SkyDekker 1,465 #101 May 3, 2006 QuoteStill the best system around. How do you figure? The US is sliding towards bankruptcy while the communist system in China is just flying. Is the best cause it is America and you have been told it is the best, or do you actually have something to back that statement? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #102 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteStill the best system around. How do you figure? The US is sliding towards bankruptcy while the communist system in China is just flying. Seems I heard the same claim about the Japanese economy in the 1980's. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #103 May 3, 2006 Was the US economic situation similar to the one you are in now? Was Japan almost the exact opposite in political structure as the US? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #104 May 3, 2006 QuoteWas the US economic situation similar to the one you are in now? Was Japan almost the exact opposite in political structure as the US? So this time it's for real? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #105 May 3, 2006 QuoteSo this time it's for real? I think China holds a significant amount of economic power over America's head. Far more than most realize and certainly far more than Japan ever did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #106 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo if the people elect David Duke, then we can abolish the 13th????? Please, I can’t take it anymore…… Hate to break it to you, while I would not agree with your example, that IS how a Democracy works. QuoteOK, explain how the poor are benefited by the Repub Party. I already have. If you choose to ignore them, that is not my fault. QuoteHow is it that the Dems give money back? Look at the last 25 years and make that argument. Impossible Simple, a rich guy realizes he has enough and decides to help others. Not a hard concept to grasp QuoteYou tend to be Republican because you don’t look at facts. What can't you play nice? I am not attcaking you saying you are a Dem since you don't want to work for a living. You would rather have others work and you can just pop out kids and smoke dope. See how stupid both sound? Care to play nice, or act stupid? QuoteHate to break it to you, while I would not agree with your example, that IS how a Democracy works. Hate to break it to you, but we have a Congress to avoid any runaway nut job pres, as we now have. QuoteSimple, a rich guy realizes he has enough and decides to help others. Not a hard concept to grasp OMG!!!! So you think we should wait for the charitable contribution of some billionaire before we get social benefits? Brilliant!!! QuoteWhat can't you play nice? I am not attcaking you saying you are a Dem since you don't want to work for a living. You would rather have others work and you can just pop out kids and smoke dope. Me not play nice and then I want to pump out kids and smoke dope? OooooKay… I despise drugs and have no kids. I simply stated that you are Repub because you do not look at facts. Explain how the Repubs are good for this country. Explain the social measures, not flowery rhetoric. Explain how the economy and overall fiscal health have been benefited by the Repubs… explain all angles. QuoteSee how stupid both sound? Care to play nice, or act stupid? I merely stated you don’t look at he facts, hence vote Republican. I wasn’t attacking you. Look at my graphs and explain how it is that the Republicans have helped the US. QuoteIf you want to get into basics; Dems like welfare to people, Repubs like welfare to companies. Dems like social stability and think society should help those who are genuinely les advantaged. Is welfare to corps better? Does it help society or just the few who control these corps? QuoteCompanies make money and hire people. Welfare does not and will not make a Country stronger. While both groups have the same programs, the focus is what is important. Welfare does make a country stronger via more secure citizens. Furthermore, it isn’t all about strength when we refer to compassion for poor people. I agree, what is important? Rich corporations or secure people, less homeless. QuoteYour chart does not answer any questions as to why, or how it would have been different with anyone else in charge. Sure it does, under Clinton the debt went flat and the annual budget went up (230B) for the first time in 40 years. Would you like me to speculate as to what would have occurred if a president would have been elected or retained? QuoteYour "overspending" includes 2 wars. 1) Were the wars necessary? (NO) 2) This current war accounts for 15% of the total debt increase under Bush2. QuoteAnd did you not read how the Government is elected by the people and the majority get what they want? And if that is to "crush" Unions then they get that. It is how a Democracy works. And did you read my point about David Duke being elected and him imparting laws about the reenactment of slavery? Even though this is a Democracy, it is not a Monarchy, so the pres doesn’t have this reaching power, Congress shares a lot of it too. The US Sup Ct has a share of it too. QuoteAnd when those compaines have to go bankrupt? Who wins then? And when families go BK due to no medical coverage and other non-benefits, is that good for America? QuoteAnd you can have happy employees and a strong company. Look at Southwest Airlines and compare them to GM. Oooops! There goes your argument….. SW Airlines IS union. I would think you would suggest a non-union CO that is successful and compare it to a union company that is not. QuoteI am for people to have jobs to buy things from work. Not from Welfare. Do you think