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.
I suggest paying bank managers on the basis of profit and fining them on the basis of losses. Make them personally responsible for the effects of their decisions. Same applies to any corporate financial managers.
I do not think a zillion dollar deficit or surplus has any effect on me and as a result I do not care.
You live in a bubble if you think we would be worse off. Still drinking the GWB kool-aid. Sad.
All true. This is the overriding theme of the W administration. Took us from one of the high points in our history to THIS, all in a mere eight years. He will forever be remembered as one of the worst Presidents we have ever had, if not worse than that.
Re-check your facts about how many years Republicans had control of congress since 1995. I am not going to point it out, because it has been pointed out so many times already. They had more than enough time to establish what they promised : small government with limited spending. Yet, they delivered bigger govenment and increased spending, and more socialim .
Wow, so your very valuable contribution to the thread was that Republicans had Congress for 10 years, and balanced them for 4, i.e. 40% of the time? THATS the problem you had with what I said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
So, are you ready for more? And your constant defending and promoting of the Republicans clearly answer the question: Yes, you are ready for more. You want more big government, more spending and more socialism.
You couldnt possibly read my threads and say that with a straight face, unless you are outright lying about what you think I believe.
I'm probably more libertarian than ANY other poster here in regards to a federal government. I want them to do NOTHING but defend the country. No SS, no welfare, no bridges, NOTHING!!
Really? Where did the balanced budget of 1969 come from? Would that have been the 90th Congress? Senate Democratic by 64-36. House Democratic by 247-187. Looks like more sloppy history here to me.
Would this be the same year that the national debt increased from $347B to $353B, (i.e. 1968-1969) or the one where the debt increased from353B to 370B (1969-1970)?
Another one of your imarinary claims that surpluses = increased debt or just outright lying..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Even more historical butchery. What a surprise. The 81st Congress (both houses under Democratic control) produced a balanced budget in FY1951. The 84th Congress (both houses under Democratic control) produced balanced budgets in both FY1956 and FY1957. The 86th Congress (both houses under Democratic control) produced a balanced budget in FY1960. Funny how you managed to miss all of those.
Wait, you might actually have found a REAL surplus year!! FINALLY, after you thousands and thousands of postings lying about imaginary ones..
The national debt indeed decreased from $274B to $270B from 1955-1957, CONGRAGULATIONS.. you FINALLY got one.. Only 4B surplus, but indeed its better than $0..
Now lets compare the $4B surplus which you DID find, from the 1950's the the imaginary ones you claim Republicans created in the late 1990's, which resulted in HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS...
1960, nope.. more increased debt.. But spin away!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
But enough with the pointless-even-after-correction Congressional data. Budgets are driven by the President, so let's review all of the balanced budgets that have occurred since World War II...
Truman = 4
Eisenhower = 3
Johnson = 1
Clinton = 4
That's it. Democrats = 9. Republicans = 3. But none in the past 50 years despite 28 tries at it. The GOP is no place to go if you are looking for fiscal responsibility.
That would be true, the GOP is indeed no place to look for fiscal responsibility, something I've numerously admitted and validated with the "imarinary" surplus claims. But your premace is an outright lie that Presidents write budgets, they write a proposed budget, Congress writes the actual budget, an obligation of them going back since the creation of the Constitution. You know this but continue to lie about facts because many here will buy your bs..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Gingrich got too big for his britches. Having taken over Congress the previous January, he thought he would put a traditional Republican stamp on the FY1996 budget by trying to slash the usual Republican targets -- Medicare, Medicaid, the EITC, and programs for education and the environment.
Wow, so Gingrich was cutting spending by your own admission, which you claimed he didnt do in your last posting. Another spin, or are you lying again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Clinton wasn't buying any of it, so Gingrich threatened not to pass either a needed debt limit increase or any new spending authorizations. Clinton said go ahead. So all non-essential federal operations came to a halt for 6 days in November, and then again for 22 days in December and January. National parks and monuments all closed. Need a passport or visa? Forget about it. Toxic waste clean-up? Nope. Want a firearms permit? Not happening. In the end, Gingrich lost everything (including his power and prestige), and the taxpayer was out some $800 million in back wages paid to furloughed federal employees for having stayed home and done nothing. That's the Newtster for you.
Seems like a small price to pay for a balanced budget. THANK YOU NEWT!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Nope. Still sharp as a tack, which is obviously a lot more than you can say. The shutdowns were a huge victory for Clinton and a huge black mark for Gingrich and the Republicans. No help at all to Bob Dole in the 1996 campaign. Not that he had any chance of winning against Clinton anyway.
I'll take the black mark anyday if it means balancing the budgets. Clinton will always have his peeons to lie about the fact that it was he who fought to balance the budgets, but now by your own admission it wasnt.
THATS what I want from Washington.. them FIGHTING over what the government should do, not just giving into every demand and spending for special interest "stimulus" bills which turn into packback bills..
You live in a bubble if you think we would be worse off. Still drinking the GWB kool-aid. Sad.
I guess if Gore won the election, we wouldnt have debts, we'd just have the Taliban planning their next 911 attacks, and new regulation on that global warming, or is it weather change, or hell, he could take credit for global cooling which might actually be taking place..
Whatever way the weather spits, he'll be there trying to take credit!!
