Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Whatever, dude. It's not material to the point I was making, which I will outsource to Alex Cole:
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.” Caveats here. Knock yourself out. |
Is the argument which party runs up deficits? Republicans. That’s not up for debate.
The market also typically does better under Ds. Rs just give it that fat tax cut rush/extension. That’s perceived as an unlocking sometimes. In Trump’s term, it was. He opened some “animal spirits.”
There’s no controversy there. The data isn’t in dispute. Rs run more debt. But Rs run more growth as well. The argument Obama presided over growth is flawed. Everyone presides over growth from a nadir. It’s impossible not to do so.
ETA: Obama looks great because he presided over a private sector debt workout backed with federal money. He played it centrist, smart, and eventually it came back. Trump has actually had the more difficult job - taking the restructured company into serious growth mode. Ds benefit because Rs leave them in distress, so one can’t lose. Rs leave themselves fucked because they find themselves pretending to be debt hawks while actually being the spendthrift party.
The system actually works because it keeps fiscal liberals perpetually out of power.
Threaded Mode