If the economy slides, how much blame would fall on a Democrat house?

[g5000]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

See? Here it comes. Just as I predicted.

Trump has doubled the federal deficit.

Trump's 2018 budget exceeded Obama's biggest budget by half a trillion dollars.

Trump's 2019 budget exceeds Obama's biggest budget by a full TRILLION dollars.

Trump is beating the pants off Obama's spending. Bigly.

Trump has been skyrocketing our debt to all new levels.

Yet the pseudocons have been completely, totally, willfully deaf, dumb, and blind to these facts.

But boy oh boy, as sure as the sun rises in the east (thanks to Trump!), you can bet your ass these fucking submissive parroting twats will suddenly notice the debt next year, and then will try to blame the Democratic House.


The OP is just the warm up, kids. These fuckers are so goddamm malleable and predictable it is ridiculous.

 

[g5000]

Just remember, kids, the submissive parroting twat pseueocons attributed every single penny of debt to Obama.

Not to anyone else. Not to Congress.

They put it ALL on Obama.

So we are going to have a real good time bitch slapping the faces right off these fuckers when they start trying to deflect blame away from Trump.

They set the benchmarks themselves for eight years. Karma is going to be a real bitch for them.

 

[danielpalos]

Everybody knows tax cut economics are Worthless. They couldn't even give federal workers a raise. Only the Rich got Richer faster.

 

[william the wie]

The real problem for the Ds is that the net SALT income (minus state and local subsidies) starts@ the end of federal SALT deduction. So the coming downturn will be a mostly blue state problem.

 

[The Banker]

You have to look at policies.

Clinton had a good plan for the economy, raise taxes on the wealthy, cut government spending, and try to put more money into the middle class- this is a recipe for economic success.

That same republican Congress then turned Clinton's budget surplus into a massive deficit and the Bush tax cut did little to benefit growth (economists have proven this) and then when the economy crashed we were much worse off with even bigger deficits. The policies of Bush and the republican Congress set the economy up for disaster.

If you are trying to blame Bush's great recession on the democrats taking the house then you are insane. Show us what policies the House enacted in 2006 that caused a recession 7 years into Bush's term?

Now look at what Trump and the GOP have done. They have passed Trillions of dollars in new debt 8+ years into an economic expansion. This is unprecedented and will lead to economic ruin regardless of who is in charge. We have a front loaded tax cut that will then become a tax increase in a couple years along with massive deficits. This is a recipe for disaster and the fact that you can't see this shows that you need to learn more about economic policy

Not quite right. Our economy allowed for taxes on the rich because of a booming economy, Reaganomics and the tech. explosion. Clinton never had a balanced budget, they cooked the books.

I'm not trying to do anything less showing who had power. Of course Bush is to blame for the crash (cough!), it's a simpleton's (Democrats) approach.

When Clinton raised taxes on the rich the economy was not good. He did it to try and balance the budget.

When the crash happens 7 years into your presidency you hold the bulk of the blame yes.

Other facts the bills that de-regulated the banks and derivatives markets were GOP written, GOP sponsored, and passed by a veto proof GOP majority. So would you then give that responsibility to them? You pretty much have to.

I stopped reading at "When Clinton raised taxes on the rich the economy was not good".........Shit dude, when you receive a deduction in pay I'll just raise your rent & utilities, see how it works out.

In 1993 the economy was not good, what is there to disagree with? And the tax increase only affected the wealthiest 1% so don't worry you won't pay anymore.

This is why Clinton was a good president:

In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding tax legislation that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[5]

That was in 1993, the GOP simply can't do that.

Oh sure, because you say so............The problem with your opinion is:

Recovery[edit]
Job losses and unemployment continued to rise and peaked at 7.8% in June 1992. Gross domestic product grew at a slow and erratic pace in the year that followed the official March 1991 end of the recession, but picked up pace in 1992. Exports, typically a driver of economic recovery, weakened due to persistent economic problems in Europe and Japan.[6] Perhaps the largest impact on the protracted period of unemployment following the early 90s recession were large layoffs in defense related industries. Cumulative defense downsizing resulted in 240,000 job losses from 1990–1992, representing a full 10% reduction in that sector. These cutbacks also spilled over into transportation, wholesale, trade, and other sectors tied to defense related durable goods manufacturing.[6] For all of 1991, the United States incurred a net loss of 858,000 jobs, with 1.154 million created in 1992 and 2.788 million in 1993.

