Can someone supporting McCain please explain something to me.
- Thread starter The Kin
- Start date
And speaking of those trillions in debt, please let me remind you again that Reagan and the two Bushes collectively account for approximately 70% of the national debt since the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
Both Democrats and Republicans LOVE to spend.
Democrats like spending on bloated and often inefficient domestic programs, and Republicans like spending on bloated and inefficient military programs.
But Republican presidents have produced red ink, whereas Democratic presidents like Clinton have not.
The main reason is because Republicans do not support increasing taxes on the upper 2%, because outside of the South, that is their base. Democrats have less fear about raising taxes on that upper 2%, because that is not their base.
Democrats like spending on bloated and often inefficient domestic programs, and Republicans like spending on bloated and inefficient military programs.
But Republican presidents have produced red ink, whereas Democratic presidents like Clinton have not.
The main reason is because Republicans do not support increasing taxes on the upper 2%, because outside of the South, that is their base. Democrats have less fear about raising taxes on that upper 2%, because that is not their base.
Reagan and Bush did increase spending. Reagan won the Cold War as a result of his "reckless" spending on the military. Pretty decent trade if you ask me. of course, he had to spend because Carter and the democrat congress had run down the military. Bush had to deal with a couple of things. 9/11 for one, which not only caused a recession but drove up security costs, and led to the afghan invasion, another very costly item. The iraq war has been a budget buster. Why we take over a country with the world's second or third biggest oil reserves, and the American taxpayer is reponsible for all the costs of not only the war but rebuilding their country is a good question. At least PM maliki is grateful to us...LOL.
Bush also presided over a vast increase in domestic spending, but we already knew he was one of history's worst presidents, so why pile on now? Most of the spending was either demanded bythe democrat congress or designed to deflect criticism from democrats.
Obama's plans, even if scaled back, will be ruinously expensive. We can expect euro-style taxation, unemployment and economic growth if he is elected. Probably euro-style tax evasion as well. When you set one class against another, as he is doing, people lose faith in the system and see tax evasion as morally neutral or even desirable.
Bush also presided over a vast increase in domestic spending, but we already knew he was one of history's worst presidents, so why pile on now? Most of the spending was either demanded bythe democrat congress or designed to deflect criticism from democrats.
Obama's plans, even if scaled back, will be ruinously expensive. We can expect euro-style taxation, unemployment and economic growth if he is elected. Probably euro-style tax evasion as well. When you set one class against another, as he is doing, people lose faith in the system and see tax evasion as morally neutral or even desirable.
Sounds like you're referring to Bush.