I just pointed out that the numbers you quoted were inaccurate, would you like to speak to that or are you just hoping to ignore the fact that you are quoting inaccurate numbers to support a false narrative?
Inaccurate . The outgoing President sets the budget for the year of them leaving office. It has always been that way. The numbers I cited are accurate. Honestly it would take you 2-3 minutes to check if you were actually familiar with how the budget/deficit works. The reality is that there is very little correlation between the political party of the President in power. Reagan, Bush Jr. and Obama have all increased the budget. Your position that "only a Democrat could get away doubling" is simply historically inaccurate.... Ronald Reagan increased it MORE than double. The most fiscally responsible President in the last 40 years has been Bill Clinton. It isn't about "R" or "D" next to a President's name when it comes down to fiscal responsibility.
And if you knew what you were talking about....even a little bit, you'd know that Congress sets the budget, not the president. I credit Obama with the "outgoing" budget because he voted for it. It was a Democrat controlled congress setting that budget and Obama personally supported it. Had Republicans been in congress, the deficit would have been less than half that. It really doesn't take long to find out if you know what you are looking for. Hell I even posted something that another poster foolishly thought supported his narrative that fully explains this fact. The congress has the power of the purse and when that power is given to Republicans they are fiscally irresponsible. When that power is given to Democrats they are really really really ridiculously fiscally irresponsible. That's what history has taught us. Look it up.
To make it easy for you, I'll re-post the whole damn thing. Who Adds More To The Debt: Republicans or Democrats? So there’s a popular meme/argument/school of thought that I’ve noticed coming from Democratic circles ever since I got involved in politics. Here it is in a nutshell: Republicans increase the national debt more than Democrats do, and contrary to popular belief, Democratic Presidents are more fiscally responsible than Republican Presidents. Here is a handy dandy chart that my left wing friends have linked to before when they make this argument: When I see this chart I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Put lightly, this is an incredibly ignorant argument. Let me tackle the graph in two parts. First, the obvious, and less important issue with the numbers: The percentage increase under Obama cuts off in April 2011 (see 1/2009-4/2011 underneath his bar), just over 2 years into what should be an 8 year presidency, since he was re-elected in 2012. Yet he is already at 35% a fourth of the way in. Not too impressive. Second, THESE ARE PRESIDENTS! THEY DO NOT CONTROL FISCAL POLICY! Sure, they have input. They propose budgets that congress then throws out, or edits to their liking, but at the end of the day the House and the Senate write up, and vote on our spending and taxing bills. The President does not have the power to cut or increase either spending levels or taxes on his own. That’s the job of congress. They have what is called the “Power of the Purse.” So wouldn’t it be better, or at a minimum just as useful, to look at percentage increases in the debt, by year, by congressional majority instead?. Let’s do that for the time period in question in the above chart, 1981-2011: During the Reagan administration, Democrats controlled the House all 8 years. The Senate had slight Republican majorities for the first six years, before Democrats won back a majority in 1986, but the GOP never had enough seats to avoid a Democratic filibuster. Overall, Democrats clearly had more power in Congress when the debt ballooned 189% from 1981-1989. During the administration of Bush 41, Democrats controlled both bodies all four years, when the debt went up 55%. During the first two years of the Clinton administration, Democrats controlled both bodies of Congress. However, Republicans won back both chambers in 1994, and kept them for the remainder of his Presidency. In 1994, the deficit (annual contribution to the total debt) was $203.2 billion. In the year 2000, the last year of the Clinton Presidency, after 6 years of GOP control of spending and taxes, we had a $236.2 billion SURPLUS (see the previous link for budget numbers). For the first six years of the Bush 43 Presidency, Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. The deficit peaked in 2004 at $412.7 billion, the highest it was during any of those six years. In 2008, the deficit was $455 billion, higher than any other full fiscal year under Bush. This is after the Democrats won back control of both the House and the Senate in the 2006 midterm elections. Now here is where things get crazy – in 2009, the year Obama took office in January, when Democrats had already been controlling spending and taxation for 2 years prior and had just won even larger majorities in the 2008 elections, the deficit set an all time nominal record of $1.4 trillion. Many (rightfully) blame this on the recision. Tax receipts had dropped substantially, and the Democrats felt increasing spending would help “stimulate” the economy. You be the judge if that worked or not, but let’s not pretend this $1.4 trillion jump in the national debt is the fault of the Republicans, even if you choose to not hold Democrats responsible. In January 2011, following the 2010 midterms, Republicans entered with more seats in the Senate than before, and a new majority in the House. They didn’t have as much control over spending/taxes as they did in the 1990s, but they had more than before, and could get their agenda on the table under the Obama Presidency. Since Republicans have had the chance to manipulate fiscal policy (to one extent or another) starting in January 2011, the deficit shrunk from its high of $1.4 trillion, to $483 billion in 2014. It’s clear, to any honest person, which party is more responsible with the nation’s finances. You're welcome.
I did respond. You don't seem to understand that the outgoing President sets the budget for the year right after they leave office. At least one other poster pointed this out as well. It is a fact, it isn't debatable. You were wrong and still are. You were wrong about the premise that only a Democrat could get away doubling the deficit as well, it has been done in your very lifetime; by someone held up as the greatest Republican President in nearly 100 years.... Ronald Reagan.
Again. Go read what you wrote earlier. You are factually inaccurate yet again. If you want to deflect your obvious ignorance by arguing "congress" after earlier saddling it to a President; so be it. There is nothing else to discuss, you were and are wrong; deal with.
