On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:54:25 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:30:05 -0500, Erik Reuter > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > When the government raised payroll taxes to create the SS trust > > > fund, it resulted in very little, if any, net increase in the > > > productive capital of the country. Mostly, it resulted in > > > inefficient government spending. Certainly, the government doesn't > > > save. Look at the budget, its been in deficit almost continuously > > > for 30 years. If the government doesn't save, it isn't suprising > > > that the government doesn't do much investment resulting in an > > > increase in the national stock of productive capital. > > > > Wrong, Clinton ran a surplus and Gore was going to keep that surplus - > > Not wrong. It is generally a good idea to know what you are talking > about before you claim something is wrong. It is also a good idea to > read and think a bit before you call something wrong. > > Do you have any clue at all? Do you know how many out of the last 30 > years the US ran a budget surplus? Do you know how many of Clinton's 8 > years the government ran a budget surplus? > You have no clue do you? The Clinton administration ran deficits in each of its first four years and surpluses in each of the last four years. The largest deficit was $213 billion in FY1994 and the largest surplus was $219 billion in FY2000. The Clinton years paid down a net $14.2 billion of national debt and averaged a surplus of $1.78 billion.
The Reagan administration ran budget deficits in each of its eight years. The lowest deficit was $188.6 billion in FY1989 and the highest was $311 billion in FY1983. The Reagan years added $1.94 trillion to the national debt and averaged annual deficits of $242.23 billion. The Bush I administration ran deficits in each of its four years. The highest deficit was $318.5 bilion in FY1992. The lowest was $261.9 billion in FY1990. The Bush years added $1.16 trillion to the national debt and averaged a yearly deficit of $289.68 billion. Lets turn to the broader picture. Even before Bush 2 blew out all records of fiscal irresponsibility Democratic Presidents were clearly better for the economy under any measure. 1) Economic growth averaged 2.94% under Republican Presidents and 3.92% under Democratic Presidents. 2) Inflation averaged 4.96% under Republicans and 4.26% under Democrats. . 3) Unemployment averaged 6.75% under Republicans and 5.1% under Democrats. . 4) Total federal spending rose at an average rate of 7.57% under Republican Presidents and at an average rate of 6.96% under Democratic Presidents. 5) Total non-defense federal spending rose at an average rate of 10.08% under Republicans and at an average rate of 8.34% under Democrats. 6) During the forty-year period studied, the National Debt grew by $3.8 trillion under budgets submitted by Republican Presidents and by $720 billion under budgets submitted by Democratic Presidents. Stated differently, the average annual deficit under Republicans was $190 billion; and, while under Democrats, it was $36 billion. 7) During the period studied, under Republican Presidents the number of federal government non-defense employees rose by 310,000, while the number of such employees rose by 59,000 under Democrats. If you can find any study that shows Republican Presidents, GOP controlled Senates, or GOP controlled Houses are better at controlling spending, reducing the size of government, are better for the economy, are better in any fiscal metric except cutting taxes for the wealthy I am most eager to see it. The current GOP controlled House is setting staggering records for even the amount of pork they bring to GOP districts while only cutting Democratic districts. For more: http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm http://www.sideshow.connectfree.co.uk/JustForTheRecord.htm > > So despite all his previous actions you cling to a desperate hope that > > Bush will do something you approve of and is fiscally responsible? > > So, despite all your previous failures to oppose Bush, you cling to a > desperate hope that aimless, ignorant whining will have any affect on > what happens? I see you didn't answer the question. I have yet to see you present anything that is not ignorant shilling for a fiscally unsound and publicly impoverishing agenda. Gary Denton _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