I’m different? But you have to leverage these corps into doing the right thing, because they have demonstrated they won’t by themselves. QuotePro-Union as you have stated is anti-company. If the company is dead, there is no reason to have a Union. If pay and benefits are so low, there is no need to have a job. QuoteI think that Repubs are for working people. They just choose to make it so they have the opportunity to have jobs, not just hand them things. The US was founded with Capitalism as a corner stone. While you cannot ignore the people who need help, how do you pay for it if everyone is on welfare? Everyone? I’m not saying everyone should be on welfare, but tax-paid medical coverage would be nice. What your argument is, is that supply-side economic, or, trickle down, is a good thing. Hoover tried it, Reagan tried it and Bush is doing it and it never seems to work. How about this, we give those who need , welfare and they spend it immediately, spurring the economy and creating jobs. If we go the other way then corps can just hang on to money and starve the economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #107 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteStill the best system around. How do you figure? The US is sliding towards bankruptcy while the communist system in China is just flying. Is the best cause it is America and you have been told it is the best, or do you actually have something to back that statement? Nailed it!!!! Not to mention parts of Socialist Europe are doing well..... OPEC is considering basing the price of gas on teh EURO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #108 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo this time it's for real? I think China holds a significant amount of economic power over America's head. Far more than most realize and certainly far more than Japan ever did. I don't think Japan's economy was ever big enough or their manufacturing capability large enough to produce the mass of goods, as China is. Perhaps that explins why a hiccup in Japan burst their bubble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #109 May 3, 2006 Your inability to comprehend the written word as well as economics is mind-boggling. Read up on your facts and get back to us. You're unfamiliar with the subject you are trying to discuss. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #110 May 3, 2006 QuoteYour inability to comprehend the written word as well as economics is mind-boggling. Read up on your facts and get back to us. You're unfamiliar with the subject you are trying to discuss. Hysterical!! This is what you wrote when stymied. Others have noticed, I'm not introducing some new revelation here. Explain yourself, go back and answer my questions/assertions, or just type some escape and run.... I think I know your avenue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #111 May 3, 2006 Anvil, again, if entitlements are the problem, then why is it that Clinton was able to stop the national debt bleeding and actually leave office with a 230B surplus at the end of his term while still introducing all kinds of new entitlements? Bush has cut these and will triple Clinton's national debt after 2 terms. The math doesn't work, the war, 911 and Katrina don't make the difference. As well, if you have these catastrophes, you can't cut taxes and might need to raise them at the dismay of your billionaire cronies. I doubt it, but see if you can refrain from making this about my supposed (per you) misunderstanding of the system. I could be a MENSA or of very low IQ and the facts don't change. I understand you have an impossible argument to make in this case, and I do feel your pain, but just bow out and save a modicum of dignity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #112 May 3, 2006 Bow out? Why should I? You've presented no facts I've not addressed, addressed none of the facts I've presented, and refuse to do anything other than spout standard liberal rhetoric and lies against/about republicans. Basically, you've presented nothing, responded to nothing, and when it comes to something substantial to say, have nothing apparently. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #113 May 3, 2006 QuoteBow out? Why should I? You've presented no facts I've not addressed, addressed none of the facts I've presented, and refuse to do anything other than spout standard liberal rhetoric and lies against/about republicans. Basically, you've presented nothing, responded to nothing, and when it comes to something substantial to say, have nothing apparently. I posted the history of the national debt, as apportioned by presidential terms. You asserted that it is the entitlements that cause the national debt to soar, yet you can’t explain how it is that Clinton had more entitlements than Reagan, Bush, Bush, yet debt leveled off and the annual budget went to a surplus after 8 years of Clinton. Here, I’ll post it again: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm This supports my assertion that the debt rose uncontrollably under Reagan, Bush, Bush, and came under control under Clinton. Is the source site wrong? Please state so if it is. Do you argue that the trio cut social programs and extended military programs? The differences between the trio and Clinton are opposite; the trio cut social programs/extended military programs - Clinton extended social programs and cut military programs. We see the outcome, yes? In all reality, Bush1 cut the military about as many personnel as Clinton, it just didn’t get the rhetoric from right quite as much. Posted are all arguments about the debt, not anything about you, I ask that you limit your arguments to that of the debt. Please, refute the assertions I made or concede. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #114 May 3, 2006 >Your inability to comprehend the written word . . . . Cut it out, Vinny. Respond to what he posted; don't attack him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #115 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo this time it's for real? I think China holds a significant amount of economic power over America's head. Far more than most realize and certainly far more than Japan ever did. I think China needs us as much as we need them. If they get ahead of themselves, we can always start buying goods from even cheaper sources like Vietnam. They're the ones that have to keep a billion people happy enough to accept the oppressing government. Is China growing? Without a doubt. But like the old commies in the USSR, some of those reports seem a bit rosy. How high they reach would seem to depend on how well they can handle the load of so many people, of which so many are not very well skilled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #116 May 3, 2006 QuoteBow out? Why should I? You've presented no facts I've not addressed, addressed none of the facts I've presented, and refuse to do anything other than spout standard liberal rhetoric and lies against/about republicans. Basically, you've presented nothing, responded to nothing, and when it comes to something substantial to say, have nothing apparently. A page full of crazy icons couldn't answer this post. But hey, when you got absoutely no legs to stand on, I guess I'd have to take your stance as well. At least Reagan could try to blame the Democrats since they control the House (and appropriations). But the current guy can't fall back to that one, nor can he blame a Carter Presidency for forcing him to spend money like crazy to revive the economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #117 May 3, 2006 QuoteI think China needs us as much as we need them. If they get ahead of themselves, we can always start buying goods from even cheaper sources like Vietnam. The model of capitalism would say you would already be buying those cheaper goods if you could. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #118 May 3, 2006 >I think China needs us as much as we need them. Definitely true. If we are wise enough to not become adversarial with them, that will work to our advantage as China grows stronger. I think the toughest part for some americans will be accepting that there will come a time when we're not #1 any more, and that we will have to treat other countries as equals instead of as unruly children (or as enemies.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #119 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteI think China needs us as much as we need them. If they get ahead of themselves, we can always start buying goods from even cheaper sources like Vietnam. The model of capitalism would say you would already be buying those cheaper goods if you could. but you have to factor in the costs of entry. Right now there's not enough reason to leave mainland China. But should the political scene change greatly, it make behoove US interests to invest in the manufacturing infrastructure in other developing nations. Look at the chain in Asia. First it was Japan, then Taiwan, then Korea, the PRC, and now places like Vietnam, with India entering the mix too but seemingly more on the knowledge work side. Eternal growth and success isn't guaranteed - and of course that's true for the US as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #120 May 3, 2006 I just wanted to throw in a point of order on entitlements and defense spending. With regard to defense spending you also need to consider the *emergency* spending requests that Bush deliberately keeps off the budget every year. Secondly, the entitlements take on a different status when you add things like the medicare drug plan, which is a windfall for the pharmaceutical companies and the congressmen who wrote the bill....and then turned around and went to work as lobbyists for those same pharmaceuticals. It's still a form of welfare but now it's corporate welfare. Also, I actually wrote my congressman on this idea. I was thinking that we should take defense spending off budget, like social security. That way we would see the deduction every week on our paychecks. Maybe people will think twice before invading another country or re-hiring defense contractors who repeatedly get busted for over billing. QuoteAnvil, again, if entitlements are the problem......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #121 May 3, 2006 QuoteHate to break it to you, but we have a Congress to avoid any runaway nut job pres, as we now have. OK, stop an listen before you type. My point is that the President and Congress are elected by the people. If the people elect representatives that wish to do "X" then, when "X" happens it is the will of the majority of the population and that is how a Democratic country works. QuoteOMG!!!! So you think we should wait for the charitable contribution of some billionaire before we get social benefits? Brilliant!!! Did I say that? No, I said it is one reason why a rich person would vote democratic. Really, stay on topic. Quote Me not play nice and then I want to pump out kids and smoke dope? OooooKay… I despise drugs and have no kids. I simply stated that you are Repub because you do not look at facts. You claiming I am a Republican because I don't look at facts is dumb. My response was to show you how dumb saying things like that is. Clearly you would rather preach than discuss anything since you don't bother to read what I respond with. QuoteWelfare does make a country stronger