WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Your nuclear war analogy is hyperbolic. But OK, let's not debate the debate.
Fair enough.
Quote
About your other points: in relatively recent history the economy has been generally better under Democrats than under Republicans.
Like many things, much of that depends on how you measure. Somehow, for example, W gets the blame both for the popping of the tech bubble and the harm it caused during his first year or two, and the popping of the housing bubble, and the harm it caused during Obama's first year or two. Interestingly, W also tends to get the blame for the outflow of the initial loans made to the financial sector, which increased the deficit during his tenure... whereas Obama gets the credit for those loans being paid back, which decreased the deficit during his.
President's don't have a dial on their desk that reads "Economic Growth" which they can increase or decrease at will, nor are President's "in charge" of the economy, or even the Federal Government - and they are only nominally in charge of the Executive Branch. The policies they push - (generally) if championed by Congress - can indeed have major impacts, but Clinton is not responsible for people over-investing in the early Tech Hype any more than Bush is responsible for people lying on their mortgage applications, or Trump is responsible for Chinese labs.
Quote
Yeah, yeah, Biden will campaign on increasing spending... but then either won't implement everything or if he tries, these won't pass Congress.
Unlikely, given that the Democrats already hold the House, and, in that scenario, are likely to carry the Senate. Biden will have a much more amenable Congress when it comes to expanding funding on his priorities than Trump has. Furthermore, a platform is a statement of intent. Biden intends to dramatically increase spending when we already cannot afford to sustain the current expenditure projections.
Quote
Like the panic around how much Medicare For All would cost under Biden... while ignoring that the likelihood that Medicare For All would pass Congress, even if both chambers were Democrat with a supermajority, would be a virtual ZERO.
I'd put it at a bit higher than zero, but certainly very low - explicitly because of the cost. Even Congress (at current, at least) can't close it's eyes and pretend that we can afford that.
Quote
Biden at least would increase taxes again... I think they are dangerously low under Trump.
I think they are destructively complex and what we need is code simplification.
It's additionally worth noting that changes in nominal tax rates do not produce commensurate changes in revenues.
None of the personal income or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-WW II period has raised the projected tax revenues.
Prior to the shut down of the economy, we were bringing in record high revenues. We don't have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem.
Quote
Now, you probably have access to these numbers better than me... but isn't the spending under Trump and the ballooning debt under Trump worse than in ANY previous Democrat administration?
Depends again on how you measure (raw dollars? as a portion of pre-existing debt? relative to GDP?). The last administration to dramatically increase our debt to these levels relative to GDP was a Democrat, but, it was about 75 years ago, so....
Fair enough. 