Let us get this budget surplus and deficit stuff straight once and for all

[JRK]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

 

[signelect]

Congress doesn't want a balanced budget. Where do you think they get their real compensation from, it's not their salary it is from the payoff in the form of job for relatives working for gov't contractors and benefits they have voted for themselves. This has been going on for years.

 

[toxicmedia]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

Good thread.....but.....Stephen Moore is an idiot.

 

[auditor0007]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

I have no problem giving Gingrich and the Republicans credit. Clinton also deserves part of the credit because he worked with Congress to get it done. And lest we forget, taxes were higher at that time.

Then comes Bush, who pretty much had a decent economy to work with. Even with the two small recessions, unemployment never dipped very much and rebounded back strong enough, so he was never fighting a horrible economy by any means, yet the deficits soared and they didn't even include the cost of the unfunded wars he got us into. Now you try to compare the Dems and Obama running massive deficits during our worst economy since the Great Depression (not comparing, because this is nowhere near as bad) to Bush's deficits. Of course we are in worse shape now. We have had a massive drop in tax revenue, we are now actually accounting for the cost of our wars, and we now have 9 plus percent unemployment. But you are going to try to blame the bad economy on the Dems and Obama when this started before Obama ever took office. It's time for a reality check. I think the biggest problem is that some of you actually think things would have been different had the Republicans held on to Congress and the Whitehouse. Sorry but nothing would be different.

 

[JRK]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

I have no problem giving Gingrich and the Republicans credit. Clinton also deserves part of the credit because he worked with Congress to get it done. And lest we forget, taxes were higher at that time.

Then comes Bush, who pretty much had a decent economy to work with. Even with the two small recessions, unemployment never dipped very much and rebounded back strong enough, so he was never fighting a horrible economy by any means, yet the deficits soared and they didn't even include the cost of the unfunded wars he got us into. Now you try to compare the Dems and Obama running massive deficits during our worst economy since the Great Depression (not comparing, because this is nowhere near as bad) to Bush's deficits. Of course we are in worse shape now. We have had a massive drop in tax revenue, we are now actually accounting for the cost of our wars, and we now have 9 plus percent unemployment. But you are going to try to blame the bad economy on the Dems and Obama when this started before Obama ever took office. It's time for a reality check. I think the biggest problem is that some of you actually think things would have been different had the Republicans held on to Congress and the Whitehouse. Sorry but nothing would be different.

who told you the deficits did not have the wars included in them?
thats the biggest lie out there today
from the same link I have to keep using
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

tax revenue? not from tax cuts

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republican congress in the nineties was under the constraints of PAYGO.

Then they let it expire after Bush was elected, so they could get back to their real selves, borrowing and spending like crazy.

 

[code1211]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

I have no problem giving Gingrich and the Republicans credit. Clinton also deserves part of the credit because he worked with Congress to get it done. And lest we forget, taxes were higher at that time.

Then comes Bush, who pretty much had a decent economy to work with. Even with the two small recessions, unemployment never dipped very much and rebounded back strong enough, so he was never fighting a horrible economy by any means, yet the deficits soared and they didn't even include the cost of the unfunded wars he got us into. Now you try to compare the Dems and Obama running massive deficits during our worst economy since the Great Depression (not comparing, because this is nowhere near as bad) to Bush's deficits. Of course we are in worse shape now. We have had a massive drop in tax revenue, we are now actually accounting for the cost of our wars, and we now have 9 plus percent unemployment. But you are going to try to blame the bad economy on the Dems and Obama when this started before Obama ever took office. It's time for a reality check. I think the biggest problem is that some of you actually think things would have been different had the Republicans held on to Congress and the Whitehouse. Sorry but nothing would be different.

Is that by way of a solution? A blame fest is a little like masturbation. It must make you feel good, but it produces nothing.

We are where we are. It would be nice to turn the debt clock back 4 Trillion to the start of the Big 0's failure of 6 Trillion to go all the way back to the start of W's.

Too bad. We can't.

Any journey must start from where you are. We are in deep poop. it's time to start trying to get out. Bemoaning the problems of something 3 years ago, AGAIN, and again, is non productive and frankly a little stupid.

Want to blame someone? Blame the guy in the mirror and then ask him politely to fix it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

I have no problem giving Gingrich and the Republicans credit. Clinton also deserves part of the credit because he worked with Congress to get it done. And lest we forget, taxes were higher at that time.

