Here's What I Think Will Happen in in 2012 Election

[zgoldsmith23]

Did you just debate yourself?? :lamo

 

[SheWolf]

Romney will be the candidate, but I'm not sure who he'll pick for a VP. probably a more conservative person to augment his moderation. Assuming the SCOTUS does not make a ruling on Obamacare before the election (which I doubt it will), Romney will lose by a small margin to Obama in the election. The economy will begin to pick around end of 2012/2013 to the point where unemployment falls to an acceptable level (assuming no catastrophic event in the European economy) and Obama's second term will be defined as a huge success and the Democratic Party will be the favored political party for the next few cycles.

I think the Democrats are in for a good next few years. What say you, you jive turkeys?

I am really curious to see Obama take on Romney on ObanmeyCare... Romney won't be able to deny Obama's plan is based on his. Romney might try to argue state's rights, but Obama will point out that that's not what Romney said in 2008.

 

[Conservative]

I am really curious to see Obama take on Romney on ObanmeyCare... Romney won't be able to deny Obama's plan is based on his. Romney might try to argue state's rights, but Obama will point out that that's not what Romney said in 2008.

So you believe Romneycare a state program is the same program as Obamacare which is national? Interesting. States rights give the states that opportunity to implement a healthcare program and some have. Healthcare is a state, local, and personal responsibility.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Clinton raised taxes and signed a law requiring spending cuts, and not one single solitary Republican voted for it.

Now we get to dissect the talking point. Where were the primary budget restraints enacted? Are any of the budget restraints still in place? Aside from the tax increases, increases to social security and the expansion of the EITC what parts of the bill still remain?

Dont go running out of the thread Adam, its your talking point, you defend it.

 

[TheNextEra]

Now youre just being obtuse. I support extremely conservative fiscal republicans. If youre going to toss a crap charge out better make sure its at least remotely true. I want the RINOs out. Can you say the same? The DC establishment is the problem.

Yes it's funny to see conservatives say they support extremely conservative fiscal Republicans and yet vote for establishment candidates LOL.

Sure thing buddy! We believe you, really we do :roll:

 

[AdamT]

What am I trying to change? When was that supposed Clinton balanced budget and what did the Tax Relief Act of 1997 do? I am very thankful that Clinton did what he did as it gave us a GOP Congress in 1994 elections. I am still waiting for how that tax increase along with the fact that there were no wars during the Clinton term led to a 1.4 trillion added to the debt?

Now you can continue to live in the past in hopes that will take the focus on the present and the future but "your" President has added 4.6 trillion to the debt in 3 years and is projected to add another 1.1 trillion in his fourth year. No wonder you want to focus on the past and ignore the present.

Well, one thing you can look at is the interest on all the debt accumulated by Reagan and Bush I that Clinton was saddled with. What you can't deny, however, no matter how hard you ball up your little fists and pound the table, is that Clinton drastically reduced deficits. Whether you want to call it a surplus or not, it is undeniable that he slammed the brakes on deficit spending, and nothing you can say will ever change that.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Well, one thing you can look at is the interest on all the debt accumulated by Reagan and Bush I that Clinton was saddled with. What you can't deny, however, no matter how hard you ball up your little fists and pound the table, is that Clinton drastically reduced deficits. Whether you want to call it a surplus or not, it is undeniable that he slammed the brakes on deficit spending, and nothing you can say will ever change that.

Which doesnt answer any of my questions. Thanks for playing talking points without substance, tell him what hes won Alex.

I would say that Clinton appeased tax increases in his own party and tax cuts from republicans while ignoring pleas for increases in spending in military from Reps and entitlements from Dems. Did he do it as a policy? No he did it for political survival and expediency but Im not going to deny he signed the bills. He may not have wholeheartedly supported or even liked the same bills.

Your answers btw---aside from the tax increases very little remains of the budget restraints from the Omnibus budget bill of 93. The budget restraints are gone, most of the cuts were based in the military and military support systems. Foreign aid I believe was also cut to some extent. IIRC all of the spending cuts were discretionary and military cuts were actually that---cuts and not slowing the rate of growth. Thanks for not discussing your own talking point though.

