If the economy slides, how much blame would fall on a Democrat house?

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the economy slides, how much blame would fall on a Democrat house?

It's um, way too late for that. The House doesn't get sworn in until next year.

Do you mean if the economy continues to slide?

Next year is only about seven weeks away.

 

[BluesLegend]

At the end of the day the president has veto power and that gives him control over pretty much everything unless the congress can override his veto, which they usually can't. Clinton used veto power to achieve balanced budgets, remember.

^^^ a complete LIE Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming into balancing the budget by the GOP.

 

[The Banker]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

Who do you blame for the 1.27 trillion added to the national debt during FY18?

Some how the party of taking personal responsibility will blame the democrats for that one. Or they will just try to ignore that fact and hop it goes away, just like on FOxnews.

 

[TheDude]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

You have to look at policies.

Clinton had a good plan for the economy, raise taxes on the wealthy, cut government spending, and try to put more money into the middle class- this is a recipe for economic success.

That same republican Congress then turned Clinton's budget surplus into a massive deficit and the Bush tax cut did little to benefit growth (economists have proven this) and then when the economy crashed we were much worse off with even bigger deficits. The policies of Bush and the republican Congress set the economy up for disaster.

If you are trying to blame Bush's great recession on the democrats taking the house then you are insane. Show us what policies the House enacted in 2006 that caused a recession 7 years into Bush's term?

Now look at what Trump and the GOP have done. They have passed Trillions of dollars in new debt 8+ years into an economic expansion. This is unprecedented and will lead to economic ruin regardless of who is in charge. We have a front loaded tax cut that will then become a tax increase in a couple years along with massive deficits. This is a recipe for disaster and the fact that you can't see this shows that you need to learn more about economic policy

Not quite right. Our economy allowed for taxes on the rich because of a booming economy, Reaganomics and the tech. explosion. Clinton never had a balanced budget, they cooked the books.

I'm not trying to do anything less showing who had power. Of course Bush is to blame for the crash (cough!), it's a simpleton's (Democrats) approach.

When Clinton raised taxes on the rich the economy was not good. He did it to try and balance the budget.

When the crash happens 7 years into your presidency you hold the bulk of the blame yes.

Other facts the bills that de-regulated the banks and derivatives markets were GOP written, GOP sponsored, and passed by a veto proof GOP majority. So would you then give that responsibility to them? You pretty much have to.

I stopped reading at "When Clinton raised taxes on the rich the economy was not good".........Shit dude, when you receive a deduction in pay I'll just raise your rent & utilities, see how it works out.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

The economy is destined to go belly up, sooner or later. It has always been a yo-yo and I don't think it's going to matter who's in control......it's going to happen

 

[Pogo]

If the economy slides, how much blame would fall on a Democrat house?

It's um, way too late for that. The House doesn't get sworn in until next year.

Do you mean if the economy continues to slide?

Inconvenient facts:

Haha, you spelled "irrelevant" wrong.

 

[Pogo]

If the economy slides, how much blame would fall on a Democrat house?

It's um, way too late for that. The House doesn't get sworn in until next year.

Do you mean if the economy continues to slide?

Inconvenient facts:

Yes, facts are inconvenient for the sheep...

View attachment 230084

Oh noes! Context?!! You bastid!!

 

[DJT for Life]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

/——/ democRATs will own the crash 100%

Agree 100%.

Whenever there is a change in the "norm" the first procedure in
troubleshooting is..."What is different than before."

The answer would be the Democratic House.

 

[Pogo]

If the economy slides, how much blame would fall on a Democrat house?

It's um, way too late for that. The House doesn't get sworn in until next year.

Do you mean if the economy continues to slide?

Next year is only about seven weeks away.

Correct. Which is in what we call the "future". Meanwhile the economy slide lives in what we call the "past and present". Assuming the validity of linear time it's impossible to "blame" the past on the future. Can not follow.

What's really going on here is the usual suspect partisan hacknoids posting "oh noes, the economy is bad, blame the President -- what, the President is my guy? Okay then blame the Congress!" And vice versa, lather rinse repeat, sound like a moron, prove nothing except to re-re-reconfirm one's own partisan hackitude.

 

[danielpalos]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

too late. real economists already predicted a recession if Your guy got elected.

 

[The Banker]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

You have to look at policies.

Clinton had a good plan for the economy, raise taxes on the wealthy, cut government spending, and try to put more money into the middle class- this is a recipe for economic success.

That same republican Congress then turned Clinton's budget surplus into a massive deficit and the Bush tax cut did little to benefit growth (economists have proven this) and then when the economy crashed we were much worse off with even bigger deficits. The policies of Bush and the republican Congress set the economy up for disaster.

