Jay Edwards
Posts: 16,742
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, US
ei Total Productions wrote: What year did George Bush have a balanced budget? As I recall, he took office with a $200 billion surplus and the last budget he submitted to the Congress was a $1.2 trillion deficit. If I am doing my math correctly, that is a change of over $1.4 trillion to the negative in just eight years. Of course, that last budget didn't include the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. His budgets never did.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last year that any Republican had anything close to a balanced budget?
*snort*
I'm against big government on both sides of the aisle.
Do you have an answer to my question or not?
It seems you do not.
Not to pick on you because I notice that no one else dared to answer my question...
ei Total Productions wrote: What year did George Bush have a balanced budget? As I recall, he took office with a $200 billion surplus and the last budget he submitted to the Congress was a $1.2 trillion deficit. If I am doing my math correctly, that is a change of over $1.4 trillion to the negative in just eight years. Of course, that last budget didn't include the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. His budgets never did.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last year that any Republican had anything close to a balanced budget?
Jay Edwards wrote: *snort*
I'm against big government on both sides of the aisle.
Do you have an answer to my question or not?
It seems you do not.
Not to pick on you because I notice that no one else dared to answer my question...
Bueller? Bueller?
I don't think anyone knows when the budget can be balanced again. That doesn't mean that it can't be. Clinton did it. I think that any projection now is just a mind game.
ei Total Productions wrote: What year did George Bush have a balanced budget? As I recall, he took office with a $200 billion surplus and the last budget he submitted to the Congress was a $1.2 trillion deficit. If I am doing my math correctly, that is a change of over $1.4 trillion to the negative in just eight years. Of course, that last budget didn't include the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. His budgets never did.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last year that any Republican had anything close to a balanced budget?
I don't think anyone knows when the budget can be balanced again. That doesn't mean that it can't be. Clinton did it. I think that any projection now is just a mind game.
no one can balance the budget unless you are willing to cut spending and raise revenue.
Ryan blocked a 4 trillion dollar plan put forth by the Dems because it addressed the problem correctly.
ei Total Productions wrote: I think that any projection now is just a mind game.
I agree.
Budget projections are now, and always have been, fantasies. Getting after Ryan for a balanced budget in 140 years, or after Obama for a balanced budget in 10 years, give or take a century, is flailing.
What if we were building a national budget in 1928? Would we foresee the stock market crash, the Dust Bowl, and crushing depression followed by a world war? And at the culmination of all that, it's hopeless to wish for a balanced budget, yet a Republican President oversaw one in the next decade. And that lasted until.... well, it didn't, until a Democrat President oversaw one in the 90's.
And so you go to the salad days of the 90's, and you put together a budget. Do you foresee 9/11, the fibrillation of the American economy, followed by two wars and then a huge crash?
What Fun Productions wrote: Romney has had his own plan for quite awhile. Both candidates are referring to the Romney plan, not the Ryan budget.
This election is about the economy.
You're right, technically he has a plan which entails 52 seperate points. His own people this past Sunday, couldn't even name 4 things on it (besides repealing Romneycare...whoops, I mean Obamacare).
ei Total Productions wrote: As I recall, Clinton inherited a major deficit and ended up with a surplus in six years. 2020 sounds better than 2040 for a balanced budget.
as I recall, Clinton was President when the Internet first exploded onto the scene...money was flowing like a river to whomever had an idea and a business plan written on a napkin....a blind, deaf and mentally challenged amoeba could have administered a surplus in that era.
You're right, technically he has a plan which entails 52 seperate points. His own people this past Sunday, couldn't even name 4 things on it (besides repealing Romneycare...whoops, I mean Obamacare).
and the "Obama Plan" has been tried and failed for the past 3 1/2 years. Who are we to believe...a man who has a history of failure economically, or a man who has a history of success economically?
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
What Fun Productions wrote: Romney has had his own plan for quite awhile. Both candidates are referring to the Romney plan, not the Ryan budget.
This election is about the economy.
Farenell Photography wrote: You're right, technically he has a plan which entails 52 seperate points. His own people this past Sunday, couldn't even name 4 things on it (besides repealing Romneycare...whoops, I mean Obamacare).
