Quote (Black XistenZ @ 9 Sep 2018 00:11)
https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306specifically, look at the fourth column which shows the deficit per fiscal year as a percentage of GDP.
what we see is, first, that the deficit under obama skyrocketed during his first years in office, largely due to the aftermath of the great recession. fine.
but second, we see that even during his later years in office, more than 5 years after the recession, from 2013 through 2016, he was stilll making a ton of debt.
if you claim that trump simply inherited an already great economy from obama, then why was the deficit in 2016 on the same levels of the fiscally worst years of the bush presidency? if the late obama economy was so great, then why was he still making as much debt as bush did at the height of the iraq war?
even if the exclude the aftermath of the great recession, you and your fellow liberal particiants here on PaRD have to admit one of two things:
Either the late obama economy was indeed sluggish and still in the process of recovery - in that case, Trump and not Obama is the one to take credit for the economy picking up pace since trumps election.
Or the late obama economy was already great, but obama still ran an unusually high deficit on it; even if we discount the aftermatch of the great recession from 2009-2011. In that case, you have to admit that Obama was not a fiscally responsible president even when we look at it in fair way.
That Trump is fiscally irresponsible as well is another story, and I dont dispute that.
it's so funny, you started replying to me with a strawman (claiming i called obama fiscally responsible, which i NEVER did, as it's bs) - and when i explain to you the DIFFERENCE between the economies the last two presidents inherited, you act like that doesn't make a difference when it comes to spending, that trump is merely continuing obama's economic and tax policy, which is ofc utter bs.
even worse, there weren't just fewer reasons for a debt-funded economy stimulus, it's also the exact opposite of the republican's 'fiscally responsible' label. they are actually WORSE than democrats when it comes to spending - they just claim they aren't, and they spend it on themselves and their corporations rather than social programs that benefit the vast majority of americans.
so sure, despite countless examples of RELEVANT evidence (unlike the retarded 'b-b-but russia / cuba / venezuela...' talking points when it comes to policies that make the rest of the civilised world better places to live in) concerning failing trickle down policies, you can mindlessly defend the idea that corporate welfare and taxbreaks for the rich were sound policy longterm, and will result in a net benefit.
much more likely and realistic, however, is what i suggested earlier: it inflates domestic growth short term, but adds to the national debt in an unsustainable manner that will have to be fixed later and hurt the economy overall - but that ofc will be a challenge for a competent president one day, and you would never blame your emperor for that...