Sunday, August 28, 2011

Republicans VS Democrats

Look at the following three figures that I picked up over at Campaign For America's Future, and tell me who is better for our economy and our country.




Posted by at

27 comments:

  1. John MysteAugust 28, 2011 at 1:38 PM

    One could take issue with all three charts, but I generally consider charts mostly BS. Both sides have them and each finds and grooms charts to successfully prove their points.

    However, the second chart was a major stretch unless I am missing something (and I may well be).

    I accept that democrats understand economics better than republicans, but if I did not, these charts would not persuade me. That second chart would not, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jerry CritterAugust 28, 2011 at 2:38 PM

    If you have any charts that refute these, I would like to see them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John MysteAugust 28, 2011 at 2:51 PM

    As a far left liberal, I am not in the habit of keeping such charts. I see them on conservative sites regularly and I afford them the same credibility I afford the liberal versions. I do, however, have links to some liberal charts I saved to point to in order to offset the conservative charts. I didn’t realize I needed the reverse also, but I know now and will, in due time, solve the probem.

    If you like, I will put you on the mailing list and point you to them every time I see them, so you can offer rebuttal. In fact, I can post every instance where I find them to this thread for all eternity if you like, just say the word. I am always here to help.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John MysteAugust 28, 2011 at 4:28 PM

    Hey, and friend and political adversary pointed me to two of his charts, for your viewing pleasure.

    http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/02/us-economy-are-democrats-or-gop-better.html

    http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-responsible-for-debt.html

    You are welcome, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jerry CritterAugust 28, 2011 at 5:03 PM

    Thanks, John. I see you point. When you have lots of numbers to play with, you can make them say almost anything you want.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John MysteAugust 28, 2011 at 5:16 PM

    When you have lots of numbers to play with, you can make them say almost anything you want. That is a very good way to phrase it, sir. You are an upstanding citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. witlessAugust 28, 2011 at 6:06 PM

    I doubt the accuracy of all 3 charts . Lets start with the deficit Bush verses Obama.

    Bush's total deficit over 8 years was $2001.5 Billion. Obama's projected deficit over 3 years will be $4360 Billion .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cujo359August 28, 2011 at 6:12 PM

    Whether one can believe the charts or not, there is another issue - why do they matter? It's becoming pretty clear that in a depression like this one, the sensible thing to do is deficit spending, at least as long as it's spent on something useful.

    I'm also not too impressed by 1.8 million jobs. We needed about that many just to stay even with increasing potential workforce, and we're still down all those millions of jobs we lost during 2008-2009.

    ReplyDelete
  9. witlessAugust 28, 2011 at 6:27 PM

    The private sector job growth is false. All that matters is unemployment . It has gone up and remained high under President Obama. Bush averaged 5.3% unemployment, President Obama averaged 9.2%. Everything else is irrelevant .

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jerry CritterAugust 28, 2011 at 6:46 PM

    The debt increased by $2,135 billion during Bush's first term and by $3,971 billion during his second term.

    The job growth is true. You may not think it is important, but your opinion does not make the job numbers false. Unemployment went through the roof under Bush. Obama at least has stabilized it despite republican efforts to stifle his economic policies.

    ReplyDelete
  11. witlessAugust 29, 2011 at 4:18 AM

    Jerry Critter,

    These are my figures for the Bush years . Add them up and you get $ 2 trillion .
    2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus
    2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit
    2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit
    2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit
    2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit
    2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit
    2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit
    2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit

    If you got better numbers, show them .

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jerry CritterAugust 29, 2011 at 8:13 AM

    Read my reference. What is your source?

    ReplyDelete
  13. witlessAugust 29, 2011 at 2:25 PM

    Jerry Critter ,

    I actually have 3 sources. They do not exactly agree with each other but, close enough for hand grenades and here . The first which is where I got the above numbers is,

    http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

    If you want the other two let me know . On some blogs it causes problems with more than one link in an answer .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jerry CritterAugust 29, 2011 at 4:30 PM

    I don't see a reference to where davemanuel.com got their numbers, but here are some annual debt numbers from the US Treasury which substantiate my numbers.

    The numbers I quoted earlier from the referenced Wikipedia article come from these sources: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year. The actual links are in the article.

    ReplyDelete
  15. witlessAugust 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM

    Jerry Critter,

    While I use Wikipedia sometimes, I do not trust it . Here are the other links.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

    I trust these sources . I realize you may not .

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jerry CritterAugust 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM

    Ok, here's our problem. We are not comparing the same numbers. Your second reference, the Tax Policy Center, references where they got their table of numbers. It comes from the White House. You have already accepted these numbers. I accept them also.

    Their table is Table 1.3—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2005) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940–2016 (Go to the site and you can download it as an excel file.) It reports annual receipts and outlays and labels the difference between these two numbers as either surpluses or deficits. These differences support the numbers you have been giving.

    However, these are not the federal debt numbers.

