What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

[owebo]

Well Obama is pushing TPP in spite of what Dems told their drones at the convention. Now that the drones have been programmed Dems will quietly to back to the status quo.

I don't think either party likes TPP anymore.

But it does not matter what the GOP thinks.

They will shortly be history for at least the next 2 years.

The DNC convention showed that.

Trump will end TPP....

It doesn't matter what democrats think. The DNC convention showed that.

 

[Tehon]

You probably don't remember that Clinton (Bill) is the only president who had budget surpluses.

Yes, of course, I remember. But that didn't happen until after the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, and Bill Clinton just rolled over and let Congress set policy, while he took credit for the results.

I also remember many of his policies from his first two years, many of which even the Democrat-dominated Congress wouldn't go along with. Extreme wrongist policies, very much in line with those that Obama would try to put forth sixteen years later. I particularly remember some of his creative ideas for new taxes. He wanted a European-style Value-Added Tax, for one thing. Even the Democratic-controlled Congress wouldn't touch that, nor would they touch his proposed “BTU tax”[/b]—a tax on fuels and energy sources relative to their energy content. He put Hillary in charge of a plan for government to take over the medical industry. I remember that as one of the things that Republicans made great hay over, in the 1994 campaign.

One thing he did get passed was his crime pork bill, mostly stuffed with ridiculous spending on ill-thought-out programs with little or no connection to any plausible effort to address crime. It also contained his fraudulent “assault weapon” ban. He later admitted that he thought it was this one bill, and probably the “assault weapon” ban within it, that was the biggest reason for the Democrats losing control of Congress, and Republicans gaining full control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

When Bill Clinton was actively pursuing his own policies, the results were disastrous. The successful policies during his time in office came from the Republican-controlled Congress, and his lack of will to oppose them.

The single biggest factor to reducing the budget deficit was the tax increases Clinton got through congress in '93, sans republicans.

 

[owebo]

You probably don't remember that Clinton (Bill) is the only president who had budget surpluses.

Yes, of course, I remember. But that didn't happen until after the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, and Bill Clinton just rolled over and let Congress set policy, while he took credit for the results.

I also remember many of his policies from his first two years, many of which even the Democrat-dominated Congress wouldn't go along with. Extreme wrongist policies, very much in line with those that Obama would try to put forth sixteen years later. I particularly remember some of his creative ideas for new taxes. He wanted a European-style Value-Added Tax, for one thing. Even the Democratic-controlled Congress wouldn't touch that, nor would they touch his proposed “BTU tax”[/b]—a tax on fuels and energy sources relative to their energy content. He put Hillary in charge of a plan for government to take over the medical industry. I remember that as one of the things that Republicans made great hay over, in the 1994 campaign.

One thing he did get passed was his crime pork bill, mostly stuffed with ridiculous spending on ill-thought-out programs with little or no connection to any plausible effort to address crime. It also contained his fraudulent “assault weapon” ban. He later admitted that he thought it was this one bill, and probably the “assault weapon” ban within it, that was the biggest reason for the Democrats losing control of Congress, and Republicans gaining full control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

When Bill Clinton was actively pursuing his own policies, the results were disastrous. The successful policies during his time in office came from the Republican-controlled Congress, and his lack of will to oppose them.

The single biggest factor to reducing the budget deficit was the tax increases Clinton got through congress in '93, sans republicans.

Actually it wasn't....one might argue it was Clinton's workfare and I would agree.....

 

[Tehon]

You probably don't remember that Clinton (Bill) is the only president who had budget surpluses.

Yes, of course, I remember. But that didn't happen until after the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, and Bill Clinton just rolled over and let Congress set policy, while he took credit for the results.

I also remember many of his policies from his first two years, many of which even the Democrat-dominated Congress wouldn't go along with. Extreme wrongist policies, very much in line with those that Obama would try to put forth sixteen years later. I particularly remember some of his creative ideas for new taxes. He wanted a European-style Value-Added Tax, for one thing. Even the Democratic-controlled Congress wouldn't touch that, nor would they touch his proposed “BTU tax”[/b]—a tax on fuels and energy sources relative to their energy content. He put Hillary in charge of a plan for government to take over the medical industry. I remember that as one of the things that Republicans made great hay over, in the 1994 campaign.

One thing he did get passed was his crime pork bill, mostly stuffed with ridiculous spending on ill-thought-out programs with little or no connection to any plausible effort to address crime. It also contained his fraudulent “assault weapon” ban. He later admitted that he thought it was this one bill, and probably the “assault weapon” ban within it, that was the biggest reason for the Democrats losing control of Congress, and Republicans gaining full control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

When Bill Clinton was actively pursuing his own policies, the results were disastrous. The successful policies during his time in office came from the Republican-controlled Congress, and his lack of will to oppose them.

The single biggest factor to reducing the budget deficit was the tax increases Clinton got through congress in '93, sans republicans.

Actually it wasn't....one might argue it was Clinton's workfare and I would agree.....

One might argue it if one wanted to be intellectually dishonest. Clinton reformed welfare in Aug of '96 so it can't possibly explain the shrinking deficit over the previous 3 years.

 

[owebo]

You probably don't remember that Clinton (Bill) is the only president who had budget surpluses.

Yes, of course, I remember. But that didn't happen until after the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, and Bill Clinton just rolled over and let Congress set policy, while he took credit for the results.

I also remember many of his policies from his first two years, many of which even the Democrat-dominated Congress wouldn't go along with. Extreme wrongist policies, very much in line with those that Obama would try to put forth sixteen years later. I particularly remember some of his creative ideas for new taxes. He wanted a European-style Value-Added Tax, for one thing. Even the Democratic-controlled Congress wouldn't touch that, nor would they touch his proposed “BTU tax”[/b]—a tax on fuels and energy sources relative to their energy content. He put Hillary in charge of a plan for government to take over the medical industry. I remember that as one of the things that Republicans made great hay over, in the 1994 campaign.

One thing he did get passed was his crime pork bill, mostly stuffed with ridiculous spending on ill-thought-out programs with little or no connection to any plausible effort to address crime. It also contained his fraudulent “assault weapon” ban. He later admitted that he thought it was this one bill, and probably the “assault weapon” ban within it, that was the biggest reason for the Democrats losing control of Congress, and Republicans gaining full control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

When Bill Clinton was actively pursuing his own policies, the results were disastrous. The successful policies during his time in office came from the Republican-controlled Congress, and his lack of will to oppose them.

The single biggest factor to reducing the budget deficit was the tax increases Clinton got through congress in '93, sans republicans.

Actually it wasn't....one might argue it was Clinton's workfare and I would agree.....

One might argue it if one wanted to be intellectually dishonest. Clinton reformed welfare in Aug of '96 so it can't possibly explain the shrinking deficit over the previous 3 years.

No, it explains it nicely.....the inflection point you are trying to lie about happened under republicans.....Clinton's wealth confiscation could be argued to be observed in 2001, for the intellectually honest that is.....

 

[Tehon]

You probably don't remember that Clinton (Bill) is the only president who had budget surpluses.

Yes, of course, I remember. But that didn't happen until after the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, and Bill Clinton just rolled over and let Congress set policy, while he took credit for the results.

I also remember many of his policies from his first two years, many of which even the Democrat-dominated Congress wouldn't go along with. Extreme wrongist policies, very much in line with those that Obama would try to put forth sixteen years later. I particularly remember some of his creative ideas for new taxes. He wanted a European-style Value-Added Tax, for one thing. Even the Democratic-controlled Congress wouldn't touch that, nor would they touch his proposed “BTU tax”[/b]—a tax on fuels and energy sources relative to their energy content. He put Hillary in charge of a plan for government to take over the medical industry. I remember that as one of the things that Republicans made great hay over, in the 1994 campaign.

One thing he did get passed was his crime pork bill, mostly stuffed with ridiculous spending on ill-thought-out programs with little or no connection to any plausible effort to address crime. It also contained his fraudulent “assault weapon” ban. He later admitted that he thought it was this one bill, and probably the “assault weapon” ban within it, that was the biggest reason for the Democrats losing control of Congress, and Republicans gaining full control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

When Bill Clinton was actively pursuing his own policies, the results were disastrous. The successful policies during his time in office came from the Republican-controlled Congress, and his lack of will to oppose them.

The single biggest factor to reducing the budget deficit was the tax increases Clinton got through congress in '93, sans republicans.

Actually it wasn't....one might argue it was Clinton's workfare and I would agree.....

One might argue it if one wanted to be intellectually dishonest. Clinton reformed welfare in Aug of '96 so it can't possibly explain the shrinking deficit over the previous 3 years.

No, it explains it nicely.....the inflection point you are trying to lie about happened under republicans.....Clinton's wealth confiscation could be argued to be observed in 2001, for the intellectually honest that is.....

Right, HW Bush's tax increases. It cost him the election, just like Clinton's tax increase cost the democrats in congress. But the takeaway is that it works to reduce the deficit.

 

[Care4all]

Ask not what your Country can do for you, but for what you can do for your Country.
JFK

 

[Iceweasel]

And yet Clinton was fiscally responsible and republicans hate him. You are the last person who should be lecturing on integrity.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them? In spite of the frightened, frantic efforts of Democratic senators and congresscritters to distance themselves from Clinton's policies, record numbers of them were voted out in the next election cycles, giving control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in forty years.

Mr. Clinton spent the remainder of his time in office bending over and caving in to the policies pushed by the now Republican-dominated Congress, and taking credit for the results.

And now, a couple decades later, Democrats still point to the Republican policies that Mr. Clinton no longer had it in him to oppose, and praising Mr. Clinton for the results of these policies rather than giving credit where it is due, to the Republican-dominated Congress.

That's Democratic “integrity” for you.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them?

Are you speaking of the fiscally reckless '93 Deficit Reduction Act, the one that passed without a single republican vote. The one that the Congressional Budget Office credited with shaving $160,000,000,000 off the deficit that the previous republican administrations had run up.

You need to pop your head out of your ass and get a little air.

1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley
The budget passed by a narrow margin, 219-213 in the House and 50-49 in the Senate.

 

[Tehon]

And yet Clinton was fiscally responsible and republicans hate him. You are the last person who should be lecturing on integrity.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them? In spite of the frightened, frantic efforts of Democratic senators and congresscritters to distance themselves from Clinton's policies, record numbers of them were voted out in the next election cycles, giving control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in forty years.

Mr. Clinton spent the remainder of his time in office bending over and caving in to the policies pushed by the now Republican-dominated Congress, and taking credit for the results.

And now, a couple decades later, Democrats still point to the Republican policies that Mr. Clinton no longer had it in him to oppose, and praising Mr. Clinton for the results of these policies rather than giving credit where it is due, to the Republican-dominated Congress.

That's Democratic “integrity” for you.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them?

Are you speaking of the fiscally reckless '93 Deficit Reduction Act, the one that passed without a single republican vote. The one that the Congressional Budget Office credited with shaving $160,000,000,000 off the deficit that the previous republican administrations had run up.

You need to pop your head out of your ass and get a little air.

1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley
The budget passed by a narrow margin, 219-213 in the House and 50-49 in the Senate.

The budget passed by a narrow margin, 219-213 in the House and 50-49 in the Senate.

And did I say otherwise? How many republicans voted in favor of it?

 

[Iceweasel]

And yet Clinton was fiscally responsible and republicans hate him. You are the last person who should be lecturing on integrity.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them? In spite of the frightened, frantic efforts of Democratic senators and congresscritters to distance themselves from Clinton's policies, record numbers of them were voted out in the next election cycles, giving control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in forty years.

Mr. Clinton spent the remainder of his time in office bending over and caving in to the policies pushed by the now Republican-dominated Congress, and taking credit for the results.

