Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What do you mean "so what?" The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts. And I want you to keep this in mind.. I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending, and if you haven't figured it out by now, this can be done. We can drastically cut back certain welfare "programs" once we achieve employment for those who need it through both sectors. I feel like me and you can reach some common ground. We need to be honest, both sides have it wrong, the deficit hawks have it wrong..Tax cuts don't lead to economic growth anywhere near what the government can do. The same people who want tax cuts are the ones who, these days, unlike Reagan, have a religious obsession with lowering the debt and reducing the deficit. Reagan did his tax cuts with a bombing deficit you know..Yeah, cut the government by 50% and enjoy your recession. History doesn't lie.I'm convinced. When we cut government by 50%, we need huge tax cuts at the same time.
Why would a giant tax cut cause a recession?
Tax cuts don't lead to economic growth anywhere near what the government can do.
That's a shame. So what?
You tell me. All of these examples in my OP go directly with debt reduction attempts and deficit cuts. Notice what happens..People from both sides have been looking at deficits as something evil and wanting to cut them. Not the best idea, just look at history:
Think big deficits cause recessions
The record of history is clear and wholly consistent. Increases in the national debt and annual deficits never have harmed the economy, always have helped it. Significant reductions in the debt and the deficits never have helped, always have hurt. The record divides itself into two periods.
From the origins to World War II
In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.
Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.
This is the record:
1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.
2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.
3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..
4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.
5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.
6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.
There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.
Post-World War II
Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.
Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:
· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.
· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes.
· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.
Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.
The Republicans who now praise that "Reagan boom" never refer to the deficits or blame the Democratic Congress, while Democrats repeatedly attack "Reagan deficits." Neither side seems aware that a steep rise in deficits began in 1981, preceding the "boom" by almost two years.
When deficit reductions finally began in 1987, they paved the way for the next recession. Political irony is everywhere.
When the economy slides downhill, the incumbent president is badly damaged, and it does him little good to proclaim "success" in reducing deficits.
Ronald Reagan suffered no political harm because of the deficits of the 1980s and, even at his advanced age, might have been elected again in 1988 if he had been permitted to run. Whatever citizens say to pollsters, they vote against recessions, not budget deficits.
Driven by what appears to be wholly fallacious economic principles, politicians have put together such monstrosities as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollins deficit-reduction policy and the more recent "zero-sum budgeting" (all new programs must be financed by cuts in existing programs), along with the Clinton administration’s "reinvention of government" ("downsizing") to virtually guarantee a new economic disaster, perhaps more serious than any in recent decades.
What do you think does cause recessions?
Runs out of other people's money? You want to talk about economics and call me simplistic, yet, the first thing you try to claim is that the government is going to run out of people's money. News flash: we have our own currency and will NEVER default on the debt, it literally can't happen. What "banks" are holding our debt that are going to cash in on it? (The debt doesn't work like that by the way, I'll explain that later..)People from both sides have been looking at deficits as something evil and wanting to cut them. Not the best idea, just look at history:
Think big deficits cause recessions
The record of history is clear and wholly consistent. Increases in the national debt and annual deficits never have harmed the economy, always have helped it. Significant reductions in the debt and the deficits never have helped, always have hurt. The record divides itself into two periods.
From the origins to World War II
In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.
Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.
This is the record:
1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.
2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.
3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..
4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.
5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.
6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.
There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.
Post-World War II
Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.
Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:
· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.
· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes.
· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.
Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.
The Republicans who now praise that "Reagan boom" never refer to the deficits or blame the Democratic Congress, while Democrats repeatedly attack "Reagan deficits." Neither side seems aware that a steep rise in deficits began in 1981, preceding the "boom" by almost two years.
When deficit reductions finally began in 1987, they paved the way for the next recession. Political irony is everywhere.
When the economy slides downhill, the incumbent president is badly damaged, and it does him little good to proclaim "success" in reducing deficits.
Ronald Reagan suffered no political harm because of the deficits of the 1980s and, even at his advanced age, might have been elected again in 1988 if he had been permitted to run. Whatever citizens say to pollsters, they vote against recessions, not budget deficits.
Driven by what appears to be wholly fallacious economic principles, politicians have put together such monstrosities as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollins deficit-reduction policy and the more recent "zero-sum budgeting" (all new programs must be financed by cuts in existing programs), along with the Clinton administration’s "reinvention of government" ("downsizing") to virtually guarantee a new economic disaster, perhaps more serious than any in recent decades.
