The US Economy - A Ponzi Scheme

[finnbow]

I'm not willing to google them up again, but I've posted several graphs in the past from reliable sources showing that the lion's share of debt growth in recent years were directly a result of Bush's tax cuts, the costs of two protracted and mismanaged wars, and the costs associated with the avoidable (through proper policy and enforcement) recession.

You can wish this away if you want to, but I haven't bothered to do so. It would be an exercise in trying to deny the obvious.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Because receipts would have been greater yet. Getting rid of the irresponsible Bush tax cuts is politically impossible. The House would rather set the Capitol building ablaze than to fix the fiscal problem caused by these cuts.

That sure sounds like boohoohoo. The Dems could've done it, just as certainly as Clinton could've regulated derivatives.

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

That sure sounds like boohoohoo. The Dems could've done it, just as certainly as Clinton could've regulated derivatives.

Pete

Yes he could have except both the Fed Chairman and his Treasury Secretary told him that it was not necessary.

You have had this pointed out to you on several occasions but you persist in dragging in that stinking red herring, why is that?

[donquixote99]

Pete likes his politics in sound bites. It's more fun.

[piece-itpete]

When it comes to the left, the buck stops.... somewhere else.

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

When it comes to the left, the buck stops.... somewhere else.

Pete

No you see when someone becomes POTUS he/she gathers around him people to advise him on subjects with which he/she is not infinitely familiar. This is usually called the Cabinet. Greenspan was initially a GOP appointee and a disciple of Ayn Rand so it is not surprising he could not tell his arse from his elbow. Rubin was just another of those Goldman Sachs revolving door people that seem to infest our government.

So that buck stopped right where it belonged.

[piece-itpete]

So Bush wasn't responsible either.

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

So Bush wasn't responsible either.

Pete

No he was completely irresponsible.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

The Dems could've done it

Right, with their 60 votes in the Senate that they had for four months.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...-supermajority

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm not willing to google them up again, but I've posted several graphs in the past from reliable sources showing that the lion's share of debt growth in recent years were directly a result of Bush's tax cuts, the costs of two protracted and mismanaged wars, and the costs associated with the avoidable (through proper policy and enforcement) recession.

You can wish this away if you want to, but I haven't bothered to do so. It would be an exercise in trying to deny the obvious.

Not wishing anything away here. However, you're assuming causation based on little else but faith or dogma. You're assuming tax cuts among other things as central to causation of our current economic issues, and our current levels of underfunding (Of course, I also remember that some of those tax cuts were passed through Congress in partnership with Democrat majorities). There's no evidence to support your assertion.

You're also choosing to ignore the impact of dramatic increases in spending under Obama. Over his tenure, we've spent, on average, 38% more per year than we've taken in. While that ratio has settled down a bit in the last year or so (bit still historically quite high), it was as high as 67% (2009) and 60% (2010). Bush Jr averaged 12%, and his worst year was 22%. Obama's best year so far is 2013 at 24%.

As you like to quote: facts are stubborn things.