T Nation

Republican Presidents Destroyed the US Economy


Ratio of public debth to gdb:
Before Reagan: 33%
After Reagan and Bush 1: 64%
After Clinton: 57%
After Bush 2: 69%

My prediction is that the ratio will be slightly lowered when Obama is done (at least if he gets re-elected), and it will rise again with the next republican president. It's the republicans that keep fucking up the economy, not the democrats.

The young turks are really doing some quality work these days. Kudos to them.


Reagan was so bad we should have called him the Anti president


Presidents don't unilaterally control deficits and debt.


Obviously not, but the way they choose to run the country does affect the economy. Historically democratic presidents have been better for the economy than republicans.


Congress sets the budget. Specifically, the House of Representatives.

I'm not even American and know that --- your education system sucks.


Debt is not the sole measure of economic health. Democrats are not more frugal than Republicans, they just pallate their obscene spending with higher levels of taxation. While this averts the need for deficit financing, it is equally destructive and immoral. In summary: fuck democrats, they are good for nothing, least of all the economy.


No one said any differently. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Oh yeah? I am happy to read any proof you have of this claim that:

  1. Controls for the impact of Congress' policies that are largely independent of the President

  2. Controls for the impact of the Federal Reserve, which acts independent of the President's executive's policies

  3. Controls for the private sector

Perfect example? The 1990s. In the 1990s, the roaring economy in America had little to do with his Clinton. And I don't say this as a Clinton-hater (I'm not one), but he would get all the glory for your "better economy under a Democratic President", despite the impact of a Republican Congress and a tech boom that had exactly zero to do with who got elected in 1992 and 1996.

So, with that in mind, let's hear it all explained from Norway. I'll wait patiently for your explanation.


They have huge influence



(The young turks are really doing some quality work these days. Kudos to them) end quote

They suck and so do you. It is interesting that they gave numbers for after Reagan and Bush 1, what were the numbers right after Reagan, I would say lower since they did not give them. Typical liberal stuff, just leave out info that is inconvinent.

also public dept is an indicator of how much spending is financed by borrowing instead of taxation, so basicly all you have done is proven that dems raise taxes while reps lower them, so bravo

debt has no h in it either


They have a substantial influence, but they don't control the economy and they can't control Congress.


What I said was that the US has historically been better of economically with democratic presidents than with republican ones. This isn't my opinion, this is simply a historic fact. It's not something that needs explaining, it's just a simple fact that needs to be stated.



Wouldn't it be better to say the US has historically been better off economically with a Republican congress. The statement would still be pretty much true and it would also be more relevant.



Cutting/opposing taxes doesn't shrink spending. "Starving the beast" is a failure.


read my last post. The public dept shows how much of the spending is borrowed as opposed to raising taxes to pay for it. If the dept percentage is higher then that means the gov borrowed more, if the number is lower then that means taxes were raised to pay for the spending. Either way the spending needs to stop. I was just pointing out that the data shows that republicans lower taxes and borrow, while the democrats raise taxes and borrow


We have a totalitarian/military industrial complex party and a socialist/big entitlement party that both like to spend.

Both Suck Donkey balls.



No, you said:

Historically democratic presidents have been better for the economy than republicans.

And that isn't quite right because, as I noted, the better or worse economy could have been affected by other factors.

Take my Clinton example again - was he, as a Democratic president, better for the economy in the 1990s and that was the reason for the boom, or was there a different reason?

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are simply trying to make a cheap political point by showing a correlation that favors your political viewpoint, not cause. Move along.


Norway? Wtf?


There is always more to the story. 57.082902338% of statistics are made up on the spot, dontcha know?



Isn't that a picture of ABBA?