The United States Was Born Liberal

[DiamondDave]

Everything I found said Clinton did a better job with the debt/budget/deficit/debt than the last 3 republicans.

And I found this. A perfect example of fuzzy math. Bush's number don't even count war spending? Those are considered "supplimental". Democrats for years have wanted that spending to be included in his budget.

So he more than doubled the debt, you dumb monkey.

* $453 billion - the average annual defense budget for the nine years before Clinton took office.
* $377 billion - the average annual defense budget during Clinton's time in office, a 16.7% decrease.
* $496 billion - the average annual defense budget during Bush's time in office, a whopping 31% increase not even including the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are largely funded through supplementals not included in the official defense budget.
Daily Kos: Defense Spending: Reagan/Bush vs. Clinton vs. Bush II

And these numbers were already adjusted for inflation, so dont' even try it.

Yes... and I was in the service when Clinton began to cripple the military... that is not something to brag about

 

[DiamondDave]

I don't mind taxes paying for social programs that help poor people.

And these conservatives don't mind our taxes being wasted, as long as they are wasted in the name of defense.

So we'll never all be happy.

My hope is that Obama really guts the government of reduculous pork projects. Stops the buddy contracts that Bush buddies have with the pentagon.

I also hope he doesn't allow able people to get on welfare. I doubt he will turn the clock back on that one.

Say, notice you never hear republicans give Clinton credit for signing welfare reform? That was a pretty "conservative" thing to do.

National defense is the charge and job of the federal government... wealth redistribution or an allowance system is not...

If you don't mind giving to those who choose to not take care of their own responsibilities, you are free to do so... to your heart's content....

Conservatives do not want wasteful spending... most conservatives I know call for the elimination of useless programs, welfare systems, etc... and call for the balancing of spending.... yet another myth you wish to portray, that conservatives want debt in the name of defense... unfortunately, republicans and conservatives have been unable to wrestle away the useless programs and wasteful government spending that the DEMs love so much

 

[KGB]

I think our movement is better defined as Progressive.

Conservs want to stay with the status quo and not change.

Progressives are always thinking ahead.

Conservatives sit and think. But mostly they just sit.

Progressive is an insurance company, it isn't progress as defined by the majority of society.....

 

[Care4all]

Clown... you keep spewing the same slogans and the same myths...

No use even reading after you put forth the the doozy of the "Clinton Surplus".... that fully shows your complete partisanship and ignorance to the truth

Since through law, the SS taxes collected and dispersed is through the Federal Budget, Clinton/Gingrich congress DID HAVE A Budget surplus, for the last 3 years of Clinton's presidency.

Our national debt continued to grow because per law, the SS surplus funds collected were included in the budget and used to fund expenditures in which income taxes should have been used, borrowing it basically, an IOU at a later date for using those funds....this is what made our debt continue to go up, even though the Budget itself, was balanced or running an overall surplus, is my understanding of it.

The same thing in the Bush presidency reign, they have run a $300 billion to $700 billion dollar deficit yearly, but this is with using about $150 - $200 billion a year of SS surplus funds....if the ss suplus funds were not in the budget to uses we would have been running a a yearly budget deficit of $500 billion to $900 billion.



care

 

[DiamondDave]

Since through law, the SS taxes collected and dispersed is through the Federal Budget, Clinton/Gingrich congress DID HAVE A Budget surplus, for the last 3 years of Clinton's presidency.

Our national debt continued to grow because per law, the SS surplus funds collected were included in the budget and used to fund expenditures in which income taxes should have been used, borrowing it basically, an IOU at a later date for using those funds....this is what made our debt continue to go up, even though the Budget itself, was balanced or running an overall surplus, is my understanding of it.

The same thing in the Bush presidency reign, they have run a $300 billion to $700 billion dollar deficit yearly, but this is with using about $150 - $200 billion a year of SS surplus funds....if the ss suplus funds were not in the budget to uses we would have been running a a yearly budget deficit of $500 billion to $900 billion.



care

debunked

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[Lycurgus]

It is not foolish to compare anything!

