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.

It doesn't matter. Presidents only sign the budget that Congress puts
before them. It's *Congress* that spends the money and creates the
deficits.


"Gfretwell" wrote in message
...
he increase in the
national debt during the 8 years of Reagan? About 4 trillion.

2 trillion

The increase during the 8 years of Clinton? About 4 trillion.

2 trillion

sorry for the error

It doesn't matter. Presidents only sign the budget that Congress puts
before them. It's *Congress* that spends the money and creates the
deficits.

Yup it's funny that Reagan's budget deficit (Democratic congress) gets blamed
on the GOP and Clinton's "surplus" (GOP congress) get's credited to the
Democrats.
The reality is they were both in debt. It was just a bookkeeping trick.

Yup it's funny that Reagan's budget deficit (Democratic congress) gets blamed
on the GOP and Clinton's "surplus" (GOP congress) get's credited to the
Democrats.

Yeah. Even you refer to the amounts as "Reagan's" defict and"Clinton's"
surplus. :-)

No chance of confusing responsibility with Bush's deficit. RW president, RW
congress.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It doesn't matter. Presidents only sign the budget that Congress puts
before them. It's *Congress* that spends the money and creates the
deficits.

And the president's job to stop reckless spending, or at least try, with a
veto.

How many spending bills has GWB vetoed so far? (Hint, the answer is a
number
less than one)

.

The major problem with that is the major pork is added as amendments to very
important spending bills e.g. transportation bill. The Iraq spending bill,
had something like 80(0?) million in non related pork added. If the
spending bill is passed, the money has to be spent. In the old days,
pre-Nixon the Executive branch just did not spend the money. Was allocated,
but not spent. Congress (Democrat controlled at the time) went to court and
got a ruling that required the President (Exec Branch) to spend all
allocated money. So the deficits are Congress's. But the CEO gets the
blame or credit.
Bill

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The major problem with that is the major pork is added as amendments to
very
important spending bills e.g. transportation bill. The Iraq spending
bill,
had something like 80(0?) million in non related pork added. If the
spending bill is passed, the money has to be spent. In the old days,
pre-Nixon the Executive branch just did not spend the money. Was
allocated,
but not spent. Congress (Democrat controlled at the time) went to court
and
got a ruling that required the President (Exec Branch) to spend all
allocated money. So the deficits are Congress's. But the CEO gets the
blame or credit.
Bill


So, in that case the President checks his stones to see that they're still
there (or has
an intern do it for him) and then vetoes the Iraq war bill. Pork and all.
Message to congress: "Send it back up again without all the funny crapola
and
I'll sign it. Or, you guys muster the super majority to override it and
then I
don't want to hear jack squat about the deficit."

And don't forget, its a RW congress at this time. All that pork wouldn't
be in
the bills unless at least some members of the President's own party are in
favor of it. If the RW would simply stick together, it could control
runaway
spending.



Never said that one party had a lock on pork. Is the way of politicos! The
Executive branch needs to go to court to overturn the agreement that allowed
non-germane amendments to be added to a bill. Used to be this way, but part
of the Nixon agreement allowed this rule to be killed.
Bill

"Q" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:15:43 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Congress (Democrat controlled at the time) went to court and
got a ruling that required the President (Exec Branch) to spend all
allocated money. So the deficits are Congress's. But the CEO gets the
blame or credit.
Bill

What happens when the CEO trashes the revenue stream? Say for
instance giving tax breaks to the super-rich? Then the pres is to
blame.

One of the Kennedy clan got drunk (no surprise there) and made a
statement that was later reported in the press. "I don't need Bush's
tax cut -- I've never worked a f**king day in my life." I forgot
which one said it -- try googling if you're interested.

--
Q

What about spending less money? Why always raise the revenue stream? In
1950 the tax burden was about 22%, now it is about 42%. Why is the federal
government spending 100's of millions on art? This is not the Federal
Governments business. Just picked this one example, but there are lots
more. The rest of us that work need the tax cut! Kennedy has no worry
about money to send the kids to a good school, probably gets a free ride at
Harvard, just on the name and because dad donated a bunch of $$$$ to the
school. The rest of us that work for a living, cut back on our outgo when
the income decreases or keep the outgo the same, when the money comes in the
same. Not the governments! The Federal Budget has a built-in inflationary
index. But this index was installed when inflation was 13%. Still the
about 13%. Hell! I would like a 13% raise in salary each year. Says the
budget or salary will double about every 5.5 years (Rule of 72). In 1979
$23,000 was a good salary, allowed a family to buy a decent house, nice car,
maybe not a BMW or MB, but a good new car every 4-5 years. Now this is
poverty level. Damn! Good salary to poverty in 24 years and still making
$23k / year. Why we have so many poor people after the "war on poverty".
We have spent trillions on the "war on poverty" and we lost. Inflation is
caused by the Government spending more than it takes in and has to borrow.
For most of those years, the government's take was helped by inflation. Tax
Bracket Creep, gave the government about 1.1% more money for each 1% of
inflation. Nice scam. As to the tax breaks, Congress has to approve. They
approved a giant tax increase under Clinton. You know the one, where
Clinton said "I guess I raised taxes to much". This after the largest tax
increase in history under Bush, less than 4 years before. Now we have had a
couple of excess tax increases and the government has sucked up all those
dollars and borrowed more. The tax cuts are not the problem, it is the
FRIGGEN SPENDING! We finished the Viet Nam war in the mid 70's, but the
spending has been greater than when we were in a war. How much is that 4
months in Kosovo because of Clinton sending troops cost us? Last I knew, we
were still there.
Bill