What happens when the government runs out of other peoples money to pay to the banks who are holding our debt? Or how about all of our debt that China holds? What happens when they say "we want our money" and our government doesn't have it?
Simplistic views of economics seem to be a central theme of yours. The problem being that economics is complex and the repercussions lead to wars.
What do you define as "unneeded spending?"No. That's a juvenile economic proposal. We should be running deficits and decreasing taxes while we work towards full employment with federal job programs. You need to look into MMT.Huge tax cuts? We should probably do that once people realize we don't need to tax and spend.I'm convinced. When we cut government by 50%, we need huge tax cuts at the same time.
Huge tax cuts? We should probably do that once people realize we don't need to tax and spend.
I agree. When we cut the unneeded spending, we can cut the taxes.
That's a juvenile economic proposal.
Cutting unneeded spending is never a bad idea.
We should be running deficits and decreasing taxes while we work towards full employment with federal job programs.
Obama fixed the economy. So cut spending back to 2007 levels. Now.
Obama didn't fix the economy, well, the economy is doing alright, but Obama has simply extended neo liberal policies and the stimulus had to many tax cuts.. The recovery could've been much better. Both parties have deficit hawks though..
Obama cut the deficit and passed tax cuts.What do you mean "so what?" The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts. And I want you to keep this in mind.. I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending, and if you haven't figured it out by now, this can be done. We can drastically cut back certain welfare "programs" once we achieve employment for those who need it through both sectors. I feel like me and you can reach some common ground. We need to be honest, both sides have it wrong, the deficit hawks have it wrong..Tax cuts don't lead to economic growth anywhere near what the government can do. The same people who want tax cuts are the ones who, these days, unlike Reagan, have a religious obsession with lowering the debt and reducing the deficit. Reagan did his tax cuts with a bombing deficit you know..Yeah, cut the government by 50% and enjoy your recession. History doesn't lie.
Why would a giant tax cut cause a recession?
Tax cuts don't lead to economic growth anywhere near what the government can do.
That's a shame. So what?
What do you mean "so what?"
Your claims about the efficacy of government spending are like super cool, dude, but cut taxes and spending.
The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts.
Yeah, when I look at the Obama recovery compared to the Reagan recovery, I laugh at this claim.
I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending
Obama increased spending for 7 years, now let's cut taxes for 7 years.
And cut spending too.
Historically, I've observed that unwarranted debt reductions/deficit cuts contribute to recessions, along with extended surplus's.. Many other things, but refer to the OP for what this thread is about.You tell me. All of these examples in my OP go directly with debt reduction attempts and deficit cuts. Notice what happens..People from both sides have been looking at deficits as something evil and wanting to cut them. Not the best idea, just look at history:
Think big deficits cause recessions
The record of history is clear and wholly consistent. Increases in the national debt and annual deficits never have harmed the economy, always have helped it. Significant reductions in the debt and the deficits never have helped, always have hurt. The record divides itself into two periods.
From the origins to World War II
In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.
Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.
This is the record:
1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.
2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.
3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..
4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.
5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.
6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.
There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.
Post-World War II
Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.
Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:
· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.
· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes.
· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.
Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.
The Republicans who now praise that "Reagan boom" never refer to the deficits or blame the Democratic Congress, while Democrats repeatedly attack "Reagan deficits." Neither side seems aware that a steep rise in deficits began in 1981, preceding the "boom" by almost two years.
When deficit reductions finally began in 1987, they paved the way for the next recession. Political irony is everywhere.
When the economy slides downhill, the incumbent president is badly damaged, and it does him little good to proclaim "success" in reducing deficits.
Ronald Reagan suffered no political harm because of the deficits of the 1980s and, even at his advanced age, might have been elected again in 1988 if he had been permitted to run. Whatever citizens say to pollsters, they vote against recessions, not budget deficits.
Driven by what appears to be wholly fallacious economic principles, politicians have put together such monstrosities as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollins deficit-reduction policy and the more recent "zero-sum budgeting" (all new programs must be financed by cuts in existing programs), along with the Clinton administration’s "reinvention of government" ("downsizing") to virtually guarantee a new economic disaster, perhaps more serious than any in recent decades.
What do you think does cause recessions?
Recessions are caused by something. You started this thread, you tell me.
Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy, and coupling it with tax cuts? Reagan wasn't even that silly.What do you define as "unneeded spending?"No. That's a juvenile economic proposal. We should be running deficits and decreasing taxes while we work towards full employment with federal job programs. You need to look into MMT.Huge tax cuts? We should probably do that once people realize we don't need to tax and spend.
