Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Julian Englis

(2,309 posts)

14. Just keeping it simple.

Reply to Jim Lane (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 12:22 AM

Sep 2012

While technically you are correct--indeed, we could even call it the Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Bush deficit--simplicity is a virtue. And besides, it's sound right--"The Bush Deficit." Really, that has a ring to it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Just a reminder: When talking about the deficit, call it by its conrect name--"The Bush Deficit" [View all] Julian Englis Sep 2012 OP

just like the MrDiaz Sep 2012 #1

Nice one Flashmann Sep 2012 #2

Excellent point! fleur-de-lisa Sep 2012 #3

Amen to that! mother earth Sep 2012 #4

and never use the word "tax" rather use "investment in the future" central scrutinizer Sep 2012 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #6

Obama already extended the tax cuts bigwillq Sep 2012 #8

This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #9

And now they're the Obama tax cuts bigwillq Sep 2012 #10

Try to keep in mind... Blanks Sep 2012 #7

This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #11

I am not, and have never been opposed to the TPP. Blanks Sep 2012 #20

National Debt Has Exploded On the Republican's Watch Or Because Of Their Unpaid Tax Cuts -graph- mikekohr Sep 2012 #12

Right! It's not the Bush deficit, it's the Reagan/Bush/Bush deficit. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #13

Just keeping it simple. Julian Englis Sep 2012 #14

I admit there's a tradeoff between simplicity and comprehensiveness. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #15

Your correct Julian Englis Sep 2012 #16

Reagan-Bush racked up more debt than all presidents before combined. Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2012 #18

Another chart, this one using % of GDP: Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2012 #19

Yes, framing the language, placing Republican negatives in a negative frame. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2012 #17