Some conclusions, like "political power, as wielded by corporate power in America as being similar to power wielded by European Monarchies and their noble class elite" can be successfully drawn, and other conclusions, like "all liberals of today are revolutionaries" are foolish, but comparing things is what we do when we discuss ideas.

-Joe

As tempted as I am ............. I will simply try this.

Joe, when was the last time you lived your life under the European Monarchies?

or

Joe, when was the last time you lived your life under European Socialism?

or

Joe, when was the last time you lived under Communism?

As I respect your opinion and do grasp the comparison you are trying to make, there are some very fundamental differences which makes the comparison impossible to be correct.

Being liberal is not foolish, being blind liberal is foolish.

Bring conservative is not foolish, being blind conservative is foolish.

 

[Bern80]

1. This economy works just fine for you? Wow, you are the exception. Congrats. If you aren’t in the top 2% ,chances are you are either lying or don’t know what you are saying.

What I mean by that is that it is not the economies job to provide for me. Sure my wallets a little thinner, but at the end of the day what little blame for that, that legitametly falls on somehow else doesn't help me any. Ultimately my financial position is my choice.

2. No, Bush’s tax breaks didn’t work.

The tax cuts did work, they gave people more disposable income, which they, surprise, disposed of.

3. Yes, taxes should go down if/when either party spends less. It was the GOP’s chance to show they could cut spending and then cut taxes. But they cut taxes and increased spending. So if spending must occur, and it seems that it does, then it makes sense that we pay for that spending. You clearly enjoy seeing the debt double, because you don’t want to be real about paying it down/off.

So in reality in wasn't that the tax cuts didn't work, they just kinda got canceled out. That's a far cry from simply stating they don't work.

4. A smaller government that lets companies pollute and has no power? No thanks. How small do you want the government? And the GOP grow government.

I believe I said a balance is what's neccessary.

5. Check out Reagan’s deficit and Clinton’s surplus and tell me who’s the conservative.

the balance of the budget is not attributable solely to the President. Congress is the one that creates the budget, the president simply approves it.

6. I don’t think you understand when I said that the middle class is not a creation of capitalism. What I am saying is that if the GOVERNMENT doesn’t protect the middle class, it will disappear, and a small rich class and small merchantile class will exist along with the masses being the working poor. Is that what you want? Darwinism? Every man for himself?

To an extent yes. Darwinism referrs nicely to the very problem in your philosophy. People grow, gain stranght, become through experience, through learning and surviving the bad. You want government to insulate people from the bad, which means they will not grow. I don't recall whether you are for it or against but the bail out is a perfect example. We have the big 3 begging for money to get themselves out of the hole they dug themselves. it is what is called a teaching moment. Either we can give them the money and they learn it's okay to fuck up, it's not your fault someone else will bail you out. Or we can teach them that is up to them to get themselves out of their own mess and when they do they will a better, stronger company for it. The same truths apply on the individual level.

7. Yes, take from the guy who made $20 million at AIG or FORD and give it to the workers. Yes, that’s what I’m for. We deserve it. They don’t. Or do you prefer it when they take from us so they can have more. You’re a house slave.

The house slave thing again. Maybe he is over compensated. that doesn't somehow make you deserving of that money. You deserve whatever the contract you agreed to says you deserve.

8. Our country is founded on socialism. The poor don’t pay taxes, right? What is that?

In William Bradford's time yes. He found out quickly it didn't work so well so he switched to capitalism

11. The GOP is against over regulations. Yea, like Pesticides and protecting salmon. LOL.

the health insureance industry is a better example

12. Clinton brought millions of people out of poverty. Why would the Dems be for keeping people poor? Bush put more people in poverty. What’s wrong with you?

How did Bush put people into poverty?

