Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Carter plus Clinton -- home loans to people who couldn't pay them back, repeal of Glass-Steagle.
Clinton -- NAFTA, major offshoring of jobs.
Obama -- National debt goes from $9 trillion to $18 trillion and climbing. "Come on in" to illegals and refugees who go on welfare, take jobs from Americans, depress wages, crowd hospital emergency rooms (without paying), lower the quality of life in neighborhoods, commit terrorist acts (San Bernardino, Boston bombing), commit horrible murders (Kate Steinle, the Bologna Family), and overburden public schools.
The economy collapsed at the end of the Democrat Carter Administration.
That's the reason Republican Reagan got elected.
...
Carter -- double digit unemployment, double digit interest rates, double digit inflation.
Carter plus Clinton -- home loans to people who couldn't pay them back, repeal of Glass-Steagle.
Clinton -- NAFTA, major offshoring of jobs.
Obama -- National debt goes from $9 trillion to $18 trillion and climbing. "Come on in" to illegals and refugees who go on welfare, take jobs from Americans, depress wages, crowd hospital emergency rooms (without paying), lower the quality of life in neighborhoods, commit terrorist acts (San Bernardino, Boston bombing), commit horrible murders (Kate Steinle, the Bologna Family), and overburden public schools.
It's all he deserves.
I feel compelled to defend Jimmy Carter against your blame. The recession that Jimmy Carter endured was caused by the Federal Reserve, which Carter did not control, raising interest rates to double-digits to control inflation due to skyrocketing oil prices. The recession was essentially self-inflicted. Economists have argued that Fed police in this was overblown, as it slowed the economy much more than it needed to be and caused lots of personal pain.
Once the Fed relaxed the police, around 1983, interest rates came down the economy stabilized and there was an economic rebound. Reagan had very little to do with the rebound. It was the result of the Fed taking their foot off the brakes.
You also blame Obama for increasing the debt from $9 to 18 trillion. What specific policies of Obama caused that , exactly? The deficit during the period after the recession started increased because of lower revenue not Obama going on a spending spree. In fact, the high deficit was predicted before Obama was sworn in.
Since then, the deficit has been reduced by 75% -- largely because of economic recovery and also because of Obama's undoing upper-income tax breaks.
I'm great. Thanks for asking. I guess you don't understand the reference. It's ok.
I hope you are okay. What is going to occupy your mind in a year? Obama will no longer be President and you will have to find another vocation. Although, I'm sure there will be others to hate so my concern is just as misguided as your reality. Cheers.
I feel compelled to defend Jimmy Carter against your blame. The recession that Jimmy Carter endured was caused by the Federal Reserve, which Carter did not control, raising interest rates to double-digits to control inflation due to skyrocketing oil prices. The recession was essentially self-inflicted. Economists have argued that Fed police in this was overblown, as it slowed the economy much more than it needed to be and caused lots of personal pain.
Once the Fed relaxed the police, around 1983, interest rates came down the economy stabilized and there was an economic rebound. Reagan had very little to do with the rebound. It was the result of the Fed taking their foot off the brakes.
You also blame Obama for increasing the debt from $9 to 18 trillion. What specific policies of Obama caused that , exactly? The deficit during the period after the recession started increased because of lower revenue not Obama going on a spending spree. In fact, the high deficit was predicted before Obama was sworn in.
Since then, the deficit has been reduced by 75% -- largely because of economic recovery and also because of Obama's undoing upper-income tax breaks.
The game that's being played here is to blame presidents for all debt, deficits, unemployment, high interest rates and inflation.
Democrats do it to Republican presidents.
I am just returning the favor.
Obama said Bush was "unpatriotic" for increasing the debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion.
When Obama leaves office, it will be $20 trilliion.
He will have "spent" twice as much as Bush.
So those low Obama deficits do not reflect reality.
Remember when Democrats criticized Bush for "off the books" spending?
The same criticism can be leveled at Obama.
Obama and the Democrats would not have accepted any excuses from Bush.
