remember when?
- Thread starter dherd
- Start date
Yes, blame for what is likely to be $15 trillion of added debt over the next 10 years should be placed squarely on the self-proclaimed party of fiscal responsibility.
“The level of national debt is dangerous and unacceptable,” the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said in 2016. Referring to President Obama’s stimulus program, he added, “We borrowed $1 trillion and nobody could find that it did much of anything.”
That was then and this is now.
On top of insisting that the nation needed tax cuts that could total $2.1 trillion over the next decade, the Republicans clamored for large increases in military spending. As the price for their cooperation, the Democrats won an equal increase in domestic spending.
That amounts to a shortfall that will rival the deficits of a decade ago, when the economy was struggling to recover from the financial crisis and ensuing recession.
But while fiscal stimulus to restore economic growth has merit, staggering deficits in the ninth year of a recovery, with unemployment down to 4.1 percent, make no sense.
“The level of national debt is dangerous and unacceptable,” the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said in 2016. Referring to President Obama’s stimulus program, he added, “We borrowed $1 trillion and nobody could find that it did much of anything.”
That was then and this is now.
On top of insisting that the nation needed tax cuts that could total $2.1 trillion over the next decade, the Republicans clamored for large increases in military spending. As the price for their cooperation, the Democrats won an equal increase in domestic spending.
That amounts to a shortfall that will rival the deficits of a decade ago, when the economy was struggling to recover from the financial crisis and ensuing recession.
But while fiscal stimulus to restore economic growth has merit, staggering deficits in the ninth year of a recovery, with unemployment down to 4.1 percent, make no sense.
Seriously. That's the best you can do? You're not going to consider the loss of revenue due to the Bush recession or the need for stimulus to the economy? You're just going to pretend the situation that Obama inherited and Cheetos inherited are the same?
There was no need for QE. In fact they've been running the largest financial experiment in history and it was always going to end badly. At least we don't have a Marxist in the WH to make it exponentially worse.
You don't have to show your ignorance every day, but you do. I imagine in your feeble mind everything was going just right in 2008 and 2009 and you probably believe the govt should have just kept to themselves and we could just sit still and let things play out while the free market corrected itself. We had guys like you on this board swearing there was no recession and it was going to be a soft landing. Now that the economy is doing pretty well you no doubt believe we should cut revenue by cutting taxes for the wealthy. No, we don't need a Marxist to make it worse, we have a buffoon and the trumptards to do that.
Nope, W left us in a cluster f.
Damn right, no such thing as to big to fail. It was only Bush and Cheney's buddies that got help anyway.
Well they weren't very smart now were they.
Taxes got cut for everyone dipshit.
Better get used to it.
I'm wasn't talking about tarp. It wasn't a stimulus program.
Blah.....blah.....blah, moron.
I've already predicted much of the results.
You mean the QE that didn't do jack for us? You probably thing FDR's fiscal policies helped during the Great Depression too, don't you.
The actual stimulus spending, moron. Remember the appx. 800 billion?
Absolutely, FDR programs made a huge difference.