13. No, business’ job is only to maximize profits. That’s why it is a bad thing when Business’ buy our politicians. Yes they buy dems too, but they give 75% of their lobby money to the GOP

An unsubstatianated number as with most of your claims.

15. Corporations won’t have less money. When Business is good, they make more money. That requires us making more money, not less. That requires a strong middle class, not 80% of us being working poor. That’s the way the GOP were heading us. Thank god enough of us woke up.

If taxes go up people have less disposable income to spend. If people have less money to spend how do you expect businesses to make a turnaround. So in your world the middle class and poor get their tax cut while that of the rich and businesses goes up. that means that meager increase in the disposable income of the middle and poor needs to not only influx more money into the economy, but now make up for the losses of those companies due the tax hike. You don't really believe that's realistic do you?

16. If a company in America is not pro American labor and doesn’t pay a good middle class wage, we should not be buying their products. We have the right to boycott them too and put them out of business.

Yes that's true. Either people don't care or are smart enough to have figured out we aren't North America is not an island unto itself anymore.

17. Don’t threaten us that you will send jobs overseas if and you will not hire if. You already are not hiring and you are sending jobs overseas. We’re done being scared by your threats. You’ve terrorized us long enough.

It's isn't a threat. it was a question. what is it 'we' are protecting you from taking that will ultimately hurt us?

18. Freedom of speech. If I said something he didn’t like, I got put on a terror watch list. Good luck getting a good job if your name is on that list. Taking away Habius Corpus. See Jose Padilla.

So you're writing this from prison? Stop being ridiculous.

 

[sealybobo]

Reagan moved from his prior more liberal or moderate past.... try living in the real world, clown

Obama is NOT a moderate.. there is nothing in his history or voting record that even comes CLOSE to supporting him being a moderate... but nice try with your myths once again

What you and other blinded libs fail to grasp or want to acknowledge is the fact of Clinton's use of intergovernmental funds, which were NOT used in the calculation on the public debt (which you try and use as proof of a surplus... though that even shows that the debt NEVER decreased even $0.01)....

Clinton played a shell game, in the typical DEM ploy to fool the public.... and ones like you fell for it hook, line, and sinker

And Bush used "supplimental" spending so it wouldn't go against his budget.

But can you show me the real numbers for Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush 2?

I bet Clinton wins even with your calculations.

 

[sealybobo]

National defense is the charge and job of the federal government... wealth redistribution or an allowance system is not...

If you don't mind giving to those who choose to not take care of their own responsibilities, you are free to do so... to your heart's content....

Conservatives do not want wasteful spending... most conservatives I know call for the elimination of useless programs, welfare systems, etc... and call for the balancing of spending.... yet another myth you wish to portray, that conservatives want debt in the name of defense... unfortunately, republicans and conservatives have been unable to wrestle away the useless programs and wasteful government spending that the DEMs love so much

Today's so-called Republicans have established a mind-numbing record at polluting the environment; bloating government; appointing crony partisans; pushing the nation into debt to fund tax cuts for the rich; legislatively catering to the world's largest corporations; opposing women's rights; kneecapping states, local communities, and schools; eviscerating constitutional protections of liberty at home; and devastating our nation's reputation abroad.
They try to re-write history - the biography of Thomas Jefferson on the Welcome to the White House website has been re-written to turn him into a man who had "assumed leadership of the Republicans," while the reality was that Jefferson's party was the Democratic-Republicans and still exists today, called the Democratic Party. (The Republican Party is much more recent, having come into national existence in 1856.)
Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was also the first president to actively use the power of government in support of striking workers. Lincoln was often on their side. "Labor," Lincoln wrote, "is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
The Republicans of 1872 felt that the national debt (from the Civil War) should be paid off as quickly as possible, and a budget must not only be balanced but show a surplus while at the same time paying pensions to retired persons. They were also protectionists, in favor of import duties and tariffs to protect working peoples' salaries and keep manufacturing jobs from moving offshore. They proclaimed in their platform:
"The [nation's] annual revenue, after paying current expenditures, pensions, and the interest on the public debt, should furnish a moderate balance for the reduction of the principal [of the national debt]; and that revenue should be raised by duties upon importations, the details of which [duties] should be so adjusted as to aid in securing remunerative wages to labor, and promote the industries, prosperity, and growth of the whole country."
In the years since then, the Republican Party has been seized by Ayn Rand utopians, Pat Roberson fundamentalists, and the largest and dirtiest of America's corporate elite. They've trashed the values of Lincoln and Eisenhower, rejected Jesus' words in Matthew 25, and turned our commons into a dumping ground while using our nation's treasury as a honey pot.
And, so, those of us "on the left" ask our Republican friends: Please take your party back from these fanatics, before it's too late for America to ever again be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
ThomHartmann.com - Republicans - Please Take Back Your Party

