Quote:
Originally posted by dave
It is? Perhaps you'll show me where that's proven?
The world today is a different place than it was for much of the 90's. The recession had already started by the time Clinton left office, and then our military budget suddenly grew one day in September.
You cannot prove the influence of X on Y unless you have observed Y in the absence of X. We haven't observed the "world after 9/11" without Bush as president, so we really don't know how it would be different without him. Was the tax cut doomed from the start? We'll never really have any idea, because the world changed.
|
Pretty simple, really. Follow me, if you would.
Fact: under Clinton, the US ran consistent budget surpluses.
Fact: Bush won selection in 2000.
Fact: After taking office, one of Bush's first priorities was to propose dramatic tax cuts, especially geared towards the wealthy.
Fact: Those budgets changed the budget from being in surplus to being
considerably in deficit long before 9/11.
Conclusion: blaming the war on terror and on Saddam (the two are not one and the same) for the deficits is entirely and demonstrably false.
Check,
Z