I think HW said it best "voodoo economics." If you give a poor person a dollar they will be forced to spend it. If you give a rich person a dollar they can just save it. I think why Reaganomics worked was the massive spending by the government. He tripled the national debt. On average Regan spent 21.6% of GDP which was higher than the previous administrations.
Just repeating yourself doesn't count as elucidation nor does quoting your own opinion make it anymore fact. I will agree with you though that a Republican Congress with a Democratic President does tend to help the deficit. This is most likely that with divided government you get gridlock which blocks aa lot of new major programs that lead to more spending. Your idea that Republicans are less fiscally irresponsible than Democrats doesn't hold when some of GW Bush's biggest budgets were between 2003 and 2005 when the GOP controlled both the Congress and Presidency. http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/d/d/George-W.-Bush
All you can do with "slow" people is repeat the facts and hope they'll finally read them. If you actually read what I was posting, it wasn't opinion, it was fact. When you say that Bush's biggest budgets were between 2003 and 2005 it is effectively saying that a 3.5 trillion dollar budget with a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (2009 numbers passed by Democrats in congress) is somehow less than a 2.4 trillion dollar budget with a 318 billion dollar deficit (2005 numbers passed by Republicans) The numbers support that Republicans are fiscally irresponsible and Democrats are really really really ridiculously fiscally irresponsible.
I expect the budget will be balanced with tax cuts that we're told will stimulate the economy and grow the taxable base. This time next year, we'll hear that hasn't been enough time for the stimulus to have its effect. Before his term is over though, we'll have a big revenue problem. Republicans will tell us its because we need to cut more regulation and more government spending. Or -- perhaps the likeliest -- there will be some global economic calamity that is not directly attributable to Republican policies, but will be disruptive enough to make any sort of measurement of governing performance over time impossible.
In a context free, narrative driven world, I blame the stock market decline after 9-11-2001 on Bush's economic policies. Troll on, you crazy diamond, Troll on.
A bigly revenue problem since boomers will start retiring in mass around 2020. A bigly problem if ACA is repealed without keeping it's measures that help shore up Medicare.
LOL, I'm giving context....I'm pointing out who had the power of the purse and approved those budgets. The context free, narrative driven way to do things is to blame the president for congressional budgets.
No, is the short answer. That is far too large a task. The question is one of direction...towards a balanced budget, or away from it. Most analysis of his plan indicated away, BUT if it does spur growth, that would help bring things back in line. As with just about everything Trump...we shall see. I'm not against some of the spending he wants to make, and hopefully he could make it more productive. The last round of supposed infrastructure spending we did didn't achieve nearly what it should have.
In theory you could but it just takes a recession to wipe away a lot of revenue (assuming you create a lot of decent jobs) and balloons spending. It's simply not a good long term policy.
Let me put this way. With the ****-load of spending Trump wants to do, you CANNOT balance the budget without MASSIVE cuts in Social Security, Social programs, etc........or Raising Taxes. If he goes for the cuts or raising taxes, he will lose in 2020.....period. So, he will not try to balance the budget.
Now this is a factually accurate statement. Trump and the Republicans are completely fiscally irresponsible, but things could be done the right way.....they just won't.
Trump will quadruple the debt..massive tax cuts and increased defense spending always explode the debt.
It's obvious your avatar is 'white face' which I suppose you think is witty and a jab at racists...but you being bigoted and racist yourself...I find it strange that it doesn't register a bit as, oh I dunno, hypocritical? I suppose you can see how racist white folks in that there south view you and your race. It doesn't bother you a bit, as it doesn't bother them. It's really not that difficult for a man like you to relate to is it? I'm not sure if you've noticed (probably not), but I've razed you more than anyone on this board, not just because of your bigoted stance towards atheists, but I was actually pretty sympathetic towards minorities, particularly black folx and their cause, before I came to this board, but over the years and especially after seeing many of your flat out racists posts towards anything white while defending anything black. It seems that black folx, if you represent even a shread of them, are just as racist and bigoted as any of the ignorant white folks you hate and constantly whine and create the craziest consipiracy theories about. It's really just about numbers and position of power at this point isn't it? You're no better...maybe worse. But who's to say? I truly don't know you...and you don't know me...this is just an outlet for both of us at some point in our lives. I just know I think your internet persona isn't doing your race any favors...but you probably don't care...so carry on River. :/
If you are Obama you do... And a pen & a phone..... Like TI said... Obama "You can do whatever you like,,, and you golf whenever you like"
Right on target, JV. We will have a "balanced budget" plan that is really a phantom, and as you said, when it remains out of reach they will blame everyone except themselves.
