Are You A Partisan Hypocrite?

[j-mac]

PolitiFact.....Hmmmm.....Aren't they the group that recently fact checked SNL because they did a skit Obama didn't like? Yeah, they are non biased.


j-mac

 

[Charles Martel]

what exactly got "stimulated"?

Town halls.

 

[jackalope]

I think there's a very valid point to be made with regard to the bitching on deficit spending. It's ridiculous. Had their been a President McCain, rather than a President Obama, we'd be in just about the exact same spot we are now, and that is b/c of the irresponsible policies pursued under Bush.

Handing out tax cuts that added to the deficit, then doing it again whilst at war, then pursuing a war of choice, THEN the fun little unpaid for benny that is Medicare Part D, AND doing so while the economy was in expansion, all of it was flipping dumb.


It's ridiculous to bitch about Obama deficits, particularly since being a deficit hawk in the middle of a big fat downturn is really really bad policy.

 

[Charles Martel]

It's ridiculous to bitch about Obama deficits.

It must be, even those that opposed deficit spending under Bush on the Left's aisle support these new deficit endeavors.

Far from ridiculous, it makes utter sense to 'bitch' about it, otherwise, how would he know how many don't support these policies.

 

[danarhea]

I don't mind spending money I just question how it is spent. I want to see a return.

I would also like to see a return. Instead of spending my money, just return it to my pocket, where it belongs.

 

[j-mac]

I think there's a very valid point to be made with regard to the bitching on deficit spending. It's ridiculous. Had their been a President McCain, rather than a President Obama, we'd be in just about the exact same spot we are now, and that is b/c of the irresponsible policies pursued under Bush.

I don't think that a Repub unable to control spending by congress is any different than a Demo failing to control congressional spending. The key here is the corruption, and the willing to push these spending bills that BTW, are costing as much as 8 years of war time spending in ONE bill all by themselves.

This idea that the world of out of control spending by congress started with Bush is laughable, and points to a myopic view of hyper partisanship on the part of anyone who thinks that spending by my guy is ok, while spending by my political, or ideological opponent is always bad.

Handing out tax cuts that added to the deficit, then doing it again whilst at war, then pursuing a war of choice, THEN the fun little unpaid for benny that is Medicare Part D, AND doing so while the economy was in expansion, all of it was flipping dumb.

So, giving people on fixed incomes a way to bridge the gap of health care costs is in your words "flipping dumb" is it? Oh, and in case you only saw through rage colored glasses during ANY president that cut taxes, also saw increased revenues to the government during that time. The only thing you will get by continuing to increase taxation is falling revenues, and blown budgets that will bankrupt this once great nation.

It's ridiculous to bitch about Obama deficits, particularly since being a deficit hawk in the middle of a big fat downturn is really really bad policy.

Government only fixes things when it gets out of the way. More government involvement leads to ruin.


j-mac

 

[liblady]

So, giving people on fixed incomes a way to bridge the gap of health care costs is in your words "flipping dumb" is it? Oh, and in case you only saw through rage colored glasses during ANY president that cut taxes, also saw increased revenues to the government during that time. The only thing you will get by continuing to increase taxation is falling revenues, and blown budgets that will bankrupt this once great nation.

no and no. medicare part d didn't help seniors, not really. and clinton raised taxes and increased revenue, without a blown budget. how does that square?

 

[j-mac]

no and no. medicare part d didn't help seniors, not really.

Really? A subsidy to aid seniors in obtaining prescription drugs did not help seniors? I bet they have a different take on it.....

and clinton raised taxes and increased revenue, without a blown budget. how does that square?

It squares the same way that liberals always square things concerning their failed policies.....With smoke and mirrors.

From the Office of Management and Budget, these are the figures for the national debt (in millions of dollars), held at the end of the fiscal year:

1993 $4,351,403
1994 $4,643,691
1995 $4,921,005
1996 $5,181,921
1997 $5,369,694
1998 $5,478,711
1999 $5,606,087
2000 $5,629,016
2001 $5,770,256

From Debt to the Penny, a US Treasury website:

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,633.43
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

Since President Clinton had no control over the 1992 Budget, the first year that matters is 1993-1994 for our analysis. As you can see, from either set of data, at the end of EACH fiscal year he was in office, and the end of the 2001 fiscal year (fiscal years run from October 1st to September 30th), which was his budget, the national debt increased. Now, that doesn't make a surplus in any economics book.

According to one Pennsylvania budget definition, a surplus is "A fiscal condition which may occur at the end of a fiscal year, whereby expenditures are less than the actual intake of revenues during the same period. The surplus funds become available for appropriation for
the following year." It is as good a definition as any other, and the funds on hand at the end of each fiscal year President Clinton was in office tallies up at less than zero.