Huge tax cuts? We should probably do that once people realize we don't need to tax and spend.
I agree. When we cut the unneeded spending, we can cut the taxes.
That's a juvenile economic proposal.
Cutting unneeded spending is never a bad idea.
We should be running deficits and decreasing taxes while we work towards full employment with federal job programs.
Obama fixed the economy. So cut spending back to 2007 levels. Now.
Obama didn't fix the economy, well, the economy is doing alright, but Obama has simply extended neo liberal policies and the stimulus had to many tax cuts.. The recovery could've been much better. Both parties have deficit hawks though..
What do you define as "unneeded spending?"
Anything over 2007 levels, for starters.
Obama cut the deficit and passed tax cuts.What do you mean "so what?" The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts. And I want you to keep this in mind.. I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending, and if you haven't figured it out by now, this can be done. We can drastically cut back certain welfare "programs" once we achieve employment for those who need it through both sectors. I feel like me and you can reach some common ground. We need to be honest, both sides have it wrong, the deficit hawks have it wrong..Tax cuts don't lead to economic growth anywhere near what the government can do. The same people who want tax cuts are the ones who, these days, unlike Reagan, have a religious obsession with lowering the debt and reducing the deficit. Reagan did his tax cuts with a bombing deficit you know..Why would a giant tax cut cause a recession?
Tax cuts don't lead to economic growth anywhere near what the government can do.
That's a shame. So what?
What do you mean "so what?"
Your claims about the efficacy of government spending are like super cool, dude, but cut taxes and spending.
The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts.
Yeah, when I look at the Obama recovery compared to the Reagan recovery, I laugh at this claim.
I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending
Obama increased spending for 7 years, now let's cut taxes for 7 years.
And cut spending too.
Reagan ran a deficit during his recovery, and it helped considerably.
Yeah.. Obama has been cutting the deficit.. Don't lie and say he's been increasing spending. We tried cutting taxes with Reagan, it worked because we ran a deficit, unfortunately, we have deficit hawks..
Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy, and coupling it with tax cuts? Reagan wasn't even that silly.What do you define as "unneeded spending?"No. That's a juvenile economic proposal. We should be running deficits and decreasing taxes while we work towards full employment with federal job programs. You need to look into MMT.Huge tax cuts? We should probably do that once people realize we don't need to tax and spend.
I agree. When we cut the unneeded spending, we can cut the taxes.
That's a juvenile economic proposal.
Cutting unneeded spending is never a bad idea.
We should be running deficits and decreasing taxes while we work towards full employment with federal job programs.
Obama fixed the economy. So cut spending back to 2007 levels. Now.
Obama didn't fix the economy, well, the economy is doing alright, but Obama has simply extended neo liberal policies and the stimulus had to many tax cuts.. The recovery could've been much better. Both parties have deficit hawks though..
What do you define as "unneeded spending?"
Anything over 2007 levels, for starters.
Obama hasn't been consecutively increasing deficit spending. That's the point I was trying to make. In fact, he has been working to reduce it. Saying Obama hasn't cut the deficit is a blatant falsehood.Obama cut the deficit and passed tax cuts.What do you mean "so what?" The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts. And I want you to keep this in mind.. I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending, and if you haven't figured it out by now, this can be done. We can drastically cut back certain welfare "programs" once we achieve employment for those who need it through both sectors. I feel like me and you can reach some common ground. We need to be honest, both sides have it wrong, the deficit hawks have it wrong..Tax cuts don't lead to economic growth anywhere near what the government can do. The same people who want tax cuts are the ones who, these days, unlike Reagan, have a religious obsession with lowering the debt and reducing the deficit. Reagan did his tax cuts with a bombing deficit you know..
Tax cuts don't lead to economic growth anywhere near what the government can do.
That's a shame. So what?
What do you mean "so what?"
Your claims about the efficacy of government spending are like super cool, dude, but cut taxes and spending.
The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts.
Yeah, when I look at the Obama recovery compared to the Reagan recovery, I laugh at this claim.
I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending
Obama increased spending for 7 years, now let's cut taxes for 7 years.
And cut spending too.
Reagan ran a deficit during his recovery, and it helped considerably.
Yeah.. Obama has been cutting the deficit.. Don't lie and say he's been increasing spending. We tried cutting taxes with Reagan, it worked because we ran a deficit, unfortunately, we have deficit hawks..
Obama cut the deficit and passed tax cuts.
He cut the deficit? LOL!
Don't lie and say he's been increasing spending.
