Operation Clusterf*ck

[finebead]

Oh really? Provide some evidence, cite all the vetos that Clinton made from 94 to 2000. Be sure to specify the ones dealing with the budget.

The republicans held both houses of congress from 1994 to 2006. Clinton was pres. from 92 to 2000, Bush from 2001 to today.

After 8 years in office, Clinton produced a balanced budget and actually paid some on the national debt.

After 7 years in office, Bush has added 4 Trillion to the total national debt.

The republicans held congress the whole time. The only difference was who held the white house.

Your point that the repub congress produced Clinton's balanced budget is nonsense. If it was true, they would have continued to behave responsibly, which they did not. They increased the total national debt by 60% in 7 short years.

You don't have to veto bills to cut spending, you can also pass legislation that makes programs more efficient.

What did Bush veto, or what did he pass to make things more efficient? How about you posting some proof.

 

[Steerpike]

You are incorrect finebead. The Republicans dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to a balanced budget. Once Bush got in the GOP in Congress started going along with the spending the President he wanted because he was from their party. In both cases, balanced budget and not balanced, the Congress gets the credit or blame. They simply weren't willing to oppose one of their own in the White House like they were when a Democrat was in.

Congress controls the budget. They rejected a lot of what Clinton wanted to do, but unfortunately didn't do the same with Bush.

 

[finebead]

You are incorrect finebead. The Republicans dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to a balanced budget. Once Bush got in the GOP in Congress started going along with the spending the President he wanted because he was from their party. In both cases, balanced budget and not balanced, the Congress gets the credit or blame. They simply weren't willing to oppose one of their own in the White House like they were when a Democrat was in.

A description of republicans in congress as having NO BUSINESS SENSE, NO BALLS, NO CONCERN FOR THE WELFARE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND NO PERSONAL INTEGRITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE NATION.

A morally bankrupt republican congress.

If you think that congress can turn completely around that quickly, you're a boy scout. Clinton campaigned on welfare reform, and he did it, after vetoing 2 proposals from congress. He forced compromise by his vetos, and got a bill where neither side got exactly what they wanted, but both could live with it. They cut 50 billion in welfare spending. Congress could not do what they wanted without Clinton's approval. The system actually worked pretty well.

Your description of what happened under Bush merely proves my point that the budget gains of the 90's were not due to the congress, they were due to Clinton who kept them in line, where Bush signed whatever they sent him and they sent him excess pork.

 

[Steerpike]

Sorry finebead, that's just not in line with reality. If Clinton had a Democratic congress that would've gone along with everything he wanted, he never would have had a balanced budget. The congress forced him into it. They weren't willing to do the same with Bush. The Congress had the power to force both Bush and Clinton on spending matters. They used it repeatedly and effectively against Clinton, but did not use it against Bush. If you want to have a different opinion of what happened during the Clinton years, then you're welcome to it but you will be mistaken. The Congress is chiefly responsible for the budget. If they'd rubber-stamped Clinton's budgets like they did Bush's, we wouldn't have had the budgets we got in the 1990s.

 

[Steerpike]

Look at this LA Times archived article if you need a refresher on what was going on in the 1990s:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...ng+money+for+several+activities.&pqatl=google

President Clinton and his lieutenants are brandishing their weapons for what is billed as the climactic battle over government policy, the struggle that begins this week over the Republican bill aimed at balancing the budget in seven years.

Over the last two weeks, Clinton has quietly acceded to Republican demands and signed spending bills that would make big cuts in mass transit subsidies, slash funding for the government's tax collectors, begin pulling the plug on federal aid to Amtrak and otherwise scale back the size and scope of federal activities.

"We've had successes and we've had losses," conceded one Clinton Administration official. For example, the same agriculture appropriations bill that provided a significant increase for a nutrition program Clinton favored came saddled with a 10% cut in rural development aid, which the Administration opposed. "We're not happy about it, but he signed it," the Administration official said.

Last line is a perfect example of what happened to Clinton repeatedly in the 1990s. He wasn't happy with it but he signed it.

Clinton was, as I said above, dragged kicking and screaming into a balanced budget. Or maybe the LA Times, the bastion of conservative bias, was just misreporting?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wars cost money. No 9/11 and the following wars and no proof Congress would have spent like they did.

 

[Steerpike]

Wars cost money. No 9/11 and the following wars and no proof Congress would have spent like they did.

No proof, but I bet they would have it Bush had wanted them to. I don't think they were prepared to oppose a GOP President the way they opposed a Democrat.

 

[mattskramer]

You are of course aware that Bush put his investments in blind trusts and has no idea what those investments are right? That Cheney did the same and even ordered that if the return on investments were over a set amount the rest went to charity?