If you are trying to blame Bush's great recession on the democrats taking the house then you are insane. Show us what policies the House enacted in 2006 that caused a recession 7 years into Bush's term?

Now look at what Trump and the GOP have done. They have passed Trillions of dollars in new debt 8+ years into an economic expansion. This is unprecedented and will lead to economic ruin regardless of who is in charge. We have a front loaded tax cut that will then become a tax increase in a couple years along with massive deficits. This is a recipe for disaster and the fact that you can't see this shows that you need to learn more about economic policy

Not quite right. Our economy allowed for taxes on the rich because of a booming economy, Reaganomics and the tech. explosion. Clinton never had a balanced budget, they cooked the books.

I'm not trying to do anything less showing who had power. Of course Bush is to blame for the crash (cough!), it's a simpleton's (Democrats) approach.

When Clinton raised taxes on the rich the economy was not good. He did it to try and balance the budget.

When the crash happens 7 years into your presidency you hold the bulk of the blame yes.

Other facts the bills that de-regulated the banks and derivatives markets were GOP written, GOP sponsored, and passed by a veto proof GOP majority. So would you then give that responsibility to them? You pretty much have to.

I stopped reading at "When Clinton raised taxes on the rich the economy was not good".........Shit dude, when you receive a deduction in pay I'll just raise your rent & utilities, see how it works out.

In 1993 the economy was not good, what is there to disagree with? And the tax increase only affected the wealthiest 1% so don't worry you won't pay anymore.

This is why Clinton was a good president:

In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding tax legislation that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[5]

That was in 1993, the GOP simply can't do that.

 

[Pogo]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

/——/ democRATs will own the crash 100%

Agree 100%.

Whenever there is a change in the "norm" the first procedure in
troubleshooting is..."What is different than before."

The answer would be the Democratic House.

Because, as "everybody knows", one's partisan hack dynamics always perform in a vacuum, utterly unrelated to anything else, because no single part is affected by any other part.

--- Said the victim of surgery gone wrong who no longer has the use of the right side of his brain....

 

[The Banker]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

/——/ democRATs will own the crash 100%

Here you have it, the party of taking personal responsibility in action. Let's just ignore the trillions of dollars Trump has added to the deficit 8 years into an economic expansion. It will be the demoRATs fault either way... HA!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the economy slides, how much blame would fall on a Democrat house?

It's um, way too late for that. The House doesn't get sworn in until next year.

Do you mean if the economy continues to slide?

Next year is only about seven weeks away.

Correct. Which is in what we call the "future". Meanwhile the economy slide lives in what we call the "past and present". Assuming the validity of linear time it's impossible to "blame" the past on the future. Can not follow.

What's really going on here is the usual suspect partisan hacknoids posting "oh noes, the economy is bad, blame the President -- what, the President is my guy? Okay then blame the Congress!" And vice versa, lather rinse repeat, sound like a moron, prove nothing except to re-re-reconfirm one's own partisan hackitude.

The economy has never been better and your leftist hopes of it failing has been something you or your ilk have been predicting since Trump was nominated and not even in office yet.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The economy is destined to go belly up, sooner or later. It has always been a yo-yo and I don't think it's going to matter who's in control......it's going to happen

It's sustained longer when job creators have confidence in the government. What have the Democrats been promising going into the election? Impeaching Trump which would have negative impact on the economy, and raising taxes on those evil rich people that provide us those jobs.

Now that confidence they had prior to the election went down a few notches. Businesses don't like anti-business leaders in the federal government.

 

[TheDude]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

You have to look at policies.

Clinton had a good plan for the economy, raise taxes on the wealthy, cut government spending, and try to put more money into the middle class- this is a recipe for economic success.

That same republican Congress then turned Clinton's budget surplus into a massive deficit and the Bush tax cut did little to benefit growth (economists have proven this) and then when the economy crashed we were much worse off with even bigger deficits. The policies of Bush and the republican Congress set the economy up for disaster.

If you are trying to blame Bush's great recession on the democrats taking the house then you are insane. Show us what policies the House enacted in 2006 that caused a recession 7 years into Bush's term?

Now look at what Trump and the GOP have done. They have passed Trillions of dollars in new debt 8+ years into an economic expansion. This is unprecedented and will lead to economic ruin regardless of who is in charge. We have a front loaded tax cut that will then become a tax increase in a couple years along with massive deficits. This is a recipe for disaster and the fact that you can't see this shows that you need to learn more about economic policy

Not quite right. Our economy allowed for taxes on the rich because of a booming economy, Reaganomics and the tech. explosion. Clinton never had a balanced budget, they cooked the books.

