AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I wouldn't worry about the census, Foxfyre. You see, BO will see to it that ACORN shakes off the indictments concerning massive vote fraud which helped BO to win election and then the ACORN people will be highly involved in the census. I know that they will do a competent job and will not load up the rolls with more minorities than really exist out there.

None of those ACORN idiots had not better come to my door.

1 Reply

Unemployment Rates, Income tax Rates, Revenues, GDP, & Surplus/Deficit for
Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, & Bush 43.

RELEVANT LINKS:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Unemployed Table 1942 to 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1913 to 2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 1.1 Summary of Budget Receipts Outlays Surpluses or Deficits, 1789-2012 (in millions of dollars)
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Surplus or Deficit

CARTER
Unemployment decreased from 7.7% in 1976, to 7.1% in 1980.
Income tax rates constant 14% min to 70% max in 1976 thru 1980.
Revenues increased from 379,292 million in 1976, to 517,112 million in 1980.
GDP increased from 1,825.3 billion in 1976, to 2,789.5 billion in 1980.
Deficit as %GPD decreased from -4.2 in 1976, to -2.7 in 1980.

REAGAN
Unemployment decreased from 7.1% in 1980, to 5.5% in 1988.
Income tax rates decreased from 14% min to 70% max in 1980, to 15% min to 33% max in 1988.
Revenues increased from 517,112 million in 1980, to 909,303 million in 1988.
GDP increased from 2,789.5 billion in 1980, to 5,103.8 billion in 1988.
Deficit as %GPD increased from -2.7 in 1980, to -3.1 in 1988.

BUSH 41
Unemployment increased from 5.5% in 1988, to 7.5% in 1992.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min to 33% max in 1988, to 15% min to 31% max in 1992.
Revenues increased from 909,303 million in 1988, to 1,091,328 million in 1992.
GDP increased from 5,103.8 billion in 1988, to 6,337.7 billion in 1992.
Deficit as %GPD increased from -3.1 in 1988 to -4.7 in 1992

CLINTON
Unemployment decreased from 7.5% in 1992, to 4.0% in 2000.
Income tax rates increased from 15% min to 31% max in 1992, to 15% min to 39.6% max in 2000.
Revenues increased from 1,091,328 million in 1992, to 2,025,457 million in 2000.
GDP increased from 6,337.7 billion in 1992, to 9,817.0 billion in 2000.
Deficit as %GPD decreased from -4.7 in 1976, to +2.4 in 1980.

BUSH 43
Unemployment increased from 4.0% in 2000 to 4.6% in 2007.
Unemployment increased from 4.6% in 2007 to 7.2% in 2008.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min to 39.6% max in 2000, to 10% min to 35% max in 2006,
Income tax rates constant from 10% min to 35% max in 2006, to 10% min to 35% max in 2008,
Revenues increased from 2,025,457 million in 2001, to 2,662,476 million in 2008.
GDP increased from 9,817.0 billion in 2000 to 14,280.7 billion in 2008.
Deficit as %GPD increased from +2.4 in 2000, to -1.9 in 2006.
Deficit as %GPD increased from -1.9 in 2006, to -2.9 in 2008.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I don't get why the official data states that the number of federal employes was e.g. in 1970 exactly 3.81% of all employees and in 2007 just 1.85%.

But certainly those figures don't look as dangerous as Foxfyre's calculation.

population grew while government job numbers stayed about the same??

let's check! gawd, i love the internets! okay... i cheaped out and used wiki; i'm short on time today, but i needed my a2k fix!

pop. / usa @ 1970 = 203,302,031

pop. / usa @ (july est.) 2009 = 307,212,123

my little handy calc craps out on millions, but do we all agree that it represents +/- a 33% increase in us population?

if the census numbers and walter's percentiles are correct...

