Bush/Clinton Budgets (split from gay marriage)

[Stormbringer]

My only issue is fiscal responsiblity shouldn't be a constiutional issue. It should just be done.

But all that fails to explain how it's reactionary to want it enforced. Especially in light of the fact no one has yet.

I am a fervant fan of staying on budget. But I don't like having it being set in stone. If an event occurs and the budget needs to be surpassed, I like to think we aren't SOL, that we aren't screwing ourselves up.

One reason to actually think things over. But sufficient planning would allow reasonable lattittude.

But as I've learned well from Bush now, their are SO MANY ways around the budget, and boy is he using them to hide the size of his expenditures.

I'm familiar with him shuffling expenses. But no President can spend money that isn't there to be spent (even if it is deficit dollars).

Also, it seems that safe guards could be put in to ensure that we don't leave this country in peril due to a poorly worded amendment. If it is too stringent in release of the cap, then we can end up hurting, but if its too loose, why did we even bother.

Again, reason to carefully consider any such amendment.

It just seems the best choice is to have the admin put out a responsible budget, and take account of what it brings in and puts out. Too bad the Bushs can't do this nearly as well as Clinton.

What a laugh. George Bush was actually more careful with the budget than was Clinton. It was far more Congresses doing that he ran over budget. At least get your history right.

As for Clinton being better, not really, he just played the smoke and mirrors game better than has Bush.

[Darth Wong]

As for Clinton being better, not really, he just played the smoke and mirrors game better than has Bush.

You must be on drugs.

Clinton ... balanced budget.

Bush ... stunning increase of hundreds of billions of dollars in discretionary spending. John McCain in his own Republican party publicly grouses that the Republicans are "spending money like drunken sailors."

Oh yeah, just "smoke and mirrors". Could you explain how you came to this conclusion?

[Stormbringer]

As for Clinton being better, not really, he just played the smoke and mirrors game better than has Bush.

You must be on drugs.

Clinton ... balanced budget.

Bush ... stunning increase of hundreds of billions of dollars in discretionary spending. John McCain in his own Republican party publicly grouses that the Republicans are "spending money like drunken sailors."

Oh yeah, just "smoke and mirrors". Could you explain how you came to this conclusion?

Yes, Clinton's budget was only balanced for one year any further balanced budgets (not to mention the mythical surplus) were all contingent upon unsustainable levels of growth. That's smoke and mirrors.

[Stormbringer]

Clinton ... balanced budget.

Bush ... stunning increase of hundreds of billions of dollars in discretionary spending. John McCain in his own Republican party publicly grouses that the Republicans are "spending money like drunken sailors."

Oh yeah, just "smoke and mirrors". Could you explain how you came to this conclusion?

Yes, Clinton's budget was only balanced for one year any further balanced budgets (not to mention the mythical surplus) were all contingent upon unsustainable levels of growth. That's smoke and mirrors.

And that fails to mention that a lot of Clinton's balanced budget relied on defering spending untill such time as he was out of office.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Fuck.... forgot the link....

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

And Democrats are just interested most of the time in slashing the military and new handouts....not the ambitious social issues....:sigh:

We look back forty years and see Kennedy and Johnson with Civil Rights.

In 2044 we'll look back and have....Bush.

[The Kernel]

And that fails to mention that a lot of Clinton's balanced budget relied on defering spending untill such time as he was out of office.

You have any examples of this?

[Col. Crackpot]

not to mention the fact that Newt Gingrich grabed the federal wallet out of Clinton's hands and cut up the credit cards.

[Stormbringer]

And that fails to mention that a lot of Clinton's balanced budget relied on defering spending untill such time as he was out of office.

You have any examples of this?

Sure, among other things selling of national reserves of oil and never replacing them and of course the now semi-famous smart bomb shortage in which military munitions spent on all his peace keeping operations and such were replaced at a trickle.

And of course there are some hinky things done with borrowing from or against Social Security pay in that I frankly don't understand.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, Clinton's budget was only balanced for one year any further balanced budgets (not to mention the mythical surplus) were all contingent upon unsustainable levels of growth. That's smoke and mirrors.

According to the newspapers, there were surpluses in 1998 and 1999, and balanced budgets in several other years. They also said that the US National debt dropped by some $360 billion in Clinton's last three years in office. How is this possible if he never ran a surplus? Some magic fairy took away that debt?

[Darth Wong]

Sure, among other things selling of national reserves of oil and never replacing them and of course the now semi-famous smart bomb shortage in which military munitions spent on all his peace keeping operations and such were replaced at a trickle.

And this substantiates your claim that there was no budget surplus ... how?

[Darth Wong]

BTW, Clinton also ratified free trade agreements while Bush is throwing up walls of protectionism and the biggest farm subsidies in history. Bush's credentials as a fiscal conservative are totally nonexistent.

[Stormbringer]

Yes, Clinton's budget was only balanced for one year any further balanced budgets (not to mention the mythical surplus) were all contingent upon unsustainable levels of growth. That's smoke and mirrors.

According to the newspapers, there were surpluses in 1998 and 1999, and balanced budgets in several other years. They also said that the US National debt dropped by some $360 billion in Clinton's last three years in office. How is this possible if he never ran a surplus? Some magic fairy took away that debt?

A) The surplus didn't exist at any time in the real world. It was entirely projected surplus for the future, one's based on unrealistic projections I might add.

B) The deficit was, as I said, largely reduced simply by the expendient of accounting tricks rather than actual reductions in spending.

[Darth Wong]

B) The deficit was, as I said, largely reduced simply by the expendient of accounting tricks rather than actual reductions in spending.

