The Deficit Did Not Cause The Recession, The Recession Caused The Deficit

More accurately, the Bush tax cuts, a mild recession, two wars and increased spending caused the initial deficits. The recession caused the $1T+ deficits. And increased spending and more tax cuts caused ongoing deficits.

and let us guess... Bush somehow caused the 8 years of Clinton deficits too?
 
That was news to me as well. Can't say I've ever heard someone on the right claim to hate Ike.

The Birchers used to call him a commie. I don't really follow right wing pundits today so I can't say one way or the other.

There is no doubt however that it's self-evident that the right wing has almost completely ignored Eisenhower and any legacy he had, and fluffed Ronald Reagan to the point of "greatness"

BTW, can you name any Republican nominees who mentioned Eisenhower in the 08 and 012 primary debates? They practically dusted off Reagan's corpse and all danced around to the tune "I'm more Reagan than he is!" the whole time.

So let's not pretend that Desh is crazy okay?
 
then why is it the right HATES IKE?


He is the one who warned us about the military industrial complex.


People in the right hate his fucking guts

A good rule of thumb is if you are praised by a stupid liberal like you then you probably aren't a conservative.

You shouldn't assume that everyone blindly follows the party the way you do sweetums
 
and let us guess... Bush somehow caused the 8 years of Clinton deficits too?

Not really. Those were vestiges of Reagan that GHWB got run out of office for trying to correct. It took some time, but Clinton finally managed to get the situation under control just in time for GWB to blow it all up.
 
The Birchers used to call him a commie. I don't really follow right wing pundits today so I can't say one way or the other.

There is no doubt however that it's self-evident that the right wing has almost completely ignored Eisenhower and any legacy he had, and fluffed Ronald Reagan to the point of "greatness"

BTW, can you name any Republican nominees who mentioned Eisenhower in the 08 and 012 primary debates? They practically dusted off Reagan's corpse and all danced around to the tune "I'm more Reagan than he is!" the whole time.

So let's not pretend that Desh is crazy okay?

So because they reference a President most people can remember vs. one that most were not even alive for, somehow that doesn't make Desh crazy for her bullshit about the right 'hating' Ike?

Can you name any Democrats who brought up Truman? Does the lack of doing so mean they hate Truman?
 
The Birchers used to call him a commie. I don't really follow right wing pundits today so I can't say one way or the other.

There is no doubt however that it's self-evident that the right wing has almost completely ignored Eisenhower and any legacy he had, and fluffed Ronald Reagan to the point of "greatness"

BTW, can you name any Republican nominees who mentioned Eisenhower in the 08 and 012 primary debates? They practically dusted off Reagan's corpse and all danced around to the tune "I'm more Reagan than he is!" the whole time.

So let's not pretend that Desh is crazy okay?

So because Republican candidates today don't mention Ike that means they hate him? Seems like a pretty big leap coming to that conclusion. And you're the one referencing Desh as crazy. I simply responded to her comment of the right hating Ike by stating I have not heard anyone on the right say such a thing.
 
Not really. Those were vestiges of Reagan that GHWB got run out of office for trying to correct. It took some time, but Clinton finally managed to get the situation under control just in time for GWB to blow it all up.

LMAO... you are truly a delusional partisan hack.
 
So because Republican candidates today don't mention Ike that means they hate him? Seems like a pretty big leap coming to that conclusion. And you're the one referencing Desh as crazy. I simply responded to her comment of the right hating Ike by stating I have not heard anyone on the right say such a thing.

No, it doesn't mean that. I am simply stating that the Birchers definitely used to, and explaining that since I don't generally follow nutbaggery, I am unsure of how they feel about him today. Do you know?

And the mainstream Republicans have certainly erased Eisenhower. That doesn't imply love or respect at the very least.
 
No, it doesn't mean that. I am simply stating that the Birchers definitely used to, and explaining that since I don't generally follow nutbaggery, I am unsure of how they feel about him today. Do you know?

And the mainstream Republicans have certainly erased Eisenhower. That doesn't imply love or respect at the very least.

As I said I have not heard anyone on the right (individual or group) state they hate Ike. I've said it three times. It doesn't mean an individual or group doesn't exist but I haven't heard of one. If there is I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong.

How much do you feel mainstream groups should talk about ex-Presidents in your opinion and how far back should we go in determining which Presidents should be discussed?
 
As I said I have not heard anyone on the right (individual or group) state they hate Ike. I've said it three times. It doesn't mean an individual or group doesn't exist but I haven't heard of one. If there is I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong.

How much do you feel mainstream groups should talk about ex-Presidents in your opinion and how far back should we go in determining which Presidents should be discussed?

Well I don't know. I mean Obama was quoting Harry Truman just this year. I think it's pretty glaringly apparent that today's Republican doesn't really want much, if anything, to do with Eisenhower. They have chosen to turn Reagan into some sort of Messiah-like figure instead. I mean, Reagan was born over 100 years ago now, how relevant is he really? I don't think it's a matter of the passage of time, I think they have chose to become the party of Reagan (sort of, I still say they are to the right of Reagan today, in fact, significantly so), and in doing so, have made Eisenhower in many ways invisible. To today's Republican. Doesn't mean history reads that way.
 
