Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You keep going back to blaming Dems with every post. I am not trying to promote any Dem accomplishements, I simply said that Republicans have been in power since 1995, and all they did was push for expansion of Medicare, expansion of government and increased loan taking and increased spending. Exactly the opposite of what they always promise to do.
I didnt blame Democrats, I stated facts. The fact that you seen this as an attack to "blame Democrats" shows how defensive you are..
I didnt blame Democrats, I stated facts. The fact that you seen this as an attack to "blame Democrats" shows how defensive you are..
No, with EVERY POST you make an attempt to defend Reps in someway while blaming Dems in some other way. Read your post again. You begun by defending Reps and ended by questioning Dems. I don't care for either party, because they push for identical policies. Every time you push for Republicans, you're pushing for big government and big spending, and yet that is exactly what you despise in Dems. Don't you see the hypocricy?
We will get deeper into debt, turn the private sector health insurance inductry on its head until it no longer functions. Then once health care in this country is hyper expensive and unmanageable, the mother of all screw-ups, the dederal government, will step in and make sure it becomes even worse.
And those surpluses had nothing to do with the dot-com bubble or cuts in defense spending?
When it comes to the likes of <pghquest> and a few myopic others, the first order of business is the 13th labor of getting them to admit even that budget surpluses existed at all, never mind what might have influenced them into being. As for the latter, the proposed theories are weak. The thinning of the dot-com herd had actually occurred in 1997-98 as the brick-and-mortar boys began to grasp the implications of the savings that their investment in B2B web applications had brought about and started to train their new-found guns on the market place. The NASDAQ is meanwhile a small and ordinarily volatile market that did not do anything out of the ordinary in March of 2000, but did suffer quite a loss in luster as the result of the rigged-IPO scandals that emerged in 2000, most of those having had to do with tech issues. There meanwhile were no significant cuts in defense spending in the late 1990's, and while there were some bristling debates over funding levels and targets, it is well to remember that Bushie fought all of his cakewalk wars with just the military that Clinton had created for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
From 1993-1996 The capital gains, top rate, was 29.2%. From 1997-2000 the capital gains, top rate, fell to 21.2%. Are you conveying that Clinton helped to increase the bubble? Does he get credit for that along with the deficit decreases?
It has for some reason become fashionable these days to refer to every market that is rising as a bubble inflating and every market that is falling as a bubble bursting. Markets are apt to go either up or down. This is not unusual. If there is a role meanwhile that capital gains taxes play in the economy as a whole, it is small and apt to be felt only when some change in the rate is anticipated or has just occurred. Equities markets in the 1990's were influenced more by the fact that baby boomers in ever greater numbers were reaching a stage of life where they began investing for their children's educations and their own retirements than they were by any change in capital gains tax rates.
And yet the government needed to increase the federal debt ceiling in 1995 from $5.7T to $7.3T, and again in 2000 from $7.3T to $9.6T, during all of these imaginary surpluses years..
Which, as you've been told many times before, has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Debt and deficit are not the same thing. But debt and surplus can be the same thing when it comes to Social Security, because the excess cash collected as payroll taxes but not used to pay current benefits is invested in US Treasury securities, the issue of which causes public debt to climb. That you don't and apparently aren't able to understand this is a marker for a general lack of capacity in thsi area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Whats your point, that Congress doesnt spend money? That they didnt automatically become ilresponsible the minute Bush came into office? The fact is SPENDING increased substantially during the Bush years, from 2000, where total spending was $1.789T to $2.655T in 2006. A $1T increase in a matter of years..
The point is that your hapless attempts to tie Clinton's budget surpluses to the existence of a Republican Congress fall completely to dust and ashes, as those same Republican Congresses lose all sense of fiscal balance the moment that Clinton leaves the building. Between 2000 and 2003, expenditures increased by 21% while -- thanks to idiotic tax cuts for the rich -- revenues fell by 12%. Compare and contrast to the period 1997 to 2000, when expenditures increased by 12% while revenues increased by 28%. That's how budgets got balanced, and it wasn't any bunch of Republicans that figured out how to do it.
People seeking shelter from the dot-com bubble found new safe havens in housing. We all know what happened with that.
Fiction. The housing situation that ultimately became the debacle we still witness today had its start in 2002 with the failure of Bushie's tax cuts for the rich to generate any economic activity, along with his policies of diverting productivity gains to corporate profits instead of wage increases, thus leaving consumers to deal with declining real incomes. Those conditions led the Fed essentially to freeze interest rates at near-zero levels, pledging to keep them there until economnic activity picked up. What sort of effect do you think that had on long-term asset prices? What sort of effect did it have on the behavior of institutional investors? Who saw all this as an opportunity to make bazillions of dollars and therefore fired up the rocket-sled that ultimately proplelled us right over the edge of the cliff?
Still waiting for an answer to this from the spinmeister.
Wow...admitting that you don't know the answer either. The two of you (at least) need to start wearing a Scarlet "U"...for unqualified. This is basic federal finance that you're completely unaware of here...
There you go again with saying something on one posting, while then calling your OWN posting a lie on another..
The problem here isn't with any of my posts, but with either your inability -- or if one wanted to be generous -- your partisan refusal to understand what they quite plainly say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
They are moving money from medicare, to help fund a national healthcare reform plans. Thats a MOVING of money.
No, they are saying look, here's $X that we will not have to spend once this bill is passed. No money goes anywhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
p.s. your premace is flawed, they arent getting access to 30-35 million new patients, they are getting access to PAYMENTS for proceedures from 30-35 million new patients.. The patients were always present..
That would be a premise, and it would belong not to me, but to the health care industry. And while these people exist, they do not -- because of lack of insurance -- engage as patients with the health care system except on a last-gasp emergency basis, at which time they are given the absolute minimum possible care and shoved out the door. There is no profit in that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