I remember the political battle from the budget deficit money, I think some of it paid back debt but most of it didnt. That graph is a touch misleading as its just a yearly representation of debt and not the running total, but yeah its a strong narrative point.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes it's funny to see conservatives say they support extremely conservative fiscal Republicans and yet vote for establishment candidates LOL.

Sure thing buddy! We believe you, really we do :roll:

Lets start with you dont know how I vote. Second, your post is just inflammatory. You dont know me. Dont presume to know me. Now take your personal attack and stick it up your ass.

 

[Conservative]

Well, one thing you can look at is the interest on all the debt accumulated by Reagan and Bush I that Clinton was saddled with. What you can't deny, however, no matter how hard you ball up your little fists and pound the table, is that Clinton drastically reduced deficits. Whether you want to call it a surplus or not, it is undeniable that he slammed the brakes on deficit spending, and nothing you can say will ever change that.

Why is it you have such a problem with Treasury Data, the Treasury shows 1.4 trillion added to the debt then there was the question that I asked, did the GOP Congress approve budgets that were more or less than Clinton wanted? How is 1.4 trillion added to the debt slam the break on deficits since every year of the Clinton Administration had deficits?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Those were the projected numbers Con. I think OMB may have signed off on em too, dont remember.

 

[Redress]

Moderator's Warning:

Some of you really need to tone it down.

 

[Conservative]

Those were the projected numbers Con. I think OMB may have signed off on em too, dont remember.

CBO Projections

CBO: 2012 deficit projected at $1.1T - Headline News | Outcome Magazine

Actual debt by year is located here

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

 

[AdamT]

Which doesnt answer any of my questions. Thanks for playing talking points without substance, tell him what hes won Alex.

I would say that Clinton appeased tax increases in his own party and tax cuts from republicans while ignoring pleas for increases in spending in military from Reps and entitlements from Dems. Did he do it as a policy? No he did it for political survival and expediency but Im not going to deny he signed the bills. He may not have wholeheartedly supported or even liked the same bills.

Your answers btw---aside from the tax increases very little remains of the budget restraints from the Omnibus budget bill of 93. The budget restraints are gone, most of the cuts were based in the military and military support systems. Foreign aid I believe was also cut to some extent. IIRC all of the spending cuts were discretionary and military cuts were actually that---cuts and not slowing the rate of growth. Thanks for not discussing your own talking point though.

I remember the political battle from the budget deficit money, I think some of it paid back debt but most of it didnt. That graph is a touch misleading as its just a yearly representation of debt and not the running total, but yeah its a strong narrative point.

The chart is a perfectly straightforward graph of normalized annual deficit spending. There's absolutely nothing misleading about it.

As far as Clinton goes, the record is clear. From the very beiginning deficit reduction was one of his primary goals. Repulicans vigorously opposed many of his policies which eliminated deficits. I'll grant you that they did push him on spending cuts, but that was generally a question of prioritizing what should get cut as opposed whether there should be spending cuts. The 1993 bill cut entitlement spending and raised taxes, and it passed without a single Republican vote. The 1997 bill that further cut spending, and also cut some taxes, had broad bipartisan support.

 

[AdamT]

Why is it you have such a problem with Treasury Data, the Treasury shows 1.4 trillion added to the debt then there was the question that I asked, did the GOP Congress approve budgets that were more or less than Clinton wanted? How is 1.4 trillion added to the debt slam the break on deficits since every year of the Clinton Administration had deficits?

As you can see from the graph I posted, deficit spending decreased over the course of Clinton's two terms -- to the point where he was running a surplus. The fact that the gross debt increased over eight years does not negate the fact that he ran surpluses for several years. It's an arithmetic thing.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The chart is a perfectly straightforward graph of normalized annual deficit spending. There's absolutely nothing misleading about it.

As far as Clinton goes, the record is clear. From the very beiginning deficit reduction was one of his primary goals. Repulicans vigorously opposed many of his policies which eliminated deficits. I'll grant you that they did push him on spending cuts, but that was generally a question of prioritizing what should get cut as opposed whether there should be spending cuts. The 1993 bill cut entitlement spending and raised taxes, and it passed without a single Republican vote. The 1997 bill that further cut spending, and also cut some taxes, had broad bipartisan support.

