Obama was terrible for economic growth

So, you admit it was the president obama that had the last and for decades only cut in spending.
So much for obama was bad for the economy thread. You show it is a dead OT.

 

Nope. Not many last 100 yrs. But the USA gov't has. SS has been going for 80 yrs.

It is, but they have. They wrote the code for 401K, they can write the code to change it. If they want money, they will do what is necessary. Especially when there's a chunk sitting there.

How does the stock market affect SS? I've seen nothing to means test it or change benefits. I've heard talk, but it has never gained any traction.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

According to Bluesguy. All R = good. All D = bad. For 40 yrs or more now.

 

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
And SS is not sustainable as it exist and yes there is talk of means testing and changing benefit qualifications we have already seen the retirement age raised for instance.
I had a company pension at a previous job and relished the day we went to a 401k plan and mkw on a Safe Harbour plan, don't ask me the technical differences, and it has been grate the last 8 years.

 

Just citing the historical record, that the best you got?

 

Clealy I have not it was the it was sequester which hr and his fellow Democrats and the left blamed on the Republicans. It was Obama and his fellow Democrats who raised spend 9% and then 18% and created deficits ofnjver a TRILLION dollars and then when sequester forced spendsing cuts you try to brag they cut spending.

 

Can you try to make some sense Bush43 came after Clinton. And it your side that seems to claim it is a light switch that switches whenever a new President steps in while Ibhabe shown differently.
Yes Clinton came in during a verg strong recovery from the late 80's recession. His tax rate increase slowed tbat recovery and tax revenue growth. It was the supply siders in the Republican congress led by Gingrich and Kasich, hardly socialist, which forced supply side tax rate cuts and tax revenues soared and that alkng with spending restraint and welfare reform which eliminate people from government dependence resulted in budget surpluses.

Nope the government socializes thjse receiving it and as we saw under the demand side policies those rolls increase while under demand side we get people off those cost.

Businesses look to get the federal government especially out ojf the way and not create false labor markets. Get everyone back to work and incomes rise and companies pay more.

Now can you address what I actually postes?

 

Liberals aren't interested in economic growth, only welfare growth for their minions.

 

"The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics."
http://fortune.com/2014/07/29/economic-growth-democratic-presidents/

And don't forget: Nobody loooooooooooves welfare more than con artists. Just ask Commie Donnie.

 

I don't think you understand historical records.

 

No bragging. Just agreeing with you. Obama was the last prez in a long time to have reduced spending.

 

if Trump's 2nd Quarter growth doesn't beat 1% he will be a ****ing laughing stock!!

 

The sequester which he opposed and blamed on the Republicans lowered spending, why do you claim Obama lowered? But for sure Obama was the only President how signed a budget of his doing that had a $1,400B deficit and he and his fellow Democrats kept it over $1,000B for the next four years. If is also a fact that the last Republican deficit that was handed to them was a paltry $161B proving they are much better fiscal managers.

I don't think you can refute it.