For being so smart, you liberals sure are stupid about how our Government works.

There are many reasonable speculative reasons for why we went to war. The beliefs (as flimsily supported as they were) that Saddam was a threat to the USA, had close links with terrorist organizations, and had WMD are some reasons. I also think that Bush was eager to go to war with Iraq long before 9-11. Figuratively stated, he wanted to “finish the job that his daddy started. He also wanted to kill the guy who tried to kill his dad. See: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

It was cowboy revenge diplomacy on an international scale. He also wanted to help Cheney help his buddies at Haliburton with a lucrative opportunity. He wanted America to have more influence over the oil.

 

[Alucard]

We got in THIS war for ISRAEL! And regardless of why we got in, we now have the responsability to do our best to complete the job and not abandon the situation.

LOL

So you admit bush lied about the reasons for war. And yet, I'd be willing to bet that 5 years ago, you were calling anyone who said bush was lying about the reasons for war, an anti-america, pro-saddam, terrorist lover.

How can I admit to something that there is absolutely NO evidence of....And if today after all the evidence showing Bush reacted along with the democrats in congress( I'll list them if need be..it a long list though) to the evidence before them...yet still attack our president because of your "hunch and unfounded suspicians when evidence shows otherwise.... then yes you are an" anti-america, pro-saddam, terrorist lover." as you put it....

 

[mattskramer]

How can I admit to something that there is absolutely NO evidence of....And if today after all the evidence showing Bush reacted along with the democrats in congress( I'll list them if need be..it a long list though) to the evidence before them...yet still attack our president because of your "hunch and unfounded suspicians when evidence shows otherwise.... then yes you are an" anti-america, pro-saddam, terrorist lover." as you put it....

I grant you that being wrong and telling a lie are not necessarily the same thing. Yet, Bush could have waited. He could have demanded more concrete and absolute proof. He was the one who ultimately “pushed the button”.

 

[Gunny]

This is the key question. What would we get out of the dems? From an economic point of view, there is no doubt Clinton was the best president out of both Bush's.

There will be looting of the till under both parties, its the nature of the Washington beast.

I vote to minimize killing of good young americans at war, as the means to feather the politicians nest.

Clinton left the nation far better positioned economically than Bush will. There has been no bigger economic idiot than Bush and his croonies. None. Deficit up 60% from 5 trillion to 9+ trillion in 7 years, with one more to go. Pathetic. Dollar lost half its purchasing power against the euro, and 2/3's of its purchasing power against gold.

Why do you call the dems a bigger bunch of idiots? The 90's were good for America. Not perfect, but MUCH BETTER than the Bush years, either one of them.

Pretty peaceful world, growing ecomomy, low inflation, high employment, balanced the budget, stopped a genocide in Kosovo at low cost to the US. So why do you call them bigger idiots?

We'll have to disagree on that. The 90s came about 2 cents away from bankrupting me. Neither Bush had anything on Jimmy Carter, so I wouldn't call him the worst.

If you're going to use today's totals as proof, then it would only be fair to express the dollars of any administration you might be comparing the present on to in today's dollars.

What numbercrunchers always fail to understand is that I really don't care what the ink looks like on a piece of paper if I can't even afford a trip to Blockbuster because I just got hammered with new taxes.

Pretty peaceful world? Maybe if you lived here in the US and didn't stick your head out the window. And maybe you didn't notice most of the equipment we had that was new in 1990 being held together with tie-wire and duct tape because Clinton did a lot of his numbers balancing on the military's back, but it was the reality in which I lived and had to work.

 

[Gunny]

Pure unadulterated BS! That same congress had control, WITH THE WHITE HOUSE ALSO, from 2000 to 2006, and THEY are the ones who screwed it all up. The only difference was Bill Clinton and the democratic leadership. If the 90's prosperity was due to the repub congress of the 90's, they could have stayed fiscally responsible, but without Clinton, they became drunken sailors because Bush is stupid, and he never vetoed a spending bill.

The dems were superior leaders of the government, in terms of providing an overall prosperous environment for all americans.

Absurd. The democrats cut our throats to make numbers look good on paper and we walked out of the 90s one step ahead of a recession because of it. We're paying NOW for the corners he cut THEN and you want to lay it on Republicans.

Everything he ignored throughtout the 90s has cost us more to pay for now. He played a shell game with the cash and apparently more than a few bought right off on it.

 

[Alucard]

I grant you that being wrong and telling a lie are not necessarily the same thing. Yet, Bush could have waited. He could have demanded more concrete and absolute proof. He was the one who ultimately “pushed the button”.

And lets not forget he was being hard pressed by many in congress( including hillary) to take action...

I agree matts, things could of went differently... But they didnt...

But to fight amongst one another and dwell on the past does not bring progress... Its time to move on and do what is right and nessasary to stabilize Iraq... get our kids home... then take whatever measures we have to, to capture and kill bin ladin...

We as americans have to put some things to rest, set aside party lines, and forget petty disagreements we can settle later and focus on the big enchilada...

I know you, myself, MM, shogn, dcd, jillian, rgs, regardless of our differences must be capable of finding a middleground... if some could just bend a little and not be so afraid of God forbid being wrong...

If we cant... well... unforunately things will get worse...

Its time to try to come together....

 

[finebead]

Absurd. The democrats cut our throats to make numbers look good on paper and we walked out of the 90s one step ahead of a recession because of it. We're paying NOW for the corners he cut THEN and you want to lay it on Republicans.

Everything he ignored throughtout the 90s has cost us more to pay for now. He played a shell game with the cash and apparently more than a few bought right off on it.

Only because the idiots in control today don't understand return on investment. You don't have to spend half a trillion dollars to deal with a couple thousand thugs and 20 Saudi's with box cutters. That's just stupid. We spend more on defense than the next 14 nations combined. We don't need to. Why don't we let Germany and Japan protect themselves and gut their GDP? They are free to allocate their resources to industry or healthcare or whatever. The Japanese are killing our auto industry. Would it be the same if they had to carry the load of defending their nation without us there? Same with Germany and all the Nato countries.

The problem with you military guys is you have tunnel vision. All you can see is the military part of the scheme. There are plenty of other parts of the system. You consume about 4% of our GDP, and you always want more.

The Soviet Union died, a major threat went away. We should have downsized our military and we did. That's good. It even started under Bush I.

As of 2005, US - 420 Billion, China - 90B, Russian - 70B, England - 60B, and Japan 45B (1% of GDP).

Why don't we ask our allies to defend themselves? With these spend rates, we should be able to cut our military and still be very capable of defending ourselves.

You say we cut corners then and we pay for it now. What more do you want, and why do we need it?

 

[rayboyusmc]

I often wonder today where the fukking truth is?

In fact, the Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns. But more significant than the budget increases was the shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. That shift involved much greater emphasis on precision weapons, sensors, robotics, advanced communications, training, readiness, and orienting the intelligence community toward direct support of military operations. It was that shift that produced the superb military that not only swept through Iraq at a rate that defied historical precedent, but used its awesome force with unprecedented precision and effect, unprecedented low collateral damage, and unprecedented low casualty rates. It was the American Revolution in Military Affairs begun in the Clinton administration that was unveiled in Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom.

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/print.cfm?contentid=251793

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A proposed hike in defense spending by President Bill Clinton is not presidential politics but rather the first step in fulfilling last year's pledge to add $112 billion to the defense budget over six years, Pentagon officials tell CNN.

When Clinton unveils the federal budget next month, Pentagon sources tell CNN, he will propose spending $291 billion on defense, a hike of more than $18 billion and nearly double last year's increase.

The nearly 7 percent increase in defense spending next year that the Clinton administration will propose is the biggest increase in the Pentagon's budget since the Reagan-era military buildup of the 1980s.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/pentagon.budget/

WASHINGTON - President Clinton on Monday will formally propose the first major increase in defense spending since the Reagan era, arguing that the $112 billion boost over six years is needed to give troops a raise and buy new weaponry.

But several military experts are urging Congress to reject the proposed increase.

"We are buying a new generation of submarines when the current ones have plenty of life left, and we are buying very expensive aircraft, like the F-22 that costs nearly $200 million each," said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. "We have enough money but are not putting it in the right places."

Even in some quarters within the Pentagon, a spending boost is considered ill-advised.

Franklin Spinney, a senior analyst in the Pentagon's program analysis and evaluation division, maintains that the increase is not justified given that the military threats once underpinning defense budgets "have completely evaporated."

"Even if you count Russia and China as threats, and add in all the rogue countries (such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea), we already are spending over three times as much money as they are, combined, on defense," Spinney said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/01/30/NEWS6688.dtl

Just over a year ago, George Bush and Dick Cheney were campaigning hard on the theme that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had run down the United States military. Picking up a traditional Republican refrain, they claimed that defense cuts under President Clinton had gone too far, that the armed forces had been overused badly, that readiness was poor. But now President Bush stands on the verge of winning a war with the military that Bill Clinton bequeathed him. Just as in NATO's 1999 war against Serbia, the United States military has led coalition forces to a decisive victory while suffering very few casualties in the process.

