2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJust a reminder: When talking about the deficit, call it by its conrect name--"The Bush Deficit"
What's in a name? Quite a bit when you are still having to overcome 8 years of incompetence and 4 years of obstruction.
Remind people why we have this massive deficit by calling it by its correct and accurate name, "The Bush Deficit."
Make sure those who deserve credit for this monumental achievement get full credit.
"The Bush Deficit." See it. See? That rolls off the tongue so naturally you just have say it correctly.
MrDiaz
(731 posts)Bush tax cuts became the Obama Tax cuts after Obama resigned them into law?
Flashmann
(2,140 posts)I use "The bill Boy George ran up",to my wifes crazy teabag aunt....First time I did it,she nearly went ballistic........It was wonderful......
But yeah,The Bush Deficit does have a nice ring.......And it's not as if it were any sort of exageration....
fleur-de-lisa
(14,629 posts)mother earth
(6,002 posts)The masses need to remember who brought us this BS.
They sometimes are amnesiacs.
central scrutinizer
(11,667 posts)thanks to George Lakoff
Response to Julian Englis (Original post)
AnotherMcIntosh This message was self-deleted by its author.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)So I don't think that line works either.
Response to bigwillq (Reply #8)
AnotherMcIntosh This message was self-deleted by its author.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)and the Obama deficit.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)...that we needed the tax cuts to 'stimulate the economy'.
In case someone wants to talk about Obama's failed policies. If the economy isn't stimulated by now; it probably isnt gonna happen
It may be time to restore the taxes (maybe even increase the top bracket since we have deficits now) and try something different.
Like a jobs bill or something.
Response to Blanks (Reply #7)
AnotherMcIntosh This message was self-deleted by its author.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)or NAFTA for that matter. I believe it is all part of bringing people out of the villages and into factories.
While that may seem like a bad thing; I believe that the larger issue is world population growth.
Nobody wants to see starving children and the one thing that keeps people from having kids (or more kids) is to put them in a factory from 7 to 5 (or whatever) and allow them to make economic choices.
The European countries have had zero population growth for decades and this is because they make these economic choices (have kids or have stuff). If we go into villages with medicines to save small children, and do nothing to address the growing population and dwindling food supply; we've only made their lives worse by saving them.
I think these trade agreements are painful in the short term, but necessary in the long term.
I base this on a theory that I was presented in environmental geography in college. Nowhere have I heard that this is a motivation for these trade agreements, but I believe after all of these years; China's population is stabilizing.
The Chinese have tried all manner of barbaric methods to control their population growth, except putting their young people in factories and allowing them to make economic choices. That seems to be the thing that works.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)cached at: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/national-debt.html
THE LAST 3 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR $9.2 TRILLION OF THE INCREASE IN THE NATIONAL DEBT
Every President, from Truman to Carter, steadily paid down the staggering debt that was run up in our fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. That pattern came to a screeching halt with Reagan/Bush and Bush. Clintons fiscal policy was a brief respite during this orgy of deficit spending.
Clinton's economic policies balanced 5 budgets, which is 5 more balanced budgets than the last 5 Republican presidents combined.
President Obama, like President Clinton, inherited a sea of red ink and a recession from his predecessor. He, like President Clinton, recognizes the importance of getting America back to work and then getting our fiscal house in order.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Cut taxes, spend huge amounts on the military, and make impassioned speeches about the deficit: Shrub was just copying what Reagan had done and doesn't deserve to get all the deficit (dis)credit himself.
Julian Englis
(2,309 posts)While technically you are correct--indeed, we could even call it the Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Bush deficit--simplicity is a virtue. And besides, it's sound right--"The Bush Deficit." Really, that has a ring to it.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)True/false quiz: Over the eight years of Ronald Reagan's presidency, he reduced the annual federal budget deficit.
Of course it's false, but I'll bet that a big percentage (quite possibly a majority) of the delegates in Tampa would have answered that it was true. I have a bias toward hammering Reagan for his fiscal disaster. The way these people are rewriting history to glorify him just sickens me.
Julian Englis
(2,309 posts)Reagan's actions were sickening.