And now, a couple decades later, Democrats still point to the Republican policies that Mr. Clinton no longer had it in him to oppose, and praising Mr. Clinton for the results of these policies rather than giving credit where it is due, to the Republican-dominated Congress.

That's Democratic “integrity” for you.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them?

Are you speaking of the fiscally reckless '93 Deficit Reduction Act, the one that passed without a single republican vote. The one that the Congressional Budget Office credited with shaving $160,000,000,000 off the deficit that the previous republican administrations had run up.

You need to pop your head out of your ass and get a little air.

1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley
The budget passed by a narrow margin, 219-213 in the House and 50-49 in the Senate.

The budget passed by a narrow margin, 219-213 in the House and 50-49 in the Senate.

And did I say otherwise? How many republicans voted in favor of it?

Are you on drugs?

"the one that passed without a single republican vote."

 

[owebo]

Yes, of course, I remember. But that didn't happen until after the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, and Bill Clinton just rolled over and let Congress set policy, while he took credit for the results.

I also remember many of his policies from his first two years, many of which even the Democrat-dominated Congress wouldn't go along with. Extreme wrongist policies, very much in line with those that Obama would try to put forth sixteen years later. I particularly remember some of his creative ideas for new taxes. He wanted a European-style Value-Added Tax, for one thing. Even the Democratic-controlled Congress wouldn't touch that, nor would they touch his proposed “BTU tax”[/b]—a tax on fuels and energy sources relative to their energy content. He put Hillary in charge of a plan for government to take over the medical industry. I remember that as one of the things that Republicans made great hay over, in the 1994 campaign.

One thing he did get passed was his crime pork bill, mostly stuffed with ridiculous spending on ill-thought-out programs with little or no connection to any plausible effort to address crime. It also contained his fraudulent “assault weapon” ban. He later admitted that he thought it was this one bill, and probably the “assault weapon” ban within it, that was the biggest reason for the Democrats losing control of Congress, and Republicans gaining full control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

When Bill Clinton was actively pursuing his own policies, the results were disastrous. The successful policies during his time in office came from the Republican-controlled Congress, and his lack of will to oppose them.

The single biggest factor to reducing the budget deficit was the tax increases Clinton got through congress in '93, sans republicans.

Actually it wasn't....one might argue it was Clinton's workfare and I would agree.....

One might argue it if one wanted to be intellectually dishonest. Clinton reformed welfare in Aug of '96 so it can't possibly explain the shrinking deficit over the previous 3 years.

No, it explains it nicely.....the inflection point you are trying to lie about happened under republicans.....Clinton's wealth confiscation could be argued to be observed in 2001, for the intellectually honest that is.....

Right, HW Bush's tax increases. It cost him the election, just like Clinton's tax increase cost the democrats in congress. But the takeaway is that it works to reduce the deficit.

I remember the democrats tax increases....they threatened to abandon our troops on the battlefield if they didn't get them to pay for the war....

 

[owebo]

Ask not what your Country can do for you, but for what you can do for your Country.
JFK

Ask not what you can do for your Country, but what your Country will give to you free....BHO

 

[Neotrotsky]

What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

 

[Tehon]

And yet Clinton was fiscally responsible and republicans hate him. You are the last person who should be lecturing on integrity.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them? In spite of the frightened, frantic efforts of Democratic senators and congresscritters to distance themselves from Clinton's policies, record numbers of them were voted out in the next election cycles, giving control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in forty years.

Mr. Clinton spent the remainder of his time in office bending over and caving in to the policies pushed by the now Republican-dominated Congress, and taking credit for the results.

And now, a couple decades later, Democrats still point to the Republican policies that Mr. Clinton no longer had it in him to oppose, and praising Mr. Clinton for the results of these policies rather than giving credit where it is due, to the Republican-dominated Congress.

That's Democratic “integrity” for you.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them?

Are you speaking of the fiscally reckless '93 Deficit Reduction Act, the one that passed without a single republican vote. The one that the Congressional Budget Office credited with shaving $160,000,000,000 off the deficit that the previous republican administrations had run up.