 

[AVG-JOE]

As tempted as I am ............. I will simply try this.

Joe, when was the last time you lived your life under the European Monarchies?

or

Joe, when was the last time you lived your life under European Socialism?

or

Joe, when was the last time you lived under Communism?

As I respect your opinion and do grasp the comparison you are trying to make, there are some very fundamental differences which makes the comparison impossible to be correct.

Being liberal is not foolish, being blind liberal is foolish.

Bring conservative is not foolish, being blind conservative is foolish.

I can imagine life in another time and place as well as I can read... Can I dig it? Definitely! Can I relate? To everything, no... To much, yes.

Comparison is not the goal, to be 'correct' or not; it is a tool used to assist one in understanding. Negative comparisons are just as valuable as are positive ones. There are similarities of life in the late 1700's compared with life today. The personal, absolute, royal monarchies and their courts of privileged nobility of 18th century Europe were far different from corporate America of the late 20th, but there are similarities in class elitism, view of people as 'human resources' and desire to control natural resources.

As for being a 'conservative' or being a 'liberal', blindness is a tragedy no matter what affliction caused it.

-Joe

 

[sealybobo]

What I mean by that is that it is not the economies job to provide for me. Sure my wallets a little thinner, but at the end of the day what little blame for that, that legitametly falls on somehow else doesn't help me any. Ultimately my financial position is my choice.

The tax cuts did work, they gave people more disposable income, which they, surprise, disposed of.



So in reality in wasn't that the tax cuts didn't work, they just kinda got canceled out. That's a far cry from simply stating they don't work.



I believe I said a balance is what's neccessary.



the balance of the budget is not attributable solely to the President. Congress is the one that creates the budget, the president simply approves it.



To an extent yes. Darwinism referrs nicely to the very problem in your philosophy. People grow, gain stranght, become through experience, through learning and surviving the bad. You want government to insulate people from the bad, which means they will not grow. I don't recall whether you are for it or against but the bail out is a perfect example. We have the big 3 begging for money to get themselves out of the hole they dug themselves. it is what is called a teaching moment. Either we can give them the money and they learn it's okay to fuck up, it's not your fault someone else will bail you out. Or we can teach them that is up to them to get themselves out of their own mess and when they do they will a better, stronger company for it. The same truths apply on the individual level.



The house slave thing again. Maybe he is over compensated. that doesn't somehow make you deserving of that money. You deserve whatever the contract you agreed to says you deserve.



In William Bradford's time yes. He found out quickly it didn't work so well so he switched to capitalism



the health insureance industry is a better example



How did Bush put people into poverty?



An unsubstatianated number as with most of your claims.



If taxes go up people have less disposable income to spend. If people have less money to spend how do you expect businesses to make a turnaround. So in your world the middle class and poor get their tax cut while that of the rich and businesses goes up. that means that meager increase in the disposable income of the middle and poor needs to not only influx more money into the economy, but now make up for the losses of those companies due the tax hike. You don't really believe that's realistic do you?



