You’re speaking nonsense now.
If you do what you’re supposed to…use deficits to address a crisis than scale back when the crisis is over…that’s how it’s supposed to work!
You’re essentially arguing that it would have been better to ignore the crisis.
And that’s ridiculous.
But it is The Wanniski Way.
That is what they are suppose to do, so yes, you get points for doing the job.
As opposed to Trump, who, in times of economic expansion, grew the deficit - pre covid.
It is amazing how the well the Wanniski/Norquist Plan has worked.
Not sure what you are referring to, but man, this is crazy.
What kept Obama from lowering them to where they were before the housing crisis?
You been saying this for twelve years. Still hasn’t happened.
You mean when he cut it by two thirds from where it was when he took office by the time he left?
Because money supply is no longer a royal metal reserve.
Hell, even the notion of ‘printing’ money is now not-even-wrong.
Fine by me, print away, seems to inflate the stock market nicely and can’t say I mind that.
No, I mean to pre-crisis levels.
Stock prices aren’t unaffected by total money supply, but…no.
Your stocks are soaring because of Mnuchin’s buys.
What are you talking about. Bush’s last year it was just under five hundred billion and Obama’s last year was a bit over five hundred billion.
Jesus, Burry is shorting Tesla.
Cut taxes to win elections and use deficits to claim government has to be shrunk.
When in practice this results in the economy turning to ■■■■ , accuse Dems of wanting to raise taxes to fix it, block their attempts to fix it, and then blame them for not fixing it.
Wanniski admits this is what he wanted to accomplish. Norquist not so much, but Norquist is on the “government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub” schtick because the goal is to privatize the commons.
Why? Because the commons are the last big pot of money to grab out there.
Piracy, letters of marque issued by billionaires.
Throw in there a weaponized version of Buchanan’s “Calculus of Consent” in the hands of Birchers and it looks a lot like what we see in the GOP today.
I love the talking point that Dems lower deficits.
Hint to the clueless: the president doesn’t control the budget. The house does.
Which party has controlled the house during the “soaring deficits”, and which controlled it when deficits were “cut”?
And no. It’s not a pass to Rs still spending too much when they had power. They did.
In 1992 the deficit was $340 billion.
By 1995, before the GOP Congress took over, it was down to $226 billion.
So it was reduced with Ds in complete control of both Congress and the Presidency.
That has never happened under a completely R-controlled government since Reagan. Certainly it doesn’t happen under a GOP President.
Trump performed the worst…deficit went up every single year of his four year term. At least it went down a couple of years under Reagan and W before ballooning again.
So…looks like a Dem in the White House is needed.
PS the main reason it doesn’t happen under GOP Presidents since Reagan?
Because tax cuts are the centerpiece every…single…time.
This is by design.
Good Lord, the Weimar hyperinflation happened because the Germans had to buy gold to pay their war reparations with a currency based on the gold standard, driving up the price of gold, which in turn devalued their currency every time they bought more, which just went around and around and around and still only lasted a couple years.
Literally none of this applies today.
No matter how many times it’s explained that fiat currency economies do not work like the family budget, it falls on deaf ears.
