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.
We just went over it, and it turned out it has been mostly Republican since 1995. Dems took over in 2007 (won in Nov 2006, and took over in 2007) and we were already nose-diving at that point. Partisan bickering is not the answer.
And I guess the debts from 1965-1995 are meaningless, as well as the ones from 2006 on?
Speaking of counterfeit, the proposed "cuts" to Medicare are not reductions in services, but reductions in the per unit cost of services. These have already been agreed to by hospitals and medical device and drug manufacturers who stand to see substantial new profits from having 95% of people insured instead of 85%, and they are willing to split the difference with the government if it helps them get acccess to those 30-35 million new patients.
Right, cutting payments wont result in cuts of service. Find someone to buy that lie.
Heck, why dont we cut payments to teachers, which of course wont result in cuts to education, or cuts to the police department, fire departments, heck, lets cut out ambulance funding 100% because the new equation = cuts in funding = increased services.
Why per that argument, I'm all for cutting the stimulus funding, because now by your own admission, cutting dont equal real cuts...
Lets cut Medicare, social security, food stamps, oooh hell, lets cut out welfare completely, because by your own account, cuts in funding wont = cuts in service.
But of course this isnt what you said, you simply said that we would move payments from medicare, to those who dont pay anything, meaning they arent real cuts at all..
And I guess the debts from 1965-1995 are meaningless, as well as the ones from 2006 on?
Clinton paid off the debts up to the end of his term and left a surplus. He was mostly worthless in other regards, but at least he wasn't a disaster to America like his successor.
You are getting a natural logarithmic curve of debt. No matter which side of the two-headed one party system the result will be the collapse of the dollar. Flush the toilet and get the red and blue lawyers out and elect real people and you will see a descending curve of debt and the US become #1 again.
As a person who hasn't yet figured out that Clinton ran unified budget surpluses for four years and used some of that money to pay down the public debt, it's not really your place to be running around talking about anyone not having a clue about budget bills. Not content to have been wrong about everything for eight years, you've now made it nine. Nice work...
oooh look, your back to lying again... Your current claim of 4 years of surpluses, only becomes laughable by your previous admission that there wasnt one for 4 years..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
There was a unified budget surplus in FY1998. The unified budget is the figure most often quoted, and it includes the operations of off-budget agencies such as Social Security. On-budget programs were in deficit during FY1998, but not during either FY1999 or FY2000. In those two years, the budget was in the black even after excluding all off-budget operations. This would mean that the surplus you claimed they almost had in 1998 was in fact achieved in 1999 and 2000.
Lets do the math shall we?
1999
2000
Why you're smart enough to count up to 2 right? So why do you keep claiming 4 when your own admission it was 2 years?
Even if what you claim was true, who ran Congress during these years? Why they were Republicans.. what a surprise..
Clinton paid off the debts up to the end of his term and left a surplus. He was mostly worthless in other regards, but at least he wasn't a disaster to America like his successor.
He did not, Clinton ran deficits EVERY YEAR, which is why the national debt went up EVERY YEAR. Clinton ran surpluses as a % of GDP compared to debt, but a % of GDP does not = surpluses.. One of the years for Clintons "pretend surplus" they even increased the ceiling on the national debt, something that wouldnt be needed in years of surpluses..
But even if your point was true, lets see.. who ran Congress during those years? Why it was the REPUBLICANS.... How odd because last I checked, Congress is responsible for spending, and now you are giving Republicans credit for surpluses..
What do we get? Well would be useful if you read your own articles. These are operating expenses.
The measure combines $447 billion in operating budgets with about $650 billion in mandatory payments for federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, which provide health coverage for the elderly, disabled and poor. It wraps together six individual spending bills and also contains more than 5,000 home-state projects sought by lawmakers in both parties.
The measure provides spending increases averaging about 10 percent to programs under immediate control of Congress, blending increases for veterans' programs, the NASA space agency and the FBI with a pay raise for federal workers and help for car dealers.
It bundles six of the 12 annual spending bills, capping a dysfunctional appropriations process in which House leaders blocked Republicans from debating key issues while Republican lawmakers dragged out debates.
Just the $626 billion defense bill would remain. That's being held back to serve as a vehicle to advance must-pass legislation such as a plan to allow the government's debt to swell by nearly $2 trillion. The government's total debt has nearly doubled in the past seven years and is expected to exceed the current ceiling of $12.1 trillion before Jan. 1.
Well, that's to be determined isn't it? A positive outcome is what we all want I presume. The outcome is for the betterment of the country, not just for "liberals." Republicans are looking like mopes right now, in deep denial after the Bush years. Thank God, we have a man like Barack Obama as our leader now.
President Obama is an intelligent man, one who listens to the opposition, even encourages opposing points of view as he contemplates solutions to the problems that plague this nation. We are very fortunate whether you care to recognize that or not.
Boy, after I got off the floor rolling and laughing I realized what you said was not so funny but rather scary. Sheep can be so scary under the right circumstances.
I suggest you seek the answers to these questions elsewhere from people whose opinions you respect.
Easier for me to comment on the results such as those derived from 8 years of Bush.
I see ignorance is bliss once again. Sad, sad, sad.
blowoutcongress.com
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.
. Dems took over in 2007 (won in Nov 2006, and took over in 2007) and we were already nose-diving at that point. Partisan bickering is not the answer