Then comes Bush, who pretty much had a decent economy to work with. Even with the two small recessions, unemployment never dipped very much and rebounded back strong enough, so he was never fighting a horrible economy by any means, yet the deficits soared and they didn't even include the cost of the unfunded wars he got us into. Now you try to compare the Dems and Obama running massive deficits during our worst economy since the Great Depression (not comparing, because this is nowhere near as bad) to Bush's deficits. Of course we are in worse shape now. We have had a massive drop in tax revenue, we are now actually accounting for the cost of our wars, and we now have 9 plus percent unemployment. But you are going to try to blame the bad economy on the Dems and Obama when this started before Obama ever took office. It's time for a reality check. I think the biggest problem is that some of you actually think things would have been different had the Republicans held on to Congress and the Whitehouse. Sorry but nothing would be different.

No, idiot.
The 2001 recession had MORE job loss that the 2008 one. What kept it from becoming bad were Bush's policies, which continued to encourage job creation.
Obama's recession is worse precisely because of Obama's policies.

This thread is doomed because the leftys will never admit the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

I have no problem giving Gingrich and the Republicans credit. Clinton also deserves part of the credit because he worked with Congress to get it done. And lest we forget, taxes were higher at that time.

Then comes Bush, who pretty much had a decent economy to work with. Even with the two small recessions, unemployment never dipped very much and rebounded back strong enough, so he was never fighting a horrible economy by any means, yet the deficits soared and they didn't even include the cost of the unfunded wars he got us into. Now you try to compare the Dems and Obama running massive deficits during our worst economy since the Great Depression (not comparing, because this is nowhere near as bad) to Bush's deficits. Of course we are in worse shape now. We have had a massive drop in tax revenue, we are now actually accounting for the cost of our wars, and we now have 9 plus percent unemployment. But you are going to try to blame the bad economy on the Dems and Obama when this started before Obama ever took office. It's time for a reality check. I think the biggest problem is that some of you actually think things would have been different had the Republicans held on to Congress and the Whitehouse. Sorry but nothing would be different.

No, idiot.
The 2001 recession had MORE job loss that the 2008 one. What kept it from becoming bad were Bush's policies, which continued to encourage job creation.
Obama's recession is worse precisely because of Obama's policies.

This thread is doomed because the leftys will never admit the truth.

Proof?

 

[The Rabbi]

I have no problem giving Gingrich and the Republicans credit. Clinton also deserves part of the credit because he worked with Congress to get it done. And lest we forget, taxes were higher at that time.

Then comes Bush, who pretty much had a decent economy to work with. Even with the two small recessions, unemployment never dipped very much and rebounded back strong enough, so he was never fighting a horrible economy by any means, yet the deficits soared and they didn't even include the cost of the unfunded wars he got us into. Now you try to compare the Dems and Obama running massive deficits during our worst economy since the Great Depression (not comparing, because this is nowhere near as bad) to Bush's deficits. Of course we are in worse shape now. We have had a massive drop in tax revenue, we are now actually accounting for the cost of our wars, and we now have 9 plus percent unemployment. But you are going to try to blame the bad economy on the Dems and Obama when this started before Obama ever took office. It's time for a reality check. I think the biggest problem is that some of you actually think things would have been different had the Republicans held on to Congress and the Whitehouse. Sorry but nothing would be different.

No, idiot.
The 2001 recession had MORE job loss that the 2008 one. What kept it from becoming bad were Bush's policies, which continued to encourage job creation.
Obama's recession is worse precisely because of Obama's policies.

This thread is doomed because the leftys will never admit the truth.

Proof?

Look at the posts from the Left. Even though the OP is spot on they cannot accept the truth.

 

[Flopper]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

I have no problem giving Gingrich and the Republicans credit. Clinton also deserves part of the credit because he worked with Congress to get it done. And lest we forget, taxes were higher at that time.

Then comes Bush, who pretty much had a decent economy to work with. Even with the two small recessions, unemployment never dipped very much and rebounded back strong enough, so he was never fighting a horrible economy by any means, yet the deficits soared and they didn't even include the cost of the unfunded wars he got us into. Now you try to compare the Dems and Obama running massive deficits during our worst economy since the Great Depression (not comparing, because this is nowhere near as bad) to Bush's deficits. Of course we are in worse shape now. We have had a massive drop in tax revenue, we are now actually accounting for the cost of our wars, and we now have 9 plus percent unemployment. But you are going to try to blame the bad economy on the Dems and Obama when this started before Obama ever took office. It's time for a reality check. I think the biggest problem is that some of you actually think things would have been different had the Republicans held on to Congress and the Whitehouse. Sorry but nothing would be different.

