Lucky... 0 #76 March 18, 2006 QuoteI did ask you how you would cut what is considered to be uncuttable - SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Retirement/Disability. That's what we HAVE to cut if any serious deficit reduction is to be accomplished. GWB chided the Congress in the SOTU for not passing any meaningful SS reform. The leftists in the room applauded thunderously. They have no credibility on the topic of deficit reduction. None. Zilcho. Nada. They even opposed GWB eliminating programs in the Department of Education that had been shown to be ineffective! I mean come ON! I'm for cutting discretionary spending as well - especially needless pork - but without entitlement spending reductions/reform any cuts in discretionary spending, though desirable, have little effect on the overall goal of deficit reduction. Time for TheAnvil to go play/workout/prepare to head to Dublin. Have a safe weekend everyone! I'll be in Dublin soon...watch your stashes of tequila if you are there... QuoteThe leftists in the room applauded thunderously. They have no credibility on the topic of deficit reduction. None. Zilcho. Nada. They even opposed GWB eliminating programs in the Department of Education that had been shown to be ineffective! I mean come ON! I'm for cutting discretionary spending as well - especially needless pork - but without entitlement spending reductions/reform any cuts in discretionary spending, though desirable, have little effect on the overall goal of deficit reduction. Then explain how they did it in the 90's. Was it pure luck? Hey, obviously the repubs own the country, so how is it that they have fiscally run it into the ground and it's teh Dems fault, yet in the last 8 years of Dems we left em a large surplus? You still have failed to address that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #77 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuote What do leftists propose to do to decrease the mandatory entitlement spending over the next 15-20 years? If the answer is nothing, then they have no credibility on deficit spending, as the main cost driver for the deficit IS entitlement spending...which, due to age demographics, WILL increase over the next 15-20+ years. Clinton's attempts at SS were shot down, and the GOP majority in Congress during the latter term did very little on that end. Bush dramatically increased the cost over the next 15-20 years with his poorly formed drug plan policy, btw. Trillions more than was already there. Right, privatized medicine (pills) and outlawed seniors from going to Canada to get their meds..... essentially monopolized it and then jacked up the rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #78 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote 3. I think he genuinely cares about RICH people, and that comes through Wendy W. Fixed it. Take a look at his latest budget proposal to see how he cares about needy people. I really have to take a hard look at myself to figure out WHY I read your posts Thanks for stopping by with your empirical evidence, have a nice day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #79 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou deny the Clinton-Gore recession? The problem is that in a free-market economy, the government has little or no control over the economy. But yet when times are good, (e.g. 1995-2000), the current administration will claim credit were none was deserved. The problem is that this is a double-edged sword; When times are bad, (e.g. 2000-2004), the people will blame the current administration, even though it wasn't their fault. BTW I'm not supporting Dubya; I think he's a moron. Right to a degree. Officials can tweek spending based upon factors such as GNP and taxes, so to say it's a crap-shoot undermines the reach of Congress and the pres. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #80 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 3. I think he genuinely cares about RICH people, and that comes through Wendy W. Fixed it. Take a look at his latest budget proposal to see how he cares about needy people. I really have to take a hard look at myself to figure out WHY I read your posts Thanks for stopping by with your empirical evidence, have a nice day. (Unless I mis-took your post) I guess your feeling like a smart ass today huh? I should not expect to come here and have a little fun I suppose"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #81 March 18, 2006 QuoteHe fell off a Segway too. That was pretty funny. he also had several bicycle accidents in one he ran over a Scottish police officer and sent him to the hospital. Somehow all this behavior is not dissimilar from his polictics or speaking. Plunges into compulsive actions that promise gradiosity and disturbingly erratic hyperactivity without even an ounce or a second of calm reflection and planning. I'm not sure if this the reason for this is that he's suffering from a serious case of ADHD or whether he has some psycho issues about proving himself over his senior. (remember the "manos a manos" after his drunk driving ...) It might be a combination of both. In any case, it is predicatable that guy with such a personality profile is a disaster in any leadership role. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #82 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteStrategery. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... you can't fool me again. Great reference. I had the Bushism calendar and read that - couldn't believe it was true until Farenheit 9/11 showed the clip at the end. Oh yea, made Michale Moore a multi millionaire. http://www.dubyaspeak.com/mp3/foolmeonce.mp3 Nice, thx!!! Wish I had teh vid to go with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #83 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuote1. Won America loads of friends all around the world.... not 2. Reduced one of the planets nations using most of it's resources ....... not 3. Never vetoed a bill. I didn't realize that was true. Guess if ya have the entire country stacked with your buds, you have no infighting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #84 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat SpeedRacer said! I think, 'W', started-out good but went downhill, after that. Let's see... 9 more to think of... I'll get back with you on this. Hmmmmmmmm.... Chuck How did he start out well? Got us into a war by omitting intelligence to Congress and at the dismay of most of the world? I just can't see how he started so well. BTW, he killed the Ergonomics Bill started by CLinton and OSHA to give fast help to injured workers. He also killed legislation that would have reduced the amount of arsenic in our drinking water, and that was right out of the blocks, so no one has convinced me how he jumped out of the blocks. ___________________________________ Yeah! I got jumped on for that, earlier. I later added to it: "Before he got sworn in!" Chuck Gottcha Next thread: Top ten F-ups of Bush as Gov of Texas, comming to a thread near you!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #85 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 3. I think he genuinely cares about RICH people, and that comes through Wendy W. Fixed it. Take a look at his latest budget proposal to see how he cares about needy people. I really have to take a hard look at myself to figure out WHY I read your posts Thanks for stopping by with your empirical evidence, have a nice day. But if you looking for "evidence" and, add to this post that I will accept kallends "Rich" premise, then consider the following IT IS BECAUSE THE RICH PAY THE TAXES!!!!!!! Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay: The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income. Edited to add the source http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #86 March 18, 2006 QuoteWho cares about cliche, slander, etc., let's get to substance. You have to fight the fact that Clinton was the first pres in 40 years to leave office with a surplus. Ah, yes...the "surplus"... the actual ON-BUDGET numbers for 1998 show almost a $30B DEFICIT. They had to take money from the same Social Security they say is so important to save, to show the "surplus".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #87 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteWho cares about cliche, slander, etc., let's get to substance. You have to fight the fact that Clinton was the first pres in 40 years to leave office with a surplus. Ah, yes...the "surplus"... the actual ON-BUDGET numbers for 1998 show almost a $30B DEFICIT. They had to take money from the same Social Security they say is so important to save, to show the "surplus". No matter what accounting tricks you pull, the FACT is that the debt rose far more slowly under Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bushes. The last three Republican presidents have redefined fiscal irresponsibility.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #88 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat SpeedRacer said! I think, 'W', started-out good but went downhill, after that. Let's see... 9 more to think of... I'll get back with you on this. Hmmmmmmmm.... Chuck How did he start out well? Got us into a war by omitting intelligence to Congress and at the dismay of most of the world? I just can't see how he started so well. BTW, he killed the Ergonomics Bill started by CLinton and OSHA to give fast help to injured workers. He also killed legislation that would have reduced the amount of arsenic in our drinking water, and that was right out of the blocks, so no one has convinced me how he jumped out of the blocks. ___________________________________ Yeah! I got jumped on for that, earlier. I later added to it: "Before he got sworn in!" Chuck Gottcha Next thread: Top ten F-ups of Bush as Gov of Texas, comming to a thread near you!!! ______________________________________ We can look at it this way. We've got just a while longer with W. Then, we get the opportunity to select someone else to 'lead' this country for 4-yrs. So far, the selection isn't looking all that good, either. JMO Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #89 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWho cares about cliche, slander, etc., let's get to substance. You have to fight the fact that Clinton was the first pres in 40 years to leave office with a surplus. Ah, yes...the "surplus"... the actual ON-BUDGET numbers for 1998 show almost a $30B DEFICIT. They had to take money from the same Social Security they say is so important to save, to show the "surplus". No matter what accounting tricks you pull, the FACT is that the debt rose far more slowly under Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bushes. The last three Republican presidents have redefined fiscal irresponsibility. I'll not dispute that - I was speaking solely to the "surplus" that keeps getting trotted out.