|
So you are supposed to get a pat on the back if you are given a 200+ billion surplus, you then run that down to, okay I'm guessing here because I don't remember the numbers, a 500 billion deficit, but then you get the deficit back to 390 billion a year? Yes that's real logical. Then the another part of his argument, a 'severe' downturn in the third quarter of Clinton's last year. As I remember there were signs of a downturn towards the end of Clinton's second term but it officially didn't happen until Bush was in office. As usual this doesn't take into consideration that the Republicans harassed Clinton for 8 years and as now did everything they could to not help him in any way, but to call what happened a severe downturn is an exaggeration. So you have to say that the economy started to turn down during Clinton's lame duck period but Bush definitely didn't do anything to help it. The rest of it is saying that gee things happened while Bush was in office so therefore the deficit isn't really his fault. Well, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and he ignored warnings that could have stopped it from happening. As far as the 2 war argument Bush wanted to and accomplished getting us into those wars and keeping a lot of the cost off the yearly budget numbers. Ultimately he couldn't keep those expenditures from showing up in the national deficits and debt. The fact is the Republican's anti-regulation, anti-government, crony-capitalism ran our economy into the ground while filling their buddies pockets with the middle classes money so making the argument that after two years of Obama's administration we should return to those policies because, as usual, the Republicans/Cons are never wrong and it's not their fault is the ultimate in ridiculous arguments.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
