White House says Republicans co-own legacy of record $19 trillion debt

[SmokeALib]

Nobody gives a shit about the debt anymore. Just numbers, right?

 

[Faun]

Nobody gives a shit about the debt anymore. Just numbers, right?

"Deficits don't matter."

 

[hadit]

Sure, uh-huh. That was Obama's fault.

The Republicans' Plan for the New President

He didn't help matters any. You don't swagger into the room, slap the nearest guy in the face, then expect him to compromise with you when you want something from him. He made petulance and arrogance the hallmark of his early administration.

WTF??

How did you miss the part where Republicans came up with that plan to say no to everything Obama wanted on inauguration day?

Did they? I seem to remember a few things that happened first.

There was this..... "Elections have consequences..and I won" Remember that?

Then there was this gem....."Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

The Republicans are no angels to be sure. But Obama wanted them to know they were irrelevant, he didn't need them, had no desire to listen to them. And for a while he and his cronies did a great deal to undermine the Constitution and enrich their friends, the country be damned.

Then things changed, and he's done zero to work with them on anything. Why should they?

Typical of conservatives ... you remember that wrong. Inauguration day ... the day Republicans conspired to become the party of "no" to Obama ... happened first.

Actually....I bother to actually check first. You should try it sometime, you look less stupid.

After midterm wins, GOP vows to block Obama's agenda

Right. "We're going to defund obamadon'tcare!". Really? "We're going to defund amnesty!". Really? "We're going to defund Planned Parenthood!". Really? They defunded nothing.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Facts can not be debated; they can only be understood.

President Reagan tripled the debt. President Clinton got it under control. President Bush exploded the debt by coupling massive tax cuts we couldn't afford with not one but TWO full wars he charged to the credit card, while also drastically expanding the federal gov't with Homeland Security, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind.

President Obama did not create a yearly $1.5 trillion deficit. It was handed to him. And he has reduced those yearly $1.5 trillion deficits by two-thirds.

The facts of our modern history are not disputed by anyone but the willfully stupid RWNJ trolls who live on message boards to spread their ignorance. In our lifetimes, Republican Presidents explode the debt while Democratic Presidents are brought in to mop things up.

Bush was a mess.

Reagan's "tripling was something like 3.5 Trillion total.....it was recoverable.

And the economy boomed.

Bush threw away a huge opportunity.

It was "recoverable" because Poppy, and Clinton after him, paid the necessary political price for cleaning up the mess....

and relative to Real GDP and jobs, Reagan underperformed the guys on either side of him...

Please stop making me laugh.

There was very little mess to clean up.

The economy made some minor corrections.

You on the left and right forget that Clinton was popular but got his ass handed to him in 94. Congress in the hands of a conservative group worked with Clinton to do some good stuff.

they had the foundation due to some of what Reagan was able to do.

It's all dems.....

It's all the GOP.

That is what makes the OP so amazing. This WH finally acknowledges some hand in our deficit.

I know GWB was a moron and a spender.

Obama has not helped things much.

Uh....no....

By the end of Reagan's second term the debt had tripled.....3 years later it has quadrupled (since the end of FY81)......This was clearly unsustainable...Alan Greenspan has described Reagan as a "reckless steward of the economy"...furthermore, the economy generated the worst GDP and job growth in the post WW2 era (until Poppy's mutant spawn "outdid" it).....Poppy, to stanch the fiscal bleeding, was obliged to break his no taxes pledge, and along with congress instituted "Pay/Go".....

This arrested the growth of deficits, but wasn't enough to reverse them.......which is why Clinton was, in 1993, obliged to push through the second largest real tax increase in US history - which passed with ZERO republican votes........The GOP then ran on the issue in the 94 elections and democrats got creamed...

The effect of the tax rate increases, and economic growth (contrary to the dire predictions of The Usual Suspects), was to reduce the deficit by over 90% by the time Gingrich and Clinton reached their agreement in the fall of 1997....

There is simply no comparison to be made between Scrub and Obama......Under Scrub, federal spending (exclusive of Iraqnam) grew at more than 7% per year.......Under Obama' it has grown at about a third of that rate....

