Debt and Deficits Presidents and Congress: Swingers Discussion 2101051031

Busy Swingers Forum

TOPIC: Debt and Deficits -- Presidents and Congress

GoTo Page: Less ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... More

Start

31 to 40 of 305

End

User Details are only visible to members.	To be fair, I don't think the debt amassed under GWB caused the recession, although it posed obstacles to recovery. Maybe to some extent it helped overheat a housing bubble that was happening anyway, just as the tax cuts in 1997 helped overheat the technology boom that was happening anyway.
San Quentin CA			Username hidden (8604 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"Well, federal tax revenues for the past few years have hovered around 16% of GDP, the lowest levels in over half a century. How's that working out for ya?" I imagine its working out just swimingly, no? Reagan wanted to 'starve the beast' in order to reduce government. Little did he know that the dry-drunk son of his former VP would win office and spend out our future like a sailor on shore leave and plunge us into a massive recession. The was dysfunctional from the get go. Like giving your wife a new credit card with no limit to get her to reduce her spending.... Are we just fuking insane as a society?
East Fishkill NY			Username hidden (2772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"And their insistence that ... supply side economics works. It doesn't." Republican/Grover Norquist dogma for the last 30+ years has been that tax cuts targeted at the so-called job creators are a cure all for whatever ails you. "Deficits don't matter" was Cheney's famous statement, claiming that lower taxes are all that's needed to spur robust economic growth. Well, federal tax revenues for the past few years have hovered around 16% of GDP, the lowest levels in over half a century. How's that working out for ya?
San Quentin CA			Username hidden (8604 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"PASSED BY A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, which Obama was part of." Yep, and it was a whopping $19 billion more than Bush had asked for in his budget. It included $5.5 billion in earmarks. That didn't exactly account for the deficit in 2009; the recession was the much bigger reason. Don't get me wrong. I can't stand Pelosi, and Democrats in Congress too often go along with higher domestic spending than they should, just as Republicans write blank checks for any defense spending (and some domestic spending too) that Republican presidents ask for.
San Quentin CA			Username hidden (8604 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"Their universally dire predictions of recession from Clinton's tax increase? All wrong. Their predictions that the budget wouldn't balance for over a decade under Clinton's budgets? All wrong. The list goes on and on." And their insistence that Uncle Milty was correct and supply side economics works. It doesn't. How is it that we are doing this again? Can't we learn as a Nation?
East Fishkill NY			Username hidden (2772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"It's funny how you can credit Clinton for anything while completely ignoring the Contract with America (Fiscal Responsibility Act) which put Newt and the Republicans in power." I don't feel like explaining this to you in detail again; you didn't have any response the first few times. (I didn't even get into Clinton's policies to hold down interest rates and expand international trade, as you wouldn't understand them anyway). Spending was already restrained (3.7% annual growth) during Clinton's first two years with a Democratic congress; that didn't change over his last six years with a Republican congress. What I find funny is your belief that the budgets adopted in those years were Newt's. There was a standoff, the gov't was shut down, and Newt caved. The budgets actually adopted were Clinton's, not Newt's. It's also funny that you can't accept the fact that Republicans were wrong, about everything. Their universally dire predictions of recession from Clinton's tax increase? All wrong. Their predictions that the budget wouldn't balance for over a decade under Clinton's budgets? All wrong. The list goes on and on. But I don't expect you to get it, because it doesn't fit your ideology.
San Quentin CA			Username hidden (8604 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"Great graph, here's what I see." Unsurprising.
San Quentin CA			Username hidden (8604 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"When Obama took office the spending for a great many functions had already been set for the whole fiscal year, and the rest had been funded by continuing resolutions through March (i.e., half of the fiscal year. " PASSED BY A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, which Obama was part of.
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14615 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	It's funny how you can credit Clinton for anything while completely ignoring the Contract with America (Fiscal Responsibility Act) which put Newt and the Republicans in power.
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14615 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	supportingevidence. com/Government/fed_debt_as_percent_GDP_over_time.html Great graph, here's what I see. Rise from 1981 - 1986, Control was split Rise 1987 - 1994, Democratic control Almost flat 1995 -1996, Republican control DECREASE 1997 - 2000. Republican Control Rise 2001 -2002, Control was split, Ya, Republican had control for 6 months. Almost flat, 2003 - 2006, Republican Control HUGE RISE 2007 - 2010, Democrat Control Seems to support exactly what I've been saying
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14615 post)

GoTo Page: Less ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... More

Start

31 to 40 of 305

End

TOPIC: Debt and Deficits -- Presidents and Congress

		HELP
FORUMS: General Discussions: Politics: Debt and Deficits -- Presidents and Congress