I'm not trying to do anything less showing who had power. Of course Bush is to blame for the crash (cough!), it's a simpleton's (Democrats) approach.

When Clinton raised taxes on the rich the economy was not good. He did it to try and balance the budget.

When the crash happens 7 years into your presidency you hold the bulk of the blame yes.

Other facts the bills that de-regulated the banks and derivatives markets were GOP written, GOP sponsored, and passed by a veto proof GOP majority. So would you then give that responsibility to them? You pretty much have to.

I stopped reading at "When Clinton raised taxes on the rich the economy was not good".........Shit dude, when you receive a deduction in pay I'll just raise your rent & utilities, see how it works out.

In 1993 the economy was not good, what is there to disagree with? And the tax increase only affected the wealthiest 1% so don't worry you won't pay anymore.

This is why Clinton was a good president:

In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding tax legislation that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[5]

That was in 1993, the GOP simply can't do that.

Oh sure, because you say so............The problem with your opinion is:

Recovery[edit]
Job losses and unemployment continued to rise and peaked at 7.8% in June 1992. Gross domestic product grew at a slow and erratic pace in the year that followed the official March 1991 end of the recession, but picked up pace in 1992. Exports, typically a driver of economic recovery, weakened due to persistent economic problems in Europe and Japan.[6] Perhaps the largest impact on the protracted period of unemployment following the early 90s recession were large layoffs in defense related industries. Cumulative defense downsizing resulted in 240,000 job losses from 1990–1992, representing a full 10% reduction in that sector. These cutbacks also spilled over into transportation, wholesale, trade, and other sectors tied to defense related durable goods manufacturing.[6] For all of 1991, the United States incurred a net loss of 858,000 jobs, with 1.154 million created in 1992 and 2.788 million in 1993.

Other factors contributed to a slow economy, including a slump in office construction resulting from overbuilding during the 1980s.[7] Local markets in the New England states, Southern California, and Texas in particular experienced the effects of commercial overbuilding, reflected in the number of bank failures and the proportion of commercial investments held by those banks.Real estate values would remain depressed through 1995, when they would return to growth.[8] In addition, consumer confidence moved at an erratic pace, limiting the surge in consumption expenditures that is typical of recovery periods. As a result, businesses were reluctant to hire on concerns over the strength of the economic recovery.[7]

Ultimately, the recession proved to be one of the smallest and shortest in the modern era, surpassed in most metrics only by the 2000-01 recession. The economy returned to 1980s level growth by 1993, fueled by the internet boom, low interest rates, low energy prices, and a resurgent housing market. Strong growth resumed and lasted through the year 2000. Although relatively mild the early 1990s recession was really the only interruption to economic prosperity during the 90's decade. When considering the similarly mild early 2000's recession, there were only three periods of lackluster economic growth between 1983, 1987 and 2008, representing just under 25 years of relatively stable, prosperous economic growth in the United States.


Interesting to note (again), the Democrats had the majority in the House and Senate during the early 1990s, where you say the economy wasn't good. Again, the Republicans had the majority in both during Clinton's best years.

 

[Pogo]

If the economy slides, how much blame would fall on a Democrat house?

It's um, way too late for that. The House doesn't get sworn in until next year.

Do you mean if the economy continues to slide?

Next year is only about seven weeks away.

Correct. Which is in what we call the "future". Meanwhile the economy slide lives in what we call the "past and present". Assuming the validity of linear time it's impossible to "blame" the past on the future. Can not follow.

What's really going on here is the usual suspect partisan hacknoids posting "oh noes, the economy is bad, blame the President -- what, the President is my guy? Okay then blame the Congress!" And vice versa, lather rinse repeat, sound like a moron, prove nothing except to re-re-reconfirm one's own partisan hackitude.

The economy has never been better and your leftist hopes of it failing has been something you or your ilk have been predicting since Trump was nominated and not even in office yet.

Obviously you're not invested in the stock market.

I'm jealous. This year I wish I wasn't either.

 

[danielpalos]

real economists already predicted a recession if Your guy got elected.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The economy has already started to slide. And, it became Trump's economy when he got his tax cuts passed by the Republican Congress. It was further cemented as Trump's economy when he started his trade wars.

Who do we blame if the economy starts to slide? Well, it's already started, and it happened under a Republican controlled House and Senate, with a Republican president.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's too late. We're in the final stage of a currency crisis. Both parties are to blame, and I'd even consider the elected ones outliers at this point. They can't even kick the can much farther down the road anymore, the dollar is worth 4 cents now.

Let it burn.