Learn to read. DEBT and DEFICIT are two different words. How the fuck do you shrink the national DEBT by $360 billion with no budget surplus, genius?

[theski]

Thread Hijack in Progress.... Clinton can Hijack a thread faster than anybody..

[Col. Crackpot]

Sure, among other things selling of national reserves of oil and never replacing them and of course the now semi-famous smart bomb shortage in which military munitions spent on all his peace keeping operations and such were replaced at a trickle.

And this substantiates your claim that there was no budget surplus ... how?

a handy little accounting trick called "intragovernmental holdings" was quite popular. Doesn't expalin everything away. The private sector was booming. Mostly because a Democratic controlled white house and a republican controlled legislature spelled gridlock with a capital G. With No governmnet sillyness to muck things up, the economy grows.

[Oddysseus]

Thread Hijack in Progress.... Clinton can Hijack a thread faster than anybody..

Yet again...It's Clinton's fault.

[Stormbringer]

And this substantiates your claim that there was no budget surplus ... how?

It doesn't. It's in response to the The Kernel asking for examples of the accounting tricks used.

B) The deficit was, as I said, largely reduced simply by the expendient of accounting tricks rather than actual reductions in spending.

Learn to read. DEBT and DEFICIT are two different words. How the fuck do you shrink the national DEBT with no budget surplus, genius?

I know. What the hell is your point exactly?

[Illuminatus Primus]

They don't use the remaining cash every year to lower the National debt--its part of the budget expenditures each fiscal year. One of the proposals for the surplus was to pay off the National debt, though.

[HemlockGrey]

Didn't Clinton raise taxes? That seemed to help cut down on the debt, maybe Bush should try that.

[Darth Wong]

I know. What the hell is your point exactly?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You said there was no budget surplus. I pointed out that the national debt dropped by $360 billion in Clinton's last three years. You answered by mumbling that deficit projections were false, which totally ignored the point being made. What part of this do you not understand? Do you concede that Clinton DID, in fact, run budget surpluses?

And what of Bush's various atrocities? Discretionary spending is up by hundreds of billions of dollars under his watch and his approval; how do you shift blame for that onto Clinton? Do you also blame Clinton for the massive farm subsidies? This "let's just attack Clinton when somebody says something bad about Bush spending money like a drunken sailor" tactic is tiresome and fallacious in the extreme.

And yes, Clinton was helped out by a booming economy. So what? How does this change the fact that discretionary spending is skyrocketing under Bush's watch, much faster than it did under Clinton's watch? You can lay credit at the feet of the Republican congress during the Clinton years if you want, but that STILL does not in any way refute or even begin to address the criticisms of Bush's abysmal spending habits. It's nothing more than a fallacy of distraction.

[Darth Wong]

BTW, Clinton also ratified free trade agreements while Bush is throwing up walls of protectionism and the biggest farm subsidies in history. Bush's credentials as a fiscal conservative are totally nonexistent.

And I said Bush was a fiscal conservative when?

You claimed that Clinton's budget surpluses were just "smoke and mirrors" and were thus not really any better than Bush's disastrous budgets. However, if this is your way of conceding without admitting your error, I accept.

[Exonerate]

Didn't Clinton raise taxes? That seemed to help cut down on the debt, maybe Bush should try that.

Heh, not if he wants to get re-elected.

[Stormbringer]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You said there was no budget surplus. I pointed out that the national debt dropped by $360 billion in Clinton's last three years. You answered by mumbling that deficit projections were false, which totally ignored the point being made. What part of this do you not understand? Do you concede that Clinton DID, in fact, run budget surpluses?

No, he never did run surpluses. Those were projected surpluses.

And what of Bush's various atrocities? Discretionary spending is up by hundreds of billions of dollars under his watch and his approval; how do you shift blame for that onto Clinton? Do you also blame Clinton for the massive farm subsidies? This "let's just attack Clinton when somebody says something bad about Bush spending money like a drunken sailor" tactic is tiresome and fallacious in the extreme.

I didn't shift the blame onto Clinton. Bush the Lesser has spent a hell of lot of money but I never blamed all of that on Clinton. In fact the discretionary funding, is plainly Bush's fault.

And yes, Clinton was helped out by a booming economy. So what? How does this change the fact that discretionary spending is skyrocketing under Bush's watch, much faster than it did under Clinton's watch? You can lay credit at the feet of the Republican congress during the Clinton years if you want, but that STILL does not in any way refute or even begin to address the criticisms of Bush's abysmal spending habits. It's nothing more than a fallacy of distraction.

I never said it was any better. In fact I specifically have made mention of Dubya's bad spending habits. That doesn't make Clinton's better.

[theski]

HemlockGrey wrote:
Didn't Clinton raise taxes? That seemed to help cut down on the debt, maybe Bush should try that.

I pay %38 of every dollar to the Gov.... plus taxes on Purches.... Gas...... and State Taxes.....

NO MORE TAXES>...... Fucking Cut something insted

[Stormbringer]

BTW, Clinton also ratified free trade agreements while Bush is throwing up walls of protectionism and the biggest farm subsidies in history. Bush's credentials as a fiscal conservative are totally nonexistent.

And I said Bush was a fiscal conservative when?

You claimed that Clinton's budget surpluses were just "smoke and mirrors" and were thus not really any better than Bush's disastrous budgets. However, if this is your way of conceding without admitting your error, I accept.

That isn't. I'm saying both sucked at seriously managing a budget.

And the simple fact is that Clinton never ran a budget surplus, those were solely projected surpluses.