 

[SmokeALib]

Facts can not be debated; they can only be understood.

President Reagan tripled the debt. President Clinton got it under control. President Bush exploded the debt by coupling massive tax cuts we couldn't afford with not one but TWO full wars he charged to the credit card, while also drastically expanding the federal gov't with Homeland Security, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind.

President Obama did not create a yearly $1.5 trillion deficit. It was handed to him. And he has reduced those yearly $1.5 trillion deficits by two-thirds.

The facts of our modern history are not disputed by anyone but the willfully stupid RWNJ trolls who live on message boards to spread their ignorance. In our lifetimes, Republican Presidents explode the debt while Democratic Presidents are brought in to mop things up.

Bush was a mess.

Reagan's "tripling was something like 3.5 Trillion total.....it was recoverable.

And the economy boomed.

Bush threw away a huge opportunity.

It was "recoverable" because Poppy, and Clinton after him, paid the necessary political price for cleaning up the mess....

and relative to Real GDP and jobs, Reagan underperformed the guys on either side of him...

Please stop making me laugh.

There was very little mess to clean up.

The economy made some minor corrections.

You on the left and right forget that Clinton was popular but got his ass handed to him in 94. Congress in the hands of a conservative group worked with Clinton to do some good stuff.

they had the foundation due to some of what Reagan was able to do.

It's all dems.....

It's all the GOP.

That is what makes the OP so amazing. This WH finally acknowledges some hand in our deficit.

I know GWB was a moron and a spender.

Obama has not helped things much.

Uh....no....

By the end of Reagan's second term the debt had tripled.....3 years later it has quadrupled (since the end of FY81)......This was clearly unsustainable...Alan Greenspan has described Reagan as a "reckless steward of the economy"...furthermore, the economy generated the worst GDP and job growth in the post WW2 era (until Poppy's mutant spawn "outdid" it).....Poppy, to stanch the fiscal bleeding, was obliged to break his no taxes pledge, and along with congress instituted "Pay/Go".....

This arrested the growth of deficits, but wasn't enough to reverse them.......which is why Clinton was, in 1993, obliged to push through the second largest real tax increase in US history - which passed with ZERO republican votes........The GOP then ran on the issue in the 94 elections and democrats got creamed...

The effect of the tax rate increases, and economic growth (contrary to the dire predictions of The Usual Suspects), was to reduce the deficit by over 90% by the time Gingrich and Clinton reached their agreement in the fall of 1997....

There is simply no comparison to be made between Scrub and Obama......Under Scrub, federal spending (exclusive of Iraqnam) grew at more than 7% per year.......Under Obama' it has grown at about a third of that rate....

A third of 20 trillion is a little more than a third of 3 trillion - just saying.

 

[IcebergSlim]

From your link......................

“To understand the long-term trends here, we have to take a look at what exactly happened when the last Democratic president was leaving office. He was passing off budget surpluses as far as the eye could see to his successor,” Josh Earnest said at the daily White House briefing.


President George W. Bush proceeded to put in place tax cuts for the wealthy and launched a ground war in the Middle East “all without paying for it,” he added.



That led to the Great Recession that put enormous pressure on the federal budget, Earnest said.

Even your link is blaming Jr.

Not only did he give tax cuts to the wealthy, he gave them another one AFTER the war had started.

It'd probably help if the government had actually had a surplus since 1957.

Take it up with OMB

We really don't have to take it up with anyone. During a fiscal year, surpluses come from not spending money allocated to programs. If a program was slated to spend two billion, but only spent one billion, it would leave a "surplus" of money they didn't have in their pockets to spend in the first place.

In government speak, the words deficit and surplus really don't affect the national debt. Its the reason why every year that Clinton had a "surplus" the debt went up.

So, in reality, Clinton NEVER cut the debt, and since he didn't he could NEVER leave a surplus.

Mark

You have no idea what you are talking about....

During a fiscal year, surpluses come from not spending money allocated to programs. If a program was slated to spend two billion, but only spent one billion, it would leave a "surplus" of money they didn't have in their pockets to spend in the first place.


Federal budget deficit/surplus is the difference between total appropriations and receipts....

In government speak, the words deficit and surplus really don't affect the national debt. Its the reason why every year that Clinton had a "surplus" the debt went up.

Completely wrong.....You need to learn about "Unified Budget" and the distinction between Debt Held by the Public and Gross Debt .....

Social Security receipts are included with other tax receipts (primarily income and corporate) for the purpose of calculating the Reported Deficit......By law, these receipts have to be invested in Government Bonds - which are NOT traded and hence excluded from Debt Held by the Public. When the Feds run a surplus, it is applied to the Debt Held by the Public, with the Social Security receipts accruing to the Gross Debt total....In fact, Clinton came within something like 17 billion of having a ZERO net contribution to Gross Debt...

Supply Side Hucksters have exploited the abject ignorance of these details to get themselves elected....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Facts can not be debated; they can only be understood.

President Reagan tripled the debt. President Clinton got it under control. President Bush exploded the debt by coupling massive tax cuts we couldn't afford with not one but TWO full wars he charged to the credit card, while also drastically expanding the federal gov't with Homeland Security, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind.

President Obama did not create a yearly $1.5 trillion deficit. It was handed to him. And he has reduced those yearly $1.5 trillion deficits by two-thirds.

The facts of our modern history are not disputed by anyone but the willfully stupid RWNJ trolls who live on message boards to spread their ignorance. In our lifetimes, Republican Presidents explode the debt while Democratic Presidents are brought in to mop things up.

Bush was a mess.

Reagan's "tripling was something like 3.5 Trillion total.....it was recoverable.

And the economy boomed.

Bush threw away a huge opportunity.

It was "recoverable" because Poppy, and Clinton after him, paid the necessary political price for cleaning up the mess....

and relative to Real GDP and jobs, Reagan underperformed the guys on either side of him...

Please stop making me laugh.

There was very little mess to clean up.

The economy made some minor corrections.

You on the left and right forget that Clinton was popular but got his ass handed to him in 94. Congress in the hands of a conservative group worked with Clinton to do some good stuff.

they had the foundation due to some of what Reagan was able to do.

It's all dems.....

It's all the GOP.

That is what makes the OP so amazing. This WH finally acknowledges some hand in our deficit.

I know GWB was a moron and a spender.

Obama has not helped things much.

Uh....no....

By the end of Reagan's second term the debt had tripled.....3 years later it has quadrupled (since the end of FY81)......This was clearly unsustainable...Alan Greenspan has described Reagan as a "reckless steward of the economy"...furthermore, the economy generated the worst GDP and job growth in the post WW2 era (until Poppy's mutant spawn "outdid" it).....Poppy, to stanch the fiscal bleeding, was obliged to break his no taxes pledge, and along with congress instituted "Pay/Go".....

This arrested the growth of deficits, but wasn't enough to reverse them.......which is why Clinton was, in 1993, obliged to push through the second largest real tax increase in US history - which passed with ZERO republican votes........The GOP then ran on the issue in the 94 elections and democrats got creamed...

The effect of the tax rate increases, and economic growth (contrary to the dire predictions of The Usual Suspects), was to reduce the deficit by over 90% by the time Gingrich and Clinton reached their agreement in the fall of 1997....

There is simply no comparison to be made between Scrub and Obama......Under Scrub, federal spending (exclusive of Iraqnam) grew at more than 7% per year.......Under Obama' it has grown at about a third of that rate....

A third of 20 trillion is a little more than a third of 3 trillion - just saying.

It is also relative to the size of the economy........

Not to mention that the tripling of the debt under Reagan was directly attributable to Reagan fiscal policy, while the current trend of the debt is largely driven by the Legacy of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Libs always blame Bush for the economy / added deficit. Obama called Bush 'unpatriotic' for adding ($2.5 trillion over 6 years) $4 trillion over 8 years (w/Dem Super Majority Congress help).

If $4 trillion over 8 years makes him 'un-patriotic' then Obama's $6+ Trillion in only 4 must make him a 'traitor'.

Beginning with the take-over of Congress / spending the last 2 years Bush was in through theend of Obama's 2nd year Democrats spent like drunken sailors.