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #90 March 18, 2006 QuoteWendy is one of the nicest and most level-headed people here in the S.C. - always polite and nice to everyone (even me, and one might form a strong argument that I don't deserve it). Why do you respond to her so haughtily? I'm the biggest JACKASS here and you don't even grace me with a response and I posted more than her in this thread. Hmph. First my Dublin departure delayed until tomorrow morning and now this. Oh well. Tsk tsk. My gentle feelings have been hurt. Perhaps I'll drink more tequila to compensate. A wee bit o' commentary on your response to sweet Wendy prior to my departure for El Jimador (thanks Clownburner). QuotePlease, not the, "He isn't perfent but he tries" routine. Lying to Congress about a BJ is impeachment-worthy, but lying to Congress about what a potential enemy has in the way of weapons is responding well? Can you please elaborate on what he did that was a well-tailored response to 9/11? Thanks. Perjury is impeachment worthy, for the record, the topic of perjury being irrelevant. It's OK. You can say the 'p' word. It won't hurt you. If you've proof that GWB lied about WMD, then by all means, please present it. Congress, by the way, including the Intelligence Committee's most absent member Monsieur sKerry never bothered to review the intelligence presented to them, with very few exceptions. I suppose they just didn't care, eh? QuoteThat's honorable in its own right, but exactly what does it do for the country, remembering he is a servant of the people not his wife? Model to others? If Barkely isn't a role model for your kids, Bush and wife certainly aren't one for us. So did you go have an affair after CLinton did his deed? I don't think 1 person said, "If it's good enough for the pres, it's good enough for me" and left a 20-year monogomous marriage to have an affair. If you don't think that a strong marriage is something to be admired, then I find your position most odd. What the hell does a thug like Barkley have to do with GWB as far as being a role model goes? This analogy is ludicrous and without meaning. QuoteUh, ok. He has cut virtually every veterans program by not increasing it at teh rate it takes to maintain the current vets and account for the newly injured die to his war Cut by not increasing? WTF are you talking about? Active duty people injured in the war are NOT funded under the VA. Get your facts straight. And what's this 'his war' crock of shit. CONGRESS VOTED TO FUND IT. Quote he's cut educational programs drastically causing universities to virtually double their tuition costs Oh yeah? Which appropriation this year was less than last year? Name it. Name the program. While you're at it, please tell us how GWB spent funds from the Treasury without Congress appropriating the money. CONGRESS APPROPRIATES $$$. All the executive branch does is apportion the appropriated money within the bounds and guidelines set by the appropriation. You've got a problem with education funding? Take it up with the legislature. Quote he's cut senior progs and medicine progs while outlawing going to Canada to buy cheaper. WTF? GWB's new prescription drug plan is going to accelerate the nation's bankruptcy! Dear God man! Watch the news sometime! Quote Furthermore, he doidn't turn down 1 death sentence put before him and sent 154 people to their death, probably at least 1, likely several were innocent. And this says...what...that GWB respected the judicial process put in place by the legislature of the state of TX? You have proof of their innocence? Why didn't you go public with it? Quote I could go on, You haven't gone anywhere yet. Please take that first step. Quote...... let's not even get to Katrina response.... I'd love to get into the Katrina response. The response was abysmal. The FEDERAL government had to come and do the entire thing. The state and local governments failed miserably. The FEDERAL response by FEMA was a goat-fuck. The Feds unscrewed things, got the fuck criticized out of them, and saved the asses of many NawLeans folks. Where's the criticism of the state and local governents? Are you saying Gov. Blanco doesn't care about people? That would be Gov. Blanco (D-LA). I don't think that to be the case at all. QuoteWendy is one of the nicest and most level-headed people here in the S.C. - always polite and nice to everyone (even me, and one might form a strong argument that I don't deserve it). Why do you respond to her so haughtily? I'm the biggest JACKASS here and you don't even grace me with a response and I posted more than her in this thread. Hmph. First my Dublin departure delayed until tomorrow morning and now this. Oh well. Tsk tsk. My gentle feelings have been hurt. Perhaps I'll drink more tequila to compensate. I totally agree with everything there, except that I responded haughtily. If I did that, you would have posted my assertions and illustrated how I did that. See, it’s quite sad that your arguments stem around the people making the arguments rather than substance; could it be that you have no argument or substance behind them? Don’t care, just the facts, sir. Look at the volume I’ve responded with. I responded quickly and comprehensively, but you feel you must turn this into ‘you versus me.’ Just the facts, sir. QuoteA wee bit o' commentary on your response to sweet Wendy prior to my departure for El Jimador (thanks Clownburner). Enough of the Ireland reference please, it’s like watching a Brady Bunch rerun. QuotePerjury is impeachment worthy, for the record, the topic of perjury being irrelevant. It's OK. You can say the 'p' word. It won't hurt you. If you've proof that GWB lied about WMD, then by all means, please present it. Congress, by the way, including the Intelligence Committee's most absent member Monsieur sKerry never bothered to review the intelligence presented to them, with very few exceptions. I suppose they just didn't care, eh? Yes, which is why I think Bush should be impeached for lying to Congress about the intelligence for the war. Remember, omission of facts is lying by omission. They weren’t presented with ALL of the intelligence Bush have privy to. Ken Mehlman stated this on Meet the Press by saying: - Congress had access to the exact same intelligence….. - Congress had access to the exact same intelligence….. Russert asked about the Washington Post independent investigation and then Mehlman replied: - Congress had access to basically the same evidence….. So Bush cherry-picked the intelligence to get support for the war, then when the truth cam in, he turned and said Congress backed him. If we had an investigator like Ken Starr, there would be an impeachment. QuoteIf you don't think that a strong marriage is something to be admired, then I find your position most odd. What the hell does a thug like Barkley have to do with GWB as far as being a role model goes? This analogy is ludicrous and without meaning. OK, so you think my position is odd? What does that mean? There have been presidents that were single while in office, are they less strong due to that? A marriage has zero to do with presidential service to country. The point was made that being a married president delivers a great model, so with that, Barkley had a controversy that he wasn’t a role model - I drew the analogy and…… let me see….. Uh, I don’t care that you don’t like it. As for role models, if we must get semantic, having a drunk driver for a president is a fantastic role model. QuoteCut by not increasing? WTF are you talking about? Active duty people injured in the war are NOT funded under the VA. Get your facts straight. And what's this 'his war' crock of shit. CONGRESS VOTED TO FUND IT. So Congress voted to fund it…. Let me see, what's the composition of Congress???? As for Vet funding, this is what I wrote: Uh, ok. He has cut virtually every veterans program by not increasing it at teh rate it takes to maintain the current vets and account for the newly injured die to his war Maybe you’re unaware of what a veteran is. A veteran is a military person that has already been discharged by the military. BTW, should have read *due to his war* not that it changes the meaning. So with that, When military people get injured, they are treated and released back to duty, rest, or discharged. They eventually have to be returned to duty or discharged. My point was that he isn’t increasing the funding at the rate of expenditure, hence a reduction. I can post several Vet groups who deplore Bush for his actions that have hurt them. QuoteOh yeah? Which appropriation this year was less than last year? Name it. Name the program. While you're at it, please tell us how GWB spent funds from the Treasury without Congress appropriating the money. CONGRESS APPROPRIATES $$$. All the executive branch does is apportion the appropriated money within the bounds and guidelines set by the appropriation. You've got a problem with education funding? Take it up with the legislature. Congress acts based upon what they know the president will sign or veto, especially when we have a Congress packed with Repubs., so the pres does have a lot to do with how Congress acts. Furthermore, the pres writes his budget plans, which need Congressional approval. See, Jackass, that’s why I’m here; to help ya out. The website isn’t actually objective, as it is the Whitehouse website, so it’s in your favor with lots of flowery discussion about the pres caring about people and such. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/education.html 2005 2006 2007 Total, Outlays 72,945 83,984 64,484 The 2007 Budget builds on this success by proposing to terminate an additional 42 programs, including many that the PART has shown to be ineffective or unable to demonstrate results. These terminations will save $3.5 billion, most of which will be redirected toward priority programs such as Title I, High School Reform, School Choice, the Teacher Incentive Fund, and programs that make up the Administration’s Competitiveness Initiative. Here’s a far better set of tables: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html So, his agenda is to cut: Agriculture Commerce Education Health and Human Services Housing and Urban Development Interior Justice Labor Transportation Corps of Engineers Environmental Protection