Consideration required
 

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:25:04 -0500, Bruce wrote:




The national debt story.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16


Look at the increase in revenues during those years.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls




Reagan wasn't in office by then...

FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years!



Statistical spin. When you hit rock bottom, and upward movement is
statistically huge.

even if you subtract effects of inventories, the economy grew.

which is more than we can say about bush

Consideration required
 

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:19:25 -0500, wrote:




Look at the increase in revenues during those years.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls



The reason why Clinton showed a surplus was because he could borrow
from Social Security and call it income although it was still
increasing the debt.

uh huh. bet that trick was never tried before or since

Consideration required
 

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:14:21 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:04:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What?? Reagan's deregulation was the problem... banks, airlines, media,
healthcare industry, etc.

NONE of the deregulation that caused these problems happened during
the Reagan administration. Reagan got you the $99 coast to coast
airplane flight and a lot of drugs coming off prescription.


You're just wrong. That's when all of the problems started. He borrowed
heavily, and even he was disappointed by the result.


Make up your mind, are you talking about deficit spending or
deregulation, again two different things. BTW Reagan's 8 year debt
increase of around $2T (about the same as Clinton's 8 year number)
will be beat by Obama in far less than two.
Before you say it, GW hit it out of the park too.

and reagan's recession was mild compared to the one caused by bush

Consideration required
 

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:56:04 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:27:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Never said they were the same. Deficit spending is needed sometimes.
Regulation is needed in the financial system for sure.


I think you need to be looking toward a time when we will be getting
the deficit under control and I don't see that in my lifetime.

as nobel prize winner paul krugman pointed out, obama's deficits
aren't the problem the hysterical right says they are. service on the
national debt after obama's money is spent will be about 3.4% of
GDP...about the same as it was under bush the first

Consideration required
 

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:00:54 -0500, wrote:



There was really no major deregulation of the financial industry
there.

one of the major issues in the current meltdown was when GOP senator
phil gramm personally stopped passage of the commodities future
marketing act until the regulatory powers of the SEC were stripped
from the bill

Consideration required
 

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:34:39 -0500, Bruce wrote:




Sure. He should pay more so those who chose to be lazy can reap the
benefits of his hard work. Obama's "redistribution of wealth" will send
him to an early retirement.

i love it. the rich think the middle class is 'lazy'...

Consideration required
 

On 2/7/10 11:30 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:25:04 -0500, wrote:




The national debt story.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16


Look at the increase in revenues during those years.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls




Reagan wasn't in office by then...

FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years!



Statistical spin. When you hit rock bottom, and upward movement is
statistically huge.

even if you subtract effects of inventories, the economy grew.

which is more than we can say about bush


Bruce is one of those Republithugs who doesn't want any sort of economic
turnaround. Improvement in the economy will make it more difficult for
the Republithugs. Bruce hates America.

Consideration required
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:56:04 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:27:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Never said they were the same. Deficit spending is needed sometimes.
Regulation is needed in the financial system for sure.


I think you need to be looking toward a time when we will be getting
the deficit under control and I don't see that in my lifetime.

as nobel prize winner paul krugman pointed out, obama's deficits
aren't the problem the hysterical right says they are. service on the
national debt after obama's money is spent will be about 3.4% of
GDP...about the same as it was under bush the first




If you won a Nobel, you'd be a loser. You forgot that.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:31:17 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

The reason why Clinton showed a surplus was because he could borrow
from Social Security and call it income although it was still
increasing the debt.

uh huh. bet that trick was never tried before or since

It has been done by every president since LBJ, who signed the
legislation. Unfortunately it was too late to help him. Nixon got the
only other balanced budget since Eisenhower, using the SS surplus.
Ike did it by actually cutting spending.


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was
the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...federal. html

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:37:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:31:17 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

The reason why Clinton showed a surplus was because he could borrow
from Social Security and call it income although it was still
increasing the debt.

uh huh. bet that trick was never tried before or since

It has been done by every president since LBJ, who signed the
legislation. Unfortunately it was too late to help him. Nixon got the
only other balanced budget since Eisenhower, using the SS surplus.
Ike did it by actually cutting spending.


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was
the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...federal. html


Which year did the debt actually go down? I didn't think so.
Taking one piece of the debt (the money you borrow from SS) and
applying it to lowering your deficit is basically paying your Visa
card bill with your Mastercard.
Ike actually had a year when the debt went down.



So, you're unwilling to believe a non-partisan group... whatever.

--
Nom=de=Plume