You can tell GOP is worried, because they care about the deficit again

Go4Broke

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
3,438
Reaction score
334
Points
83
Here's how the deficit performed under Republican and Democratic presidents, from Reagan to Trump

Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.

Bush 41
took it to 300 billion.

Clinton got it to zero.

Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.

Obama halved it to 600 billion.

Trump’s got it back to a trillion.

Morons: “Democrats cause deficits.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/
 
Last edited:

PeoplesFront

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
304
Reaction score
216
Points
43
I don’t give a crap which party contributes more to the deficit. My question is, what exactly are we spending it on? I’m genuinely curious.
 

Go4Broke

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
3,438
Reaction score
334
Points
83
I don’t give a crap which party contributes more to the deficit. My question is, what exactly are we spending it on? I’m genuinely curious.
Google it and let us know. Better yet, start a new thread and tell us how much you love federal spending on law and order and national defense, and hate any kind of spending on social welfare programs. This thread is to discuss the extreme hypocrisy of right wingers about federal deficits.
 
Last edited:

PeoplesFront

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
304
Reaction score
216
Points
43
Google it and let us know. Better yet, start a new thread about how much you love federal spending on defense and hate spending on social welfare programs. This thread is about the extreme hypocrisy of right wingers concerning federal deficits.
No thanks. I don’t feel the need to start a new thread after every article I read like you do.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,550
Reaction score
2,146
Points
113
Simple: undo the Trump tax scam. There's $2 trillion right off. You're welcome. Next...
yes, our weak economy will do great by just taking an additional $2 Trillion out of private hands. No problem at all. Solved
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,322
Reaction score
901
Points
113
The principle is to cut spending.
Agreed. But it's also in direct opposition to your principle of opposition to spending more than you take in. I'd call your adherence to principle a wash.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
1,594
Points
113
Obama halved it to 600 billion. grew the national debt by $9 Trillion
Only in a liberal world is raising the debt by $9 Trillion cutting the deficit. It's posts like this that earn you the ridicule that you deserve.

 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,867
Reaction score
2,861
Points
113
yes, our weak economy will do great by just taking an additional $2 Trillion out of private hands. No problem at all. Solved
Both cutting spending and increasing taxes takes money out of private hands. The compulsion to deficit spend and the reluctance to address the deficit and debt directly flow from extremism of the sort you express.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,550
Reaction score
2,146
Points
113
cutting spending takes money out of private hands.
literally the opposite is true. how orwellian.

The compulsion to deficit spend and the reluctance to address the deficit and debt directly flow from extremism of the sort you express.
libertarians are strong supporters of balanced budgets and cutting spending. Rand Paul, Justin Amash types are pretty much the only ones loudly talking about the deficit in Congress and the need to get it under control. Again, basically the opposite of what you said.

The point of my post is that keeping our current levels of government spending, and then also raising taxes by $2 trillion would be incredibly destructive for the economy. Big government is a loser. That's not to say that I support the current deficit spending, I'm strongly opposed. Just that my solution is basically the opposite of yours.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
2,703
Reaction score
896
Points
113
"We can’t just keep shoveling cash at this. We’re going broke. We’re bankrupting our country and the answer can’t be trillions and trillions more money... we don’t got it."

— Ted Cruz


Which party is it that holds the White House and the Senate, Ted?
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,867
Reaction score
2,861
Points
113
"We can’t just keep shoveling cash at this. We’re going broke. We’re bankrupting our country and the answer can’t be trillions and trillions more money... we don’t got it."

— Ted Cruz


Which party is it that holds the White House and the Senate, Ted?
That's right up with the scare tactics saying that if Biden's elected we'll have unrest in the streets and scores of people wil die. Well, ummm...
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,867
Reaction score
2,861
Points
113
literally the opposite is true. how orwellian.
I think you and I both know that the vast majority of the 2 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy ended up in foreign bank accounts and not circulating in the economy. If you don't know that, you should wise up.

Basically the government is borrowing two trillion dollars and depositing it into these people's foreign bank accounts. If you're going to borrow money like that, you could at least invest it in people or public works or public services and get a societal and likely economic benefit out of it.
 
Last edited:

GoodasGold

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
10,140
Reaction score
989
Points
113
I think you and I both know that the vast majority of the 2 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy ended up in foreign bank accounts and not circulating in the economy. If you don't know that, you should wise up.
That’s a tall order for an anal retentive!
 
Top Bottom