LOL disagree stongly and leave it at that. I saw him as a traditional tax and spender.

Thought of something about the 97 compromise vote, Gramm Leach Biley was a compromise thing too. Compromise aint always good.

 

[Conservative]

As you can see from the graph I posted, deficit spending decreased over the course of Clinton's two terms -- to the point where he was running a surplus. The fact that the gross debt increased over eight years does not negate the fact that he ran surpluses for several years. It's an arithmetic thing.

So it was 1.4 trillion in surpluses? The Treasury shows that as debt. You need to send them your information since they got it wrong

 

[SheWolf]

So you believe Romneycare a state program is the same program as Obamacare which is national? Interesting. States rights give the states that opportunity to implement a healthcare program and some have. Healthcare is a state, local, and personal responsibility.

It is the same program, one is just national... and it was the same national plan Romney proposed in 2008

 

[Conservative]

It is the same program, one is just national... and it was the same national plan Romney proposed in 2008

The same problem? A state program can be changed and even eliminated whereas a national program cannot be unraveled or changed very easily

 

[Catawba]

6 trillion aint a fraction bud, especially in half the time. You guys need to get better talking points. Really.

Clinton never ran up a 6 trillion debt, and neither did Obama, most of our national debt occurred under Republican Administrations because they did what Romney is proposing, increasing spending on the military and cutting revenues.

http://roaneviews.com/files/images/National-Debt-by%20president%20as%20a%20percentage%20on%20GNP%20zfacts%20National-Debt-GDP-L.preview.gif

 

[AdamT]

So it was 1.4 trillion in surpluses? The Treasury shows that as debt. You need to send them your information since they got it wrong

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Clinton inherited massive deficits from Reagan and Bush. By the time he left, he was running a surplus (or if you prefer, almost no deficit), which Bush II transformed into massive deficits.

You seem to have this fanciful notion that a president can step into office and immediately, single-handedly reverse the course of the federal government. It doesn't work that way in the real world. You can't stop a super tanker on a dime and spin it in its own length.

 

[Catawba]

The thing about history is that you can't change it through wishful thinking.

A major problem with the economy at the time was the issue of the massive deficit and the problem of government spending. In order to address these issues, in August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers, while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses.[40] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years and the deficit be reduced.[41] This was to be achieved through the implementation of spending restraints.

There you go again, throwing actual facts in to spoil people's prized delusions!

 

[Catawba]

Yes it's funny to see conservatives say they support extremely conservative fiscal Republicans and yet vote for establishment candidates LOL.

Sure thing buddy! We believe you, really we do :roll:

And Romney is saying straight up, I am going to increase military spending, which is already as much as the rest of the world combined, and the rich are not going to pay for it!!!!


Who do the conservatives think is going to pay for that???

 

[Conservative]

Clinton never ran up a 6 trillion debt, and neither did Obama, most of our national debt occurred under Republican Administrations because they did what Romney is proposing, increasing spending on the military and cutting revenues.

http://roaneviews.com/files/images/National-Debt-by%20president%20as%20a%20percentage%20on%20GNP%20zfacts%20National-Debt-GDP-L.preview.gif

That is a lie but then again you are good at that, Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion dollar deficit that today is 15.2 trillion with another 1.1 trillion projected for 2012. Let see how close that is to 6 trillion in four years?

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

 

[OpportunityCost]

Clinton never ran up a 6 trillion debt, and neither did Obama, most of our national debt occurred under Republican Administrations because they did what Romney is proposing, increasing spending on the military and cutting revenues.

http://roaneviews.com/files/images/National-Debt-by%20president%20as%20a%20percentage%20on%20GNP%20zfacts%20National-Debt-GDP-L.preview.gif

National Debt by Presidential Term - per Capita and as Percentage of GDP

Sure. Whatever.

 

[OpportunityCost]

And Romney is saying straight up, I am going to increase military spending, which is already as much as the rest of the world combined, and the rich are not going to pay for it!!!!


Who do the conservatives think is going to pay for that???

Really Cat? Can I see a quote for that? :roll: