Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Liberals don't need radio show preachers to tell them what or how to
think.

No, they're pretty much content to read the liberally biased news
media,
like the New York Times.....

Dave

At least we are capable of reading and understanding the NY Times, Dave.
Perhaps it bothers you that the Times uses words larger than your
president
can pronounce, or even define. Example: nuclear


More ad-hominem insults Doug? I know you're on the losing side of logic
here, but please try to be a bit more graceful. It isn't helping your
credibility to stoop to Harry's level of "debate".


My comment was not intended as a general one. It was specific (that's the
opposite of general).


I never said that your comments were general. You made a specific
ad-hominem comment, based on nothing more than your own bias.

Dave

Skipper wrote in message ...

It's not just the polls which reflect how people are thinking. History
will show the Dems are responsibe for our ever increasing federal
spending with their never ending push towards a fully socialist economy.

How do you explain, then, that when Clinton was in office, the
nation's budget was balanced, and then when GWB got here, we go into,
and REMAIN in massive debt?

Was the budget really balanced? or was it government speak? Clinton had
the advantage of a robust economy as well as a congress that cut spending.
The robust economy was not Clinton's fault and was already starting to tank
before he left office. Do accounting like is required of every public
business, and you will see a lot of lies in government. Where is the Social
Security "Trust Fund"? Is a bunch of IOU's from the rest of the Federal
Government. They borrowed it interest free and spent it! You do that to
your kids inherited trust fund, and you get to visit the Greybar Hotel. the
16% tax is what made the budget looked balanced. We, as voters and
taxpayers, ought to require the budget to be a real budget, and numbers
based on real life. Baseline budgeting the Congress uses, supposes a 13%
(somewhere in this range) growth in spending each year. That is why you can
have a 4% cut and still spend 9% more money each year on a program. And it
was the Democrats who instigated this travesty when inflation was about 13%
in maybe the 1970's.
Bill

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Skipper wrote in message
...

It's not just the polls which reflect how people are thinking. History
will show the Dems are responsibe for our ever increasing federal
spending with their never ending push towards a fully socialist economy.

How do you explain, then, that when Clinton was in office, the
nation's budget was balanced, and then when GWB got here, we go into,
and REMAIN in massive debt?

Was the budget really balanced? or was it government speak? Clinton had
the advantage of a robust economy as well as a congress that cut spending.

I suggest we all go look at the national debt statistics. The increase in the
national debt during the 8 years of Reagan? About 4 trillion.
The increase during the 8 years of Clinton? About 4 trillion.
I am not sure why one budget was more balanced than the other. It was really
only which pocket they were spending the money out of. In Clinton's case he had
the 1993 increase in FICA to give the impression of a surplus. I know there are
lots of inflationary reasons why Reagan's 4 trillion was really more money but
when our kids have to pay it back 4 trillion is 4 trillion.
Bear in mind that the FICA surplus goes upside down in about 10 years and we
are going to start expecting the worthess bonds to mature and pay back the SS
folks who bought them.