mnealtx 0 #101 January 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteEvery bill that goes through Congress has to have some sort of negotiation between the parties... so they're ALL complicit. YOU really did not pay attention to what your Republican Rubber Stamp Congress pulled until the were voted out of power in Nov 2006 did you....there was little to no negotiation... Ergo King Bubba I in his first term. I'm sure you can show me ALL those bills that don't have any Dem signatures on them. QuoteWhat King GeorgeII wanted King GeorgeII got. See above. QuoteAnd the Democrats were left sitting on the sidelines as the rePUBICans got more and more corrupt Yeah, right....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #102 January 28, 2008 QuoteQuote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. Can't blame Congress for this one. The spending increases of the Bush terms came from Bush himself. In the 6 years where the GOP controlled it, Bush vetoed nothing, while initiating two major wars and creating new departments. In the one year of a Democrat lead Congress, Bush vetoed their attempts to CUT spending by imposing a troop pullout in military spending bills. Bullshit. Again, bills come from Congress - they're all implicit. Same thing happened in 96 when the Rep congress forced Clinton to sign a balanced budget. The Dems didn't push because of how it would look from a PR standpoint. Nothing like sacrificing your principles for power, hmm?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 January 28, 2008 Quote Quote Every bill that goes through Congress has to have some sort of negotiation between the parties... so they're ALL complicit. Ahhhhhhhhh, yet again your model sucks. The WH and Congress have been Repub owned for most of the 7 years. Hell, the SCOYUS has been 7-2 R owned for most of the last 27 years. So you are right, but it doesn't help you that you are since it was YOUR party that drafted the spending bills and YOUR president that rubber stamped it. Oh, that's right... all those poor little Dems out in the cold, those mean old Republicans not letting them sign ANY bills.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #104 January 28, 2008 QuoteHell, how is it that Canada and most of Europe have all their social programs with a limited military budget, YET THEIR CURRENCY IS KICKING OUR ASS? Once again, your model sucks and has a poor outcome. You have started the learning process, Congress spends too much ON THE FUCKING MILITARY AND THE WAR. Awww....did the big mean soldier scare you?? Here's some info on how Europe is "kicking our ass" Per capita economic output in the U.S. in 2003 was $37,600—more than 40 percent higher than the $26,600 average for EU–15 nations. Real economic growth in the U.S. over the past 10 years (3.2 percent average annual growth) has been more than 50 percent faster than EU–15 growth during the same period (2.1 percent). The U.S. unemployment rate is significantly lower than the EU–15 unemployment rate, and there is a stunning gap in the percentage of unemployed who have been without a job for more than 12 months—11.8 percent in the U.S. versus 41.9 percent in EU–15 nations. Living standards in the EU are equivalent to living standards in the poorest American states—roughly equal to Arkansas and Montana and only slightly ahead of West Virginia and Mississippi, the two poorest states. Of course, when you can only look at one or two specific things to be able to prove your point, it's easy to miss stuff like this.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #105 January 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. Can't blame Congress for this one. The spending increases of the Bush terms came from Bush himself. In the 6 years where the GOP controlled it, Bush vetoed nothing, while initiating two major wars and creating new departments. In the one year of a Democrat lead Congress, Bush vetoed their attempts to CUT spending by imposing a troop pullout in military spending bills. Bullshit. Again, bills come from Congress - they're all implicit. Same thing happened in 96 when the Rep congress forced Clinton to sign a balanced budget. The Dems didn't push because of how it would look from a PR standpoint. Bullshit right back at you. When the White House and Congress are under the same party, the President is responsible for everything. He is the top member of his party and also writes the initial budget. There were no renegade Republicans that insisted he spend more money. (well, if you can find an example. let's see it) Also cute how you're claiming the GOP forced Clinton to sign a balanced budget; his tax hikes were the main reason they were the majority power by 96. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #106 January 28, 2008 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Using your figures, under Clinton, in 8 years, the debt increased 1.5 trillion, or 187.5 billion per year, on average. Under reagan, bush and bush, over 19 years the debt increased 6.8 trillion, or 357.9 billion per year. Now how does that impeach my assertion that under Clinton we always borrowed, and under Reagan/Bush we always borrowed more? It does not impeach it. You data supports it. I wrote that under clinton, we borroed, too. Under Republican presidents we borrowed more. Bad - to borrow. Worse - to borrow and borrow. When you inherit a trainwreck, you have to be given time to fix it. That is logical that if you inherit a mess that that mess isn't your fault. It could be easily reasoned that if he inherited a minor deficit that he would have paid down the debt quite a bit. Here's a chart to describe what I mean: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Please, comment on the graph. Furthermore, Clinton left a whole lot better than he inherited and Bush insisted on giving it back in the form of a stimulus..... we see the result. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, I am positing that we have -6 of 1 (Dem presidency), and -12 of the other (GOP Presidency). Right, you're saying that: Inheriting 250B, leaving 23M = inheriting 23M, leaving 500B+ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Exactly what I believe. And, that the Republican Congress slowed the Spending of the Clinton Presidency. (of course, it can be argued that CLinton slowed the spending of a republican congress and that Reagan/Bush slowed the spending of a Democratic Congress. After all, Presidents DO have veto power.) HUH? Clinton left the deficit at least 250B more in the black than did any of the Repubs since Reagan. Don't you get it, the net result is what you started with versus what you left and he inherited 250B / yr, left 23M. The real indicator is net change, so it could be argued that GHW Bush didn't chaneg either way, just perpetuated the Regan BS. IOW's, did you leave it worse, same or better than when you got it. Clinton left it far better than when he got it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, shit. And look what happened when Clinton had a democratic Congress. It was going so badly that Republicans were voted in in Nov. 1994. So you're gonna try to influx logic into the popularity that is the presidential and congressional election? IN that case, why was Bush allegedly reelected? In his first term he fucked things up about as much as a person could, then he was reelected. That pretty much blows your theory of fuck up and have your counterparts brought up to fix things. I think people are afraid to have Dems accross the board, but that may change in a year. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, tell me how borrowing enough money to buy Microsoft every two years is borrowing "a little." It isn't. And you can spin it all you want but it was "borrowing" and it was borrowing "a lot." It simply was not borrowing enough to buy Microsoft every year, as has been the average under Republican presidents. You missed the boat. I wrote that borrowing a little, as with Clinton's recovery of teh deficit, doesn't not = borrowing a lot, as with any/all of the 3 stooges. BTW, Clinton inherited a system of borrowing a ton, left a system of bowing little, so the borrowing wasn't his, he just had it fix it which he did. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I thought Clinton came in to change things. And virtually broke it even? $180 billion per year ain't exactly virtually breaking it even. HUH, what the fuck are you taking about? He inherited 250B per year, left 23 M. Here's a site that will make it clear: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf Page 25 and 26 of 322 shows the annual deficit structure. Actually, at the end of 1992 Bush left 290B, not 250B as I formerly stated. In 1993 the deficit was 255. In fact, it went down every year until the end of clinton's term when he actually left an annual deficit surplus: 1992 –290,334 1993 –255,085 1994 –203,228 1995 –163,991 1996 –107,473 1997 –21,935 1998 69,200 1999 125,541 2000 236,151 Why the federal debt still had a 23M incline in 2000 while Clinton left a budget surplus I don't know. Is it possible that payment on the debt interest was not figured in? Page 122 and 123 of 322 shows a history of the debt at end of year. Why Clinton left a budget surplus of 236M and there was still a 23M increase in debt is unclear. Either way, looka t either chart and we started healing a LOT under Clinton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You either have a surplus, break even or have a deficit. For the past 75 years, deficit has been the rule. I really, really, really wouldn't want you as my attorney. This balck / white, all or nothing mentality doesn't fare well with critical thinking. Clinton actually left 236M surplus while the debt grew 23M in 2000, figure out why. Furthermore, the debt shrunk during a few periods well less than the 75 years you cited. 