Is that by way of a solution? A blame fest is a little like masturbation. It must make you feel good, but it produces nothing.

We are where we are. It would be nice to turn the debt clock back 4 Trillion to the start of the Big 0's failure of 6 Trillion to go all the way back to the start of W's.

Too bad. We can't.

Any journey must start from where you are. We are in deep poop. it's time to start trying to get out. Bemoaning the problems of something 3 years ago, AGAIN, and again, is non productive and frankly a little stupid.

Want to blame someone? Blame the guy in the mirror and then ask him politely to fix it.

Someone once said, Blame is just a lazy person's way of making sense of chaos. I think that certainly applies to the current political chaos. For some reason, we must always have someone to blame for just about everything. We would be must better off if we just accepted the fact that shit happens, and look forward for solutions instead of looking back for someone to blame.

However, if we stop playing the blame game, this board would cease to exist and we would have to find something more constructive to do with our time.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have no problem giving Gingrich and the Republicans credit. Clinton also deserves part of the credit because he worked with Congress to get it done. And lest we forget, taxes were higher at that time.

Then comes Bush, who pretty much had a decent economy to work with. Even with the two small recessions, unemployment never dipped very much and rebounded back strong enough, so he was never fighting a horrible economy by any means, yet the deficits soared and they didn't even include the cost of the unfunded wars he got us into. Now you try to compare the Dems and Obama running massive deficits during our worst economy since the Great Depression (not comparing, because this is nowhere near as bad) to Bush's deficits. Of course we are in worse shape now. We have had a massive drop in tax revenue, we are now actually accounting for the cost of our wars, and we now have 9 plus percent unemployment. But you are going to try to blame the bad economy on the Dems and Obama when this started before Obama ever took office. It's time for a reality check. I think the biggest problem is that some of you actually think things would have been different had the Republicans held on to Congress and the Whitehouse. Sorry but nothing would be different.

Is that by way of a solution? A blame fest is a little like masturbation. It must make you feel good, but it produces nothing.

We are where we are. It would be nice to turn the debt clock back 4 Trillion to the start of the Big 0's failure of 6 Trillion to go all the way back to the start of W's.

Too bad. We can't.

Any journey must start from where you are. We are in deep poop. it's time to start trying to get out. Bemoaning the problems of something 3 years ago, AGAIN, and again, is non productive and frankly a little stupid.

Want to blame someone? Blame the guy in the mirror and then ask him politely to fix it.

Someone once said, Blame is just a lazy person's way of making sense of chaos. I think that certainly applies to the current political chaos. For some reason, we must always have someone to blame for just about everything. We would be must better off if we just accepted the fact that shit happens, and look forward for solutions instead of looking back for someone to blame.

However, if we stop playing the blame game, this board would cease to exist and we would have to find something more constructive to do with our time.

Wow, what a rationalization. So no one is responsible because "shit happens." What a desperate move.
In fact the present situation is entirely the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, who ran up the national debt beyond all proportions.
Knowing the cause is the first step to a cure. That step must be the repudiation of the left wing of the Democratic party at the polls and hte emergence of fiscally responsible Democrats. That and defeating every Democrat standing for election.

 

[JRK]

Is that by way of a solution? A blame fest is a little like masturbation. It must make you feel good, but it produces nothing.

We are where we are. It would be nice to turn the debt clock back 4 Trillion to the start of the Big 0's failure of 6 Trillion to go all the way back to the start of W's.

Too bad. We can't.

Any journey must start from where you are. We are in deep poop. it's time to start trying to get out. Bemoaning the problems of something 3 years ago, AGAIN, and again, is non productive and frankly a little stupid.

Want to blame someone? Blame the guy in the mirror and then ask him politely to fix it.

Someone once said, Blame is just a lazy person's way of making sense of chaos. I think that certainly applies to the current political chaos. For some reason, we must always have someone to blame for just about everything. We would be must better off if we just accepted the fact that shit happens, and look forward for solutions instead of looking back for someone to blame.

However, if we stop playing the blame game, this board would cease to exist and we would have to find something more constructive to do with our time.

Wow, what a rationalization. So no one is responsible because "shit happens." What a desperate move.
In fact the present situation is entirely the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, who ran up the national debt beyond all proportions.
Knowing the cause is the first step to a cure. That step must be the repudiation of the left wing of the Democratic party at the polls and hte emergence of fiscally responsible Democrats. That and defeating every Democrat standing for election.