Yes that's true. Either people don't care or are smart enough to have figured out we aren't North America is not an island unto itself anymore.



It's isn't a threat. it was a question. what is it 'we' are protecting you from taking that will ultimately hurt us?



So you're writing this from prison? Stop being ridiculous.

What I mean by that is that it is not the economies job to provide for me. Sure my wallets a little thinner, but at the end of the day what little blame for that, that legitametly falls on somehow else doesn't help me any. Ultimately my financial position is my choice.

CEO’s, VP’s, Directors, IRS Agents, Government employees, engineers, archetechs, nurses, IT Professionals, salespeople, teachers, bus drivers, plumbers, factory workers. It’s everyone’s fault? Too many people have been affected by Bushanomics for you to say it’s our fault.

The Big 3 were fucked when the south let foreign car companies in. That might not be such a big deal, but those countries won’t let us sell American cars to their citizens. Read my previous post. Founding fathers/former presidents warned us about what the GOP did for the last 8 years.

Thank god your party lost. Otherwise you mind find that your husband isn’t worth shit. You think he’s worth what they pay him now but eventually they’ll come for his wages too. And there won’t be any one left to complain to.

How did Bush put people into poverty? When Bush/The GOP started sending jobs overseas and allowed illegals to flood into the country so to lower our wages. More people than jobs equals lowered wages.

Explaining to you is futile. Why do I bother? I don’t know.

If taxes go up, then SHUT THE HELL UP! I got it. You took Econ 101. There is so much you don’t get that it’s starting to bug me. Lol.

It's isn't a threat. it was a question. what is it 'we' are protecting you from taking that will ultimately hurt us?

If you leave America, then you can’t sell in America. Read my previous post. I quoted Lincoln, a REPUBLICAN. That was before the party was taken over by insane idiots.

It shouldn’t be ok with you that the government is taking rights away just because you don’t break any laws. That’s the lamest/oldest/dumbest argument. I want my privacy, even if I’m not breaking any laws.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Everyone in Washington agrees that we can't fix the mess we are in and we can't save social security by cutting spending alone.

Taxes need to be raised.

And, this country needs a facelift. If only we didn't piss away a trillion dollars in the last 8 years.

I say we abolish the Federal Reserve and renig on the national debt. Sure we will pay China back with interest, but the USA will manage our own finances. No more letting private bankers do it with interest.

And then we will truly be free.

PS. They said Clinton would cause a recession when he raised taxes. Turns out that was wrong then, so guess what I think about your assumtion now?

No one in Washington is willing to cut spending. It would mean they'd have to sacrifice some things, and that's not good when they're trying to get re-elected.

I'm with you on the Federal Reserve, it's time to end the Fed. They are, after all, the main culprits in our current economic crisis.

Well I'm not sure what assumptions I've made, other than the Bush policies that Obama seems keen to continue are further hurting our economy. Bailouts, stimulus packages, and so forth are just adding fuel to the fire.

 

[sealybobo]

Well I'm not sure what assumptions I've made, other than the Bush policies that Obama seems keen to continue are further hurting our economy. Bailouts, stimulus packages, and so forth are just adding fuel to the fire.

No, with proper regulations, I think we/Obama will be alright. If the bankers can't get their act together, we can always just end the Federal Reserve System. And any car imports should be tariffed. If they make em here, they are welcome, but if they make them in China or mexico, they need to sell them there. Or, take some of our exports. If not, no deal.

I also don't like that Obama isn't going to do away with Bush's tax cuts. Instead he is just going to let them expire.

If he makes them permenant or continues them beyond their expiration date, you'll know that they got to him.

But I think GM needs the loan. Ford said they just want it available if they need it, but they don't need it. Chrysler needs to go Chapter 11.

And I don't think Obama will continue to give the banks money no questions asked like Paulson is. It's a joke. Notice they didn't ask the bankers for a business plan but the Big 3 they did? And the bankers are not loaning money, even after we gave them the money for that exact reason.

