For once, I would like a GOP president to clean up their own economic mess

Just bring it to the floor as a separate appropriation. This is important for two reasons:

1. This needs to be a solemn vote by Congress. Folks are dying and getting dismembered, and while our Legislators, and both Party's love to play stupid and helplessly point at the president, they have the power of the purse, and without funding it all grinds to a stop, as Congress demonstrated in Vietnam. They ended the war, against the wishes of the Administration, by ending funding. This is how it should be. A stand alone, yes or no, annual continuation. Our Constitution mandates at least a refunding every two years, both Bush and Obama exceeded this requirement, to their benefit, by requiring annual re-affirmations.
2. Baseline budgeting. If you put these special appropriations in the baseline budget, you are saying, in effect, that we plan to continue these efforts into perpetuity. That's the wrong message, further, budgets automatically increase each year by inflation and population growth, so including these special appropriations in baseline budget caused them to be automatically increased each year by inflation and population growth.

• FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
• FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
• FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
• FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
• FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
• FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
• FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[2][3]
• FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
• FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[4]
• FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[5]
• FY2010 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[6]

Neither, it brings clarity. These massive defense bills aren't reviewed by these congress persons. Maybe not quite this bad, but I wish this was further from the truth:



I firmly support SEPARATE consideration of war bills by Congress rather than buried in a huge bill with a number of other items so that Congress cannot cloud the reason for their vote.

Take care,
Zorro

 

I have never denied that recessions are unavoidable. I have never denied the existence of the business cycle. It would be futile to deny those facts, considering that the economy is a system based on negative and positive feedback.

What I do, however, claim, is that the government has the ability to amplify or dampen the oscillations of the business cycle, just like the engineer has the ability to prevent feedback noise in an over-amplified microphone. The premise is to NEVER use government stimulus when the economic times are already good. Yet, that's exactly what the Trump tax cut has done.

The government role should be to dampen the peaks and troughs of the business cycle, not to amplify them. Ask yourself if Trump has done the former or the latter? In fact, having done the latter (and he admitted it by saying that he wants to prime the pump), he has reduced the ability of government to step in during the inevitable next recession.

 

If you dont deny that recessions are unavoidable, then you know full well that a recession happening in 2020 does not PROVE that tax cuts result in economic crashes which was your claim. When you step back for a moment and look at it with even a modicum of objectivity, you are clearly intelligent enough to know that it proves no such thing.

 

Yes and that’s why the economy expanded
Obama had the unique disadvantage of taking office in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. More than 4 million jobs were lost in his first year in office, on top of the 4 million lost in George W. Bush’s final year...and he left wi5 almost 12,000,000 created

 

Note...the word RECOVERY!

 

the economy didn't expand with teh Dems took office...quite the opposite. By the time they were done with their four year run in Congress we had double digit unemployment. It was a quite horrible four year run...one of the worst in American history

 

Your point being WHAT?

 

Let’s see...what was the stock market when Obama took office and when he left? Were we still losing 700,000 jobs a month when Obama left office? You are free to say the economy rescue was slow but you kind of ignore the word “ recovery”. What did it recover from?

 

Yes a year after he and his fellow Democrats took back the Congress. I don't know what you seem to be missing here. Bush's final two years he was a lame duck. Democrats had control of policy and legislation. That included Senator Obama who walked locked step with them. And thebjob loss rate bottomed out the month Obama moved to the WH. Yet even with his failed stimulus unemployment soared to 10%, he sold the stimulus on a promise it would hold it to just 8%. In two years the Democrats took the last Republican deficit of a measly $161B to their $1,400B and kept it over $1,000B. The more the Republicans took back control the better it got.

 

What was it when the Democrats took back the Congress January 3rd 2007? How much did the quantitative easing push the stockmarket rather than any Obama policies? Can you even cite any Obama policies that were successful?

 

Wrong . Mostly what the data shows is that presidents generally look to leave a legacy in terms of foreign policy success because their are pretty thoroughly tied domestically.

 

Nope. All the economic data for the past 40 years shows your claim to be complete bullshit.

 

The Democrats including Senator Obama took back the Congress January 3, 2007. I hope they helped you put your mouth back in proper order.

 

of course not, the American people wised up and kicked the Dems to the curb....massively....at all levels of Govt...it was an historic swing of power:

https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-i...r-largest-loss-in-power-since-eisenhower/291/

 

In 2007 the supplimental spending bill for the wars was $88B and is included in the $161B government deficit on on-budget and off-budget spending.

