From: Tom Enright <>
Subject: Re: $1.1 trillion deficit... discuss
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id b78mr2389603itd.15.1518188489148;
Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:01:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id o15mr152999otj.6.1518188488543;
Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:01:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=2601:40a:8300:2f62:513d:1aba:b53:c2c8;
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:40a:8300:2f62:513d:1aba:b53:c2c8
References: <>
<> <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: $1.1 trillion deficit... discuss
From: Tom Enright <>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 15:01:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 74
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 11:31:27 AM UTC-5, jim brown wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 11:13:18 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 11:00:41 AM UTC-5, jim brown wrote:
> > > 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 overheating. 
> > > > 
> > > > 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 horrible.    
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > And we were right. 
> > 
> > Deficit spending is good for the economy when it's in recession and needs the stimulus.  
> > 
> > When the economy is strong is when you're supposed to pull back on deficits. 
> > 
> > The Democrats practiced this.  The economy was good during the Clinton years and he took the
opportunity to eliminate the deficit.  Obama inherited a recession and increased the deficit to
stimulate the economy, then reduced it as the economy recovered.  Trump inherited a strong economy
and still blew up the deficit, which is what is irresponsible.
> You don't seriously believe that was their plan.  Clinton had NO IDEA he was going to end up with
a balanced budget...some was due to Newt, some was due to the tech boom, which fizzled in time to
take a bite out of tax receipts for the incoming POTUS.  Obama was a just a big spender.  Its
absolutely hilarious when someone tries to sell him as fiscally responsible.  He was one of the
worst we've had, w/r to that.  Trump may beat him at spending though... wouldn't surprise me. 
> Outside your blurred reality, the truth is they ALL spend way more than they take in, and they do
it to buy votes and donations.


Bush's spending spiked in the last year of his presidency in a wrong-headed
attempt to address the economic implosion.  Obama supporters point to this
single data point as representative of his entire 8 years, though, of course,
he did spend too much. 

Yes, Obama certainly came into office during a huge mess, but once the 
economy bottomed-out he should have easily reached GDP growth of 3% 
consistently but loading-on regulations and, especially, ObamaCare prevented this. 

-Tom Enright