The differences
 

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:56:03 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


The last conservative president was the great Ronald Reagan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ5te...eature=related

The differences
 

On 2008-04-18 23:49:20 -0400, "Vito" said:

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote
They believe in growing government and spending spending spending. They
wish to accomplish this by raising taxes. Their method of balancing the
budget is to raise taxes until they have 90 percent of what people earn.

Gee whiz Wilber, RR, big daddy Bush and now Blundering Bush grew the
government far more than any Democrat since Roosevelt. Worse yet, they did
it by borrowing from countries like China. As a result 3/4 of our national
debt has been incurred by those three administrations. Now we pay more to
service that debt than JFK's first budget. Yes Clinton raised taxes but he
also held down spending and balanced the budget, the first president to do
that since Nixon, despite a borrow & spend Republican Congress.

The Congress determines spending. The President only executes their
orders. (Clinton's was mostly R; Bush's mostly D.) And Clinton had the
benefit of the .COM spike that falsely inflated value and revenue.

Not to mention that the debt is, what, half of its value of a few years
ago due to the devaluation of the dollar?

I'm saddened by those who think the federal debt is so incredibly bad,
though it's a small percentage of GDP (the nation's annual "income").
Most carry debt many times in excess of their income.

When friends get all in a lather on this subject, I simply ask them:
"Could you pay off all your debts tomorrow?" Most of them have negative
net worth, so couldn't even if they cashed everything in. They depend
upon future pay raises, future inflation, to eventually pay their debts
off.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

The differences
 

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008041901124575249-jerelull@maccom...
On 2008-04-18 23:49:20 -0400, "Vito" said:

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote
They believe in growing government and spending spending spending. They
wish to accomplish this by raising taxes. Their method of balancing the
budget is to raise taxes until they have 90 percent of what people earn.

Gee whiz Wilber, RR, big daddy Bush and now Blundering Bush grew the
government far more than any Democrat since Roosevelt. Worse yet, they
did
it by borrowing from countries like China. As a result 3/4 of our
national
debt has been incurred by those three administrations. Now we pay more to
service that debt than JFK's first budget. Yes Clinton raised taxes but
he
also held down spending and balanced the budget, the first president to
do
that since Nixon, despite a borrow & spend Republican Congress.

The Congress determines spending. The President only executes their
orders. (Clinton's was mostly R; Bush's mostly D.) And Clinton had the
benefit of the .COM spike that falsely inflated value and revenue.

Not to mention that the debt is, what, half of its value of a few years
ago due to the devaluation of the dollar?

I'm saddened by those who think the federal debt is so incredibly bad,
though it's a small percentage of GDP (the nation's annual "income"). Most
carry debt many times in excess of their income.

When friends get all in a lather on this subject, I simply ask them:
"Could you pay off all your debts tomorrow?" Most of them have negative
net worth, so couldn't even if they cashed everything in. They depend upon
future pay raises, future inflation, to eventually pay their debts off.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/



Huh? You should probably stick to sailing subjects...

The federal debt is over $9 Trillion dollars as of this year! Perhaps you're
talking about the federal deficit... which is running about $200 Billion a
year. We were on track during the Clinton administration to have a surplus
of over $5 Trillion. Even if that was wildly optimistic because of your
claim of a bubble in the economy, we still would have a surplus.

Not only that but the President *proposes* the budget. The Congress makes
the final decision through negotiation. Until recently, this was a
Republican Congress. BTW, the Iraq war is projected to cost between $3 and
$5 Trillion.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

The differences
 

On 2008-04-19 02:10:12 -0400, "Capt. JG" said:

Not only that but the President *proposes* the budget.

Is there much correlation between what he proposes and what emerges
from the Congress? (particularly after earmarks.)

Truth be told, a major part of either version is under-funded mandates
from previous administrations coming home to roost.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

The differences
 

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008041903191416807-jerelull@maccom...
On 2008-04-19 02:10:12 -0400, "Capt. JG" said:

Not only that but the President *proposes* the budget.

Is there much correlation between what he proposes and what emerges from
the Congress? (particularly after earmarks.)

Truth be told, a major part of either version is under-funded mandates
from previous administrations coming home to roost.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/



There is if you have a "friendly" (same party) Congress... a good reason for
splitting at least half Rs and Ds in most years. Given the debacle of the
war and what Bush did, we need a course correction, which in my view means
all Ds. Earmarks, which seemingly bad things, aren't usually. They're
designed to promote local projects. Some are outrageous, but most have
value. It would be better if they were fully disclosed, which is what is not
required now.

You're basically right about underfunded mandates, but if we had a surplus,
we could get back to fixing roads, bridges, etc.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com