<gasp!> it means we actually have smaller government than under nixon. than under reagan, bush 1 and bush II.

not that i think obama has anything to do with that. just sayin' maybe we are all getting a little bit of hype about the size of government from some people with a different agenda than most average americans.

1 Reply

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

None of those ACORN idiots had not better come to my door.

yeah? and......?

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DTOM, That would be a 50% increase. <smile> It would be 1/3rd after the growth. 50% of 200 = 100 200+100 = 300 100/300 = 1/3rd

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

DTOM, That would be a 50% increase. <smile> It would be 1/3rd after the growth. 50% of 200 = 100 200+100 = 300 100/300 = 1/3rd

my bad.

0 Replies

In comparison with private sector employees, government employees are much more advanced relative to degrees, skills, responsibilities, etc. Also, one should not trust anything from Cato. It is extreme right-wing and anti-government.

Obama has moved to limit pay increases for the feds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022601716.html

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Obama has moved to limit pay increases for the feds.

i don't know if there is a legal way to freeze congressional raises. if there is, they need to take gas like the rest of us until they work together with the administration to get the country back on track.

just stompin' around making party noises don't get it done.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

The December 2007 government payroll was:

Quote:

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
BY FUNCTION: DECEMBER 2007
Payroll in whole dollars.
(Detail may not add to total because of rounding)
Total
Total
Full-Time
December
Function
Employees
Employees
Payroll
TOTAL - ALL FUNCTIONS
2,730,050
2,462,127
14,426,625,181 * That's billions for one month.
Financial Administration
109,298
106,009
668,910,250
Other Government Administration
24,487
23,559
147,105,481
Judicial and Legal
60,742
57,989
434,013,286
Police
166,444
153,901
943,210,429
Correction
36,654
36,521
188,487,750
Highways
2,824
2,762
20,120,107
Air Transportation
45,672
45,354
391,401,571
Water Transport & Terminals
4,486
4,308
12,580,214
Public Welfare
8,364
8,122
60,125,267
Health
140,703
130,952
918,976,252
Hospitals
172,604
156,756
1,035,644,679
Social Insurance Administration
63,690
61,927
367,489,500
Parks and Recreation
24,442
22,814
117,483,658
Housing and Community Development
15,352
15,160
101,732,036
Natural Resources
186,760
178,471
1,072,044,214
Nat Defense/International Relations
698,805
675,134
2,991,858,444
Postal Service
767,879
602,339
3,528,534,036
Space Research & Technology
18,517
18,297
155,758,393
Other Education*
10,271
9,784
65,992,309
Libraries
3,883
3,706
26,227,107
Other and Unallocable
168,173
148,262
1,178,930,198

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

You obviously are not aware that ACORN has been indicted.

Do you think they are anything other than a group of inner city thugs who do BO's bidding?

l. Washington State preosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud.

2. Nevada officials charged Acorn on May 4, 2009 with submitting THOUSANDS of fraudulent voter registration forms last year.

3. Catherine Cortez Mastro, Nevada's DEMOCRATIC Attorney General, charges that Acorn's training manuals "clearly detail, condone and require illegal acts".

4. Fred Voight, DEMOCRATIC deputy election commissioner in Philadelphia indicated that ACORN submitted at least 1,500 fraudulent registrations last fall. Mr. Voight indicated that " This has been going on for a number of years"

so what?

BO seems not to care.

Last year, Citizens Consulting, Inc., the umbrella group controlling ACORN. was paid $832,000 by the OBAMA CAMPAIGN FOR GET OUT THE VOTE EFFORTS IN KEY PRIMARY STATES.

People outside Illinois do not realize that BO got his start as a community organizer at Acorn's side. BO head a registration effort for Project Vote, an Acorn partner at the time.

In 1995, BO represented ACORN in a key case upholding the Motor Voter Act-the very law whose mandated postcard registration system Acorn workers use to flood election offices with bogus registrations>

This is not suprising to anyone who is aware in Illinois. BO was part of the corruption of the Blagojevich administration. I find it astonishing that oneof the most "intelligent" presidents we have ever had knew nothing about Illinois corruption and that one of the most "moral" presidents who campaigned under the rubric of "transparency" did not say a word about the corruption in Illinois.