So I'm not accepting any excuses from Obama and the Democrats.
Especially considering the fact that their "solution" to everything is to spend (or as they put it, "invest") money that we don't have.
Obama and the Democrats have shown absolutely ZERO interest in reducing waste, fraud and abuse in government.
Last edited by dechatelet; 01-10-2016 at 11:53 PM..
The game that's being played here is to blame presidents for all debt, deficits, unemployment, high interest rates and inflation.
Democrats do it to Republican presidents.
I am just returning the favor.
Obama said Bush was "unpatriotic" for increasing the debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion.
When Obama leaves office, it will be $20 trilliion.
He will have "spent" twice as much as Bush.
So those low Obama deficits do not reflect reality.
Remember when Democrats criticized Bush for "off the books" spending?
The same criticism can be leveled at Obama.
Obama and the Democrats would not have accepted any excuses from Bush.
So I'm not accepting any excuses from Obama and the Democrats.
Obama and the Democrats have shown absolutely ZERO interest in reducing waste, fraud and abuse in government.
There is a qualitative difference between raising the debt by cutting taxes in relatively good years and having debt because the economy went to near-depression levels and dried up revenue. Besides, from an economic standpoint, one is supposed to run deficits in recessions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Especially considering the fact that their "solution" to everything is to spend (or as they put it, "invest") money that we don't have.
That reflects mirror thinking. Conservatives say they are for small government as a goal of its own, so conservatives think that liberals must believe the opposite and thus be for more spending, regardless of what for.
The reality is that liberals want government to do certain things, like provide essential health care; a safety net and old age benefits, the size of government per se isn’t the objective.
But reviewing recent history, the size of government increased the most under Republican Administrations. In fact, under Obama, government spending was flat compared to Bush.
There is a qualitative difference between raising the debt by cutting taxes in relatively good years and having debt because the economy went to near-depression levels and dried up revenue. Besides, from an economic standpoint, one is supposed to run deficits in recessions.
That reflects mirror thinking. Conservatives say they are for small government as a goal of its own, so conservatives think that liberals must believe the opposite and thus be for more spending, regardless of what for.
The reality is that liberals want government to do certain things, like provide essential health care; a safety net and old age benefits, the size of government per se isn’t the objective.
But reviewing recent history, the size of government increased the most under Republican Administrations. In fact, under Obama, government spending was flat compared to Bush.
Obama's increase of the national debt by $10 trillion (as opposed to Bush's $5 trillion) refutes your claim that Republicans are the big spenders.
Which economists would say that you're supposed to spend more when you have no money to spend?
Oh, the loony-left economists like Krugman.
Right.
Liberals are ALWAYS for more spending (whether we as a nation are broke or not) -- of other people's money.
Obama's increase of the national debt by $10 trillion (as opposed to Bush's $5 trillion) refutes your claim that Republicans are the big spenders.
No, "Obama" didn't increase the debt by $10 trillion. Revenues dropped by $500 billion per year, before Obama became President and automatic safety net programs, already on the books, increased spending on the unemployed. To blame Obama, one would have to find policies of Obama that caused the debt. There aren't any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Which economists would say that you're supposed to spend more when you have no money to spend?
Oh, the loony-left economists like Krugman.
Right.
Liberals are ALWAYS for more spending (whether we as a nation are broke or not) -- of other people's money.
One shows their economic illiteracy when they don't even know basic economics. ECO 101 teaches that government spending in a depressed economy mitigates the slump. The idea was first theorized by Keynes and is accepted as how economies work. Every respected economist, from Hicks, Freidman, Stiglitz and yes, Krugman believe this and the evidence over the last eight years confirms it. Even the Weekly Standard confirms that this works:
Quote:
Which brings us to the economic level. The deficits that Bush ran up in the years in which the country was teetering on the verge of a serious recession had the beneficial effect of righting the economy. In that sense, deficits not only didn't matter, but were a force for economic good.
Since you brought up Krugman, here is today's column: The Obama Boom
Last edited by MTAtech; 01-11-2016 at 06:07 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
