An economic history study

[truthmatters]

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

This all comes from gov numbers linked at the bottom of the article

[Dilloduck]

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

This all comes from gov numbers linked at the bottom of the article

What's your point?

[truthmatters]

The point is the truth about who is the fiscal party.

[Dilloduck]

The point is the truth about who is the fiscal party.

That statement is absurd.

[PostmodernProphet]

In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration.


lol.....it's a shame he didn't start three years earlier, he could have accomplished it while he was still president....of course, in reality he didn't even want to start when he did and vetoed the first effort of Republicans to balance the budget, claiming it would bankrupt the country....it wasn't until they got enough votes to override his veto threats that Clinton finally managed to "balance the budget"......lol......

[jimnyc]

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm (http://www.cedarcomm.com/%7Estevelm1/usdebt.htm)

This all comes from gov numbers linked at the bottom of the article

We have a little thing going on right now called a "war". This causes our government to increase spending. These budgets have been approved by congress, you know, the congress made up of republicans AND democrats. Call me crazy, but I would imagine spending increased during any other war time in our history as well.

To give you an idea about our esteemed author of your article, here are some other titles he has written:

Views from the left
More views from the left
Bush bashing

And here he is himself:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/%7Estevelm1/Steve1979.jpg

[Sitarro]

As is typical of the cycle of government in our country, the Dems destroy our defense by cutting spending and closing bases when they are in power, then the Republicans come into power and have to spend ridiculous amounts to try to bring our military back to a state of rediness.

Clinton raised taxes more than anyone before him and then destroyed our military and the economies of the cities that were homes to the bases he closed..... thats how he balanced the budget. As for the surplus you always here the dimwhitted Dems talk about, it never existed, it was all on paper...... projected surplus...... more of the dishonesty of the leftist pricks.

[5stringJeff]

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

This all comes from gov numbers linked at the bottom of the article

The problem with your analysis is that it only considers the level of national debt to be a function of the political parties of the President/Congress, when, in fact, there are many other factors that influence national debt.

And, out of curiousity, what exactly do you consider the "correct" level of national debt to be (either in empirical terms or as a % of GDP)?

[truthmatters]

lol.....it's a shame he didn't start three years earlier, he could have accomplished it while he was still president....of course, in reality he didn't even want to start when he did and vetoed the first effort of Republicans to balance the budget, claiming it would bankrupt the country....it wasn't until they got enough votes to override his veto threats that Clinton finally managed to "balance the budget"......lol......


The GAO and the CBO both credit the 1993 budget reduction act passed in said year without ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE. Gore had to come to congress to vote to break the tie. This legislation did not start until 1994 and took a couple of years to bring the budget in line. Go to a debt counciler and tell him you want to bring 50,000 in debt in line in your life in one year and see what he tells you about how you can do this? It takes time to turn the breast arround when you are riding a monster. Instant results demands are for children and spoiled ones at that .

[truthmatters]

As is typical of the cycle of government in our country, the Dems destroy our defense by cutting spending and closing bases when they are in power, then the Republicans come into power and have to spend ridiculous amounts to try to bring our military back to a state of rediness.

Clinton raised taxes more than anyone before him and then destroyed our military and the economies of the cities that were homes to the bases he closed..... thats how he balanced the budget. As for the surplus you always here the dimwhitted Dems talk about, it never existed, it was all on paper...... projected surplus...... more of the dishonesty of the leftist pricks.

Nope its the republicans get fat off the military industrial complex and tell you this story and you unbelievibly buy it lock stock and barrel.









http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/view_profile.php?userid=8439 here is a profile and picture of the author of the piece.

[Dilloduck]

It takes time to turn the breast arround when you are riding a monster..

That's the damn truth but monsters are like that !

[PostmodernProphet]

without ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE

yep....because the proposal had higher spending than the one they proposed....

[truthmatters]

Dillo look at the charts and then go to the bottom and look at the links given for where the information comes from he used. The ones who send less are the Democrats and most people do not know this because they are fed the line that Dems are spend crazy. Dems spend on the peopel and Rs spend on the military. That is the truth. If you want the military even bigger and less spendig on domestic issues you go ahead and vote Republican. If you wat more spendig on domestic , lower debt , and less spent on the military then bvote dem. That si the truth.

[truthmatters]

yep....because the proposal had higher spending than the one they proposed....

And it is widely accredited with the majority of the deficit reduction i the 1990s.

The Rs fought it saying it would destroy the ecnomy and ran against the it on the next election and won on the fear they created. I think they knew it would work and after it won to their surprize they had to get elected at all cost to claim its effect as their own and they did.

[Dilloduck]

Dillo look at the charts and then go to the bottom and look at the links given for where the information comes from he used. The ones who send less are the Democrats and most people do not know this because they are fed the line that Dems are spend crazy. Dems spend on the peopel and Rs spend on the military. That is the truth. If you want the military even bigger and less spendig on domestic issues you go ahead and vote Republican. If you wat more spendig on domestic , lower debt , and less spent on the military then bvote dem. That si the truth.

I'm still on that "monster" and trying to turn the 'breast' around. Also trying to figure out how only one party can be 'fiscal'. They outta make a video game outta this --it's a blast.

[truthmatters]

Label it what you want the facts are still this. Rebuplican= large spendig on military and little to no spendig on domestic items unless it benifits some coporate agenda. Democrats= lower spending , domestic spending . less military spending.

