"LONG" time coming, eh? Longer than eight years? So, how many years lag time do we need to judge Bush, Obama, Trump, etc? More than 8 years, is it? If you're right, then you and the rest of us might as well STFU, unless we're Nostradamus.
Bobby doesn't understand that an economic crisis will automatically spur spending. It has nothing to do with the party in charge.
Policies that contributed to the bubble and mortgage crisis date back to the 70's. You can no more blame the housing crisis on the Bush administration than you can blame 9-11 or the tech bubble bursting on Clinton. Doing so is just lazy and probably intellectually dishonest. On the other hand, we can directly tie deficit spending to the congress that passes it.
So, uh, this things was in place since the 70's, and George Bush had 8 years to watch it run up to the point of catastrophe, and he didn't do anything about it. And you think it's not his fault. I know he was very busy committing war crimes in Iraq, in a war that was started for no reason whatsoever, in which the U.S. was 100% wrong. . . . But I think the Republicans still failed really bad, watching this thing born in the 70's, supposedly, run up for eight years to the point of catastrophe. Bush bails after he lets the bomb explode after watching it count down for 8 years, and then people like you get to blame Obama for stuff that happened in the 1970's. (I assume you're talking about 76-80.)
"70's policies"-->Reagan-->Reagan-->Bush-->Clinton-->Clinton-->Bush-->Bush-->2008 crash-->Bobbythegreat: "It's Democrats' fault!"
There were multiple factors that contributed to the "catastrophe"....of course if you want to push the political narrative that it's all Bush's fault, well that's pretty much par for the course for Democrats. Again though, saying Bush is responsible for the housing crisis is the same as saying Clinton is responsible for 9/11 and the internet bubble. It's foolish and lazy, but I guess that's where we're at. Now if we want to get back on track, we're talking about budget deficits, that's something that is directly attributable to the congress that passes them, it is a much more straight forward conversation.
That's not what I suggested at all, but given how poorly you are following along in this conversation, it doesn't really surprise me. What is "Democrats' fault" is the ridiculously irresponsible budgets they ran the ENTIRE time they had control of congress. I'm not blaming them for the housing bubble, the internet bubble, 9/11, or my coffee getting cold before I finished it. I only blame people for things that are fair to blame them for.
Actually you're the one who is pushing the Republican v. Democrat narrative, as your most recent post continues to show. 9/11 does not compare to a stock market crash, unless you are blaming Americans for 9/11. So you've bailed on defending your bridge to the 1970's. All right, great! Let's attribute the coming deficits to "the congress that passes them." Agreed: the coming deficits are the fault of "the congress that passes them."
I'm explaining the differences between the fiscal policy of Republicans and Democrats, that's not "Republicans vs Democrats". If I had it my way, I'd get rid of both given that BOTH are fiscally irresponsible. Pointing out that Democrats are significantly more fiscally irresponsible isn't pitting the two against each other. Also, going back to the conversation about the subprime mortgage crisis, I haven't "bailed" on anything. I told you that there were multiple causes that date back to the 70's and that's true. There's no one person to blame that on unless you are lazy, ignorant, or you are selling something. I'm glad that you've finally accepted the obvious truth that deficits are the fault of the congress that passes them though. Perhaps that's progress. If you accept that, then you realize the truth of what I've said about Republicans being fiscally irresponsible and Democrats being really really really ridiculously fiscally irresponsible.
There's about 400 million people in this country. Much of the debt is because the super rich has angled the taxes so they don't have to pay their share. It's impossible to be a utopia or former utopias like a Sweden or whatever...
In the eyes of some, they should pay all of it so that the rest of the country can just mooch off of them.
The problem is the top 1% has more wealth than the combined 99%. And the top 10% own more than 75% of the wealth. So they clearly still aren't paying their fair share. source: http://www.mybudget360.com/wealth-i...f-us-households-control-75-percent-of-wealth/
They will tell us that Obama's policies are still dragging the budget as well That is common among both parties Rocket River
Gee, remember in the good old days with a Democrat as president the republicans worried about saddling future generations with growing debt? And accused Democrats for "kicking the can" by raising debt ceilings? I guess balancing the budget is another of those things that are simply "complicated"... White House does not yet have plan on debt limit: budget chief http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-debt-mulvaney-idUSKBN1962BR?il=0