Put up the numbers.......show me how the growth rate of spending changed with the Democratic majority following the 2006 elections.....

 

[IcebergSlim]

From your link......................

“To understand the long-term trends here, we have to take a look at what exactly happened when the last Democratic president was leaving office. He was passing off budget surpluses as far as the eye could see to his successor,” Josh Earnest said at the daily White House briefing.


President George W. Bush proceeded to put in place tax cuts for the wealthy and launched a ground war in the Middle East “all without paying for it,” he added.



That led to the Great Recession that put enormous pressure on the federal budget, Earnest said.

Even your link is blaming Jr.

Not only did he give tax cuts to the wealthy, he gave them another one AFTER the war had started.

It'd probably help if the government had actually had a surplus since 1957.

Take it up with OMB

They, like you apparently don't understand what debt is. I do understand they have a vested interest in lying about it.

What's your excuse?

Uh......the subject was "surplus/deficit".....

 

[IcebergSlim]

I feel Republicans own all of it after the disgraceful mess they handed Obama.

Kill the economy and then whine it's Obama's fault there is no revenue. That's what Republicans did. The fuckers.

Hmm, the legislative branch got controlled by the gop under clinton... The economy improved
The legislative branch got controlled by the gop under Obama... and the economy improved

Can't deny that no matter how ya spin it.

You COULD try to list the legislative initiatives you believe contributed to these improvements......

 

[IcebergSlim]

From your link......................

“To understand the long-term trends here, we have to take a look at what exactly happened when the last Democratic president was leaving office. He was passing off budget surpluses as far as the eye could see to his successor,” Josh Earnest said at the daily White House briefing.


President George W. Bush proceeded to put in place tax cuts for the wealthy and launched a ground war in the Middle East “all without paying for it,” he added.



That led to the Great Recession that put enormous pressure on the federal budget, Earnest said.

Even your link is blaming Jr.

Not only did he give tax cuts to the wealthy, he gave them another one AFTER the war had started.

Tax cuts and killing Saddam and Taliban is money well spent when compared to Obama's "stimulus", Solyndra, and "cash for clunkers" debacle. Perhaps you folks on the left need to get your heads examined ...ASAP!

I'm guessing that you too are entirely innumerate....

Let’s start with Obama’s stimulus. The standard Republican talking point is that it failed, meaning it didn’t reduce unemployment. Yet in a survey of leading economists conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed.

The U.S. Economic Policy Debate Is a Sham

Who really cares what these clowns think.

There was no model performance published prior and so there is nothing to compare.

I get so tired of people giving these idiots credibility.

There is a reasons teachers teach (generally can't exist in the real world).

Right.......Do you have any idea how rare that level of consensus is among economists?

We aren't all blessed with voices in our heads telling us what to believe.....

Which I think is a good thing...

 

[IcebergSlim]

If spending had continued to grow at the same rate as established by Scrub (exclusive of Iraqnam and Recession Remediation), the federal budget would be roughly 25% higher than what will be spent in FY 2016.......

I don't deny your chart slope was up late 2000s'. note, GWB also had bad costly stuff happen (listed many times) during his years from start to finish. Deficit in 2007 was ~150 bil?

No one put a gun to Scrubby's head and told him to vaporize the Surplus, invade Iraqnam, and hand Big Pharma the Medicare Part D boondoggle....

oh come now slim, obama did all those things also only on a different level. Increased the debt, invasion of syria, and the biggest tax hike in American history later to be defined as obamacare.

Do you think the meter on Scrub's fiscal excesses stopped running when he left DC?

We haven't "invaded Syria"....

The biggest tax hikes in American history are

1982 -Reagan

1993 - Clinton....

 

[IcebergSlim]

anyone who voted for this man, should be hanging your heads in shame. Not sitting here making more EXCUSES for the idiot

SNIP:
Under Obama US Drops From 6th to 11th on Economic Freedom Index

Liberals love to tout their economic policies' "success" despite the fact that the data do not support their narrative. Indeed, under President Obama, the US has plummeted on the Economic Freedom index to its worst score in history, according to a new study by the Heritage Foundation.