Ummmm....2007 outlays were $2.7 trillion.
This year is estimated at about $4 trillion.
Is that a cut in spending?
We tried cutting taxes with Reagan, it worked because we ran a deficit,
Isn't that what Obama did? Did his attempt fail because he's black?
Going back to 2007 levels? Most definitely.Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy, and coupling it with tax cuts? Reagan wasn't even that silly.What do you define as "unneeded spending?"No. That's a juvenile economic proposal. We should be running deficits and decreasing taxes while we work towards full employment with federal job programs. You need to look into MMT.
That's a juvenile economic proposal.
Cutting unneeded spending is never a bad idea.
We should be running deficits and decreasing taxes while we work towards full employment with federal job programs.
Obama fixed the economy. So cut spending back to 2007 levels. Now.
Obama didn't fix the economy, well, the economy is doing alright, but Obama has simply extended neo liberal policies and the stimulus had to many tax cuts.. The recovery could've been much better. Both parties have deficit hawks though..
What do you define as "unneeded spending?"
Anything over 2007 levels, for starters.
Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy
We can never cut government spending, because that will harm the economy?
and coupling it with tax cuts?
Why wouldn't you cut taxes after you cut government spending?
Even you're not stupid enough to raise taxes while cutting spending.
Obama hasn't been consecutively increasing deficit spending. That's the point I was trying to make. In fact, he has been working to reduce it. Saying Obama hasn't cut the deficit is a blatant falsehood.Obama cut the deficit and passed tax cuts.What do you mean "so what?" The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts. And I want you to keep this in mind.. I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending, and if you haven't figured it out by now, this can be done. We can drastically cut back certain welfare "programs" once we achieve employment for those who need it through both sectors. I feel like me and you can reach some common ground. We need to be honest, both sides have it wrong, the deficit hawks have it wrong..Tax cuts don't lead to economic growth anywhere near what the government can do.
That's a shame. So what?
What do you mean "so what?"
Your claims about the efficacy of government spending are like super cool, dude, but cut taxes and spending.
The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts.
Yeah, when I look at the Obama recovery compared to the Reagan recovery, I laugh at this claim.
I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending
Obama increased spending for 7 years, now let's cut taxes for 7 years.
And cut spending too.
Reagan ran a deficit during his recovery, and it helped considerably.
Yeah.. Obama has been cutting the deficit.. Don't lie and say he's been increasing spending. We tried cutting taxes with Reagan, it worked because we ran a deficit, unfortunately, we have deficit hawks..
Obama cut the deficit and passed tax cuts.
He cut the deficit? LOL!
Don't lie and say he's been increasing spending.
Ummmm....2007 outlays were $2.7 trillion.
This year is estimated at about $4 trillion.
Is that a cut in spending?
We tried cutting taxes with Reagan, it worked because we ran a deficit,
Isn't that what Obama did? Did his attempt fail because he's black?
What? I literally said in this thread the Reagan deficit was good. Run along.Progressive Teachable Moment. Keeping it Simple for the simple-minded
Obama Deficit Good. Reagan deficit Bad
Obama deficit Good. Booooosh deficit Bad
Going back to 2007 levels? Most definitely.Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy, and coupling it with tax cuts? Reagan wasn't even that silly.What do you define as "unneeded spending?"That's a juvenile economic proposal.
Cutting unneeded spending is never a bad idea.
We should be running deficits and decreasing taxes while we work towards full employment with federal job programs.
Obama fixed the economy. So cut spending back to 2007 levels. Now.
Obama didn't fix the economy, well, the economy is doing alright, but Obama has simply extended neo liberal policies and the stimulus had to many tax cuts.. The recovery could've been much better. Both parties have deficit hawks though..
What do you define as "unneeded spending?"
Anything over 2007 levels, for starters.
Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy
We can never cut government spending, because that will harm the economy?
and coupling it with tax cuts?
Why wouldn't you cut taxes after you cut government spending?
Even you're not stupid enough to raise taxes while cutting spending.
I never said we can't cut spending.
Obama increased the deficit at first to push along the weak recovery, he made the mistake of cutting it back DURING A RECOVERY.Obama hasn't been consecutively increasing deficit spending. That's the point I was trying to make. In fact, he has been working to reduce it. Saying Obama hasn't cut the deficit is a blatant falsehood.Obama cut the deficit and passed tax cuts.What do you mean "so what?" The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts. And I want you to keep this in mind.. I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending, and if you haven't figured it out by now, this can be done. We can drastically cut back certain welfare "programs" once we achieve employment for those who need it through both sectors. I feel like me and you can reach some common ground. We need to be honest, both sides have it wrong, the deficit hawks have it wrong..