If you want a balanced budget for our country you are more likely to get it under Dem representation as long as you mussle the corporations ability to buy the reps loyalty with perks or what ever.

So if you want a fiscally sound country you have to vote Democratic and effect laws to keep the corporations from havig control over our system.

If people in America were allowed to know these simple facts then the republiucan party would not get elected.

[Dilloduck]

Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or journalists. It has been loosely defined as "not quite libel".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism


'what does that have to do with this piece?

[Dilloduck]

'what does that have to do with this piece?

everything if you understand it

[truthmatters]

Why dont you detail for us what about this is yellow journalism?

Try telling us HOW it is wrong or flawed?

[Dilloduck]

Posting a link does not make said link true but you're fondness for hyperpartisan insanity ( much like some conservatives here ) makes the chances of me wasting anytime explaining it to you very slim. Why waste my time when you won't finishing discussing one post before you throw out another. Where are you grabbing all your stuff from anyway?

[truthmatters]

Posting a link does not make said link true but you're fondness for hyperpartisan insanity ( much like some conservatives here ) makes the chances of me wasting anytime explaining it to you very slim. Why waste my time when you won't finishing discussing one post before you throw out another. Where are you grabbing all your stuff from anyway?


The numbers are linked at the bottom of the article and as you will notice they are straight from the gov.

You see the days of just impuning the source and ignoring the content are not going to work for the GOP anymore.

People are starting to rely on the facts because the GOPs behavior has been under question due to the duplicity on their part.

[jimnyc]

The numbers are linked at the bottom of the article and as you will notice they are straight from the gov.

You see the days of just impuning the source and ignoring the content are not going to work for the GOP anymore.

People are starting to rely on the facts because the GOPs behavior has been under question due to the duplicity on their part.

I already posted why the spending was so high and you conveniently ignored my post. OF COURSE it's going to be higher during war time.

You see, the days of spouting rhetoric, lies & innuendo isn't going to work for the liberals anymore, and America is now laughing almost daily.

[Dilloduck]

The numbers are linked at the bottom of the article and as you will notice they are straight from the gov.

You see the days of just impuning the source and ignoring the content are not going to work for the GOP anymore.

People are starting to rely on the facts because the GOPs behavior has been under question due to the duplicity on their part.

You silly shit-----I can take those numbers and prove you're a turtle.

[truthmatters]

Go ahead lets see it?

This is what you people say every time the numbers are unleashed and I still have yet to see someone do it.

Its Do time for the Republcans in this country.Your party had all the riens for years and have no one left to blame it on. Its time to face the fiddler.

[jimnyc]

I LOVE when I'm ignored by so many liberals on this board, makes me know I presented something they can't dispute! :dance:

[truthmatters]

The Iraq war was a war of choice and its his responsibility. Americans know this and are for the most part wishing it had not been done. He gets the numbers he deserves and has to own them. They came from his choices.

[jimnyc]

The Iraq war was a war of choice and its his responsibility. Americans know this and are for the most part wishing it had not been done. He gets the numbers he deserves and has to own them. They came from his choices.

Once again your intellectual dishonesty shines through.

The war was a choice, decided upon by congress comprised of democrats and republicans. The funding was decided upon by congress comprised of democrats and republicans.

Nice try at distortions once again though!

[truthmatters]

Why did congress sign the Bill?

They did so to give Bush the right to use force if nessesary. Bush passed right by the deplomacy the congress asked for in the bill and lied about the intell to do what they wanted. The Dem congressmembers who did vote to TRUST Bush got their reward. The should have not trusted Bush and now they have and will continue the rest of their lives to pay the price.

Bush said this war would pay for its self. He lied.
Bush said he would use deplomacy first. He lied.
Bush said it would be over quickly. He lied.
Bush said they had WMDs. He lied.
Bush said they had AQ ties . He lied.
Bush desided to attack instead of believing the inspectors about the weapons.

Its was his decision.

He owns it.

[jimnyc]

Why did congress sign the Bill?

They did so to give Bush the right to use force if nessesary. Bush passed right by the deplomacy the congress asked for in the bill and lied about the intell to do what they wanted. The Dem congressmembers who did vote to TRUST Bush got their reward. The should have not trusted Bush and now they have and will continue the rest of their lives to pay the price.

Bush said this war would pay for its self. He lied.
Bush said he would use deplomacy first. He lied.
Bush said it would be over quickly. He lied.
Bush said they had WMDs. He lied.
Bush said they had AQ ties . He lied.
Bush desided to attack instead of believing the inspectors about the weapons.

Its was his decision.

He owns it.

Bad intelligence doesn't equate to lying. Democratic members of the intelligence committee saw the very same intel and drew the same conclusions. But keep on distorting, I find it funny actually! :laugh2:

Oh, and BTW:

diplomacy
necessary
intel
decided

You're welcome! :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/full_iraq_intel.php

They did ot see the same intell



A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."

The report does not cite examples of intelligence Bush reviewed that differed from what Congress saw. If such information is available, the report's authors do not have access to it. The Bush administration has routinely denied Congress access to documents, saying it would have a chilling effect on deliberations. The report, however, concludes that the Bush administration has been more restrictive than its predecessors in sharing intelligence with Congress.

[jimnyc]

I love how you stopped quoting where you did! Let's look at the next sentence, shall we?


The White House disputed both charges, noting that Congress often works directly with U.S. intelligence agencies and is privy to an enormous amount of classified information.

What you have cited gives ZERO PROOF to backup the allegations. But please do try again when you have something solid!