There are only two conclusions that can be made about this:

A. There were NO SURPLUSES during President William Jefferson Clinton's Administration.
B. There were surpluses compared to his initial budget, but President Clinton simply spent the already overtaxed money on other projects, in which case, there were NO SURPLUSES.

If surpluses had ecisted, the DEBT would have gone DOWN, or at least remained constant. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the economy of the 90s was built by the spending of the 80s, and was driven by Bill. Gates, that is, and the internet boom. It is, however, a fact that Clinton drove the economy into recession by the end of his second term, another factor that belies a country with a surplus. It does make one wonder how well the economy might have done under the Clinton Administration if he hadn't raised taxes. An opportunity lost, to be sure.

Hopefully, the facts of the debt above will bury this myth once and for all. But I suspect the legend of the surplus will last a good long while still, bolstered by the media, but not the facts.

Those Mythical Clinton Surpluses, Page 2 of 2 - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

j-mac

 

[Truth Detector]

Amazing how the GOP says we're supposed to just forget the last 8 years, eh? (GW.... who???)

I am amazed that Liberals keep pointing to the past to justify the outrageously irresponsible behavior of the Democrats today.

Sorry pal.......We will all be paying the price of the "Past" for a number of years to come.

Sorry Pal, but we will all be paying the price of the present for decades to come.

Acting like an ostrich just wont make the massive train wreck we are headed towards due to the misguided policies of the current majority of Democrats go away. All the “Bush” finger pointing doesn’t change that FACT.

 

[Truth Detector]

I would also like to see a return. Instead of spending my money, just return it to my pocket, where it belongs.

:rofl ..... that was funny. But don't hold your breath with the Democrats in charge. Most likely, you will end up with much less by the time they get done.

 

[Truth Detector]

I think there's a very valid point to be made with regard to the bitching on deficit spending. It's ridiculous. Had their been a President McCain, rather than a President Obama, we'd be in just about the exact same spot we are now, and that is b/c of the irresponsible policies pursued under Bush.

This is nothing more than hyperbolic speculation in your desperate efforts to defend the indefensible.

Handing out tax cuts that added to the deficit, then doing it again whilst at war, then pursuing a war of choice, THEN the fun little unpaid for benny that is Medicare Part D, AND doing so while the economy was in expansion, all of it was flipping dumb.

Then why is the current administration doing the same thing? Wasn't it Liberals like you who railed about Bush's tax cuts and argued that we need to INCREASE taxes to pay for these programs?

Why is it suddenly okay for the current administration and Democrat majority in Congress do everything they can to even debate the necessary taxation it will take to pay for their programs which are burying us in a mountain of debt with no improvement in sight?

It's ridiculous to bitch about Obama deficits, particularly since being a deficit hawk in the middle of a big fat downturn is really really bad policy.

It was more ridiculous to bitch about Bush's deficits in the face of 9-11, fighting two wars of choice and bi-partisan support, and the devastating effects hurricane Katrina had on a major US city.

It was profane to watch Liberals like you grab Osama Bin Laden sound bites to impugn the efforts of our troops while they were doing the job Democrats and Republican politicians sent them to do.

But alas, now you want to whine when people rightfully bitch about the obvious lies, distortions and hyperbolic divisive partisan rhetoric Democrats have been caught in? We call this hypocrisy and irony.

Carry on; it is a delight watching Liberals now defend even more outrageous behavior simply because the people in charge have a "D" in their titles.

 

[liblady]

Nominal debt in dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992, and remained at about the same level by the end of the Clinton presidency in 2000. More recently the debt increased from $5,629 billion to $9,926 billion during the George W. Bush presidency from 2000 to 2008.

wiki

while it's true the debt increased, some programs are not included in the deficit, which is what we were discussing.

as your numbers support, clinton did indeed "balance the budget".



with 57 plans to choose from, my mother couldn't begin to even figure out what was best for her. that "boon" was a boon to insurance companies.

 

[jackalope]

wiki

while it's true the debt increased, some programs are not included in the deficit, which is what we were discussing.

as your numbers support, clinton did indeed "balance the budget".



with 57 plans to choose from, my mother couldn't begin to even figure out what was best for her. that "boon" was a boon to insurance companies.

And deficit and debt are not the same thing. Funny ****, the righties blaming Clinton for increasing debt b/c of interest on debt piled on by his predecessors.


Clinton not only balanced the budget, he produced a surplus. Yes a SURPLUS.

 

[liblady]

And deficit and debt are not the same thing. Funny ****, the righties blaming Clinton for increasing debt b/c of interest on debt piled on by his predecessors.


Clinton not only balanced the budget, he produced a surplus. Yes a SURPLUS.

it's all semantics. the facts are that clinton was a moderate president, socially and fiscally. and a damned good one, personal failing aside.

 

[j-mac]

Confusing the issue aside, the myth that Clinton had a surplus at the end of his term is laughable.

