- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 707
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
No, I wouldn't say it's 100% on either party ever. 2006-2008 the Democrats controlled Congress, but not the white house, so really only a plan that was at least palatable to both parties could be passed because of the veto. 2008-2010, that'd be mostly the Democrats, but the minority party always has a great deal of influence too as we saw for example with all the compromises the Democrats had to make to get health care through.
Pardon me if I got the impression that you made Congress responsible for spending. To be consistent, they would be the ones responsible for the spending from 2006-2010, no?
Congress is who decides how much we spend.
Congress, after all, is the one who decides how much to spend.
it's not me that tacks responsibility for spending on the Congress. That's the constitution that does that. And for very good reasons. That is supposed to be the primary check on the executive.
The executive branch spends as directed by Congress and lets them know when they owe more.
"Resulting"? The economic collapse wasn't caused by the deficit. Obviously. There are three main theories for what caused it. 1) Too many ARM home loans, rates went up, they got called in, people panicked. 2) Too much money going to the rich to spur investment, not enough going to working people to provide the actual revenues required to sustain the puffed up valuations created by all the investment. 3) Hi finance hijinx. In reality it's probably a combination of all three along with a hundred other less central causes.
Resulting was a poor choice of words, I meant to say resulting deficits. The economic collapse was in no way attributable to the federal deficit.
I'm not. You seem to be stuck in the standard conservative binary thinking mode. Both parties share the blame. I keep saying that over and over.
Once again, pardon me if I got the impression that you made Congress responsible for spending. Thanks for the cheap shot though, I appreciate it.
Er what? None of those things make sense in reverse. The Democrats didn't threaten to destroy the economy and their deficit reduction proposals are larger, not smaller...
Really? Can you link me the Democrat's proposed deficit reduction plan that was larger than the Ryan budget? Democrats knew, as Republicans did, that if a compromised wasn't reached that the debt ceiling would not be raised, in your parlance, "destroy the economy". Failure to compromise is a reflection of the failure of leadership; something Obama demonstrated quite well by remaining on the sidelines.