 

Again you are still wrong. The data such as it is shows that presidents have little economic impact as a general rule. I understand your unwillingness to accept the fact that congress has far more of a say in this than any president Given the fact that since 1932 congress has in particular the house of Representatives where all spending must originate has been in Democratic hands for 68 of the last 87 years and compounding this is the fact that at no point during this time has the Republican party ever had a filibuster proof majority in the senate.

 

Private Bonespurs hasn't even figured out who the enemy is in his "easy to win" trade war that he contrived.

Cry Baby Don whined today, "My only question is, who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powel or Chairman Xi?”

Neither.

My only question is, will the Lardass Pogo ever figure it out?

​

 

We let GW Bush ooze into a second term and he and his cronies were stealing with both hands for 4 straight years leading up to completely tanking our economy as he and his buddies left laughing all the way to the bank. Do you want to give Trump and his pack of swindlers the same opportunity? Not me.

 

Minimal, normally.

Trump, however, is far from normal, and has repeatedly claimed personal credit for the economy.

 

When they aren't coupled with appropriate spending cuts? Damn right they do. Why do you think Trump doubled the deficit, and added $5 trillion + to the debt in only 3 years?

It took Obama 8 full years to add $7 trillion, and Bush 8 full years to add $6 trillion, and Trump is poised to double them by the end of his presidency, if he gets reelected.

 

All I know is I tripled my money in the stock market...during the RECOVERY

 

He is like god to his base ...gets all the credit and none of the blame

 

The pathetic narcissistic vulgarian is extremely generous with blame, far too insecure to ever admit to anything less than personal omniscience, omnipotence, perfection.

I suppose it would be kind to be embarrassed for him, but he's so damned hilarious!

"Trade wars are good, and easy to win!"
March 2, 2018


"This isn't my trade war!"
August 21, 2019


​

"I think nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do, because I'm the biggest contributor." (1999.)

"I know more about people who get ratings than anyone." (October 2012.)

"I know more about ISIS than the generals do." (November 2015.)​

"I understand social media. I understand the power of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results, right?" (November 2015.)

"I know more about courts than any human being on Earth." (November 2015.)​

"[W]ho knows more about lawsuits than I do? I'm the king." (January 2016.)​

"I understand politicians better than anybody."​

"[N]obody knows the system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. ...​

"Nobody else on this dais knows how to change it like I do, believe me." (March 2016.)​

Trade: "Nobody knows more about trade than me." (March 2016.)​

The U.S. government system: "[N]obody knows the system better than I do." (April 2016.)​

Renewable energy: "I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth." (April 2016.)​

Taxes: "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world." (May 2016.)​

Debt: "I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me." (June 2016.)​

Money: "I understand money better than anybody." (June 2016.)​

Infrastructure: "Look, as a builder, nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump." (July 2016.)​

Sen. Cory Booker: "I know more about Cory than he knows about himself." (July 2016.)​

Borders: Trump said in 2016 that Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he was endorsing him for president because "you know more about this stuff than anybody."​

Democrats: "I think I know more about the other side than almost anybody." (November 2016.)​

Construction: "Nobody knows more about construction than I do." (May 2018.)

The economy: "I think I know about it better than [the Federal Reserve]." (October 2018.)​

Technology: "Technology — nobody knows more about technology than me." (December 2018.)​

Drones: "I know more about drones than anybody. I know about every form of safety that you can have." (January 2019.)​

Drone technology: "Having a drone fly overhead — and I think nobody knows much more about technology, this type of technology certainly, than I do." (January 2019.)​

https://www.axios.com/everything-tr...ody-b278b592-cff0-47dc-a75f-5767f42bcf1e.html​

 

Once again, right-wing socialists never take responsibility for the failures of supply-side socialism: Obama inherited the Great RepubliCON Recession and Crazy Donnie inherited the Obama economic recovery. Now, I don't know how many times one has to be born-again stupid not to understand that, but hopefully, you can enlighten me?

 

I am not a right wing socialist nor have in idea what this made up term "supply-side socialism" is. Obama inherited what he and his fellow Democrats have created the previous 2 years after they took the Congress January 3, 2007. And you don't inherit what you helped create. The fact remains the recession didn't even start until a year after they took that control. It was up to them to pass measures that would help to mitigate the depth and the length of a the recession. They didn't and you are trying to defend it say well it was just too much for them. And there was never an Obama recovery, his one plan the stimulus was an utter failure. It was business and the markets and the FED that kept the economy's head barely above water and then the more the Republican took back control and prevent the Democrats further policies the more the economy showed some improvement. Presidents don't run everything, they do not and can not pass legislation, their budget submissions aren't worth the paper upon which they are written. The most important factor is who controls the Congress especially the budget.