Other factors contributed to a slow economy, including a slump in office construction resulting from overbuilding during the 1980s.[7] Local markets in the New England states, Southern California, and Texas in particular experienced the effects of commercial overbuilding, reflected in the number of bank failures and the proportion of commercial investments held by those banks.Real estate values would remain depressed through 1995, when they would return to growth.[8] In addition, consumer confidence moved at an erratic pace, limiting the surge in consumption expenditures that is typical of recovery periods. As a result, businesses were reluctant to hire on concerns over the strength of the economic recovery.[7]

Ultimately, the recession proved to be one of the smallest and shortest in the modern era, surpassed in most metrics only by the 2000-01 recession. The economy returned to 1980s level growth by 1993, fueled by the internet boom, low interest rates, low energy prices, and a resurgent housing market. Strong growth resumed and lasted through the year 2000. Although relatively mild the early 1990s recession was really the only interruption to economic prosperity during the 90's decade. When considering the similarly mild early 2000's recession, there were only three periods of lackluster economic growth between 1983, 1987 and 2008, representing just under 25 years of relatively stable, prosperous economic growth in the United States.


Interesting to note (again), the Democrats had the majority in the House and Senate during the early 1990s, where you say the economy wasn't good. Again, the Republicans had the majority in both during Clinton's best years.

OK i'm mistaken about 93, it was better than I realized.

But Again this was Clinton's agenda and it had nothing to do with the republicans, 1993 before the republicans took Congress:

In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding tax legislation that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[5]

You need to look at what each presidents agenda was. Clinton's agenda was cutting spending, balancing the budget, and putting more money into the middle class- a recipe for success that I wish every republican would do, but they can't.

What was Bush's agenda?

A huge tax cut that predominantly went to the ultra wealthy and did little to boost growth, Massive spending bills, massive deficits, then it changed to massive wars that he didn't win.

See the distinction?? The presidents agenda usually dictates the policy, and it did from 1992-2008.

 

[Fang]

According to Liberals Obama owns the economy two years into Trump's presidency while it's booming, but if it's starts sliding that's when Trump will own it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just remember, kids, the submissive parroting twat pseueocons attributed every single penny of debt to Obama.

Not to anyone else. Not to Congress.

They put it ALL on Obama.

So we are going to have a real good time bitch slapping the faces right off these fuckers when they start trying to deflect blame away from Trump.

They set the benchmarks themselves for eight years. Karma is going to be a real bitch for them.

Most of DumBama's spending was in the first two years. After a year of Republican leadership in the House, the deficit started to shrink which everybody on the left attributed to Hussein.

The biggest conflict between DumBama and the Republicans was spending. DumBama wanted to spend more and the Republicans wanted to spend less. That's what led to the government shutdown, the sequester, and even losing our four star credit rating for the first time in US history.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

None unless they pass legislation that affects it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the economy slides, how much blame would fall on a Democrat house?

It's um, way too late for that. The House doesn't get sworn in until next year.

Do you mean if the economy continues to slide?

Next year is only about seven weeks away.

Correct. Which is in what we call the "future". Meanwhile the economy slide lives in what we call the "past and present". Assuming the validity of linear time it's impossible to "blame" the past on the future. Can not follow.

What's really going on here is the usual suspect partisan hacknoids posting "oh noes, the economy is bad, blame the President -- what, the President is my guy? Okay then blame the Congress!" And vice versa, lather rinse repeat, sound like a moron, prove nothing except to re-re-reconfirm one's own partisan hackitude.

The economy has never been better and your leftist hopes of it failing has been something you or your ilk have been predicting since Trump was nominated and not even in office yet.

Obviously you're not invested in the stock market.

I'm jealous. This year I wish I wasn't either.

The market boucnes like a basketball; always has and always will. When it takes a break you leftists jump up and down with red faces. It's not indicative of anything.

 

[ABikerSailor]

According to Liberals Obama owns the economy two years into Trump's presidency while it's booming, but if it's starts sliding that's when Trump will own it.

No, when Trump got policies passed that affected the economy, that is when it became his. He got his tax cuts passed in Feb, and I said back then that it would take 8 to 10 months to see what effect the cuts would have.

Then, a couple of months after getting his tax bill passed, Trump then went on to impose tariffs and start a trade war with China. That also had an effect on the economy (though not a positive one).

The first year of Trump's presidency, it was pretty much just coasting on what Obama had gotten started, because Trump hadn't passed any economic legislation. After he got it passed, that is when it became his economy. The effects of his tax cuts and trade wars are starting to become apparent.

 

[Billy000]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

Hold the fucking phone. Under democrat rule in 2009, the recession Obama inherited ended and a string of job growth has occurred ever since.

 

[g5000]

Trump has ruined so many of the poor pseudocons' talking points.

They can't claim to be morally superior any more, or "Family Values". Not after all of Trump's bimbo eruptions and their defense of him.

They can't claim to be supportive of the military any more. Not after Trump insulted POWs and couldn't honor our war dead because it was raining, and they defended him.

They can't claim to be fiscally responsible any more. Not after Trump doubled the federal deficit, and they willfully ignored it.

They can't harp about cutting spending any more. Not after Trump beat Obama's spending record, and is spending a trillion dollars more for 2019 than Obama's worst year, and they haven't said a peep about that.