1946 to 1951 dipped back and forth a bit 1955 to 1959 dippd back and forth a bit Fell in 1969 Bleeding and bleeding to death are far different. There are shades of slamming the debt and YOUR party is really good at it. Sorry for posting graphical data from objective source, I now it really is hated by conservatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #107 January 28, 2008 QuoteIt might sound great on the chalkboard to cut taxes for businesses, hope they will invest the money into buinesses and then watch the economy growHere in Royd World that's exactly how it works, and the govt. pays the price for trying to punish my productivity. Since I belong to the group that someone has determined doesn't need a lot of money, and therefore, they'll take my excess, I choose, since I have little, to no debt, to quit producing, once my tax percentage makes a big jump. Let's use simple numbers for the description. Say, up to $30,000 the govt. decides to take 10%. Fine, I can live with that. For the next $10,000 they decide to take 20%, and above that, 30%. Since I am fiscally responsible, I have to ability to live on very little. Let's say that I can make the first $30,000 in six months. If the govt. left the tax rate at 10% across the board, I would choose to work throughout the year, thus giving them $6,000, but since they decide to punish my productivity, I also have a few cards of my own. They aren't going to get a dime over the first $3,000. If I were running a large business, I too, would move my excess money somewhere where it could work for me without punishment. If the govt. would lift those heavy taxes on the big money, much of it would be brought back and put into banks here in the states, and be used in the economy. Now, you make the call. Would you rather be getting a nominal tax off of my millions, and have it working in the economy, or would you rather just be collecting taxes from my bookkeeper and my housekeeper? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #108 January 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Being in deeper debt isn't the fault of the tax cuts, which have brought in record tax revenue as tax cuts always do - the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. Can't blame Congress for this one. The spending increases of the Bush terms came from Bush himself. In the 6 years where the GOP controlled it, Bush vetoed nothing, while initiating two major wars and creating new departments. In the one year of a Democrat lead Congress, Bush vetoed their attempts to CUT spending by imposing a troop pullout in military spending bills. Bullshit. Again, bills come from Congress - they're all implicit. Same thing happened in 96 when the Rep congress forced Clinton to sign a balanced budget. The Dems didn't push because of how it would look from a PR standpoint. Bullshit right back at you. When the White House and Congress are under the same party, the President is responsible for everything. He is the top member of his party and also writes the initial budget. There were no renegade Republicans that insisted he spend more money. (well, if you can find an example. let's see it) Also cute how you're claiming the GOP forced Clinton to sign a balanced budget; his tax hikes were the main reason they were the majority power by 96. Writes the initial budget? Yes... then Congress approves or dissaproves and sends it back. The President then signs it, or changes it and sends it back. It's still up to Congress to approve it and return it for signing. So, unless you can show me some sort of paperwork that shows no Dems voted to approve the budget, you're talking smack. Yes, the Reps forced Clinton to sign a balanced budget, by refusing to approve the first *4* budgets he submitted in 1995.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #109 January 28, 2008 QuoteI really, really, really wouldn't want you as my attorney. This balck / white, all or nothing mentality doesn't fare well with critical thinking. Hmm....sounds rather like the author of the post I'm answering. "Everything bad is due to the Republicans...the Democrats will save us all!!" QuoteClinton actually left 236M surplus while the debt grew 23M in 2000, figure out why. Because of 'borrowing' the money from the Social Security fund.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #110 January 28, 2008 Quote Yeah, right.... The reality hurts doesn't it.. no wonder you are so bitter about those you elected....tsk tsk tsk.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #111 January 28, 2008 Quote Quote Yeah, right.... The reality hurts doesn't it.. no wonder you are so bitter about those you elected....tsk tsk tsk.... A quick search will show that I'm not the going on wild rants about the Repubs and ascribing the worst examples possible to anyone that doesn't join in the ranting... parataxic distortion, indeed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #112 January 28, 2008 >those mean old Republicans not letting them sign ANY bills.... You know the right wing is in trouble when their flagship stances are now being defended by the "but the democrats voted for them too! They're stupid too!" tactic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #113 January 28, 2008 QuoteClinton left a whole lot better than he inherited and Bush insisted on giving it back in the form of a stimulus Seems to me, Clinton left us with 3 out of 5 quarters of negative economic growth when Bush took over. Bush did nothing to fix it. Bush Clinton did nothing to stop it. QuotePlease, comment