Agency Executive Office of the President I think we see his agenda here. Anything else I can help you with? QuoteWTF? GWB's new prescription drug plan is going to accelerate the nation's bankruptcy! Dear God man! Watch the news sometime! Not necessarily, just more of the shifting of the country to corporations. QuoteAnd this says...what...that GWB respected the judicial process put in place by the legislature of the state of TX? You have proof of their innocence? Why didn't you go public with it? Nope, can’t prove it, must not have happened. It’s just that several have been fully exonerated from deathrow when investigated. For the first time ever the US Sup Ct reviewed a posthumous execution and it was upheld. That’s 1 review in the 1,000 executions since the reinstatement in 1976. They basically cherry-picked that one. Once again, I’m here for ya: http://www.texasmoratorium.org/article.php?sid=1024&PHPSESSID=649893906ef20672708a093a0def25a7 Men convicted of rape, murder have records wiped clean after collective 27 years in prison By Jason Embry AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Friday, December 23, 2005 Gov. Rick Perry granted pardons Thursday to two men who were shown to be innocent by DNA testing. Keith Edward Turner had been convicted of rape in 1983 in Dallas County, and Entre Nax Karage was convicted of murder in 1997 in Dallas County. Turner has been on parole; Karage was released from prison last year by a Dallas County trial court. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles had unanimously recommended the pardons. "I believe that a full pardon for innocence must be supported by strong evidence, such as forensic DNA tests," Perry said. "In both of these cases, new DNA evidence proves these men are innocent. The recommendations of the district attorney, judges, the Dallas County sheriff, the Dallas chief of police and the Board of Pardons and Paroles also were important factors in my decision." Turner and Karage received pardons of innocence, which means the convictions are wiped off their records completely. Turner, 44, served 20 years in prison. Perry's office said DNA testing was not used at his trial because it was not approved for admission into evidence at the time. Karage, 36, received a life sentence and was in prison from 1997 to 2004. After DNA testing, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said the new evidence cast doubt on his conviction. Maddy deLone of the Innocence Project, which represents convicts seeking DNA tests, said Thursday's pardons brought the number of post-conviction DNA exonerations in Texas to 19 and the national number to 170. "In our experience, it's harder to get DNA testing in Texas than in almost any other state in the country with a DNA testing law," deLone said. "While it's a well-written law in Texas, many prosecutors fight hard and litigate aggressively, and as a result, little testing happens." Keith Hampton, a lobbyist for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said Texas law should be changed to make it more difficult for prosecutors to ask appeals courts to stop a judge from ordering a DNA test. Appeals courts usually side with prosecutors, he said. "A judge right now does not have discretion to just order a DNA test in the interest of justice, and a judge ought to be able to do that," Hampton said. Perry on Thursday also announced the pardons of 12 people as recommended by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Those people will not have their convictions completely wiped from their records. Instead, their records will reflect that they were convicted and pardoned for the crimes. That list included Paul Norman Wood, a 28-year-old Copperas Cove resident who was convicted of driving while intoxicated when he was 18. Wood paid a $500 fine and served one year of probation. Perry spokeswoman Rachael Novier would not discuss the specific reasons for Wood's pardon. Referring to the 12, Novier said, "The individuals for pardon were for the most part very young when they committed their offenses and have not had subsequent offenses." Here’s a Texas case that clearly establishes a wrongful DP case. Although Bush wasn’t gov then, he’s signed plenty of death warrants while investigating a couple. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html The prosecutor, jurors and even a victim have denounced this execution. You haven't gone anywhere yet. Please take that first step. Ahhh, you’re tho thpecial. QuoteI'd love to get into the Katrina response. The response was abysmal. The FEDERAL government had to come and do the entire thing. The state and local governments failed miserably. The FEDERAL response by FEMA was a goat-fuck. The Feds unscrewed things, got the fuck criticized out of them, and saved the asses of many NawLeans folks. Where's the criticism of the state and local governents? Are you saying Gov. Blanco doesn't care about people? That would be Gov. Blanco (D-LA). I don't think that to be the case at all. Did you happen to see the video bite where Bush said he was fully ready, and that was before the hurricane hit? The mayor and the gov are scum, but that doesn’t absolve Bush for not handling this on the federal level. You can continue to misdirect all you want, but at the end of the day you have to address Bush’s