I guess all they can do is continue to blubber, "B-b-b-b-but Obama!" But that doesn't work any more since Trump has beat the pants off Obama in every way. More spending, more indictments, more corruption, more scandals, more body fat, more nepotism...

 

[g5000]

Take Obama's worst year of spending.

Then add a trillion dollars more.

That's Trump.

Do you idiots think that shit isn't going to catch up to us? Do you think the piper isn't going to have to be paid?


Seriously. What the ever loving fuck DO you submissive, willfully blind, parroting twats stand for?

Anything?

 

[Billy000]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

The direct answer to your question will be that republicans will blame the House Dems 100% regardless of the reality.

 

[g5000]

When Trump was elected, I said he was going to lead the pseudocons into the far left cave.


TA-DAAAAAAAAA!

 

[Pogo]

If the economy slides, how much blame would fall on a Democrat house?

It's um, way too late for that. The House doesn't get sworn in until next year.

Do you mean if the economy continues to slide?

Next year is only about seven weeks away.

Correct. Which is in what we call the "future". Meanwhile the economy slide lives in what we call the "past and present". Assuming the validity of linear time it's impossible to "blame" the past on the future. Can not follow.

What's really going on here is the usual suspect partisan hacknoids posting "oh noes, the economy is bad, blame the President -- what, the President is my guy? Okay then blame the Congress!" And vice versa, lather rinse repeat, sound like a moron, prove nothing except to re-re-reconfirm one's own partisan hackitude.

The economy has never been better and your leftist hopes of it failing has been something you or your ilk have been predicting since Trump was nominated and not even in office yet.

Obviously you're not invested in the stock market.

I'm jealous. This year I wish I wasn't either.

The market boucnes like a basketball; always has and always will. When it takes a break you leftists jump up and down with red faces. It's not indicative of anything.

Again, what's "indicative" here is the conflation of "past" and "future".

Y'all need to show us this time machine some day. The one that imagines O'bama crashing the economy so he could win the election. The one that made FDR cause the Great Depression. The one that delays the upswing out of the 2009 recession until Rump the Orange is sworn in before a fawning crowd of three million illegals dancing on rooftops in the not-rain.

 

[Fang]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

Hold the fucking phone. Under democrat rule in 2009, the recession Obama inherited ended and a string of job growth has occurred ever since.

The market started rebounding in 2010 when it became obvious Republicans were going to retake the House.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Next year is only about seven weeks away.

Correct. Which is in what we call the "future". Meanwhile the economy slide lives in what we call the "past and present". Assuming the validity of linear time it's impossible to "blame" the past on the future. Can not follow.

What's really going on here is the usual suspect partisan hacknoids posting "oh noes, the economy is bad, blame the President -- what, the President is my guy? Okay then blame the Congress!" And vice versa, lather rinse repeat, sound like a moron, prove nothing except to re-re-reconfirm one's own partisan hackitude.

The economy has never been better and your leftist hopes of it failing has been something you or your ilk have been predicting since Trump was nominated and not even in office yet.

Obviously you're not invested in the stock market.

I'm jealous. This year I wish I wasn't either.

The market boucnes like a basketball; always has and always will. When it takes a break you leftists jump up and down with red faces. It's not indicative of anything.

Again, what's "indicative" here is the conflation of "past" and "future".

Y'all need to show us this time machine some day. The one that imagines O'bama crashing the economy so he could win the election. The one that made FDR cause the Great Depression. The one that delays the upswing out of the 2009 recession until Rump the Orange is sworn in before a fawning crowd of three million illegals dancing on rooftops in the not-rain.

I'll give anybody credit if you show me what policy they had that's deserving of such credit. The only thing that saved DumBama is the federal reserve dumping trillions of dollars into the market. But DumBama himself had no policies to stimulate the economy. He was the most anti-business President in our lifetime.

 

[Billy000]

Some history most don't recognize. I guess "they" (media and voters) figure the POTUS controls everything (i.e. simpletons).


During Clinton's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's best economic years, the Republicans had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Bush's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's worst economic years, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate and House.

During Obama's best economic years, the Democrats initially had the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans had taken the House. Matter of fact, we didn't experience any economic improvement until after the Reps. took the House......The economy then showed much improvement after the Republicans took the Senate majority as well.

Under Trump the Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate, and the economy was outstanding.

Interesting right? But of course the Democrats won the majority in the House, just because. So, if the economy is to enter a recession, would a Democrat house be the cause or part?

Hold the fucking phone. Under democrat rule in 2009, the recession Obama inherited ended and a string of job growth has occurred ever since.

The market started rebounding in 2010 when it became obvious Republicans were going to retake the House.

Uh no. The recession ended in 2009 and the job growth began. These are the facts.

 

[danielpalos]

The real problem for the Ds is that the net SALT income (minus state and local subsidies) starts@ the end of federal SALT deduction. So the coming downturn will be a mostly blue state problem.

Only in a vacuum of special tax pleading. Your guy's Trade Wars are impacting red States the most.