I've heard that said and perhaps there is some truth to it. However, he "financed" the high spending with tax cuts. Where would the "conservative" part of fiscal conservative be?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Please tell me your thoughts on this economic cartoon
- Thread starter Port1385
- Start date
Quote from flyinglead:
It means it took two fiscal conservatives 12 years to straighten out Carter's mess, One Liberal 8 years to screw it up again and One Conservative to straighten it out then screw it up again.
Remember W inherited the start of a recession.
Course that is all meaningless, becasue it doesn't take into consideration who controlled Congress.
I think "+" is good and "-" is bad.
What are the conservatives trying to conserve anyway? Fiscal responsibility--not, environment--not, family values--not. Male democrates cheat on their wives with other women and conservatives cheat on their wives with other boys/men. The other thing that I do not understand is why the conservatives want liberal governments in other countries? Look at Iran and Afganistan they have been doing so well with the conservative governments.
This is what the conservatives will say in 2010.
If Macain wins and the economy does well Macain will get credit for it, if the economy does bad then the congress will get blamed for it especially if it is a Democratic congress.
If Obama wins and the economy does bad then it's Obama's fault and the Democratic congress's fault. If Obama wins and the economy does well then ------you guessed it right it is because of the $600 rebate.
Quote from gnome:
It's all very clever...
The Prez drafts the budget for spending and then sends it to Congress.... they more-or-less give it the "rubber stamp" approval.
Then when people bitch because the Gummint spent 25% more than they took in taxes, they can say, "(a) The Pres doesn't have authority... that's Congress", and (b) Congress says, "we're just supporting the elected leader of our country".
That way, it seems there is nobody to blame for profligate spending of tax payer money, because it's always somebody else's fault. Most Americans can't see through this charade.
Points taken, but I think the issue was brought up to point out that Clinton doesn't deserve all the credit for the surplus. It was mostly because of the republican congress.
Quote from olias:
Points taken, but I think the issue was brought up to point out that Clinton doesn't deserve all the credit for the surplus. It was mostly because of the republican congress.
Clinton supporters tend to forget how the surplus was achieved. (1) He raised income taxes... Duh!, and (2) His timing with the .com bubble (and its ill-gotten capital gains tax windfall) was fortunate.
Regardless of the argument concerning Clinton's "fortunate" timing, the last three Republican administrations made their own "luck" by gang raping the national treasury with their own brand of "fiscal conservatism."Quote from gnome:
Clinton supporters tend to forget how the surplus was achieved. (1) He raised income taxes... Duh!, and (2) His timing with the .com bubble (and its ill-gotten capital gains tax windfall) was fortunate.
Quote from gnome:
It's all very clever...
The Prez drafts the budget for spending and then sends it to Congress.... they more-or-less give it the "rubber stamp" approval.
Then when people bitch because the Gummint spent 25% more than they took in taxes, they can say, "(a) The Pres doesn't have authority... that's Congress", and (b) Congress says, "we're just supporting the elected leader of our country".
That way, it seems there is nobody to blame for profligate spending of tax payer money, because it's always somebody else's fault. Most Americans can't see through this charade.
I don't wanna over explain away the cartoon, but Reagan inherited a rough mess by Carter, Clinton didn't believe in a balanced budget until Newt forced him to, with the large republican congress elected in '94. Bush II decided to spend so much on security, rightly or wrongly.
I agree with you about the inability to pin the blame for profligate spending though. Unfortunately many of the voters are just members of some special interest group receiving funding, and their votes are basically bought.