The US has fallen from 6th to 11th place in the economic freedom ranking, indicating that expanding government, welfare, healthcare, regulations, subsidies and more have taken a costly toll on the nation. CNSNews reports on some of the costly measures the US has suffered since 2009:

Government spending has exploded, amounting to $29,867 per household in 2015.
The national debt has risen to $125,000 for every tax-filing household in America—a total over $18 trillion.
The government takeover of health care is raising prices and disrupting markets.
Bailouts and new government regulations have increased uncertainty, stifling investment and job creation.

The index proves how America's economic freedom is declining at a rapid pace in just a few of the following ways:

The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. This has driven new jobs to other, more competitive nations and has meant fewer jobs and lower wages for Americans.
The overall annual cost of meeting regulatory requirements has increased by over $80 billion since 2009, with more than 180 new regulations in place. In terms of ease of starting a new business, analyzed by a recently published World Bank report, the U.S. is ranked shockingly low at 49th, trailing countries such as Canada, Georgia, Ireland, Lithuania, and Malaysia.

ALL OF IT here:
Under Obama US Drops From 6th to 11th on Economic Freedom Index

Heritage, by way of CNS, as reported by some crank site....

Steph.....you ain't all that discriminating...

 

[IcebergSlim]

Like one famous politician said - the scariest words in the world are we are from the government and are here to help...

Are you quoting The Tripler?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

From your link......................

“To understand the long-term trends here, we have to take a look at what exactly happened when the last Democratic president was leaving office. He was passing off budget surpluses as far as the eye could see to his successor,” Josh Earnest said at the daily White House briefing.


President George W. Bush proceeded to put in place tax cuts for the wealthy and launched a ground war in the Middle East “all without paying for it,” he added.



That led to the Great Recession that put enormous pressure on the federal budget, Earnest said.

Even your link is blaming Jr.

Not only did he give tax cuts to the wealthy, he gave them another one AFTER the war had started.

Tax cuts and killing Saddam and Taliban is money well spent when compared to Obama's "stimulus", Solyndra, and "cash for clunkers" debacle. Perhaps you folks on the left need to get your heads examined ...ASAP!

I'm guessing that you too are entirely innumerate....

Let’s start with Obama’s stimulus. The standard Republican talking point is that it failed, meaning it didn’t reduce unemployment. Yet in a survey of leading economists conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed.

The U.S. Economic Policy Debate Is a Sham

Who really cares what these clowns think.

There was no model performance published prior and so there is nothing to compare.

I get so tired of people giving these idiots credibility.

There is a reasons teachers teach (generally can't exist in the real world).

Right.......Do you have any idea how rare that level of consensus is among economists?

We aren't all blessed with voices in our heads telling us what to believe.....

Which I think is a good thing...

Provide the model and then I'll know that these guys are not the voices in your head telling you what you want to believe.

 

[paulitician]

The statement is accurate, but also pretty disingenuous and cowardly. But then again, consider the source.

 

[Rustic]

Like one famous politician said - the scariest words in the world are we are from the government and are here to help...

Are you quoting The Tripler?

Mr. amnesty

 

[ZackB]

Obama burns throw white people's money like a Mexican blows throw a plate of tacos. You can spin numbers any way you like. The fact is that Obama was not fighting a war and he still caused our debt to soar uncontrollably. He refused to work with Congress to get it under control. The only time he cooperated was when Congress agreed to spend more.

Congress is spending more now than ever.

They are all complicit

That's odd? I could have sworn you were just blaming Obama for not working with Congress. Point out how the Republican House, the body given the authority to create spending bills, is spending more than ever before .... and look how quickly you shift to include Democrats with blame.

You are just not very bright, sir. I have stated nothing that is inconsistent.

Of course ya did. You blamed Obama for the increase to the debt for not working with Congress to lower it; when in fact, it's the House which controls spending. All the president can do is approve or reject their bills.

