Why is this an image of text? Makes it a lot harder to reply to, and you specifically asked for a reply.
Tripling the Debt
Usually, when someone accuses a POTUS of significantly impacting the national debt, they are lying, as Congress controls the country’s wealth. This is no exception. For example, Reagan’s repeal of the Windfall Profit Tax on Oil is usually used as part of the claim, but what he signed passed both the House and the Senate with veto-proof majorities; claiming he had anything significant to do with their passing is deeply disingenuous.
Dropped the income tax rate
Not going to bother with a link this time; it should be fundamental, basic common knowledge that a POTUS has no power over income tax rates. That’s as Congressional as it gets. See statement above for a linked example of how Congress controls taxes.
I have no idea what this is even about. Do you mean the Watkins Commission?
Claim about Reagan’s impact on mental institutions and its impact on homelessness
The first half sounds truthy, and certainly vague enough to be impossible to “debunk”, with the major caveat that, as with taxes, it’s a near-certainty that Congress did the lion’s share of this. The real meat on these bones is your claim that eroding the institutions led to a homelessness crisis (and tour subclaim that the crisis is still happening). I don’t have time to debunk that, gotta get to work, but I wanted to acknowledge my failure to do so. It might be super true or super false, and either way I’m genuinely curious.
It’s almost like that’s the way it typically works. The President sets the agenda, and has a reasonable amount of control on what gets presented to Congress.
You do realize Congress passes bills for the president to sign, the president negotiates with congress to get bills pass FOR the president to sign into law, so yes congress passes parts for the president to sign SO that congress and the president can get what they want.
10 monkeys in a room trying to order pizza is hard to do when you don’t have a zoo keeper to tell them what there getting.
I think the way you attempt to keep Congress and the Executive separate skirts the actual way politics work even if the governmental mechanisms supports your point. In other words, there’s a reason why it’s called Reganonics and the Regan tax cuts. In a world without parties, I would agree with you.
Second, you don’t address budget deficient and the role in the national debit. Budgets are created by the executive and then approved by the legislature. You can see that between 1981 and 1989, the budgetary deficit was greatest during Republican rule.
And relative to economic output (GDP), it was the worst between 81 and 86.
All of this is to say that the president matters in effecting the debt.
PS. Your link isn’t to the Windfall Profit Tax on Oil but to Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. I don’t think they are the same thing, but correct me if I’m mistaken.
Why is this an image of text? Makes it a lot harder to reply to, and you specifically asked for a reply.
Usually, when someone accuses a POTUS of significantly impacting the national debt, they are lying, as Congress controls the country’s wealth. This is no exception. For example, Reagan’s repeal of the Windfall Profit Tax on Oil is usually used as part of the claim, but what he signed passed both the House and the Senate with veto-proof majorities; claiming he had anything significant to do with their passing is deeply disingenuous.
Not going to bother with a link this time; it should be fundamental, basic common knowledge that a POTUS has no power over income tax rates. That’s as Congressional as it gets. See statement above for a linked example of how Congress controls taxes.
This is an easy one; it was significantly more than 500.
I have no idea what this is even about. Do you mean the Watkins Commission?
The first half sounds truthy, and certainly vague enough to be impossible to “debunk”, with the major caveat that, as with taxes, it’s a near-certainty that Congress did the lion’s share of this. The real meat on these bones is your claim that eroding the institutions led to a homelessness crisis (and tour subclaim that the crisis is still happening). I don’t have time to debunk that, gotta get to work, but I wanted to acknowledge my failure to do so. It might be super true or super false, and either way I’m genuinely curious.
It’s almost like that’s the way it typically works. The President sets the agenda, and has a reasonable amount of control on what gets presented to Congress.
You do realize Congress passes bills for the president to sign, the president negotiates with congress to get bills pass FOR the president to sign into law, so yes congress passes parts for the president to sign SO that congress and the president can get what they want.
10 monkeys in a room trying to order pizza is hard to do when you don’t have a zoo keeper to tell them what there getting.
I think the way you attempt to keep Congress and the Executive separate skirts the actual way politics work even if the governmental mechanisms supports your point. In other words, there’s a reason why it’s called Reganonics and the Regan tax cuts. In a world without parties, I would agree with you.
Second, you don’t address budget deficient and the role in the national debit. Budgets are created by the executive and then approved by the legislature. You can see that between 1981 and 1989, the budgetary deficit was greatest during Republican rule.
And relative to economic output (GDP), it was the worst between 81 and 86.
All of this is to say that the president matters in effecting the debt.
PS. Your link isn’t to the Windfall Profit Tax on Oil but to Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. I don’t think they are the same thing, but correct me if I’m mistaken.
Presidential veto.
Any sources that he used it? If not. He’s on the hook.
Thank you for your objective take on OP’s claim, and for providing sources as well 👏