    They are shown in Table 7.1—Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940–2016 (You can also download this table as an excel file.) It shows the total gross federal debt at the end of each year. The difference from year to year is the change in the debt and supports the numbers I have given.

    My guess for why there is such a difference in our two sets of numbers is, at least, partly due to the fact that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were off the books. They were not accounted for in the budget numbers until Obama took over. There may be other reasons also.

    I believe that my numbers correctly account for the total increase in the federal debt under both Bush and Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  17. witlessAugust 30, 2011 at 4:40 AM

    Jerry Critter ,

    How can you say the wars were off the books ? They were not . I just read it and I will have to get back to you .

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jerry CritterAugust 30, 2011 at 8:40 AM

    Well, the important thing to get from my previous comment is that if you want to talk about the increase in the debt, you should look at the debt numbers, not some other numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. witlessAugust 30, 2011 at 4:50 PM

    Jerry Critter,

    We are talking about deficits . Yearly ones. That is how the debt grows . I don't know how you get your facts, but I say they are false . At any rate to get back to whether Bush's wars were not accounted for in Bush's deficits . From the the Heritage link I posted .

    " Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. "

    Ask yourself, how can you fund major wars " off the books "? You can't . So whoever gave you that information, lied to you .

    Perhaps you could start questioning the veracity of the rest of your facts ?

    Or are you more interested in winning this argument with me than you are in the truth ?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jerry CritterAugust 30, 2011 at 6:03 PM

    I've explained in detail with references where I got my facts. In fact, I even used the same source that one of your references used.

    As far as the wars being off the books, there are plenty of references to it. Just google them. The supplemental funding was not included as part of the Defense Department spending and hence does not show up when you compare government revenue and spending, but it does show up in the annual debt numbers.

    The total deficit from year to year is the difference between the annual total debt. Do you disagree with that?

    ReplyDelete
  21. witlessAugust 31, 2011 at 7:40 PM

    Jerry Critter,

    Of course . I still do not agree with your numbers. I trust my sources over your's. In three years President Obama's total deficits are twice what Bush ran up in eight years .

    President Obama wasted $800 or so Billion on shovel ready jobs that were not shovel ready. They were just a bail out to public teachers pension funds . He has directed his bureaucrats at the EPA and the NLRB to attack businesses and he can't figure out why unemployment is still over 9%. Duh .

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jerry CritterAugust 31, 2011 at 9:06 PM

    Don't change the subject on me, witless.

    Let's say your numbers are correct. How do you explain the difference between your annual deficit numbers and the annual increase in the debt? Or, are you suggesting that the debt is not nearly as large as the government is saying it is?

    I've offered a reason. The wars were off the books. You say they weren't. So, what is your explanation?

    Note, the discrepancy is only between Bush's numbers, not Obama's.

    ReplyDelete
  23. witlessSeptember 1, 2011 at 5:36 PM

    Jerry Critter,

    I am not ready to concede but the numbers I posted do not add up on the increase in the debt. I am trying to find the discrepancy. I am also finding different numbers on the debt from different sources . Right now I am looking at numbers from this address.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/30/cnn-fact-check-is-the-annual-deficit-under-obama-12-times-the-deficit-under-republicans/

    " The average annual budget deficit during President George W. Bush's presidency was $250.7 billion, "

    Over 8 years that comes in at $2 Trillion . But in the same piece they say " The national debt held by the public was $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008 ", which conflicts with the figures at

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

    Again I do not know yet where the discrepancy is, but I can't see where you hide war expenditures especially in years that Democrats had power in Congress during Bush's tenure .

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jerry CritterSeptember 1, 2011 at 9:05 PM

    The war expenses are not hidden, just obscured.

    "Off the books" means that they do not show up as an expense from the Defense Department so, as a consequence, they do not show up in an accounting of government expenses by government department. They do show up, however, in the overall debt numbers.

    Obama changed that accounting maneuver when he took office. The supplement funding for the wars, which Obama has continued, is now accounted for under the Defense Department budget, and hence shows up in the revenue/expense reports.

    The total debt numbers tell the true picture. I suspect that even Clinton's budget surplus numbers do not look as good if you look at the annual debt numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. witlessSeptember 3, 2011 at 8:08 PM

    Jerry Critter,

    I can't explain why the debt numbers do not add up to the deficit numbers . I still find information from sources I trust that the war costs are in the deficit figures .

    I am breaking off for now. If I find what I am looking for I will come back and fess up one way or another .

    I give you full credit for stumping me.

    ReplyDelete
  26. John MysteSeptember 3, 2011 at 8:55 PM

    Critter,

    Though I generally hostile to the process of creating views to guilt or innocence, you argued your case exceptionally well.

    Even if Witless comes back with a solid counter-argument, you will still have argued the case very well.

    Though the charts in the post did not impress me at all, I am very impressed with your performance.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jerry CritterSeptember 3, 2011 at 10:01 PM

    Thank you, John. (And I do believe you are a liberal...with a good wit.)

    Thank you witless for keeping the discussion on a civil plane. I respect you for that.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)