Yes, pursuant to our federal constitution, taxes must originate in the House of Representatives. For the first 2 years of Obama's presidency the House was controlled by Democrats. That is about 29% of Obama's time in office. During this time the ACA became law. Also, it was this time that the federal government engaged in a tremendous amount of spending on bullshit like renewable energy upstarts (Solyndra), the stimulus, and becoming an equity holder in a major auto manufacturer. In addition, under Obama there has been a tremendous pudding away of money by executive agencies - lowered standards for Social Security Disability awards and enhancing tax credits like the EIC, resulting in huge "refunds" like never before seen.

Obama then proceeded to hold America and the GOP hostage by refusing to negotiate anything, resulting in a government shutdown. Granted, Congressional Republicans have been spineless. However, they cannot get ANYTHING done that needs to be done without agreeing to Obama's demands for increased spending and increased taxes.

Look, you clearly have no capacity for analyzing these things. Moreover, you just are not that intelligent. Don't bother me with your grade school level analysis.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Facts can not be debated; they can only be understood.

President Reagan tripled the debt. President Clinton got it under control. President Bush exploded the debt by coupling massive tax cuts we couldn't afford with not one but TWO full wars he charged to the credit card, while also drastically expanding the federal gov't with Homeland Security, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind.

President Obama did not create a yearly $1.5 trillion deficit. It was handed to him. And he has reduced those yearly $1.5 trillion deficits by two-thirds.

The facts of our modern history are not disputed by anyone but the willfully stupid RWNJ trolls who live on message boards to spread their ignorance. In our lifetimes, Republican Presidents explode the debt while Democratic Presidents are brought in to mop things up.

Bush was a mess.

Reagan's "tripling was something like 3.5 Trillion total.....it was recoverable.

And the economy boomed.

Bush threw away a huge opportunity.

It was "recoverable" because Poppy, and Clinton after him, paid the necessary political price for cleaning up the mess....

and relative to Real GDP and jobs, Reagan underperformed the guys on either side of him...

Please stop making me laugh.

There was very little mess to clean up.

The economy made some minor corrections.

You on the left and right forget that Clinton was popular but got his ass handed to him in 94. Congress in the hands of a conservative group worked with Clinton to do some good stuff.

they had the foundation due to some of what Reagan was able to do.

It's all dems.....

It's all the GOP.

That is what makes the OP so amazing. This WH finally acknowledges some hand in our deficit.

I know GWB was a moron and a spender.

Obama has not helped things much.

Uh....no....

By the end of Reagan's second term the debt had tripled.....3 years later it has quadrupled (since the end of FY81)......This was clearly unsustainable...Alan Greenspan has described Reagan as a "reckless steward of the economy"...furthermore, the economy generated the worst GDP and job growth in the post WW2 era (until Poppy's mutant spawn "outdid" it).....Poppy, to stanch the fiscal bleeding, was obliged to break his no taxes pledge, and along with congress instituted "Pay/Go".....

This arrested the growth of deficits, but wasn't enough to reverse them.......which is why Clinton was, in 1993, obliged to push through the second largest real tax increase in US history - which passed with ZERO republican votes........The GOP then ran on the issue in the 94 elections and democrats got creamed...

The effect of the tax rate increases, and economic growth (contrary to the dire predictions of The Usual Suspects), was to reduce the deficit by over 90% by the time Gingrich and Clinton reached their agreement in the fall of 1997....

There is simply no comparison to be made between Scrub and Obama......Under Scrub, federal spending (exclusive of Iraqnam) grew at more than 7% per year.......Under Obama' it has grown at about a third of that rate....

You are starting sound like a sok for another poster on this board.

Your historical recall is correct. The ascribed reasons have always been in dispute.

Reagan did, in fact, triple the debt. The stock market also tripled during his term.

Reagan was also dealing with huge interest rates which were imposed to slow down inflation. It appears to have worked to good.

The GOP Wiped out the democrats in 1994 based primarily on their marketing campaign of a "Contract With America".

Clinton's tax increase didn't help near as much as the tech bubble. Clinton had moderate interest rates during his time.

GWB had low interest rates to deal with and nearly balanced budget. He threw it all away. I'd still like to kick him in the balls....along with all the morons in congress who let him get away with it.

Obama has had near zero interest rates to deal with and has been unable to get the economy going.

Do I really think they control the economy ?

 

[Political Junky]

Bush, so called sober.