ex-President Trump

guys the deficit is basically entirely in the hands of congress, not POTUS.

the power of the purse stays with congress in the USA. how much to spend and on what is almost entirely decided by Congress.

go with Congress make up (red/blue/purple), POTUS is close to irrelevant for the deficit.

that deficit reduction you posted here was republicans doing everything they could against Obama for 6 years. when Dems had both chambers the deficit was the max (2009-2010).

and btw it should be as a percentage of GDP obviously

Ok, I'll defer to your expertise on incredible stupidity, that seems to be your wheelhouse.

People will take you more serious in the future if you stick to debating the topic at hand or if you admit you don’t know what you are talking about instead of defaulting to a personal attack when you feel your side of the argument lost.

when the budget went into a surplus under Clinton, 105th congress (97-99) was fully republican (both the Senate and the house).

these were the votes in the house for the balanced budget act of 1997 (which caused surpluses in the following years)

I don't know if it is bad faith or ignorance but claiming those surpluses were because of Democrats is objectively false

I think we have a pretty good idea of who should be completely ignored by now.

Says the guy who just outright ignores posts that prove him wrong on a daily basis. In any case, sorry for the delayed response, I was busy counting all the ****s I don't give how seriously you and your ilk take me.

Cute responses.

D2, care to repost a couple posts that I ignored that prove me wrong?

Care to address my point that economic policies have effects that don’t start immediately and don’t stop just because a new President starts a term?

The time delay of economic policies can vary wildly depending on circumstances and details.

Some budget cuts can affect the deficit immediately for example, others have the main part of their effects much later down the line (typical example of this are pension reforms) .

For deficits there are things you can do with almost immediate effects in both directions (more deficit or less deficit).

Yeah, and Democrat' policy on the matter isn't pro-plutocrat. lol the Mickey Mouse minutia on the subject. And climate change needs to be figured into the scenario, but won't in any effectual way.

Or less pro-plutocrat than the repubes. Next

Hey baham which president with which policy u believe created the median housing prices bubble from 320k in early 2020 to 480k end of 2022 ?
A rise in price of 33% in 2 years ?

Name me one policy u think it takes 10 to 15 years to take effect beside the hilarious one u believe about Clinton and the housing crisis ?
U must easily have couples others right , since in your mind it makes perfect sense ?

But were u not blaming Biden for the inflation since 2021 ?

Name them ?
It might take a long time but there is no policy I know that has 0 influence or very little short term but massive ones 10-15 years later ….

Education, crime, economy, foreign policy , housing ... err everything really

Why on earth would I want to waste time finding examples of you being ignorant and/or a hypocrite when everyone else you knows you do this on a daily basis, and you'd just ignore them anyway? Montrealcorp just gave you an example above if you really want one. I also remember you totally ignoring me when I called you out on your complete lack of understanding of how corporation taxes work. I'm sure other examples abound.

As a one-off, here's you blaming Biden for inflation:

But yes, that was 2 years into his term, so his policies had time to take effect, right? It's just very convenient how it's always democratic presidents that cause all the problems, regardless of when the problems occur, because blah blah something blah blah Mickey.

I think I'll go with this guy's conclusions:

But I can see you are clearly a very serious person who holds highly principled positions, as opposed to some of these other charlatans who just cheer on their team and boo the opposition no matter what.

Spoiler

Show

I don’t think we speak about the same thing .
Baham specify a policy started 13 years ago and created out of the blue the biggest financial crisis since the 1930 ….

Clearly it doesn’t to work like that , there was major factors involve that created that crisis , NINJA loans are one of them and have nothing to do with Clinton at all .

Every tax cut , monetary policy , fiscal policies have immediate effect on the economy lagging up to 2-3 years .
To think it lag for 10-15 years is not realistic .

Ps: btw about NINJA loan , I found a funny quote for those denying that trump committed fraud by lying about his loans lol ….

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/ninja-lo...

LOL !
Another loss for the trump crowd .

Exactly

We possible dont.

The problem of arguing on the basis of short term results (even when rebutting what we may consider bad arguments or appalling polices) is that we're constantly shooting ourselves in the head.

I haven't really address the short term inpact but - there's often a large one but it's not necessarily in the same direction or related to the long term one.

Presidents negotiate and sign budgets, and they help direct other economically impactful bills. If Republicans while campaigning for president want to claim that they're fiscally responsible, shouldn't there be some evidence it's actually true while they govern?

This is a perfect example of why it's impossible to take the GOP seriously. All policy is based on lies or fear mongering.

Don't get me wrong, everyone lies, but everything is a lie supporting a grift or some underlying hatred.

This has been a popular conservative talking point but like most narratives it has no basis in reality. First, the housing bubble was caused by financial institutions voluntarily lending to anyone with a pulse, not from compulsory lending from Clinton's changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. People weren't being lent money for their second, third, fourth, etc.. properties from compulsory lending.

The paper from MIT put the conservative theory to test and exposed it to a harsh dose of actual reality:

One predominant narrative to explain the crisis is that changes in mortgage origination technology, coupled with incentives in the financial sector, led to unprecedented lending to low-income and subprime (poor credit quality) borrowers, causing house prices to accelerate and subsequently to crash. This narrative builds on a key finding by Mian and Sufi (2009) that growth in mortgage credit for home purchases at the ZIP code level became negatively correlated with per capita income growth in the run-up to the financial crisis, suggesting that lending became decoupled from income, especially in areas with strong house price growth. As a result, an emphasis has been placed on understanding what role the financial industry played in providing credit at unsustainable levels, in particular to low-income and subprime borrowers.
...
First, we show that between 2002 and 2006 mortgage origination increased for borrowers across the whole income distribution, not just for low-income or subprime borrowers. In line with previous years, the majority of new mortgages by value were originated to middle-class and high-income segments of the population even at the peak of the boom. Similarly, the share of originations to subprime borrowers (those with a credit score below 660) relative to high credit score borrowers remained stable across the pre-crisis period. Although the pace of origination rose in low-income ZIP codes, this increase did not translate into significant changes in the overall distribution of credit, given that it started from a low base (borrowers in low-income and subprime ZIP codes obtain fewer and significantly smaller mortgages on average).

Second, delinquency patterns highlight the importance of middle-income and prime borrowers. We show that the share of mortgage dollars in delinquency stemming from the lowest income groups decreased during the financial crisis. In contrast, middle- and high-income borrowers constituted a larger share of mortgage dollars in delinquency than in any prior year. The magnitudes are large: for the 2003 mortgage cohort, the top quintile of the income distribution constituted only 13% of mortgage dollars in delinquency three years later, whereas for the 2006 cohort, the top income quintile made up 23% of the delinquencies three years out. In contrast, over the same period, the contribution to delinquencies from the ZIP codes in the lowest 20% of the income distribution fell from 22% to only 11%.

Source: Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mo...