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

snip

**The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.**

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion



The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

You libs are entitled to your opinions, just not your own set of facts.


j-mac

 

[jackalope]

Confusing the issue aside, the myth that Clinton had a surplus at the end of his term is laughable.





You libs are entitled to your opinions, just not your own set of facts.


j-mac

We are not the ones making up our own set of facts. Surplus or deficit refers to the annual condition of the budget, not the national debt. btw, every American President from WW2 on paid down the 'war debt' until Ronald Reagan.

 

[azura28]

No


It's not the amount...It's what that amount is spent on. Bush's spending hurt us...Obama's spending is helping us.


Exacerbated by Bush's negligence & going on vacation instead of defending his country.




.........NOT!:lol:

Any 'thinking' American was upset with the millions the repubs spent when they went crazy and sent us down the drain. I was and am now upset by the rushed spending of the dems.

I thought you were a non-partisan thinker until I read the above. You really think Obama's spending is helping us? And just HOW do you know that?
You have no criticism for it at all? Trillions in a RUSHED stimulus, trillions in a RUSHED health care bill, nada, none?

You answered your own title question for yourself personally, right here in your own thread - a resounding yes! :lol::lol:

 

[j-mac]

We are not the ones making up our own set of facts.

You seem to be. You said:

Clinton not only balanced the budget, he produced a surplus. Yes a SURPLUS.

to which I posted not one, but TWO separate articles that completely disproved that statement. maybe you missed the part of the second article that stated:

**This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.**

Clinton was known for balancing his budget by raiding SS funds to do so. That is not a true balanced budget.


j-mac

 

[jackalope]

You seem to be. You said:



to which I posted not one, but TWO separate articles that completely disproved that statement. maybe you missed the part of the second article that stated:



Clinton was known for balancing his budget by raiding SS funds to do so. That is not a true balanced budget.


j-mac

And I explained to you not once, but twice, that the national debt size is completely separate from a budget surplus, or even a budget deficit.

Budget deficits/surpluses are the net of an operating period, debt is the balance owed from all previous operating periods. (We are still paying back WW2 debt, forchrissakes)

 

[azura28]

We are not the ones making up our own set of facts. Surplus or deficit refers to the annual condition of the budget, not the national debt. btw, every American President from WW2 on paid down the 'war debt' until Ronald Reagan.

President Clinton also reduced the deficit left by Reagan. And he....did....leave.....a.....surplus. That doesn't matter to the right wingnuts, the partisan hacks, if a democrat left a surplus, there had to be something wrong with it. It doesn't matter that bush left the nation in the biggest deficit ever, not to mention, nothing even close to a surplus. He's a repub, so it's all right.:roll:

The way Obama is starting out, it does not look any better either. twisted:

 

[j-mac]

I am left wondering if either of you actually read the link I provided?

here I'll provide it again, please read it before responding....Thanks.


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus


j-mac

 

[jackalope]

I am left wondering if either of you actually read the link I provided?

here I'll provide it again, please read it before responding....Thanks.


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus


j-mac

j-mac, your link's argument is nonsense. The surplus wasn't in reference to the national debt. It was in reference to the net difference of revenues minus expenditures in a fiscal year.

Yes, Virginia, Clinton DID have a surplus. More than one. He even left one behind for Bush. Who squandered it.

 

[j-mac]

j-mac, your link's argument is nonsense. The surplus wasn't in reference to the national debt. It was in reference to the net difference of revenues minus expenditures in a fiscal year.

Yes, Virginia, Clinton DID have a surplus. More than one. He even left one behind for Bush. Who squandered it.

Um, No, he didn't....What do you think happens to any surpluses? they just sit in the bank? No. They go to pay down debt. Clinton never paid down any debt, in fact he increased it every year, thus, NO SURPLUS.


j-mac

 

[jackalope]

Um, No, he didn't....What do you think happens to any surpluses? they just sit in the bank? No. They go to pay down debt. Clinton never paid down any debt, in fact he increased it every year, thus, NO SURPLUS.


j-mac

Of course that's what a suprlus does. However, the fact of existing debt from previous fiscal years doesn't negate the condition of budget surplus in any given year .... if such a condition exists. And it did, for several years, until 43 pissed it away then went for broke (man did he succeed).


Besides, your link is just some guy, it's as compelling as a post on a message board. Less so, since he doesn't understand money, obviously.

 

[reefedjib]

Well, of course, deficit spending is ok. You will increase the debt but this is balanced by a growing GDP and tax base. So in real dollars, you aren't really increasing the debt, usually.

Bush took a surplus budget and reworked it resulting in a deficit budget. This was partially done for FY 2001, but it accelerated after 9/11. There were increased costs for national security.

Clinton had cut defense spending to the bone. He cut intelligence spending to the bone. Not very smart. We had to rebuild the services. We went to war with Iraq by 2003, and still the deficits were only 300-400 million.

Obama is really spending a lot of money. 1.7 Trillion in the hole! This is crazy.