The Big 3 can't fail. If they do, millions will be hurt. But the bankers were fine. I think we are going to shit ourselves when we realize the $700 billion was nothing more than a bank robbery.

But if we didn't give them that money, they would have crashed the economy. Hell, they crashed it anyways.

Much like the unions can go on strike, so can the bankers. Bush and the bankers robbed us right before Bush got out of office.

I know I'm hoping for more than what Obama will give me. I would like to seize the bankers assets. AIG, Lehman, you name it. Haloburton, blackwater, etc. Any Enron exec that still has millions, go sieze it. There are thousands of rich Americans that fleeced the treasury for the past 8 years. Sickens me. They were already rich. Talk about wealth distribution.

Any company that "lost/stole" tax payer dollars during Bush's regime, needs to pay us back the money they stole.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What I mean by that is that it is not the economies job to provide for me. Sure my wallets a little thinner, but at the end of the day what little blame for that, that legitametly falls on somehow else doesn't help me any. Ultimately my financial position is my choice...

I'm going to argue that position...

How much of any of our financial positions is directly related to the roads owned and maintained by the public?

How many of our choices in life, financial and otherwise, are due to the fact that public education either provided marketable skills directly to me or to my market?

How much leisure time do I have because we trust each other enough to trade time for money and money for food and shelter?

Like it or not, we are dependent on one another for the lifestyle we enjoy, be it envious or tragic. Sure, personal choices make a huge difference, but being a society gives us more choices.

-Joe

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, with proper regulations, I think we/Obama will be alright. If the bankers can't get their act together, we can always just end the Federal Reserve System. And any car imports should be tariffed. If they make em here, they are welcome, but if they make them in China or mexico, they need to sell them there. Or, take some of our exports. If not, no deal.

I also don't like that Obama isn't going to do away with Bush's tax cuts. Instead he is just going to let them expire.

If he makes them permenant or continues them beyond their expiration date, you'll know that they got to him.

But I think GM needs the loan. Ford said they just want it available if they need it, but they don't need it. Chrysler needs to go Chapter 11.

And I don't think Obama will continue to give the banks money no questions asked like Paulson is. It's a joke. Notice they didn't ask the bankers for a business plan but the Big 3 they did? And the bankers are not loaning money, even after we gave them the money for that exact reason.

The Big 3 can't fail. If they do, millions will be hurt. But the bankers were fine. I think we are going to shit ourselves when we realize the $700 billion was nothing more than a bank robbery.

But if we didn't give them that money, they would have crashed the economy. Hell, they crashed it anyways.

Much like the unions can go on strike, so can the bankers. Bush and the bankers robbed us right before Bush got out of office.

I know I'm hoping for more than what Obama will give me. I would like to seize the bankers assets. AIG, Lehman, you name it. Haloburton, blackwater, etc. Any Enron exec that still has millions, go sieze it. There are thousands of rich Americans that fleeced the treasury for the past 8 years. Sickens me. They were already rich. Talk about wealth distribution.

Any company that "lost/stole" tax payer dollars during Bush's regime, needs to pay us back the money they stole.

Yeah, good luck with ending the Fed. Obama has no intentions of doing that, I promise you. Though you can petition your congressman to support H.R. 2755 which would abolish the Federal Reserve.

We shouldn't have bailed out the banks, and we shouldn't bailout the Big 3. You say "millions will be hurt" if we don't bail them out, but what about the millions that will be hurt because we bail them out? Giving $25 billion to the Big 3 means that the $25 billion can't go to other industries that it would have otherwise gone. The federal government is forcing the taxpayers to pay $25 billion to the Big 3, rather than allowing them to spend it where they please.

 

[Care4all]

Like it or not, we are dependent on one another for the lifestyle we enjoy, be it envious or tragic. Sure personal choices make a huge difference, but being a society gives us more choices.

