Bush Meets Deficit Commitment- Early

I've read your stuff - you wouldn't know funny if it bit you in the ass

 

Uh, excuse me, but I think a little thing called 9/11 helped create it.
And there was the dot-com bust that cratered the market and the economy.
But easier to blame it all on George, right?

 

I thinks its fair to say that sportschick was doing her makeup during economics 101.

Given what happened I think its amazing that we have landed on our feet - economically speaking.

I asked a few pages back but did not get any answers- can any of you who do not like Bush economic policy tell me how you have been adversely affected by it in last 5 years ?

 

He spent more than he collected.

But all glibness aside, if you're not going to blame him for creating the deficit, then you shouldn't be crediting him for halving it.  I'm not here to bitch about the deficit.  I just don't understand your "pat on the back."

 

Jack Congress appropriates the money - not the President. Playing devils advocate what should they have cut so they could match revenue stream - Social Security ? Medicaid? Defense?

I submit that any cuts to budget at that point would have made us worse off. Bush tax cuts kept the economy going.

I assume then that you are one not to credit Clinton with having balanced budget right?

 

You asked for sources. Not independent ones.


I guess when your end zones are 20 yards deep it's easier to move the goal line...

 

Congress also approves changes to the tax code.  So I look forward to your changing the title of this thread to "Congress Meets Deficit Commitment- Early."

I think I've been around here long enough for people to know I don't credit politicians for much of anything.

 

And to think, FB and myself were worried about the state of humor around here.

As has been discussed ... oh, I don't know, THOUSANDS of times here, dot.com + 9-11= Tough luck shot to the economy.

But, and that's one of the biggest buts you'll see: dot.com + 9-11 + two wars + TAX CUTS = BIGGEST DEFICIT IN HISTORY.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Let me make it simple. Let's say this country is a business. The business just had one big client downsize and cut its purchasing from you and another client suffered significant damage and also isn't purchasing from you as it did in the past. At the same time, a couple of projects -- one worthy and one woefully misguided -- start sucking a boatload of money out of the company's accounts. If you're running that company, do you send all your customers who owe you money a notice informing them that you're cutting their payments?

Even better: Five years later, when you, by the absolute grace of God, manage to trim a little off the mountain of debt that your idiotic business practices created, do you expect a pat on the back?

 

Yeah, and if I asked you for sources related to smoking and cancer, you'd send me links to the American Tobacco Association

 

Honestly - do you really think a tax increase would have been the correct move? I submit that tax cut kept ecomomy stable.

The investment tax credit program that congress put in gave business incentive to purchase heavy equipment. Take my business for example we bought 3 H2's to aid the ailing economy.

How were you adversly affected by tax cut in past 5 years?

 

JR - by the same token - if you want to know how a game was played - you ask the players not "independent" spectators.

You should read the links I gave you. It does make for interesting first person history. The head speech writer was very entertaining.

 

Which is totally irrelevant to the discussion. You asked for sources. He gave them to you. They didn't fit with your preconceived notions so you told him that's not what you wanted when in fact he gave you exactly what you asked for.