Who was the last democrat president to hand off a growing economy?

Question

Not Clinton, hippies.

How bout them Cowboys? Da Boyz are back, huh? Although I told romo to ease up on the picks.

Don c, had to go quote a book, can't think for yourself? And thats not true. The economy was not artifically inflated, if so, when is it going to deflate, goof? I'm driving a burb, you think thats fake?

And Don c doesn't accept e-mails. Just one more liberal coward. Nice bike, does your boyfriend drive and you ride?

Answer 1

What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."

Answer 2

It takes more than just a president. We have another elected set of representatives in Washington ( Senate and Congress) that are just as responsible for what happens as the president. We change presidents every 4 or 8 years, but have a whole house full of congressmen and senators who have been doing nothing for America for years and years. If it doesn't promote the political party, no matter which, it doesn't get done. As for social security, take away the pensions and lifetime salaries of the Washington crowd and put them depending on social security for retirement like the rest of us and they will do something to bail it out!

Answer 3

Yeah, how bout them crackboys? Barely escaped from Buffalo, a team that was ranked 32nd in defense this year yet managed to pick Romo 5 times, cause him to fumble which was returned for a TD and had to win it in overtime with a field goal. Can't wait to see them lose to the Pats. Prediction - Week 6, Romo throws 2 picks, sacked 3 times, can't get the ball to TO and that's when TO starts to act like TO. As for the answer to your question "I don't recall." - Ronald Reagan at the Iran Contra hearings.

Answer 4

Like most of us have already said
"It was Clinton"
your wrong again.

hey Don C. - unless you want more hateful insults don't let Galt get your e-mail ! (insults are all he is really good at - just check out his Q & A)

Clinton did a great job economically. Greenspan thinks so as well.

You got owned on this one john
just keep telling yourself that your a "Great Mind" - that was so damn funny.
:)
Suthrnlyts is Not going to think that being compared to you is a complement ! (good job kissing your own *ss)

Answer 5

government would not have the dedication to "make investments." It does in uncomplicated terms what's politically expedient, and it describes it as "investment" to place it in words which you will settle for as a voter. Tax fee cuts do no longer equate to much less gross sales. The formulation is fee * Taxable earnings, and at fairly decrease tax fees there would nicely be critically greater taxable earnings. Bush cut back some tax fees, yet entire gross sales went up by the years. the government collects much greater gross sales on the present fee than it did till now taxes have been decreased, so this is purely undeniable silly to equate the decrease fee with software cuts. "The tax code is in accordance with while you're making greater you pay greater and the country is built on the advantages gleaned from that." The tax code would be in accordance with that, yet you're incredibly ignorantly perplexing "government" with "united states of america." the government is built on what we tax, however the country is built on freedom (much less government) and prosperity interior the indoors maximum sector as an instant effect of that freedom. attempt to maintain up. You provide Clinton dissimilar credit for balancing the fee variety, pondering the very public battles he fought with a Republican Congress. They cut back his budgets, and finally what you describe as "stability" became into achieved in uncomplicated terms via raiding billions from the Social protection "lockbox."

Answer 6

Well WJC WAS the last ELECTED president who happened to be from the DemocratIC Party. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

Answer 7

LOL, that Don C is a hoot.

Probably took half the internet down with that post.

Answer 8

I think you're wrong, Jackhole. It was the Clintons. I remember 1999..obviously, you don't.

Answer 9

Clinton....booming economy and a surplus

Answer 10

Who was the last Republican that grew the economy without having to resort to deficit spending...