2 Replies

It is worth reviewing ICAN's excellent breakdown-

Note:

BUSH 43
Unemployment increased from 4.0% in 2000 to 4.6% in 2007.
Unemployment increased from 4.6% in 2007 to 7.2% in 2008.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min to 39.6% max in 2000, to 10% min to 35% max in 2006,
Income tax rates constant from 10% min to 35% max in 2006, to 10% min to 35% max in 2008,
Revenues increased from 2,025,457 million in 2001, to 2,662,476 million in 2008.
GDP increased from 9,817.0 billion in 2000 to 14,280.7 billion in 2008.
Deficit as %GPD increased from +2.4 in 2000, to -1.9 in 2006.
Deficit as %GPD increased from -1.9 in 2006, to -2.9 in 2007

*****************************************************

What a piker!!! Bush, according to the left wing, an incompetent president, had a 7.2% Unemployment in 2008!!

BO, clearly superior, has now reached 8.9% Unemployment---will definitely exceed 10% Unemployment soon.

0 Replies

Candide wrote:

Within two years the budget surpluses ($231 billion)were gone, and the national debt was on it's way back up as the Bushies began borrowing again to make ends meet. By the time they left office they'd add another $5 trillion to the national debt.
end of quote
WRONG-

The National Debt was never ON THE WAY BACK UP during the Clinton years.
The National Debt NEVER went down. You obviously don't know the difference between a yearly deficit and the ongoing National Debt.

Below is evidence showing that the national debt GREW under Slick Willie.
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2008
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.

The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.

To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.

Date Dollar Amount
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

1 Reply

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

You obviously are not aware that ACORN has been indicted.

proof ? put up or shut up, possum.

0 Replies

All left wingers can do is read comic books andname call. Below is your evidence--Even Setanta who tries hard to denigrate me, is afraid of even attempting to rebut my arguments. Setanta obviously pisses himself when he sees my arguments appearing. That is why he posts like a ten year old snot nose.

Now-Don't tread--Put away your comic book and read---

www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/04/acorn_indicted/ -

By Alex Koppelman
Monday, May 4, 2009 19:30 EDT
Nevada indicts ACORN on felony charges
Many years from now, when only the cockroaches are left to pick over the dry bones of our civilization, and WALL-E patrols the desolate, wind-blasted wasteland, just two things will remain from the 21st century's first decade: Former Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., will still be in court fighting over the 2008 election, and someone, somewhere, will be attacking ACORN.

ACORN, you may recall, was a favorite punching bag for the Republicans all summer and fall last year. Warnings that the group was scheming to commit massive voter fraud, while almost totally baseless, even merited a mention from John McCain during one of the presidential debates.

Today comes news that Nevada has indicted ACORN, focusing on two of the organization’s officers. The charge against the organization is that it paid workers a bonus for every voter registration form turned in above a certain number, and that it maintained a quota system -- workers who didn't turn in enough forms were fired. These practices are illegal under state law; typically, workers must be paid by the hour, and ACORN claims that's its policy on a national level. This is done in order to avoid encouraging precisely the kind of phony registrations that has gotten the group in trouble.

A spokesperson for the organization says the compensation system wasn't official policy but the decision of rogue staff members, adding, "It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State can’t distinguish the victim from the villain." But the state contends that paperwork makes it clear that ACORN executives knew, or should have known, about the payments.

This still doesn't come anywhere close to proving the most damning allegation made against the group, that it has tried to rig elections. The fraudulent registrations turned in by ACORN's workers are attempts to get some money from the group, not to get phantom voters on the rolls in order to steal an election. But if Nevada's allegations are true, it would represent another entry in a long list of ways in which the organization has proven unable or unwilling to police its own, and has ended up with some well-deserved egg on its face as a result.

