Maybe we should remind McCain that the Federal debt to GDP ratio fell from 35.8% in 1977 to 32.6% in 1981. Under George W. Bush’s spend and borrow but never tax policies – the ones McCain would like to augment – the Federal debt to GDP ratio rose from 57.4% in 2001 to a projected 69.3% for 2009.
There is always the chance that McCain can win the spin in this debate because of the impression by most Americans across ideological lines that the public should never have to make sacrifices. They want to be reassured that government spending will continue to give them a great military, good roads and all the other aspects of modern infrastructure that they want without ever paying the bill. No presidential candidate can say that out loud. Well as I remember when General Wesley Clarke was running for president he said on a Letterman appearance that people want what taxes pay for, but they don’t want to pay for those things ( that he didn’t become president duly noted). Things haven’t changed. If Obama did nothing but roll back the tax rates to those of the nineties, well the nineties worked out relatively well with Clinton leaving behind a surplus and eight years of healthy growth. Democrats have historically done a better job of managing the economy, Democrats vs. the GOP: Do the Math
It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win in a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09% in Democratic years, 2.75% in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44%, on average, under Republican presidents, and 5.33% under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87% of GDP, compared with 19.58%), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76% for the Democrats, 14.97% for the Republicans).
What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81% on average, compared with 4.85%). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans than Democrats (2.74% of GDP versus 1.21%).
These numbers do account for the first year of any new presidency, which uses for the most part the last president’s budget.
Lashing out at the “estate tax” is nothing new for most Republicans — though it would seem to be for Sen. John McCain. One way you can tell is by simply contrasting his Tuesday remarks to small business owners — in which he described the tax “one of the most unfair” in the entire code …
Amazing that A Republican could at one time actually read the facts a loud and then turn around a few years later and pretend those same facts are void,
In a June 12, 2002 Senate floor speech, McCain said:
“Farm and family-owned business assets accounted for less than three percent of the total value of these estates in 1999. In most estates that are taxable and include a business or farm, the business or farm does not even constitute the majority of the estate. In fact, the American Farm Bureau Federation has acknowledged that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes. These facts belie the argument that we must repeal the estate tax to save family businesses and farms to assure that they do not have to be liquidated to pay estate taxes.” (emphasis mine)
This is pure pandering to the voodoo economics crowd. They just believe what they believe and the facts get trampled to death in the mindless race to fiscal irresponsibility.
For poll addicts Liberal Oasis notes that Obama’s poll bump may not fade.
BushCo might have picked the wrong fight again trying to pull the same old dance, U.S. security talks with Iraq in trouble in Baghdad and D.C.
A proposed U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that would set the conditions for a defense alliance and long-term U.S. troop presence appears increasingly in trouble, facing growing resistance from the Iraqi government, bipartisan opposition in Congress and strong questioning from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
President Bush is trying to finish the agreement before he leaves office, and senior U.S. officials insist publicly that the negotiations can be completed by a July 31 target date. The U.S. is apparently scaling back some of its demands, including backing off one that particularly incenses Iraqis, blanket immunity for private security contractors.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Monday with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei where some mutual assistance agreements were signed – so all those Iran haters out there can send your thank you notes to Dubya at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
By the time Congress finishes the latest “emergency” war spending bill, a mere seven years into the emergency, the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will have exceeded $860 billion. For the first time in American history, every penny of that amount will have been borrowed. For the first time, billions more will have been borrowed to finance tax cuts in the midst of war.
Confronting the debt amassed during the Revolutionary War, George Washington was determined to pay it off, warning against “ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”
[ ]…As a result, the original House measure included a surtax of 0.47 percent on income of more than $1 million for married couples, $500,000 for individuals. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, this levy would affect three-tenths of 1 percent of taxpayers, who would pay an average of $8,770 more. Not much to ask from a group that saved an average of $126,690 last year from the Bush tax cuts.
Not much, that is, except to the White House, which declared this and any other tax increase “unacceptable.” The Senate, for its part, couldn’t be bothered to bring the House proposal up for a vote.
“We believe if we can spend $170 billion on Iraq that we should spend $5 billion a year on the people coming back from Iraq,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid. “I don’t know why that would have to be offset.”
Here’s the new, bipartisan fiscal policy: Soak the grandchildren. George Washington would have been appalled.