You need to pop your head out of your ass and get a little air.

1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley
The budget passed by a narrow margin, 219-213 in the House and 50-49 in the Senate.

The budget passed by a narrow margin, 219-213 in the House and 50-49 in the Senate.

And did I say otherwise? How many republicans voted in favor of it?

Are you on drugs?

"the one that passed without a single republican vote."

I don't know, am I?

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---50
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (D-CO)
Conrad (D-ND)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeConcini (D-AZ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Glenn (D-OH)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heflin (D-AL)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mathews (D-TN)
Metzenbaum (D-OH)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Mitchell (D-ME)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murray (D-WA)
Pell (D-RI)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Riegle (D-MI)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sasser (D-TN)
Simon (D-IL)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wofford (D-PA)

 

[Iceweasel]

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them? In spite of the frightened, frantic efforts of Democratic senators and congresscritters to distance themselves from Clinton's policies, record numbers of them were voted out in the next election cycles, giving control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in forty years.

Mr. Clinton spent the remainder of his time in office bending over and caving in to the policies pushed by the now Republican-dominated Congress, and taking credit for the results.

And now, a couple decades later, Democrats still point to the Republican policies that Mr. Clinton no longer had it in him to oppose, and praising Mr. Clinton for the results of these policies rather than giving credit where it is due, to the Republican-dominated Congress.

That's Democratic “integrity” for you.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them?

Are you speaking of the fiscally reckless '93 Deficit Reduction Act, the one that passed without a single republican vote. The one that the Congressional Budget Office credited with shaving $160,000,000,000 off the deficit that the previous republican administrations had run up.

You need to pop your head out of your ass and get a little air.

1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley
The budget passed by a narrow margin, 219-213 in the House and 50-49 in the Senate.

The budget passed by a narrow margin, 219-213 in the House and 50-49 in the Senate.

And did I say otherwise? How many republicans voted in favor of it?

Are you on drugs?

"the one that passed without a single republican vote."

I don't know, am I?

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---50
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (D-CO)
Conrad (D-ND)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeConcini (D-AZ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Glenn (D-OH)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heflin (D-AL)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mathews (D-TN)
Metzenbaum (D-OH)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Mitchell (D-ME)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murray (D-WA)
Pell (D-RI)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Riegle (D-MI)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sasser (D-TN)
Simon (D-IL)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wofford (D-PA)

What are you trying to do? I proved you're full of shit.

 

[Neotrotsky]

What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

Whatever Queen Hillary says.....

 

[Neotrotsky]

You probably don't remember that Clinton (Bill) is the only president who had budget surpluses.

Yes, of course, I remember. But that didn't happen until after the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, and Bill Clinton just rolled over and let Congress set policy, while he took credit for the results.

I also remember many of his policies from his first two years, many of which even the Democrat-dominated Congress wouldn't go along with. Extreme wrongist policies, very much in line with those that Obama would try to put forth sixteen years later. I particularly remember some of his creative ideas for new taxes. He wanted a European-style Value-Added Tax, for one thing. Even the Democratic-controlled Congress wouldn't touch that, nor would they touch his proposed “BTU tax”[/b]—a tax on fuels and energy sources relative to their energy content. He put Hillary in charge of a plan for government to take over the medical industry. I remember that as one of the things that Republicans made great hay over, in the 1994 campaign.

One thing he did get passed was his crime pork bill, mostly stuffed with ridiculous spending on ill-thought-out programs with little or no connection to any plausible effort to address crime. It also contained his fraudulent “assault weapon” ban. He later admitted that he thought it was this one bill, and probably the “assault weapon” ban within it, that was the biggest reason for the Democrats losing control of Congress, and Republicans gaining full control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

When Bill Clinton was actively pursuing his own policies, the results were disastrous. The successful policies during his time in office came from the Republican-controlled Congress, and his lack of will to oppose them.

The single biggest factor to reducing the budget deficit was the tax increases Clinton got through congress in '93, sans republicans.

