Reply With Quote
Don't forget about the dead enders complaining that no one reads the bills now and that they are too long.... you won't find posts from the resident hypocrites, I mean conservatives complaining when the GOP was in power..
Where were you during the Bush administration? Clinton was running surpluses in the years leading up the Bush admin. Now, thanks to Bush handing America a great depression waiting to happen, Obama has been forced to try and avoid it. You certainly don't lay school teachers off or decide to go into a spending freeze and think that is going to stimulate the economy. Is all the money going to be spent wisely in a stimulus package? No, but its necessary to regenerate the flow of business.
But then again, Bush Conservatives proved their philosophies couldn't run the country and they had 8 years to get something done, so why should anyone care what they have to say?
Don't forget about the dead enders complaining that no one reads the bills now and that they are too long.... you won't find posts from the resident hypocrites, I mean conservatives complaining when the GOP was in power..
spursreport.
Was Clinton really running surplus's or was it the disciplined Conservative revolution and their Contract with America? I do give him credit with seeing the way the political landscape was at the time, but think that was less with his political philosophy and more with him following and governing from polling data. Greenspan, writing about his time running the shadow government, said that the loss of surplus was more from the loss of value in our markets than with anything Bush did. He also said that Bush's taxcuts were not needed by the time Bush was elected (Greenspan took alot of heat for apearing to get into politics when he said the tax cuts bush proposed as a candidate would be beneficial). I think Greenspans take on the loss of the surplus is a pretty accurate position among economists.
Bush did spend too much money. To much pay-for-votes, fraud, waste, and made up amounts. Katrina is perfect example. The amount that was said wsa needed didn't come from econnomists, scientists, the mayor, govenor or anyone with first hand knowledge. It was an amount off the top of reid's head and then mcconnell added an amount and that became what it would take.
Now the Libs in one year are making the Repub congress of 02-06 look fiscally conservative.
so your reading minds again..I do give him credit with seeing the way the political landscape was at the time, but think that was less with his political philosophy and more with him following and governing from polling data.
From you I read..............nothing. I knew it.so your reading minds again..
you stated that you made up what his intentions were..you do that all the time...I do give him credit with seeing the way the political landscape was at the time, but think that was less with his political philosophy and more with him following and governing from polling data.
Maybe that is why I put the word 'think'.
at least you acknowledge now that you assume people's motives and read their minds to know their intentions... how intellectually dishonest of you.
Why don't you go patrol the spurs forum and look for people who are saying that the spurs are going to win tonight? There are people out there claiming to be able to see into the future and their intellectual dishonesty must not go unchallenged!
Do you think he would have had those if he had a democrat congress?
Now on top of that, they were surpluses of proposed budgets. He never really had a surplus after supplemental spending.
Really?
We were doing fine until the democrats took over congress. They also constantly eroded the optimism of Americans with the political campaigns saying how bad our growing economy was, scaring people away from buying things, and destroying the growth we had.
I though teachers were hired by the local communities they live in. WTF you talking about?
Oh... So you like paying for the mistakes of the elitist friends of democrats and hope for "Trickle-Down" stimulus?
First off, he was not a good conservative. He had as many liberal policies as conservative. And yes, his policies would have worked if the democrats weren't in the habit of undermining this nation.
What a short memory you have.
You guys constantly Bush-bash when it's not deserved. Why should any of us point out real problems we have with him when you guys overwhelm the threads with bull ?
Maybe if you were fair, we would be more open tom our dislikes...
Who are the real conservatives?
Despite the GOP spin, the historical records indicate that Democratic Presidents have always lowered the debt (since the great depression), while they have increased during Republican Presidents....Obama may be running deficits, as would be expected in recessions, but proposals such as paying for iraq and Afghanistan wars as we go, and the budget neutral health-care reform proposal show that its only a matter of time before Obama will be paying off the some of the debt just like his Democratic predicessors....
Dan, will you please find a graph that shows who controls congress vs. the debt...Who are the real conservatives?
Despite the GOP spin, the historical records indicate that Democratic Presidents have always lowered the debt (since the great depression), while they have increased during Republican Presidents....Obama may be running deficits, as would be expected in recessions, but proposals such as paying for iraq and Afghanistan wars as we go, and the budget neutral health-care reform proposal show that its only a matter of time before Obama will be paying off the some of the debt....
That is harder to gauge because it takes an average of 2 years for Congressional legislation to really effect the economy, while the President has veto power over all spending...
It's intellectually dishonest of you to claim that you can read Obama's mind like that. Right, GGA?
I know that is tongue-in-cheek, but I'm just going by the historical record...
And you forget about the E-Series bonds. They had a minimum guaranteed interest rate of 4%, or the market based yield, which ever was higher. They were sold at a 75% value for a 5 year maturity, but continued to gain interest for 40 years. When the Carter administration created high inflation, these bonds continue to be worth more and more. People held on to them as long as they could because they were great investments.
The ones good for 40 years were first issued in 1941. Guess what. They no longer gained interest in 1981, so people sold or converted them raising the deficit. These 5/40 year bonds were issued until 1965. However, in July 1980, the Carter administration ed the Reagan administration by approving the EE series bond. This bond guaranteed a 5 year return of double the investment (15.9%) and a guaranteed minimum 6% or 7.5% rate afterward depending on issue date. You can be sure smart investors cashed the E series in for EE series, and the banks held something like 85% of them. You can be certain these 85% were part of the early 80's deficit numbers.
That's why it is good this recession will break the people that were ignorant of the danger when Bush was in office.
Hard times produce wisdom for future related cir stances.
The thing with y'alls argument is it is weak.
"Where were all you hypocrites!?!?!?!"
"We were wrong."
"....uh...well....Bush did it too, quit hating on Obama, stfu!"
Bush sucked, we get it. Yet you continue to tell everyone just how much Bush sucked to justify Obama sucking. Good game brah.
Yes, that's what happens when the economy is doing well, the rich aren't getting tax cuts the federal government can't afford, and Trillions of dollars aren't being spent crusading through the Middle East. The only justifiable war in Afghanistan would have been over by now if it wasn't for Iraq. But at least Bush has the balls to say no to Cheney on invading Iran too.
No president will ever have a surplus after supplemental spending now. That money will get to go to China and other countries to pay off interest on our national debt. But that's better than having the economy collapse which would guarantee our nation's default.
Uhhh.... No. Sorry, but that's not really how it works. It has a little more to do with oil prices, the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, credit default swaps, derivatives, and a whole lot of other complicated financial instruments that you probably wouldn't be interested in... and least not in regulating better or at all. But I do like your answer though. Destroying the "optimism" of America just sounds right... even if it's completely and utterly wrong.
I'm talking about that thing that's been stepping in and paying teacher salaries when the local communities couldn't afford to. You know, that thing called the stimulus package.
LOL. Yeah, the gay marriage bashing, war mongering, tax-cutting oil man from Texas was all about liberal and conservative policies that would have worked if it weren't for the Democrats and their 2 year reign of terror in congress.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