inaction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #91 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote QuoteAlso, although it is not an accomplishment, I really admire the fact that he's 60 yrs old and that he can run a seven-minute mile. In my book, that's the single most impressive thing about him. I am 60 and I can run a 7 minute mile too. That and $2.00 will get me a cup of coffee. Why is it so impressive? Yea, but do you have X million $ worth of secret service men running around you? I am physically fit too - work out 3+ times per week, but I just can't see how physical fitness helps a guy run a country.... guess it's down to that. You're a teacher, right. Ever administer a test and have people so lost as to what to write they either use the shotgum approach and write everything under the sun, or just look for peripheral things that are unimportant? Well, this is more of that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #92 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteWho cares about cliche, slander, etc., let's get to substance. You have to fight the fact that Clinton was the first pres in 40 years to leave office with a surplus. Ah, yes...the "surplus"... the actual ON-BUDGET numbers for 1998 show almost a $30B DEFICIT. They had to take money from the same Social Security they say is so important to save, to show the "surplus". Show me where. Besides, 1998 may not have shown a surplus. 99, 2000 and 2001 were the years that may have started to show. I will research which years started showing a surplus, but I don't think 1998 showed one yet. Remember, Clinton inherited a deficit and it took years to turn it around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #93 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWho cares about cliche, slander, etc., let's get to substance. You have to fight the fact that Clinton was the first pres in 40 years to leave office with a surplus. Ah, yes...the "surplus"... the actual ON-BUDGET numbers for 1998 show almost a $30B DEFICIT. They had to take money from the same Social Security they say is so important to save, to show the "surplus". No matter what accounting tricks you pull, the FACT is that the debt rose far more slowly under Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bushes. The last three Republican presidents have redefined fiscal irresponsibility. Right, but he's talking annual budget surplus/deficit rather than the national debt. Although there is obviously a correlation. 80%+ of the debt belongs to the Repubs...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #94 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat SpeedRacer said! I think, 'W', started-out good but went downhill, after that. Let's see... 9 more to think of... I'll get back with you on this. Hmmmmmmmm.... Chuck How did he start out well? Got us into a war by omitting intelligence to Congress and at the dismay of most of the world? I just can't see how he started so well. BTW, he killed the Ergonomics Bill started by CLinton and OSHA to give fast help to injured workers. He also killed legislation that would have reduced the amount of arsenic in our drinking water, and that was right out of the blocks, so no one has convinced me how he jumped out of the blocks. ___________________________________ Yeah! I got jumped on for that, earlier. I later added to it: "Before he got sworn in!" Chuck Gottcha Next thread: Top ten F-ups of Bush as Gov of Texas, comming to a thread near you!!! ______________________________________ We can look at it this way. We've got just a while longer with W. Then, we get the opportunity to select someone else to 'lead' this country for 4-yrs. So far, the selection isn't looking all that good, either. JMO Chuck Couldn't agree more. I used to be a Hillary fan, but she's more of a Repub than people know. I like Kerry, but doubt he has a chance. I fear a McCain might make it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #95 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWho cares about cliche, slander, etc., let's get to substance. You have to fight the fact that Clinton was the first pres in 40 years to leave office with a surplus. Ah, yes...the "surplus"... the actual ON-BUDGET numbers for 1998 show almost a $30B DEFICIT. They had to take money from the same Social Security they say is so important to save, to show the "surplus". No matter what accounting tricks you pull, the FACT is that the debt rose far more slowly under Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bushes. The last three Republican presidents have redefined fiscal irresponsibility. I'll not dispute that - I was speaking solely to the "surplus" that keeps getting trotted out. Show us where any of Clinton's surplus numbers were skewed. Basically, establish that Clinton never had a surplus for any of his latter years (99,2000,2001). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #96 March 18, 2006 QuoteShow me where. Besides, 1998 may not have shown a surplus. 