― Gabriel Winant
Posted in: 2008 Election

1 Reply

@genoves,

The allegations concerning ACORN sound like peanuts compared to the proven charges against Abramoff and others in the Rep party. Perhaps the Rep party should be deemed illegal.

1 Reply

@genoves,

While the debt did grow some under Clinton, he was producing surpluses that would have eventually reduced or eliminated the debt.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Clinton would have had to deal with 9/11 just as Bush did. Clinton would have had to deal with the developing recession that Bush inherited and that was extremely exacerbated by 9/11. And since the ball was started rolling on his watch, it is unlikely Clinton would have done any more to head off the financial collapse than the Bush administration did.

Clinton was blessed with a fiscally conservative GOP controlled Congress who dragged him kicking and screaming into welfare reform--I think it was three bills he vetoed before public opinion finally persuaded him to sign one.

Clinton was not a fiscal conservative--the so-called "Hillary Care" project was so outrageously expensive that even the Democratically controlled Congress at that time couldn't stomach it. However, there were no budget surplusses until the GOP took over and Clinton who wanted to be loved more than anything else, to his credit, did go along with the program . He himself did employ some fiscally competent people and he does deserve some credit there. A GOP Congress against a Democrat President also helped.

By the time George 43 was elected, however, many of that GOP freshman class had kept their pledges to impose their own term limits and didn't run for re-election, and those coming in were not the fiscal conservatives Clinton had to work with. Nor was George W. Bush. A spendthrift Congress and a spendthrift President is a bad combination.

How much worse a President and Congress of his own party who are twice as fiscally irrresponsible? I read this morning that we are borrowing 50 cents of every dollar we are spending and the deficits are going up at an unprecedented rate while they were coming down under the previous administration at least until the massive financial collapse for which both the Clinton and Bush administrations must take the blame.

We can't keep that up. Viva la Tea Parties until the voice of the people are finally heard in Washington.

1 Reply

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

....if Nevada's allegations are true, it would represent another entry in a long list of ways in which the organization has proven unable or unwilling to police its own, and has ended up with some well-deserved egg on its face as a result.

and if they are convicted of trying to rig the election, i'll be happy to condemn them.

but, there have already been similar charges made with nothing coming from ot. so we'll have to see what happens.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Clinton was blessed with a fiscally conservative GOP controlled Congress

I guess that was the same fiscally conservative GOP controlled Congress that Bush was blessed with for 6 years.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

The problem is that when you see ACORN in the news, it is usually not made clear which of the many arms of this enormous and widespread group is being referenced. The subsidiaries of ACORN--the ones that receive the funding--are all 501(c)3 organizations and are therefore not allowed to take a political side. They all funnel money into the parent corporation, however, which is a 501(c)4 organization and a powerful lobby exclusively working for the benefit of the Democratic Party. It is practically an arm of the Democratic Party. And THAT is where the corruption comes in. I was just listening to a lady this morning who was a former employee of ACORN and it was her belief that the organization is thoroughly corrupt in a way that is absolutely detrimental to a fair and representative political process.

Quote:

Although ACORN's projects run a wide gamut, the group claims as its purpose helping low- and middle-income Americans " through initiatives ranging from improving urban public schools, to providing counseling on how to avoid "predatory lending," to increasing the availability of "affordable housing." Most of these programs are conducted locally, by state-level ACORN organizations " which are often set up as 501(c)3 nonprofit entities distinct from the national ACORN umbrella, a 501(c)4 lobbying organization. Sounds benign enough " except that, according to Bob Huberty, executive vice president of the Capital Research Center, these tax-exempt 501(c)3s "have no reason for existence other than to get grants from the government and foundations." They are, essentially, an ACORN front for asking Uncle Sam to subsidize political activity.

More here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/clyne200410311142.asp

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know