Trump will spend money like a drunken sailor and make token cuts in programs the far-right don't particularly care about. Some social programs will see drastic cuts, in my opinion. We'll have to wait and see. What I cared about most in this election, besides national security, was the Supreme Court. We are ****ed. Perhaps things can drag on as they are until after the mid-terms in 2 years. Democrats may take the Senate back and do to the GOP what they did to President Obama for 2 terms. Block everything they want. Everything except what impacts national security. I hope so.
Who Adds More To The Debt: Republicans or Democrats? So there’s a popular meme/argument/school of thought that I’ve noticed coming from Democratic circles ever since I got involved in politics. Here it is in a nutshell: Republicans increase the national debt more than Democrats do, and contrary to popular belief, Democratic Presidents are more fiscally responsible than Republican Presidents. Here is a handy dandy chart that my left wing friends have linked to before when they make this argument: When I see this chart I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Put lightly, this is an incredibly ignorant argument. Let me tackle the graph in two parts. First, the obvious, and less important issue with the numbers: The percentage increase under Obama cuts off in April 2011 (see 1/2009-4/2011 underneath his bar), just over 2 years into what should be an 8 year presidency, since he was re-elected in 2012. Yet he is already at 35% a fourth of the way in. Not too impressive. Second, THESE ARE PRESIDENTS! THEY DO NOT CONTROL FISCAL POLICY! Sure, they have input. They propose budgets that congress then throws out, or edits to their liking, but at the end of the day the House and the Senate write up, and vote on our spending and taxing bills. The President does not have the power to cut or increase either spending levels or taxes on his own. That’s the job of congress. They have what is called the “Power of the Purse.” So wouldn’t it be better, or at a minimum just as useful, to look at percentage increases in the debt, by year, by congressional majority instead?. Let’s do that for the time period in question in the above chart, 1981-2011: During the Reagan administration, Democrats controlled the House all 8 years. The Senate had slight Republican majorities for the first six years, before Democrats won back a majority in 1986, but the GOP never had enough seats to avoid a Democratic filibuster. Overall, Democrats clearly had more power in Congress when the debt ballooned 189% from 1981-1989. During the administration of Bush 41, Democrats controlled both bodies all four years, when the debt went up 55%. During the first two years of the Clinton administration, Democrats controlled both bodies of Congress. However, Republicans won back both chambers in 1994, and kept them for the remainder of his Presidency. In 1994, the deficit (annual contribution to the total debt) was $203.2 billion. In the year 2000, the last year of the Clinton Presidency, after 6 years of GOP control of spending and taxes, we had a $236.2 billion SURPLUS (see the previous link for budget numbers). For the first six years of the Bush 43 Presidency, Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. The deficit peaked in 2004 at $412.7 billion, the highest it was during any of those six years. In 2008, the deficit was $455 billion, higher than any other full fiscal year under Bush. This is after the Democrats won back control of both the House and the Senate in the 2006 midterm elections. Now here is where things get crazy – in 2009, the year Obama took office in January, when Democrats had already been controlling spending and taxation for 2 years prior and had just won even larger majorities in the 2008 elections, the deficit set an all time nominal record of $1.4 trillion. Many (rightfully) blame this on the recision. Tax receipts had dropped substantially, and the Democrats felt increasing spending would help “stimulate” the economy. You be the judge if that worked or not, but let’s not pretend this $1.4 trillion jump in the national debt is the fault of the Republicans, even if you choose to not hold Democrats responsible. In January 2011, following the 2010 midterms, Republicans entered with more seats in the Senate than before, and a new majority in the House. They didn’t have as much control over spending/taxes as they did in the 1990s, but they had more than before, and could get their agenda on the table under the Obama Presidency. Since Republicans have had the chance to manipulate fiscal policy (to one extent or another) starting in January 2011, the deficit shrunk from its high of $1.4 trillion, to $483 billion in 2014. It’s clear, to any honest person, which party is more responsible with the nation’s finances.
Trump has the house, senate, and soon the supreme court. I already think obama's legacy will look pretty good, but after trump it will look even better.
LOL, what legacy? Being the first black president? He certainly doesn't have any positive accomplishments while president so I can't imagine what else you could be talking about. Doubling the national debt? Is that the "pretty good" legacy you are talking about?
Who proposes the budget? A new President comes into a budget pre existing for their first year in office? Really Bobby; it isn't that hard; all the records are a matter of public record.
I accept now that you simply don't know enough about how the government works to have this conversation and you have no interest in educating yourself. Given your willful ignorance, it's probably best that we end it here. I tried, but you have to work with me and you have made it clear that you have no interest in having an educated opinion on the subject.
Typical response you give when you are called out on your bullshit. All the numbers are readily available for anyone that wants to look them up. Your ignorance doesn't both me, what I find sad is that you would rather wallow in your ignorance rather than learn something new ... all because you don't ever want to admit that you are wrong. Bobby, we are all wrong from time to time. People worth a damn learn from it and better themselves. I was wrong about the 2016 election, I was wrong believing America would not tolerate racism and sexism from a Presidential candidate... I was wrong about Rahm Emanuel being a competent mayor in Chicago.... but not Bobbo; he is right that the sky is red even when he wakes up every morning to a blue sky. Sometimes Bobby; you aren't "great".
So...allowing people to keep more of their own money is a "redistribution" according to this guy? Sounds smart. Does he have a newsletter?
So high income inequality is a good thing? Leads to stability historically huh? Lol he has articles in economic journals.
I posted the numbers for you multiple times, I spelled it out to you over and over again. I can't force you to educate yourself. All I can do is give you the information and you have to absorb it yourself. You posted inaccurate information and I tried to help you. Anyway, I'm done with this conversation till you show some evidence that you read what I posted to you multiple times. Have a good day kiddo.