99, 2000 and 2001 were the years that may have started to show. I will research which years started showing a surplus, but I don't think 1998 showed one yet. See attached - from the 2000 budget, which is the first that shows actual numbers for 98 rather than projections. QuoteRemember, Clinton inherited a deficit and it took years to turn it around. Funny you should say that... GW inherited a recession from Clinton...and we all know those take years to turn around, too... not that the current spending spree is showing any sign of slowing down. One thing that I will consider him a great President for will be if he can get line-item veto passed through Congress.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #97 March 18, 2006 > GW inherited a recession from Clinton.. My prediction? If the next president is a democrat, and the economy tanks a year after he takes office - the GOP (and specifically posters here) will lay the blame squarely at his feet and ignore the effects the overall deficit (and specifically the trade deficit) had on the economy. If any democrat claims that he inherited those problems from Bush's spending, he will be called ignorant, partisan etc. The bet is $100. Any takers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #98 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteShow me where. Besides, 1998 may not have shown a surplus. 99, 2000 and 2001 were the years that may have started to show. I will research which years started showing a surplus, but I don't think 1998 showed one yet. See attached - from the 2000 budget, which is the first that shows actual numbers for 98 rather than projections. QuoteRemember, Clinton inherited a deficit and it took years to turn it around. Funny you should say that... GW inherited a recession from Clinton...and we all know those take years to turn around, too... not that the current spending spree is showing any sign of slowing down. One thing that I will consider him a great President for will be if he can get line-item veto passed through Congress. On budget deficit and then on budget surplus.... wonder what each mean and if the net value is the actual deficit/surplus? That graph is broken down and inconclusive over the actual net deficit/surplus, so here's one that illustrates the debt and the annual deficit/surplus: http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/ 98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. How about this graph: http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm Nice try with the narrow statistic, but as you know says, "I feel your pain" in response to you trying to mitigate Clinton's fiscal success and Bush's failure..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #99 March 18, 2006 Quote> GW inherited a recession from Clinton.. My prediction? If the next president is a democrat, and the economy tanks a year after he takes office - the GOP (and specifically posters here) will lay the blame squarely at his feet and ignore the effects the overall deficit (and specifically the trade deficit) had on the economy. If any democrat claims that he inherited those problems from Bush's spending, he will be called ignorant, partisan etc. The bet is $100. Any takers? I think bettors from other countries will want the exchange rate for fear of only winning half.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #100 March 18, 2006 Quote98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Lucky... 0 #92 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteWho cares about cliche, slander, etc., let's get to substance. You have to fight the fact that Clinton was the first pres in 40 years to leave office with a surplus. Ah, yes...the "surplus"... the actual ON-BUDGET numbers for 1998 show almost a $30B DEFICIT. They had to take money from the same Social Security they say is so important to save, to show the "surplus". Show me where. Besides, 1998 may not have shown a surplus. 99, 2000 and 2001 were the years that may have started to show. I will research which years started showing a surplus, but I don't think 1998 showed one yet. Remember, Clinton inherited a deficit and it took years to turn it around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #93 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWho cares about cliche, slander, etc., let's get to substance. You have to fight the fact that Clinton was the first pres in 40 years to leave office with a surplus. Ah, yes...the "surplus"... the actual ON-BUDGET numbers for 1998 show almost a $30B DEFICIT. They had to take money from the same Social Security they say is so important to save, to show the "surplus". No matter what accounting tricks you pull, the FACT is that the debt rose far more slowly under Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bushes. The last three Republican presidents have redefined fiscal irresponsibility. Right, but he's talking annual budget surplus/deficit rather than the national debt. Although there is obviously a correlation. 80%+ of the debt belongs to the Repubs...