I think you're thinking of Reagonites. They were the ones who preached that deficits don't matter............
It most certainly was unpatriotic! Between 2001 and 2003, federal receipts fell by nearly $400 billion while expenditures increased by nearly $300 billion. This means from QII 2003 onward... the federal government was operating out of a $700 billion ($681 billion) fiscal crater.
I can defend the budget policy continuation of the Obama administration. That's the difference between our positions.
They don't just do it when there is a Dem President but also when the Dems control the congress and make a shambles of fiscal policy.I think the Republicans were the most hypocritical when they started crying about the Debt only when they have Democrat President.
In 2007 they handed the Democrats full employment, 52 months of solid growth, record tax revenue increases and a deficit of a paltry $161B.After they handed over a crisis.
Instead of running around crying, "Failed Stimulus," they could have given a little more and the growth would have a balanced budget by now.
Revenues did not fall that much the deficit hit that in 2004. Of course there was a slowdown that started in QIII of 2000 that turned into a recession Q1 2001 along with the dot.com bust and 9/11 all hitting. The Republicans did pass the correct response to that their mistake being they phased it in over a 5 year period. They corrected that in 2003, the deficit hit a one year high of the $400B in 2004 and then the economy took off and revenues soared, we had full employment and solid GDP growth and they brought the deficit back down to a paltry $161B heading for surplus.
Then in 2007 the Democrats took back the Congress and budget control and made a disaster of things. The deficit shot to $1,400B in just two years on their 9% spending increase in FY2008 and then 18% in FY2008 and they kept the deficit over $1,000B for the next four years.
It was economic growth based on an unsustainable growth in credit expansion to low-quality borrowers.
here was this little thing called the Great Recession that happened in 2008 and 2009.
They don't just do it when there is a Dem President but also when the Dems control the congress and make a shambles of fiscal policy.
In 2007 they handed the Democrats full employment, 52 months of solid growth, record tax revenue increases and a deficit of a paltry $161B.
They took their worst Deficit of $400B in 2004 down to $161B in 2007 heading to surplus. Where did the Democrats have it two years later, where was it four years later? They couldn't even come close to the WORST Republican deficit. And BTW it was Republicans who balanced the budget and produce the surpluses in the late 1990's.
Until things got so bad that a man named Trump beat the pros of both partie for the top job, because the people had had enough.The reason the national debt is so high is due to the high level of incompetence in positions of power. Any moron can appear competent if they have enough money to pay middlemen to do all the work. The result is the huge national debt. As an analogy, say you had two mothers throwing a party for their child. The first mother is skilled at cooking, arts and crafts. She can put together a nice theme party on a shoe string budget due to her skills. The other mother is more like a trophy wife who can't boil water without burning the pan. She will need far more resources since her skills cannot contribute to cost savings.
In modern politics, winning an election requires certain unique skills. These skills are not the same skills as those needed to get the job done on time and under budget. The best people for the job will never get past the election process since it is all about image and slander. The election process benefits by con artist and actors playing the role of statesmen. Trump makes the actors look bad since he has skills. In this case, it will be like the skilled mother helping the trophy wife with her party to where the trophy wife suddenly appears like a placeholder for special interests.
It was solid economic growth across the board, residential housing is only about 3-4% GDP and of those borrowers at the time only about 30% of those we low quality.
Republican Gingrich accomplished that with his "Contract with America" during Clinton's administration which was the last time we had a balanced budget and surpluses!
it wasn't only housing debt ... Credit card debt ballooned too ...
"Between 1989 and 2001, credit card debt in America almost tripled, from $238 billion
to $692 billion. The savings rate steadily declined, and the number of people filing for
bankruptcy jumped 125 percent."
http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/borrowing_to_make_ends_meet.pdf
And ...
"... total debt has increased from around $1,186 per person in 1948 to $10,168 in 2010. And remember, that's using 2010 dollars ..."
https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...ricans-love-affair-with-debt-has-grown/63552/
I'm talking about the recovery from the 2001 recession try again.
The specific timeframe of my links is unimportant, the point is that mortgages were not the only type of credit expanding at an unsustainable rate prior to the 2008 recession. You try again. Without being such a douchenozzle.
Wrong it is specific to the discussion and stop being juvenile. I have present facts to you try discussing them.
Mortgage credit is not specific to the discussion after it is pointed out to you that mortgages were not the only type of credit being discussed.
Gimme said the credit upswing was unsustainable, you said no it wasn't since housing credit was "only" 3-4% of GDP (a huge ****ing number, btw), and then when I pointed out the trend of non-mortgage credit unsustainability, you tell me it's not within the scope of the discussion. The discussion was never ONLY housing credit.
But Congress is fixated with tax-cuts that raise the deficit above the GDP growth rate.
Why do you assume that?
‘Get this done’: Ryan promises permanent tax reform this year despite Republican hurdles
McConnell plans to pass tax bill with just GOP votes
That's all that seems to matter to GOP's leadership.
But Congress is fixated with tax-cuts that raise the deficit above the GDP growth rate.
It's not an assumption. It's clearly evident.Why do you assume THIS
It's not an assumption. It's clearly evident.
Conservatives often claim that the capital gains rate cuts during the Clinton Admin was causal to the markets rising, and therefore producing additional capital gains revenue. The problem is that the markets rose long before the cuts were passed, implying that the tax-cuts had nothing to do with the market rises and further implied that the revenue would have been greater had the capital gains rates not been cut.Well no its not. Did revenues especially cap gains tax revenues increase or decrease after the Gingrich/Kasich tax rage cuts? After the Bush43 tax rate cuts? Did the deficits go up or down?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?