I am always amused when liberals who mock supply side economics, attempt to use it to explain their own idiotic economic baloney.
What's causing rising debt?
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
I am always amused when liberals who mock supply side economics, attempt to use it to explain their own idiotic economic baloney.
Isn't it funny when leftists who supported Obamunism for eight years want to use supply side economists to make their laughably stupid arguments?
That is a lie; and no, he did not dumbass.
Presidents cannot spend or tax. That is the Congress. The Congress controlled by Republicans during BillyBob's philandering Presidency are the one's who dictated the agenda, not BillyBob.
I do wish you had a brain.
Reagan, the Republican demigod more than doubled it "dashiki".
But Reagan had by some criteria, justification, for the economy Reagan inherited from Carter was a mess. 17% inflation?
The thing is, Reagan promised to balance the budget, & pay down the debt. Reagan lied, he did neither.
I don't recall Obama making any such promise. What Obama did was to revive the U.S. economy, and pull U.S. out of the Bush administration doldrums.
Perhaps you overlooked the "*" in #297.
Lookit R #299.
Seems to me like you're presuming to advocate fiscal responsibility to a fiscal conservative, me. Preaching to the choir is a fool's errand. You're welcome to waste your time if you wish. Please don't waste ours. I'm net debt free. I paid off my mortgage a generation ago.
I've read Article #one. No need to demonstrate you may have attended if not passed a high school civics course.
But know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; though Article 2 powers are separate from Article 1 powers, the exec. still has the authority to submit budget proposals to congress. And many modern presidents have done so.
Either you're so ignorant you don't know that, or you're so crooked that you thought I didn't, and tried to slip one past me. You're out of your league TD.
Click your heels together on your ruby slippers. Perhaps the wizard will grant your wish. But isn't it odd that brainless as I obviously am, I'm still smarter and better educated than you?
reagansghost
eternal
so how's that working out?
Republicans currently control the house, via Speaker Ryan.
Republicans currently control the senate, via ML McConnell.
Republicans currently control the exec., via President Trump.
Not well.
As I've already observed, Governor Clinton ran against incumbent President Bush (elder) in part with the slogan "it's the economy stupid". I'm not calling anyone stupid. I'm reporting the slogan.
Clinton KNEW the economy was a key issue for his 8 year presidential tenure.
And Clinton's tenure was reportedly the longest sustained span of prosperity in U.S. history. Coincidence? I don't THINK so.
Republicans currently control the senate, via ML McConnell.
Republicans currently control the exec., via President Trump.
Not well.
As I've already observed, Governor Clinton ran against incumbent President Bush (elder) in part with the slogan "it's the economy stupid". I'm not calling anyone stupid. I'm reporting the slogan.
Clinton KNEW the economy was a key issue for his 8 year presidential tenure.
And Clinton's tenure was reportedly the longest sustained span of prosperity in U.S. history. Coincidence? I don't THINK so.
It isn't. Check the data, if you don't believe me. Deficits have tended to rise more under Republican presidents than Democratic ones.
Well, yes -- depending on how you do the calculation the DECLINE in the deficit on Obama's watch did set a record.
Who is BillyBob Clinton?
There was no recession in 2000.
The return to deficits long predates 2007. After having run surpluses in Clinton's last budget years, we again ran a deficit starting in FY 2002 (which started October 1, 2001, and was Bush's first full budget year), and we've run a deficit every year since then. By FY 2004 (starting October 1, 2003), the deficit was $412.727 billion, which was not only the highest deficit in history, to that point, but was a full 42% higher than the pre-Bush record that had been set towards the end of the catastrophic Reagan/Bush era (FY 1992, at $290.321 billion).
Facts matter. Shouldn't you learn some?
Presidents control the veto. That's why Clinton's presidency was a time when Congress was unable to push through upper-class tax cuts or huge military spending increases, and that's why the deficit declined. If we'd had a Reagan- or Bush-style president, pushing Congress to kneecap federal revenues with tax handouts to the rich, while further bloating the defense industry, we'd have had Reagan- or Bush-style results. Why do you suppose the deficit started falling, in the Clinton years, BEFORE the Republicans took Congress? And why do you suppose the deficit started rising, in the Bush years, even while the Republicans controlled Congress? There's a clear correlation, in the last several decades, between who controls the presidency and whether deficits rise or fall. You'd be hard pressed to show a similar correlation based on which party controls the Congress.