Oh, what a contrast this shows, between leaders.
Doesn't matter what they asked him. He was legally bound to tell the truth.
He lied under oath. A federal crime, in that particular instance. And, a felony *is* grounds for impeachment *and* removal from office, in that order.
You may consider it frivolous...it may *be* frivolous. But, it's also legal, and quite correct.
I don't disagree. I just don't think it can so casually be divorced from the farce that put him in that position in the first place.
If you're going to hold him up for the perjury. I'm going to hold up the other side for the hypocrisy of the whole damn thing in the first place. Both are shameful. Too bad only one was a crime.
Didn't the US public debt climb under Reagan and GW Bush and then only begin to decline under Clinton?
In part, yes. The exact how's and why's and rather or not they even count (The cold war, the deals made with the democratic congress, etc,) are all debatable, but as a percentage, national debt went up. Total tax REVENUES, as in sheer dollar amounts, went up significantly under Reagan, but he increased dramatically both infrastructure spending and defense spending.
Now, some argue that the improvements in infrastructure and forcing the collapse of the Soviet Union set the foundation for the huge economic expansion in the 90s' and early 2000's (Which is my opinion), but it's an endless debate.
I seem to recall the debt limit being raised when Reagan was in office - multiple times! And nobody threw a tantrum and threatened to start slitting throats. I seem to recall Ronald Reagan increasing the national debt with his Star Wars and other pet projects. I seem to recall George Bush, Sr. warning that decreasing revenues and increasing spending was "voodoo economics." No one listened.