From: jim brown <>
Subject: Re: $1.1 trillion deficit... discuss
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id c129mr1193997itc.6.1518105637923;
Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:00:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id o15mr52852otj.6.1518105637551; Thu,
08 Feb 2018 08:00:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:00:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=;
References: <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: $1.1 trillion deficit... discuss
From: jim brown <>
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:00:37 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2611
X-Received-Body-CRC: 908310391
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 9:18:42 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I know that the Republican dogma is traditionally anti-Keynesian, but that previously didn’t
mean cutting taxes and increasing government spending when the economy is already in danger of
> So now we have a consistent pattern of Democratic Presidents inheriting large deficits and cutting
them dramatically over their terms followed by Republican Presidents immediately blowing those
deficits back up.  
> As a squishy fiscal conservative, this just raises so much cognitive dissonance in me, I would
love to know how others are processing this.

Ha!  Obama's only looks good by using the very, very abnormal baseline of 2009, some of which was
attributed to Obama's bailout spending.  Otherwise, W has a much better tract record, and his were

Clinton fell into his non deficit years, mostly attributed to anyone BUT Clinton.  

I've complained about deficit spending my entire adulthood.  Its reprehensible, the lack of
conscience that is shown for spending at the govt level.  W's supporters ignored his spending,
Obama's supporters told us deficit spending is good for the economy...needed, in fact.

So lets not even float this BS line that Dems are fiscally prudent.  Obama did just as Bush
did...almost doubled the debt in his 8 years.