My intent is never blame, it is to learn and to teach. The worst enemy the Left wing of the democratic party has is a voter who knows the truth. Understands just how our system works

What if we had a GOP senate? Where would the Ryan budget be now?

 

[8537]

No, idiot.
The 2001 recession had MORE job loss that the 2008 one.

Holy shit man, we have entered upside-down world. In what universe did the 2001 recession have MORE job loss than the one that started in December of 2007?

 

[8537]

In fact the present situation is entirely the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, who ran up the national debt beyond all proportions.
Knowing the cause is the first step to a cure. That step must be the repudiation of the left wing of the Democratic party at the polls and hte emergence of fiscally responsible Democrats. That and defeating every Democrat standing for election.

The Bush White House was predicting on-budget deficits of 602 and 611B for 2009 and 2010. Then that same White House added 350B for TARP. Then revenues collapsed by 400B.

Without a single Obama policy, the Bush White House would have been staring at a 1.3T on-budget deficit in 2009 - by its own calculations.

 

[Cuyo]

Is that by way of a solution? A blame fest is a little like masturbation. It must make you feel good, but it produces nothing.

We are where we are. It would be nice to turn the debt clock back 4 Trillion to the start of the Big 0's failure of 6 Trillion to go all the way back to the start of W's.

Too bad. We can't.

Any journey must start from where you are. We are in deep poop. it's time to start trying to get out. Bemoaning the problems of something 3 years ago, AGAIN, and again, is non productive and frankly a little stupid.

Want to blame someone? Blame the guy in the mirror and then ask him politely to fix it.

Someone once said, Blame is just a lazy person's way of making sense of chaos. I think that certainly applies to the current political chaos. For some reason, we must always have someone to blame for just about everything. We would be must better off if we just accepted the fact that shit happens, and look forward for solutions instead of looking back for someone to blame.

However, if we stop playing the blame game, this board would cease to exist and we would have to find something more constructive to do with our time.

Wow, what a rationalization. So no one is responsible because "shit happens." What a desperate move.
In fact the present situation is entirely the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, who ran up the national debt beyond all proportions.
Knowing the cause is the first step to a cure. That step must be the repudiation of the left wing of the Democratic party at the polls and hte emergence of fiscally responsible Democrats. That and defeating every Democrat standing for election.

It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.

 

[JRK]

Someone once said, Blame is just a lazy person's way of making sense of chaos. I think that certainly applies to the current political chaos. For some reason, we must always have someone to blame for just about everything. We would be must better off if we just accepted the fact that shit happens, and look forward for solutions instead of looking back for someone to blame.

However, if we stop playing the blame game, this board would cease to exist and we would have to find something more constructive to do with our time.

Wow, what a rationalization. So no one is responsible because "shit happens." What a desperate move.
In fact the present situation is entirely the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, who ran up the national debt beyond all proportions.
Knowing the cause is the first step to a cure. That step must be the repudiation of the left wing of the Democratic party at the polls and hte emergence of fiscally responsible Democrats. That and defeating every Democrat standing for election.

It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.
It would have been the same with McCain, dummy.

Who said anything about McCain?
and would it be the same right now?
not even close, I do not know if it would be much better, but the debt would not be out of control

 

[The Rabbi]

No, idiot.
The 2001 recession had MORE job loss that the 2008 one.

Holy shit man, we have entered upside-down world. In what universe did the 2001 recession have MORE job loss than the one that started in December of 2007?

The Cause of High Unemployment: Still Due to Dwindling Job Creation

Cue "right wing bias" deflection, coming in 3...2....

 

[edthecynic]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

More like the GOP is trying to take credit for Clinton's great economy.

Remember not one single Republican voted for Clinton's 1993 tax reform bill which was solely and completely responsible for the great Clinton economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

In fact the present situation is entirely the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, who ran up the national debt beyond all proportions.
Knowing the cause is the first step to a cure. That step must be the repudiation of the left wing of the Democratic party at the polls and hte emergence of fiscally responsible Democrats. That and defeating every Democrat standing for election.

The Bush White House was predicting on-budget deficits of 602 and 611B for 2009 and 2010. Then that same White House added 350B for TARP. Then revenues collapsed by 400B.

Without a single Obama policy, the Bush White House would have been staring at a 1.3T on-budget deficit in 2009 - by its own calculations.

I thought Obama was elected to end the failed policies of George W Bush?
Blaming Bush is fucking gay, s0n.