on the graph. My comment is that it shows spending was not under control under Clinton until after the opposition party was in power in Congress. Then it started the process of being controlled. QuoteClinton left the deficit at least 250B more in the black than did any of the Repubs since Reagan. God dammit. "More in the black?" Um, it is either "in the red" or "in the black." Perhaps you should say a more accurate statement - "Clinton left less in the red." That would be accurate. You can't be "more in the black" if you aren't "in the black" at all. Quotewhy was Bush allegedly reelected? Because despite what you think, the perception of the american people was that things were going fine. Housing was on the rise, economy humming, and Kerry just didn't seem right. Compare to Bush's daddy - things seemed wrong in America. Had Clinton run for re-election in 1994, he'd have lost. The people were disgusted with the Dem scandals (Republicans are doing a better job with those nowadays), they didn't trust him a bit after the Hillarycare debacle. Once he actually had to work with Congress to get stuff done, it went well for the guy. QuoteHe inherited 250B per year, left 23 M. So, in 8 years he couldn't get it done? Wow. That's effective. QuoteThis balck / white, all or nothing mentality doesn't fare well with critical thinking There are shades of gray in many things, not everything. Whether debt increased or decreased is a yes or no question. Some things are truly either black or "red." "Balanced" is either "Balanced" or "Unbalanced." I weigh more today than I did 10 years ago. Sure, I inherited a 15 pound weight increase in 1997-1998, but and I've only added 30 pounds since then. Thus, in the last ten years, I suppose I have lost more weight than I did in 1997-1998. Thus, a weightloss success story. Dude, things don't work like that. QuoteBleeding and bleeding to death are far different. There are shades of slamming the debt and LUCKY's party is really good at it. Yeah. Like telling someone, "You're not bleeding" if different than being honest and saying, "You're bleeding." Lucky, a Republican like you really makes the rest of the party look bad. I'd suggest you take a look at yourself and ask why you'd stay Republican. YOUR party and mine. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #114 January 28, 2008 Quote>those mean old Republicans not letting them sign ANY bills.... You know the right wing is in trouble when their flagship stances are now being defended by the "but the democrats voted for them too! They're stupid too!" tactic. LOL... isn't that what I've been saying for the last 3 years...that the Dems are just as stupid as the Reps?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #115 January 28, 2008 QuoteQuote>those mean old Republicans not letting them sign ANY bills.... You know the right wing is in trouble when their flagship stances are now being defended by the "but the democrats voted for them too! They're stupid too!" tactic. LOL... isn't that what I've been saying for the last 3 years...that the Dems are just as stupid as the Reps? the sad part of his post is saying the "right wing" is trouble when people recognize it - very partisan-still IMO rather.....people are recognizing that the two parties are both out of control... the GOOD part is that that the people are recognizing it. the GOOD part is that both the right wing and the left wing (as conceptual philosophies) will eventually get it. the only group "in trouble" is the leadership of those two parties that pretend to stand for either side for the sake of personal power - and I don't care if those guys are "in trouble" (oh, and those 'rubber stamp party line sheep' that think their party is the solution to all troubles - and I don't care if their imaginary worlds get tipped over either. I'm looking forward to it) seeing a normal Joe from either side pointing out the foibles that both parties have is a wonderful magical thing ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #116 January 28, 2008 >LOL... isn't that what I've been saying for the last 3 years... Sorry, not answering you directly. An awful lot of war supporters who thought the war was going to be the most glorious thing since World War II are now saying "hey, the democrats voted for it too! It's not really our doing." Blamestorming is one of the most popular pastimes for both parties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #117 January 28, 2008 QuoteHell, the SCOYUS has been 7-2 R owned for most of the last 27 years. Yes, YOUR party has nominated those guys. Guys like Stevens, and Souter, and Kennedy - who haven't exactly toed YOUR Republican Party line. Look at Blackmun - another who deviated from the positions of YOUR boy Nixon. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #118 January 28, 2008 To show some sign of intelligence you have to think beyond party lines when looking at politics.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #119 January 29, 2008 Quote Blamestorming is one of the most popular pastimes for both parties. BINGO!!!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