Not really. Their entire MO is to ballon up the deficit during GOP administrations you that when a Dem gets elected, they have no choice but to pay down the deficit, rather than pursue progressive goals. It has been working well for them since Raygun.

Exactly! To the Repubs war is an affordable option but medical care is not. The Repubs will do anything to avoid implementing social policies. At least decent ones that will endure. Like the Pill Bill that prohibits the government from negotiating drug prices. Has anyone ever heard of such nonsense offering to pay for something but forbidden to negotiate the price? It's lunacy!
 
Well I don't know. I mean Obama was quoting Harry Truman just this year. I think it's pretty glaringly apparent that today's Republican doesn't really want much, if anything, to do with Eisenhower. They have chosen to turn Reagan into some sort of Messiah-like figure instead. I mean, Reagan was born over 100 years ago now, how relevant is he really? I don't think it's a matter of the passage of time, I think they have chose to become the party of Reagan (sort of, I still say they are to the right of Reagan today, in fact, significantly so), and in doing so, have made Eisenhower in many ways invisible. To today's Republican. Doesn't mean history reads that way.

How do equate any of that with hating Ike? Desh said the rights hates Ike. I do not see how being the Party of Reagan means the right hates every other Republican President before and after.
 
Yeah. It's not like the numbers back me up or anything.

No, they most certainly do not back you up. To pretend that Clinton's early deficits had anything to do with Reagan is absurd at best. To pretend that it was Clinton that suddenly 'got control' of deficits while ignoring the shift in power in Congress from Dem to Rep is comical. To ignore the fact that despite one of the best peace time economies of any President, Clinton still raised our debt by $1.6 Trillion is sad. Pretending it was 'because of Reagan' is simply pathetic.
 
The Deficit Did Not Cause The Recession, The Recession Caused The Deficit


Interesting premise....totally bogus, totally unrelated, totally propaganda fiction....

The deficit was simply caused by overspending
----------------------------------------------
Recessions have been caused by lots of things...
this recession was caused by incompetence in the running of and negligence of oversight of Freddy Mac and Jenny Mae (Frank and Dodd)

but then....a recession can cause unemployment

in turn.... high unemployment causes fed. revenue to fall

and falling revenue can lead to deficit spending...which is easliy fixed by cutting spending.

what a rat race....:palm:

I am amazed every day I see you still posting on this board. Because anyone as stupid as you can't possibly cross a street without getting creamed.
 
How do equate any of that with hating Ike? Desh said the rights hates Ike. I do not see how being the Party of Reagan means the right hates every other Republican President before and after.

I didn't say they hate him. I said that part of the right DID hate him back then, including the Birchers who said he was a commie. And I then went on to state I don't know how they feel about him today since they never mention him and have basically rendered him invisible.

I do believe they hate much of what he stood for. For instance:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

I mean, come on. LOL No wonder they don't' talk him up huh? Do you think they love him Cawacko??
 
No, they most certainly do not back you up. To pretend that Clinton's early deficits had anything to do with Reagan is absurd at best. To pretend that it was Clinton that suddenly 'got control' of deficits while ignoring the shift in power in Congress from Dem to Rep is comical. To ignore the fact that despite one of the best peace time economies of any President, Clinton still raised our debt by $1.6 Trillion is sad. Pretending it was 'because of Reagan' is simply pathetic.


LOL. Here's a chart:

fredgraph.png


The trend under Clinton is unmistakable, as is the trend before him. And if you want to chalk it up to the GOP Congress, I don't really give a shit.
 
I didn't say they hate him. I said that part of the right DID hate him back then, including the Birchers who said he was a commie. And I then went on to state I don't know how they feel about him today since they never mention him and have basically rendered him invisible.

I do believe they hate much of what he stood for. For instance:



I mean, come on. LOL No wonder they don't' talk him up huh? Do you think they love him Cawacko??

Desh said the right hates Ike. I said they don't. You have yet to show an example of a right wing individual or group today that hates Ike.

I don't know, nor do I really care, what level of feelings today's GOP and conservative leaders hold for Ike. I've never heard it discussed.
 
then why is it the right HATES IKE?


He is the one who warned us about the military industrial complex.


People in the right hate his fucking guts


Where do you learn your foolishness.....

The right hates Ike ?....is this from a nut in some far, far left asylum whose job it is to re-write history ?
Or maybe a pissed righty looking for revenge ......

You're not smart enough to dream up this shit on your own.
 
LOL. Here's a chart:

fredgraph.png


The trend under Clinton is unmistakable, as is the trend before him. And if you want to chalk it up to the GOP Congress, I don't really give a shit.

LMAO... take a look at the trend under Reagan and Bush you dolt.

That said, you chart is bogus... it is impossible for there to have been positive numbers when not one single year did the nations debt decrease under Clinton. So what are they using? Budget numbers?

and yes, since CONGRESS controls the purse strings, we are most certainly going to attribute the budget and spending in large part to who has control of Congress.
 
Back
Top