Actually it wasn't....one might argue it was Clinton's workfare and I would agree.....

One might argue it if one wanted to be intellectually dishonest. Clinton reformed welfare in Aug of '96 so it can't possibly explain the shrinking deficit over the previous 3 years.

"...so it can't possibly explain the shrinking deficit over the previous 3 years."

that's easy to explain
Republican Congress

 

[Disir]

I spent the past week in Philadelphia, in the halls and in the stadium of the Wells Fargo Center, for nearly every hour of the Democratic National Convention. I heard more than a hundred speakers, and spoke to dozens of people in the halls. After four days, I am not certain that I know what, precisely, the Democratic Party wants to be.

For the past two days, I put this question specifically to delegates and staffers, to the people who ought to know: “What, at core, is the Democratic message coming out of this convention?”

I got no shortage of answers.

“Justice for all,” said Chad Lupkes, a Bernie Sanders delegate from Washington state.

“A party of inclusion that addresses the issues that families are struggling with,” said Susan McGrath, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Calvin McFadden, a delegate from Massachusetts, suggested “equality and opportunity for all,” a fight “for the middle class.”

“What I’ve heard over and over is a party that brings us together, that doesn’t divide us, that’s a forward looking party of inclusion,” said Seth Hahn, a Sanders supporter from New Jersey.

These answers were not all issued with confidence. The delegates I spoke to paused, backed up, rephrased. In each case, they settled on general virtues: justice, inclusion, progress, the idea that the party was not so much associated with a particular program but with goodness itself, with a progressive sensibility that will, on the whole, produce virtuous outcomes.
What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

The answer is nothing. It's intentional.

They stand for nothing. Rubinomics came along and over about a decade the Democrats began to be ran by Wall Street. Now, you don't even have to have an agenda and then you don't have to do anything. Empty rhetoric is what we saw.

The Democrats stand for diversity, tolerance, and coalition building.

And also no more tax cuts for the rich.

And no more tax hikes on the poor and middle class.

Same as always since Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren -- just add the Negroes, LGBT, Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, etc.

I spent the past week in Philadelphia, in the halls and in the stadium of the Wells Fargo Center, for nearly every hour of the Democratic National Convention. I heard more than a hundred speakers, and spoke to dozens of people in the halls. After four days, I am not certain that I know what, precisely, the Democratic Party wants to be.

For the past two days, I put this question specifically to delegates and staffers, to the people who ought to know: “What, at core, is the Democratic message coming out of this convention?”

I got no shortage of answers.

“Justice for all,” said Chad Lupkes, a Bernie Sanders delegate from Washington state.

“A party of inclusion that addresses the issues that families are struggling with,” said Susan McGrath, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Calvin McFadden, a delegate from Massachusetts, suggested “equality and opportunity for all,” a fight “for the middle class.”

“What I’ve heard over and over is a party that brings us together, that doesn’t divide us, that’s a forward looking party of inclusion,” said Seth Hahn, a Sanders supporter from New Jersey.

These answers were not all issued with confidence. The delegates I spoke to paused, backed up, rephrased. In each case, they settled on general virtues: justice, inclusion, progress, the idea that the party was not so much associated with a particular program but with goodness itself, with a progressive sensibility that will, on the whole, produce virtuous outcomes.
What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

The answer is nothing. It's intentional.

They stand for nothing. Rubinomics came along and over about a decade the Democrats began to be ran by Wall Street. Now, you don't even have to have an agenda and then you don't have to do anything. Empty rhetoric is what we saw.

The Democrats stand for diversity, tolerance, and coalition building.

And also no more tax cuts for the rich.

And no more tax hikes on the poor and middle class.

Same as always since Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren -- just add the Negroes, LGBT, Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, etc.

And how that does what exactly?

 

[IsaacNewton]

https://www.demconvention.com/wp-co...emocratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf


In detail, let us know when you finish reading. It will take a while.

 

[Disir]

https://www.demconvention.com/wp-co...emocratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf


In detail, let us know when you finish reading. It will take a while.

I have already. Thanks.