Related Content
Research and Commentary
We're Ready To Fight Iraq
Michael E. O'Hanlon, The Wall Street Journal, 29-May-02

Research and Commentary
Has U.S. War in Iraq Slowed War on Terror?
Michael E. O'Hanlon, The Baltimore Sun, 18-Jan-04

Research and Commentary
Next, the Hard Part
Michael E. O'Hanlon, The Washington Post, 8-Oct-01

More Related Content »

Some might wish to give the young Bush administration and its impressive secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, primary credit for the performance of American forces in Afghanistan. The administration developed an effective war plan that defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and it has a sound broader strategy in the struggle against terrorism.



But it is still Bill Clinton's military that has actually been winning this war. The Bush administration had barely started to make its mark on defense policy before hostilities in Afghanistan began. Last spring, it provided a $5 billion supplemental appropriation for the 2001 defense budget, but that constituted less than 2 percent of defense spending for the year and had hardly begun to be noticed before the war began.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2002/0101terrorism_ohanlon.aspx

 

[AllieBaba]

The republicans held both houses of congress from 1994 to 2006. Clinton was pres. from 92 to 2000, Bush from 2001 to today.

After 8 years in office, Clinton produced a balanced budget and actually paid some on the national debt.

After 7 years in office, Bush has added 4 Trillion to the total national debt.

The republicans held congress the whole time. The only difference was who held the white house.

Your point that the repub congress produced Clinton's balanced budget is nonsense. If it was true, they would have continued to behave responsibly, which they did not. They increased the total national debt by 60% in 7 short years.

You don't have to veto bills to cut spending, you can also pass legislation that makes programs more efficient.

What did Bush veto, or what did he pass to make things more efficient? How about you posting some proof.

Ok, let me explain how this works to you.

It takes about 8 years for the economic decisions of any administration to trickle down to the little people. That's me and you.

Clinton was enjoying the fruits of Reagan's decisions. And Bush is suffering from the fruits of Clinton's.

 

[finebead]

Ok, let me explain how this works to you.

It takes about 8 years for the economic decisions of any administration to trickle down to the little people. That's me and you.

Clinton was enjoying the fruits of Reagan's decisions. And Bush is suffering from the fruits of Clinton's.

Dumb comment. Gross over simplification. What economic decision? Some will roll in in six months, some could take longer, depending on the nature of the policy. Interest rate cuts are presumed to take 6 months to work themselves into the system, right?

By your contention, if it takes 8 years for economic decisions to roll to the little people, then Reagan's tax cuts and defense spending increases early in his administration rolled to the people of the nation during George Bush I's administration in 1988-1992, and produced the recession that lost him the election, right?

Do you think Bush II's currently proposed stimulus package will take 8 years to roll to the little people? No. That's is an economic decision, right?

 

[Annie]

I'm no econ genius. I've read enough to know that with all of us now in full awareness of the troubles of Wall Street, well aware of Mortage crisis and investment shortages, there is a better than even chance that the worst is behind us. Now the government will screw with niches to create more problems.

Results lag by 6-12 months. The markets are relating to today responses of 6-12 months ago, now that we are in meltdown.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The trickle down theory is one of best examples of the rich pulling the wool over your heads.

It's really the getting tinkled on theory. Reagan began the destruction of the middle class. Bush and Bush have continued it.

And lets not forget he was being hard pressed by many in congress( including hillary) to take action...


What are you smoking. He was presssing them for the war. Nice revisionist history buff. Too bad we can go back and find it all in print.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'll find the theory. I learned it from an economist, though I'm not one or even close.

Well here's something, anyway:
"The Reagan Restoration"
Mr. Reagan's … agenda of tax cuts and deregulation ignited the boom that restored U.S. confidence. … [His] economic policies get less credit than they deserve because of the budget deficits and the 1982 recession.

Mr. Reagan's unique contribution was to stick to his economic program, and to support Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, in the face of enormous political pressure to turn tail on both. Growth resumed as he expected, and tax revenues actually increased faster than GDP from the low point in 1983 through 1989. As for the deficits, they did finally vanish once defense spending fell after the Cold War ended and a GOP Congress slowed the growth in other spending for at least a couple of years in the mid-1990s.

In the broader historical sweep, the Reagan tax cuts saved America from following Western Europe into welfare-state decline. In addition to igniting growth, his tax cuts put a brake on the expansion of government that had seemed unstoppable.

When Mr. Reagan took office, the top marginal U.S. tax rate was 70%. When he left the top rate was 28%; it is now 35%, and even John Kerry has conceded with his proposal to cut some corporate taxes that the marginal rate of tax matters. Today Americans may disagree about what tax cuts are needed, how deep they should go, and what they ought to target. But the debate itself reflects Mr. Reagan's central premise: that people respond to incentives, and that high taxes interfere with natural human creativity and drive.

—The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2004