-Joe

sooooooooo true! And this is what a society is, or a society within a nation like ours is......

Our lifeblood to opportunity and improvement/advancement comes through a society....and for us, our own free choices within that well functioning society often advances opportunities for all of us....even some of the indigent, the poorest among us, will advance at some point, if they grasp the opportunity that opens up from this well functioning society imo!

care

 

[Lycurgus]

Joe ...........

Thank you for the response.

I am curious, you shared ...............


("but there are similarities in class elitism")

This class elitism you speak of, what fuels it and/or defines it.

Money?
Power?
The Power that the Money Buys? (in other words both)
Something Else?
Or a combination of Money, Power and Something else?

Thanks.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Joe ...........

Thank you for the response.

I am curious, you shared ...............


("but there are similarities in class elitism")

This class elitism you speak of, what fuels it and/or defines it.

Money?
Power?
The Power that the Money Buys? (in other words both)
Something Else?
Or a combination of Money, Power and Something else?

Thanks.

In my opinion, elitism from the Age of Royal Absolutism is fueled and defined by the same thing that fuels and defines it today... Desire for control over resources, and the assumption that human resources are just another resource to be utilized in gaining control over more resources.

It is a matter of attitude and the resources to back up that attitude. In the Age of Royal Absolutism it was backed up by fear of a well fed military whose loyalty was never questioned... in the age of American style Corporate domination the attitude is backed up by fear of the legal system and whatever terror de jour the current crop of politicians is using to keep the people from seeing the activities of their corporate sponsors.

Not that the military has ceased to be used by the elite as a resource to both keep the sheeple in line and to consolidate control over resources.

-Joe

 

[Care4all]

debunked

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

what i said, was precisely true and is what this electrician/programmer that wrote your article said.

what he failed to state, is that since Ronald Reagan, the SS surplusses and other trust funds have been included in both the on and off budget calculations, INCLUDING the GW Bush budgets....which have even GREATER AMOUNTS of SS surplusses which peaks next year, then starts going down again, than were available in the clinton budget.

In shorthand, president bush has used billions upon billions MORE of these SS surpluses than clinton did, to try to balance his budget.

AND most importantly, Clinton DID balance the budget and run some surpluses of the BUDGET.....the budget as it is calculated for every administration since Reagan, BY LAW.

and as i stated, the budget deficit and the national debt are two different animals.

Craig gives the argument that they shouldn't be....

I can give an argument that differs with him and his rational or example of us with our budgets that he used.

He gave an example....

something like,

you made $32k, you were loaned another $5k, and your yearly expenses came to $35k....you have $2k left over.....is that really a surplus?

he says no.

you made $32k, you borrowed another $5k, and your yearly expenses came to $35k....you have $2k left over.....is that really a surplus?

i say (it could be) yes if it were an individual's budget.

For example, if this were my own budget, and the 5k borrowed was $5k on a credit card of mine, and at the end of the year, even with making my credit card payment, i still had $2k left over, in a certain degree, I would consider this as a so called surplus....money i could invest or save in the bank.

So, as an individual, it could be considered such....

but then again, an individual can say, that's it, no more on my credit card and eventually pay that one time 5 k borrowed off...

Our government representatives seem to just dig their own graves...(and ours)

so, as the Law dictates our Federal Budget to be Calculated, Clinton DID balance the budget....and have surplusses.

And paying off the public debt did help us, even though it moved to another column in the whole picture as Craig mentioned.... so i differ with him there....

Paying off some of the Public Debt as Clinton did, lowered our yearly interest payments on that debt, by removing it from Public Debt, to National Debt, is my understanding of it....

Care

 

[user_name_guest]

Liberal of 1776 is different than liberals in 1865 than liberals in 1964 than liberals in 2008. Like saying, The Democrats who run the South east during racial discrimination fifty years ago are quite different than the Democrats today.