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #94 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat SpeedRacer said! I think, 'W', started-out good but went downhill, after that. Let's see... 9 more to think of... I'll get back with you on this. Hmmmmmmmm.... Chuck How did he start out well? Got us into a war by omitting intelligence to Congress and at the dismay of most of the world? I just can't see how he started so well. BTW, he killed the Ergonomics Bill started by CLinton and OSHA to give fast help to injured workers. He also killed legislation that would have reduced the amount of arsenic in our drinking water, and that was right out of the blocks, so no one has convinced me how he jumped out of the blocks. ___________________________________ Yeah! I got jumped on for that, earlier. I later added to it: "Before he got sworn in!" Chuck Gottcha Next thread: Top ten F-ups of Bush as Gov of Texas, comming to a thread near you!!! ______________________________________ We can look at it this way. We've got just a while longer with W. Then, we get the opportunity to select someone else to 'lead' this country for 4-yrs. So far, the selection isn't looking all that good, either. JMO Chuck Couldn't agree more. I used to be a Hillary fan, but she's more of a Repub than people know. I like Kerry, but doubt he has a chance. I fear a McCain might make it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #95 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWho cares about cliche, slander, etc., let's get to substance. You have to fight the fact that Clinton was the first pres in 40 years to leave office with a surplus. Ah, yes...the "surplus"... the actual ON-BUDGET numbers for 1998 show almost a $30B DEFICIT. They had to take money from the same Social Security they say is so important to save, to show the "surplus". No matter what accounting tricks you pull, the FACT is that the debt rose far more slowly under Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bushes. The last three Republican presidents have redefined fiscal irresponsibility. I'll not dispute that - I was speaking solely to the "surplus" that keeps getting trotted out. Show us where any of Clinton's surplus numbers were skewed. Basically, establish that Clinton never had a surplus for any of his latter years (99,2000,2001). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #96 March 18, 2006 QuoteShow me where. Besides, 1998 may not have shown a surplus. 99, 2000 and 2001 were the years that may have started to show. I will research which years started showing a surplus, but I don't think 1998 showed one yet. See attached - from the 2000 budget, which is the first that shows actual numbers for 98 rather than projections. QuoteRemember, Clinton inherited a deficit and it took years to turn it around. Funny you should say that... GW inherited a recession from Clinton...and we all know those take years to turn around, too... not that the current spending spree is showing any sign of slowing down. One thing that I will consider him a great President for will be if he can get line-item veto passed through Congress.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #97 March 18, 2006 > GW inherited a recession from Clinton.. My prediction? If the next president is a democrat, and the economy tanks a year after he takes office - the GOP (and specifically posters here) will lay the blame squarely at his feet and ignore the effects the overall deficit (and specifically the trade deficit) had on the economy. If any democrat claims that he inherited those problems from Bush's spending, he will be called ignorant, partisan etc. The bet is $100. Any takers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #98 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteShow me where. Besides, 1998 may not have shown a surplus. 99, 2000 and 2001 were the years that may have started to show. I will research which years started showing a surplus, but I don't think 1998 showed one yet. See attached - from the 2000 budget, which is the first that shows actual numbers for 98 rather than projections. QuoteRemember, Clinton inherited a deficit and it took years to turn it around. Funny you should say that... GW inherited a recession from Clinton...and we all know those take years to turn around, too... not that the current spending spree is showing any sign of slowing down. One thing that I will consider him a great President for will be if he can get line-item veto passed through Congress. On budget deficit and then on budget surplus.... wonder what each mean and if the net value is the actual deficit/surplus? That graph is broken down and inconclusive over the actual net deficit/surplus, so here's one that illustrates the debt and the annual deficit/surplus: http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/ 98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. How about this graph: http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm Nice try with the narrow statistic, but as you know says, "I feel your pain" in response to you trying to mitigate Clinton's fiscal success and Bush's failure..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #99 March 18, 2006 Quote> GW inherited a recession from Clinton.. My prediction? If the next president is a democrat, and the economy tanks a year after he takes office - the GOP (and specifically posters here) will lay the blame squarely at his feet and ignore the effects the overall deficit (and specifically the trade deficit) had on the economy. If any democrat claims that he inherited those problems from Bush's spending, he will be called ignorant, partisan etc. The bet is $100. Any takers? I think bettors from other countries will want the exchange rate for fear of only winning half.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #100 March 18, 2006 Quote98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