via more secure citizens. Furthermore, it isn’t all about strength when we refer to compassion for poor people. I agree, what is important? Rich corporations or secure people, less homeless. Show me how putting more people on welfare roles makes the country stronger. I can show you how a company that is doing well hires more and pays better. QuoteWould you like me to speculate as to what would have occurred if a president would have been elected or retained? A President WAS elected. QuoteDo you think I’m different? But you have to leverage these corps into doing the right thing, because they have demonstrated they won’t by themselves. Maybe 50 years ago, but not today. QuoteEveryone? I’m not saying everyone should be on welfare, but tax-paid medical coverage would be nice. What your argument is, is that supply-side economic, or, trickle down, is a good thing. Hoover tried it, Reagan tried it and Bush is doing it and it never seems to work. And yet Clintons plan didn't work either. As he was leaving office the economy was headed south. I think you place way to much importance on one person. Also, notice the country is still here even with your "failures" of Hoover, Reagan, and Bush. QuoteHow about this, we give those who need , welfare and they spend it immediately, spurring the economy and creating jobs. If we go the other way then corps can just hang on to money and starve the economy. How about we are not so quick to dole out the money of those that worked for it to those that are not. Then if they want something they get a job. With the money they get from that job they buy things. The problem with your plan is we given them something for nothing and expect that they will do good. That plan just means that we are giving them a free ride and paying for it. Where does this money come from? You cannot lift a bucket up when you are standing in it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #122 May 3, 2006 If you were familiar with the budget, the national debt, and how it came about, you would realize that mandatory spending has exceeded discretionary spending every year since 1974. Those of us familiar with such things certainly realize this, and therefore know that mandatory spending is the primary cost driver for the budget deficit. If you were familiar with cost projections for mandatory spending realize that with the Baby Boomers retiring along with the increase in life expectancy the rate of increase for mandatory spending will itself increase drastically. Those of us familiar with how appropriations are enacted realize that congress and the president both have roles to play. Those of us familiar with history realize that Clinton had a Republican House starting in 1994 and a Senate starting in '06 I believe - it could have been '00, but I forget. Regardless, Clinton had a Republican congress keeping him in check, which was a large part of his success. Those of us familiar with history also realize that Reagan had a democratic house and senate to deal with the entire gamut of his term. In case you've already forgotten, the legislative and executive branches are both involved in the appropriation of funds. Those of us familiar with history also know that the Democratic house and senate over-rode his veto on more than one appropriations bill. You were speaking of Reagan's discretionary spending being a disaster and that Republicans were to blame? Your partisan attack doesn't hold up to even a modicum of scrutiny - then again, one has to be familiar with history and the appropriations process to be cognizant of that. The democratic congressmen during Reagan's tenure in office contributed to his success as well in many areas of government. Those of us familiar with mandatory spending realize that the sitting president and congress have nothing to do with the legislation requiring that money to be spent unless they were also an elected representative at the time of its passing. Those of us familiar with mandatory spending also know that expanding social programs will increase mandatory spending, which is the main cost driver for the budget. Those of us familiar with discretionary spending realize that it is often foreign affairs, technological innovations, and catastrophes that drive discretionary spending. We who are familiar with such things also tend to be astute students of history, and are therefore quite cognizant of the Cold War, the internet, and the war on terror and their resultant effects on discretionary spending. Those of us who actually read my previous posts know that I gave credit to El Jefe Clintonista for his budgetary actions. Those of us familiar with basic accounting realize that those denouncing proposals to eliminate ineffective government programs have absolutely no credibility when discussing deficit reductions. Those of us who realize this chuckle most heartily when Democrats smear GWB for proposing to eliminate ineffective programs within the Department of Education. You'll see the phrase 'those of us familiar with' a multitude of times above. There's a reason for that. Some DZ.com'ers active within this thread are familiar with the budget and realize that both parties are to blame for our current situation and that we are in a pickle if we do not reform our entitlement programs. There are also those of us who don't have a clue with regards to history, budget formulation, budget execution, budget composition, or anything else other than partisan attacks against GWB. Those of us who do have a clue with regards to such things chuckle in the immediate, but worry about the long term for our nation because one might form a strong, strong argument that the pervasiveness of such ignorance throughout the electorate is as grave a threat to national security as any terrorist ever could be. Those of us who care, that is. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #123 May 4, 2006 Quote Those of us familiar with how appropriations are enacted realize that congress and the president both have roles to play. Those of us familiar with history realize that Clinton had a Republican House starting in 1994 and a Senate starting in '06 I believe - it could have been '00, but I forget. Regardless, Clinton had a Republican congress keeping him in check, which was a large part of his success. Those of us familiar with history also realize that Reagan had a democratic house and senate to deal with the entire gamut of his term. More lies, but funny enough. Those of us - is that a new form of the royal "we?" In any event, "us" don't know history very well. The GOP controlled the Senate 1981-1987. Or virtually the entire 'gamut' of his term. And it was the tax hikes that lead to the balanced budget that got the GOP in in 1994. And it is, of course, the current President who jacked up the entitlements in upcoming years by *trillions* with a half baked drug plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #124 May 4, 2006 Lies? I think not. I was pretty sure Reagan had a dem Senate as well - I'll have to look that up, actually. The House I know for sure - I recall the uproar when the GOP took it. It was the tax increase that lost them the in the '94 elections but it was an expanding economy and keeping discretionary spending under control that led to Clinton's budget success. GWB has jacked up the entitlement spending even more - which is yet another reason that entitlement spending is the main cost driver for the deficit and will be for years to come. To claim otherwise is simply not facing the facts of life. All of my budget data comes from CBO or OMB - from whence does yours come? DNC website perhaps? Left leaning political blog? Face the fact whenever you like - facts they do remain. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #125 May 4, 2006 Quote from whence does yours come? that thing called reality. Good luck discovering for the first time that the GOP owned the Senate during Reagan's terms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 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
DaVinci 0 #121 May 3, 2006 QuoteHate to break it to you, but we have a Congress to avoid any runaway nut job pres, as we now have. OK, stop an listen before you type. My point is that the President and Congress are elected by the people. If the people elect representatives that wish to do "X" then, when "X" happens it is the will of the majority of the population and that is how a Democratic country works. QuoteOMG!!!! So you think we should wait for the charitable contribution of some billionaire before we get social benefits? Brilliant!!! Did I say that? No, I said it is one reason why a rich person would vote democratic. Really, stay on topic. Quote Me not play nice and then I want to pump out kids and smoke dope? OooooKay… I despise drugs and have no kids. I simply stated that you are Repub because you do not look at facts. You claiming I am a Republican because I don't look at facts is dumb. My response was to show you how dumb saying things like that is. Clearly you would rather preach than discuss anything since you don't bother to read what I respond with. QuoteWelfare does make a country stronger via more secure citizens. Furthermore, it isn’t all about strength when we refer to compassion for poor people. I agree, what is important? Rich corporations or secure people, less homeless. Show me how putting more people on welfare roles makes the country stronger. I can show you how a company that is doing well hires more and pays better. QuoteWould you like me to speculate as to what would have occurred if a president would have been elected or retained? A President WAS elected. QuoteDo you think I’m different? But you have to leverage these corps into doing the right thing, because they have demonstrated they won’t by themselves. Maybe 50 years ago, but not today. QuoteEveryone? I’m not saying everyone should be on welfare, but tax-paid medical coverage would be nice. What your argument is, is that supply-side economic, or, trickle down, is a good thing. Hoover tried it, Reagan tried it and Bush is doing it and it never seems to work. And yet Clintons plan didn't work either. As he was leaving office the economy was headed south. I think you place way to much importance on one person. Also, notice the country is still here even with your "failures" of Hoover, Reagan, and Bush. QuoteHow about this, we give those who need , welfare and they spend it immediately, spurring the economy and creating jobs. If we go the other way then corps can just hang on to money and starve the economy. How about we are not so quick to dole out the money of those that worked for it to those that are not. Then if they want something they get a job. With the money they get from that job they buy things. The problem with your plan is we given them something for nothing and expect that they will do good. That plan just means that we are giving them a free ride and paying for it. Where does this money come from? You cannot lift a bucket up when you are standing in it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #122 May 3, 2006 If you were familiar with the budget, the national debt, and how it came about, you would realize that mandatory spending has exceeded discretionary spending every year since 1974. Those of us familiar with such things certainly realize this, and therefore know that mandatory spending is the primary cost driver for the budget deficit. If you were familiar with cost projections for mandatory spending realize that with the Baby Boomers retiring along with the increase in life expectancy the rate of increase for mandatory spending will itself increase drastically. Those of us familiar with how appropriations are enacted realize that congress and the president both have roles to play. Those of us familiar with history realize that Clinton had a Republican House starting in 1994 and a Senate starting in '06 I believe - it could have been '00, but I forget. Regardless, Clinton had a Republican congress keeping him in check, which was a large part of his success. Those of us familiar with history also realize that Reagan had a democratic house and senate to deal with the entire gamut of his term. In case you've already forgotten, the legislative and executive branches are both involved in the appropriation of funds. Those of us familiar with history also know that the Democratic house and senate over-rode his veto on more than one appropriations bill. You were speaking of Reagan's discretionary spending being a disaster and that Republicans were to blame? Your partisan attack doesn't hold up to even a modicum of scrutiny - then again, one has to be familiar with history and the appropriations process to be cognizant of that. The democratic congressmen during Reagan's tenure in office contributed to his success as well in many areas of government. Those of us familiar with mandatory spending realize that the sitting president and congress have nothing to do with the legislation requiring that money to be spent unless they were also an elected representative at the time of its passing. Those of us familiar with mandatory spending also know that expanding social programs will increase mandatory spending, which is the main cost driver for the budget. Those of us familiar with discretionary spending realize that it is often foreign affairs, technological innovations, and catastrophes that drive discretionary spending. We who are familiar with such things also tend to be astute students of history, and are therefore quite cognizant of the Cold War, the internet, and the war on terror and their resultant effects on discretionary spending. Those of us who actually read my previous posts know that I gave credit to El Jefe Clintonista for his budgetary actions. Those of us familiar with basic accounting realize that those denouncing proposals to eliminate ineffective government programs have absolutely no credibility when discussing deficit reductions. Those of us who realize this chuckle most heartily when Democrats smear GWB for proposing to eliminate ineffective programs within the Department of Education. You'll see the phrase 'those of us familiar with' a multitude of times above. There's a reason for that. Some DZ.com'ers active within this thread are familiar with the budget and realize that both parties are to blame for our current situation and that we are in a pickle if we do not reform our entitlement programs. There are also those of us who don't have a clue with regards to history, budget formulation, budget execution, budget composition, or anything else other than partisan attacks against GWB. Those of us who do have a clue with regards to such things chuckle in the immediate, but worry about the long term for our nation because one might form a strong, strong argument that the pervasiveness of such ignorance throughout the electorate is as grave a threat to national security as any terrorist ever could be. Those of us who care, that is. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #123 May 4, 2006 Quote Those of us familiar with how appropriations are enacted realize that congress and the president both have roles to play. Those of us familiar with history realize that Clinton had a Republican House starting in 1994 and a Senate starting in '06 I believe - it could have been '00, but I forget. Regardless, Clinton had a Republican congress keeping him in check, which was a large part of his success. Those of us familiar with history also realize that Reagan had a democratic house and senate to deal with the entire gamut of his term. More lies, but funny enough. Those of us - is that a new form of the royal "we?" In any event, "us" don't know history very well. The GOP controlled the Senate 1981-1987. Or virtually the entire 'gamut' of his term. And it was the tax hikes that lead to the balanced budget that got the GOP in in 1994. And it is, of course, the current President who jacked up the entitlements in upcoming years by *trillions* with a half baked drug plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #124 May 4, 2006 Lies? I think not. I was pretty sure Reagan had a dem Senate as well - I'll have to look that up, actually. The House I know for sure - I recall the uproar when the GOP took it. It was the tax increase that lost them the in the '94 elections but it was an expanding economy and keeping discretionary spending under control that led to Clinton's budget success. GWB has jacked up the entitlement spending even more - which is yet another reason that entitlement spending is the main cost driver for the deficit and will be for years to come. To claim otherwise is simply not facing the facts of life. All of my budget data comes from CBO or OMB - from whence does yours come? DNC website perhaps? Left leaning political blog? Face the fact whenever you like - facts they do remain. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #125 May 4, 2006 Quote from whence does yours come? that thing called reality. Good luck discovering for the first time that the GOP owned the Senate during Reagan's terms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
