republican response to these figures?

asdfasdfasdasdfasdfasdfa wrote:

I doubt this is true. I am guessing with Bush\'s Capital gain tax cut, that we wouldn\'t have had a surplus. But yeah in general president doesn\'t have a ton of direct effect on the economy short term.

problem child wrote:

Clinton was in office during the computer and internet boom. Anyone could have been president and created a surplus.

When the economy turned into mush under Bush, the talking point was the president has little impact on it. Meanwhile, out of the other side of the mouth of the GOP, we hear that we need tax cuts that target the richest - or an extension of those cuts, for the good of the economy. Is this inconsistency (never mind the lack of data supporting the tax cuts help the economy mantra)not obvious to all?

Wow. Politics continues.

Step back and look at yourselves. All of you.

Same story all over again. You sit here, talking garbage and nonsense and hating each other, and for what? Nothing changes.

I worked on Capitol Hill this summer, and I learned a lot about politics and the REAL way things are done up there. Surprisingly, it\'s not as bad up there as you\'d think. People get along a lot better, and, for the most part, they respect each other.

You blame the politicians, but the real disgusting part about politics is all you guys. It\'s the citizens who hate each other because of different views. It\'s the internet, where people don\'t hold back their real feelings and thoughts (of hate). It\'s the disgusting lengths people will go to to \'kill\' the politicians/supporters of politicians they don\'t like.

I guess things will never change.

Fundamental Truth wrote:

Wow. Politics continues.

Step back and look at yourselves. All of you.

Same story all over again. You sit here, talking garbage and nonsense and hating each other, and for what? Nothing changes.

I worked on Capitol Hill this summer, and I learned a lot about politics and the REAL way things are done up there. Surprisingly, it's not as bad up there as you'd think. People get along a lot better, and, for the most part, they respect each other.

You blame the politicians, but the real disgusting part about politics is all you guys. It's the citizens who hate each other because of different views. It's the internet, where people don't hold back their real feelings and thoughts (of hate). It's the disgusting lengths people will go to to 'kill' the politicians/supporters of politicians they don't like.

I guess things will never change.

yea yea yea... it's all our fault. We're just too dumb and don't appreciate all that the great elite minds in Washington do for us.

It's a real shame.

Hey Kevin, I didn't say people up there were smart or even good people.

I'm just trying to say that the real injustice here is that - cycle after cycle, transition after transition - nothing changes with how we act and treat the 'other' side. In the end, who wins? No one because everyone hates each other more and more.

I only mentioned the actual congresspeople to emphasize that, more often than not, they're more civilized than the citizens, and that the real travesty isn't what goes on on Capitol Hill or in the White House. It's what goes on on the polarized nightly news, internet...blah blah...

I worded that last part poorly, but hopefully you get the picture.

Fundamental Truth wrote:

Hey Kevin, I didn't say people up there were smart or even good people.

I'm just trying to say that the real injustice here is that - cycle after cycle, transition after transition - nothing changes with how we act and treat the 'other' side. In the end, who wins? No one because everyone hates each other more and more.

I only mentioned the actual congresspeople to emphasize that, more often than not, they're more civilized than the citizens, and that the real travesty isn't what goes on on Capitol Hill or in the White House. It's what goes on on the polarized nightly news, internet...blah blah...

I worded that last part poorly, but hopefully you get the picture.

Of course the politicians all get along. They are bought and paid for by the same corporate overlords. All the political blah-blah is just a dog and pony show.

Come on. The whole idea that Clinton "created a surplus" is itself false. First of all, he had the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War (Thanks, Ron and George) on the debit side and the invention of the internet spurring growth on the credit side (which, of course, was the dot-com bubble). Secondly, even if all that was his doing, the "surplus" did not reduce the debt a dime--it includes the revenue from the Social Security trust fund "surplus" on the revenue side (which, of course, is gone now and even contributes to the deficit).

Clinton inherited an economy in recovery from Bush 41 (the 1991 recession only lasted 8 months, and growth had resumed by election day '92) and handed off a recession to Bush 43 (with the bursting of the dot-com bubble), while also laying the groundwork for the '08 crash by inflating the housing bubble (zero-down liar loans started to really take off in '94. I had one). Is this guy really the best economic success story you've got?

Sorry--responded to a post on page 1 without reading page 2 and seeing others beat me to it.

Let's just at least play fair. If Clinton gets credit for the 90s great economy, then Reagan gets credit for the 80s boom. If Bush's $400 billion deficits are bad, there's no way Obama's $1.5 trillion can't count. If voters are just throwing an irrational tantrum over the economy now, then they can't have all been calm and clear-headed during the '08 election season in the middle of the meltdown. If Bush 41 made a mistake by having a VP who said stupid stuff all the time, Biden can't be some kind of genius. If Bush 43 going to Yale and Harvard doesn't prove he's smart since he was a legacy, then Obama going to Columbia and Harvard (with no transcript to view) as both a legacy and an affirmative-action admit can't be proof of his intelligence, either. Gitmo Bay can't be an impossible problem to solve now that it's Obama's, but something that would have been simple for evil Bush to do. Etc., etc., etc.

Reagan should get credit for the 80s boom. And the huge budget deficits and expansion of government. Clinton (and Bush Sr) should get some credit for the 90s boom. And the lack of regulation that led to enron and the like. And for what its worth Bush's deficit in 2008 was close to a trillion dollars with only two recession quarters. Most of that 1.5 trillion is an income problem not a spending problem. That 400+ billion debt that we have been running ever year (i.e. make sure you take out ss since that is only borrowed money) for the previous 8 years is the spending problem that needs to be solved.