What do you mean "so what?"
Your claims about the efficacy of government spending are like super cool, dude, but cut taxes and spending.
The government is more effective at boosting economic growth then tax cuts.
Yeah, when I look at the Obama recovery compared to the Reagan recovery, I laugh at this claim.
I'm fine with tax cuts, as long as the government increases spending
Obama increased spending for 7 years, now let's cut taxes for 7 years.
And cut spending too.
Reagan ran a deficit during his recovery, and it helped considerably.
Yeah.. Obama has been cutting the deficit.. Don't lie and say he's been increasing spending. We tried cutting taxes with Reagan, it worked because we ran a deficit, unfortunately, we have deficit hawks..
Obama cut the deficit and passed tax cuts.
He cut the deficit? LOL!
Don't lie and say he's been increasing spending.
Ummmm....2007 outlays were $2.7 trillion.
This year is estimated at about $4 trillion.
Is that a cut in spending?
We tried cutting taxes with Reagan, it worked because we ran a deficit,
Isn't that what Obama did? Did his attempt fail because he's black?
Obama hasn't been consecutively increasing deficit spending.
When you get a large enough increase in at the start, holding it steady after that is still a big jump.
Stop pretending that Obama gave us peace and the economy is fine. Wages have been stagnant for decades, and bush ran a nice little deficit.. Couldn't do much for the massive GR though.Going back to 2007 levels? Most definitely.Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy, and coupling it with tax cuts? Reagan wasn't even that silly.What do you define as "unneeded spending?"
Obama didn't fix the economy, well, the economy is doing alright, but Obama has simply extended neo liberal policies and the stimulus had to many tax cuts.. The recovery could've been much better. Both parties have deficit hawks though..
What do you define as "unneeded spending?"
Anything over 2007 levels, for starters.
Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy
We can never cut government spending, because that will harm the economy?
and coupling it with tax cuts?
Why wouldn't you cut taxes after you cut government spending?
Even you're not stupid enough to raise taxes while cutting spending.
I never said we can't cut spending.
Going back to 2007 levels? Most definitely.
Why? Obama fixed the economy, the crisis is over, Obama gave us peace.
We should be able to go back to 2005 levels.
I never said we can't cut spending.
You said it would harm the economy.
Stop pretending that Obama gave us peace and the economy is fine. Wages have been stagnant for decades, and bush ran a nice little deficit.. Couldn't do much for the massive GR though.Going back to 2007 levels? Most definitely.Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy, and coupling it with tax cuts? Reagan wasn't even that silly.What do you define as "unneeded spending?"
Anything over 2007 levels, for starters.
Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy
We can never cut government spending, because that will harm the economy?
and coupling it with tax cuts?
Why wouldn't you cut taxes after you cut government spending?
Even you're not stupid enough to raise taxes while cutting spending.
I never said we can't cut spending.
Going back to 2007 levels? Most definitely.
Why? Obama fixed the economy, the crisis is over, Obama gave us peace.
We should be able to go back to 2005 levels.
I never said we can't cut spending.
You said it would harm the economy.
We have fundamental ideological differences. We do agree on the fed reserve though. It's not out to kill us all and it's not a part of the illuminati.Stop pretending that Obama gave us peace and the economy is fine. Wages have been stagnant for decades, and bush ran a nice little deficit.. Couldn't do much for the massive GR though.Going back to 2007 levels? Most definitely.Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy, and coupling it with tax cuts? Reagan wasn't even that silly.
Juvenile. That's impossible to do without harming the economy
We can never cut government spending, because that will harm the economy?
and coupling it with tax cuts?
Why wouldn't you cut taxes after you cut government spending?
Even you're not stupid enough to raise taxes while cutting spending.
I never said we can't cut spending.
Going back to 2007 levels? Most definitely.
Why? Obama fixed the economy, the crisis is over, Obama gave us peace.
We should be able to go back to 2005 levels.
I never said we can't cut spending.
You said it would harm the economy.
Stop pretending that Obama gave us peace and the economy is fine.
You're right, I can't keep lying about Obama's incompetence.
We still need to cut government, a lot.
Taxes too.
That is all.
I just want to say this for a second time.. I have said the reagan deficit was good.Progressive Teachable Moment. Keeping it Simple for the simple-minded
Obama Deficit Good. Reagan deficit Bad
Obama deficit Good. Booooosh deficit Bad
