

 

[EM_PS]

Nothing to do with this election year. . . just hilarious -

 

[DVINNY]

^^^ That's awesome

 

[ktulu]

Well, McCain has at least one vote. Just submitted my absentee ballot - headed to Iron Mountain, MI on Tuesday. I wasn't going to not vote for this one.

Should I take a coat??

 

[Guest]

Should I take a coat??

Plan on taking a coat even though word on the street is that there is going to be a bit of a heat wave creeping in .. supposed to get up into the 40s from what I understand.

JR

 

[FLBuff PE]

Is it Tuesday yet?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I wish. Well, I have mixed emotions, actually.

 

[FLBuff PE]

I'm just ready for this election season to be over.

 

[Guest]

^^^ I think A LOT of us feel that way!

JR

 

[benbo]

Is it Tuesday yet?

I'm not sure of the context, but I heard them say on CNN this morning that Barack Obama couldn't become president until next Tuesday. Funny, but I thought whoever was elected had to wait until January. Did I miss something?

 

[FLBuff PE]

Typical cable news slip-up. I'm with you on this one, benbo. I wasn't talking about a candidate in particular, more the entire process. But, I suppose that I should have said 'Is it Wednesday yet?', meaning that the election is over. Although, it may go on much longer than that if either side challenges things. I am not calling the election till someone takes the oath of office.