Actually, it was Paulson, Bush, and Bernanke who came rushing in with the bad news that their collective failures (mostly by Greenspan rather than Bernanke, as far as the Fed went) had finally led the world financial system to the brink of total collapse. And there were John Boehner and Roy Blunt right out front cheerleading for passage of what would become TARP. Might not have been quite the secret Democratic plot that you suggest.
Another lie.. the collapse began in Switzerland, when a bank wrote down $2B of mortgage debt causing an increase in liquidity needs for day to day borrowing.. But carry on with your ignorant "Bush did it" thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
You know, you all really need to make up your minds on this compensation deal. First, it's an outrage that these people are collecting such huge salaries and bonuses, and then it's an outrage that anyone tries to keep these people from collecting such huge salaries and bonuses. Might want to settle on just one of those and go with it?
Um, I didnt have any outrage over the huge salaries and bonuses.. Its liberals who did..
In fact, its libeals pushing us back to the very same problem we had in the 1980's, of CEO's getting smaller salaries and larger stock options, which gave CEO's an incentive to manipulate the value of the stock, rather than the value of the business...
You guys can continue with the nonsense but CEO's will ALWAYS be paid large salaries, be it in cash, or stock, or warrants, or options, or parachute (i.e. compensation on the exit) while liberals will ALWAYS whine and cry because someone who has dedicated their life to a company receive payment for their services..
What question is that? Does it have anything to do with the thread topic, namel the 2010 omnibus spending bill that I have commented on repeatedly, including in the post you replied to?
Ahh, now you seem all concerned about the thread topic, whereas a minute ago you discussed, Paulson, Bush, the Fed, TARP, and hell, you even brought in Roy Blunt and how many other presidents going back to WWII including their budgets, surpluses, and even those imarinary ones..
Wow, so your very valuable contribution to the thread was that Republicans had Congress for 10 years, and balanced them for 4, i.e. 40% of the time? THATS the problem you had with what I said?
No, I have not said anything about balancing anything. I also have not made any attempts to defend Dems spending habits. You, in the other hand defend Republican big government economic policies with every single one of your posts, even this one.
Quote:
You couldnt possibly read my threads and say that with a straight face, unless you are outright lying about what you think I believe.
Yes, I can say that, because all you ever do is defend Republicans and try to make is sound like they are for small government and less spending, then the opposite is true.
Quote:
I'm probably more libertarian than ANY other poster here in regards to a federal government.
It's too late to try to to convince anyone that you are libertarian after you've been pushing for big government Republicans with 99% of your posts. You fail to realize BOTH parties economic policies are more or less identical, and both brought us the economic issues.
No, I have not said anything about balancing anything. I also have not made any attempts to defend Dems spending habits. You, in the other hand defend Republican big government economic policies with every single one of your posts, even this one.
I have done no such thing. Take your medication!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Yes, I can say that, because all you ever do is defend Republicans and try to make is sound like they are for small government and less spending, then the opposite is true.
See my response to posting 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
It's too late to try to to convince anyone that you are libertarian after you've been pushing for big government Republicans with 99% of your posts. You fail to realize BOTH parties economic policies are more or less identical, and both brought us the economic issues.
ANYONE who reads my postings and comprehends them couldnt possibly come to the conclusion that you just did. Maybe you just have your "defend Democrat" blinders on this week and see any FACTS which look negative against the Democrats as an attack!!
Would this be the same year that the national debt increased from $347B to $353B, (i.e. 1968-1969) or the one where the debt increased from353B to 370B (1969-1970)?
There you go again, wildly claiming that debt data can tell you what the budget was doing. Why don't you just go look up what the budget did? They do keep track of and publish those very numbers, you know. What's the matter...the actual data not quite to your liking? Apparently not, given the entirely slipshod nature of your attempts to recreate the history of balanced budgets. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. That about sums those up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
But your premace is an outright lie that Presidents write budgets, they write a proposed budget, Congress writes the actual budget, an obligation of them going back since the creation of the Constitution. You know this but continue to lie about facts because many here will buy your bs..
Well, they don't have to believe either me or you. They can always go read up on the history of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 as amended, updated, and revised, such as by the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. It's all right there in black and white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wow, so Gingrich was cutting spending by your own admission, which you claimed he didnt do in your last posting. Another spin, or are you lying again?
Well, you see, while he was attempting to cut spending in ways that the President did not like, he failed spectacularly at that, kicking off a series of events that saw him subsequently stripped of his powers and then hounded right out of Congress altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I'll take the black mark anyday if it means balancing the budgets. Clinton will always have his peeons to lie about the fact that it was he who fought to balance the budgets, but now by your own admission it wasnt.
As noted earlier, the Gingrich spat was over the FY1996 budget. Clinton -- like all Presidents, the driving force behind the budget -- did not get to balance until FY1998, by which time Gingrich was a non-factor. And having reached balance, WJC stayed there for the rest of his term, turning over to his successor a more healthy budget and economy than any President perhaps ever had done. His successor promptly crapped all over it, to the nation's still quite evident detriment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
THATS what I want from Washington.. them FIGHTING over what the government should do, not just giving into every demand and spending for special interest "stimulus" bills which turn into packback bills..
Odd that so many countries -- dozens of them, both large and small -- have gone utterly in a different direction from yours. Perhaps all of them know something that you don't.
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.
THANK YOU NEWT!!!
