Democrat posters enjoy going negative so I thought it would be interesting to give them a chance to go positive and tell us how to solve the list of problems chemgator recently presented: immigration fentanyl national debt the Ukraine War unemployment poverty education global warming / natural disasters government spending Social Security reform International relations So Democrats, what are your thoughts on these issues? Edit: I put government spending in bold because I think excessive spending is the #1 problem
The difference is that one party has consistently preached fiscal responsibility while the same party has had a long history of supporting fiscally irresponsible tax cuts and most recently almost entirely to the benefit of its mega donors.
I'm responding to VA, hoping he (or anyone else) can provide a positive Democrat solution to the lack of gov't fiscal responsibility.
It's a matter of degree with the Republicans being far more fiscally irresponsible than the Democrats. Probably the best metric is the debt to GDP ratio. After peaking at the end of World War II, it was on a downward slope until lower taxes became a higher priority than fiscal responsibility under Reagan. The ratio declined under Clinton, increased under GW Bush, stabilized around half-way through Obama's Administration and increased under Trump although a large part of that increase was attributable to Covid pandemic before declining albeit at higher level under Biden. It's due to skyrocket again under Trump 2.0.
As I previously replied to docspor: Nobel laureate Milton Friedman credits Ronald Reagan for the success of both the Reagan and Clinton economies. Clinton gets little if any credit. Reagan deregulation and tax rate cuts helped the Reagan and Clinton economies. Unlike what most any other president would do, Reagan backed Fed chairman Volker's tough monetary policy in order to beat inflation, even as it led to recession and pushed Reagan's approval ratings into the 30's. Reagan decreased government spending as a percent of GDP after inflation was brought under control Over the last 6 years of Reagan's term annual GDP growth averaged 4.5% Average GDP growth during the Clinton administration averaged 4%. Friedman credits Reagan's tax rate cuts and deregulation and the excellent job done by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan for the Clinton economy. Greenspan was appointed by Reagan in 1987 What credit should Clinton get? Friedman says that because Clinton was a Democrat he couldn't get a lot of new spending passed by the Republican congress and that was good for the economy
So far, this administration has increased government spending since coming back into power. And their next plan is to reduce revenue by giving rich people tax cuts. And the budget bill also INCREASES the DOD budget to a record amount. Whoever falls for this stuff has no reading abilities or critical thinking skills.
The growth in the Reagan Administration was probably much more attributable to Paul Volcker's decision to cut interest rates which at the time Friedman criticized as potentially inflationary and even suggested that the decision could reiigninte inflation. Turned out that the Friedman was incorrect. Also keep in mind that TEFRA enacted in 1982 was criticized by some conservatives for rolling back part of the 1981 tax cuts. It also wasn't until TEFRA was enacted that Volcker lower interest rates in the summer of 1982. Also let's not forget the a number of conservatives predicted that Clinton's policies would result in a return to stagflation of the 1970s. Friedman's attempt to credit Reagan's policies for Clinton's economy is revisionist history in the extreme. If anyone other than Clinton is to receive credit it should be President George H.W. Bush for his relatively modest tax increase which probably cost him reelection.
Contrary to what VAg8t1 thinks, the biggest problem our economy has is not federal deficits, it's too much gov't spending. Milton Friedman believed that gov't spending growth should be held below the rate of increase in national income. In other words, gov't spending as a percent of national income has to decrease. Total gov't spending (federal, state, local) while Reagan was president declined by 4% as a percent of national income (44% to 40%). It would have declined more but Reagan had to deal with a hostile Congress. Today gov't spending is roughly 48% of nat'l income and the cost of complying with gov't regulation is an additional 10% of national income. Below Milton Friedman explains why total gov't spending is a bigger problem than deficits. What plan do Democrats have to cut gov't spending as a percent of nat'l income?
Milton Friedman actually praised Reagan for supporting the Volker interest rate increase that beat down inflation, even as it caused Reagan's approval rating to drop to 36%. Friedman said he could imagine no other president in living memory doing what Reagan did. The major decline in marginal income tax rates and the massive decrease in federal regulations under Reagan combined with excellent Fed policies from Alan Greenspan (appointed by Reagan) is responsible for the Clinton economy. Per Milton Friedman. The last 6 years of the Clinton had Republicans controlling the House and Senate. Gridlock held down spending increases that Democrats wanted. That benefited the economy.
Federal spending as a percent of GDP did drop under Reagan. Slightly up under Bush. Down significantly under Clinton. Way up under Bush. Down a lot under Obama.Way up under Trump. Down under Biden. Anyone notice a trend? We can do unemployment next
Looks like it. Not one Too Hot Democrat has a single positive idea to help solve any problem facing America? Is Elon right? Have the Democrats turned into the party of hate and division? Who do they hate and why? Why are they so negative and divisive?
They’re in worse shape than before the election. And have yet to figure out how to stop the bleeding in their own party
It’s interesting that Friedman is one of your trusted sources, as I’m 99% sure he’d be horrified by your other ones.
Give some examples or at least one. I think Friedman would love just about all of my main sources for almost all of their opinions. One exception would be that some of my sources like tariffs too much