Having more people on public assistance is always better for Honda's economy.
Because people like Hondo don't care about a bottom line when we can just print moar money.
Da fuq does cutting taxes on wealthy and businesses and cutting spending on education, middle class jobs and pensions have to do with people on public assistance?
Cool story. Spending was lowest with a GOP congress under Clinton. We knew that.
I prefer the Democratic President + Republican Congress arrangement too.
One party rule for either side is horrible.
In 94 we had two parties. I agree in principle but the GOP Congress needs to be aborted n a back alley with a hanger regardless of who is in the white house. Not that the dems deserve any better
Cool story. Spending was lowest with a GOP congress under Clinton. We knew that.
I prefer the Democratic President + Republican Congress arrangement too.
One party rule for either side is horrible.
In 94 we had two parties. I agree in principle but the GOP Congress needs to be aborted n a back alley with a hanger regardless of who is in the white house. Not that the dems deserve any better
I always support classy coat hanger abortions of Congresscritters (note: this is not a call for genocide)
Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.
Keep the faith and ignore the spending
At least Reagan's rampant deficit spending helped the economy. It was worth it IMO.
As for spending increases....
Agree. Reagan's deficits, at least, had some ROI. And we borrowed that money in the 1980's primarily from ourselves and not the land of Gina. In my view, once we got the books balanced in the late 90's, we should have done everything possible to keep it that way. Bush '43 will forever have my wrath for fucking up the national checking account and setting a bad precedents.
Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.
Keep the faith and ignore the spending
There's a sweet spot on tax rates for top brackets. Reagan was right to bring it down from 70% or whatever the hell it was at the time. But doubt there's much economic stimulus going from, say, 39% down to 29%.
Cool story. Spending was lowest with a GOP congress under Clinton. We knew that.
I prefer the Democratic President + Republican Congress arrangement too.
One party rule for either side is horrible.
In 94 we had two parties. I agree in principle but the GOP Congress needs to be aborted n a back alley with a hanger regardless of who is in the white house. Not that the dems deserve any better
I always support classy coat hanger abortions of Congresscritters (note: this is not a call for genocide)
I gotta tell you, that sounds a lot like genocide to me. And I know genocide.
Comments
Because people like Hondo don't care about a bottom line when we can just print moar money.
Keep the faith and ignore the spending
As for spending increases....
One party rule for either side is horrible.