Though he did say that he supported the Ryan budget and would have signed it. So if you're looking to clues to his economic thinking and therefore the sort of thing that might actually pass (I think we can agree that whatever passes won't resemble anything that comes out before the election), it's fair to look at the Ryan budget.
Or at least, what he says illustrates his economic thinking. Which is not always a perfect guide to what Romney actually thinks.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: as I recall, Clinton was President when the Internet first exploded onto the scene...money was flowing like a river to whomever had an idea and a business plan written on a napkin....a blind, deaf and mentally challenged amoeba could have administered a surplus in that era.
How quick one forgets the government shutdowns of 1995 & 1996 which the GOP basically handed Clinton his 2nd term by making him look like the only adult willing to get sh** done.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: and the "Obama Plan" has been tried and failed for the past 3 1/2 years. Who are we to believe...a man who has a history of failure economically, or a man who has a history of success economically?
Ironic.
Romney is a man running on his record of economic success but when anyone wishes to examine it more closely, he runs away from it. He's more than happy to take credit for the good (raking in shit tons of profits) but won't embrace the tactics he used TO rake in those profits or be questioned about those tactics (namely being a pioneer in outsourcing jobs overseas & ruthlessly shutting down companies, breaking them up, & selling them piecemeal).
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: as I recall, Clinton was President when the Internet first exploded onto the scene...money was flowing like a river to whomever had an idea and a business plan written on a napkin....a blind, deaf and mentally challenged amoeba could have administered a surplus in that era.
You do realize how patently partisan that posting portrays you, I trust.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: and the "Obama Plan" has been tried and failed for the past 3 1/2 years. Who are we to believe...a man who has a history of failure economically, or a man who has a history of success economically?
Depends what we mean by failure. Stocks are up, and unemployment is down.
Depends what we mean by success. Romney got Massachusetts more financially stable by raising fees and taxes. He was successful enough that he left after one term with a 34% approval rating.
These things are eminently spinnable, for both sides.
ei Total Productions wrote: As I recall, Clinton inherited a major deficit and ended up with a surplus in six years. 2020 sounds better than 2040 for a balanced budget.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: as I recall, Clinton was President when the Internet first exploded onto the scene...money was flowing like a river to whomever had an idea and a business plan written on a napkin....a blind, deaf and mentally challenged amoeba could have administered a surplus in that era.
So you are saying that Clinton gets no credit for the good economy that he presided over, that Bush gets no blame for destroying it and that Obama is the evil of all evils because he couldn't recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression in 3.5 years?
ei Total Productions wrote: I don't think anyone knows when the budget can be balanced again. ... I think that any projection now is just a mind game.
Jay Edwards wrote: Hmm, so you're saying that we need not have a plan?
No, I am saying that plan one has to be to concentrate on the economy. If we can get it back where it is supposed to be, it will be much easier to come up with a plan to cut the deficit. Anything we do now will be meaningless until the economy is firing on all cylinders.
My budget has funded a responsible increase in our ongoing operations. It has funded our Nation’s important priorities. It has protected Social Security and Medicare. And our surpluses are big enough that there is still money left over.
Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.
^^^^^^^^^^
the republican plan, 2001. it didn't work then. it won't work now. 2 wars, a new rx benefit, and 3 rounds of tax cuts somehow never added up to anything but deficits ('they don't matter' said cheney), doubling the national debt, and the biggest financial crisis since the great depression.
and some voters (repubs mostly) seem to forget. the tax cut pubs have a record too. they are not to be believed. the first thing they did back then was scrap paygo, which was the key to balancing the budget. to borrow a phrase from congressman joe walsh, they lie!
The first step to fiscal responsibility in our Federal Government is to remove all current Representatives and Senators at the next available election opportunity. The current Congress IS the problem! Every one of them must be sent home.
ernst tischler wrote: The first step to fiscal responsibility in our Federal Government is to remove all current Representatives and Senators at the next available election opportunity. The current Congress IS the problem! Every one of them must be sent home.
ei Total Productions wrote: As I recall, Clinton inherited a major deficit and ended up with a surplus in six years. 2020 sounds better than 2040 for a balanced budget.
So you are saying that Clinton gets no credit for the good economy that he presided over, that Bush gets no blame for destroying it and that Obama is the evil of all evils because he couldn't recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression in 3.5 years?
Obama hasn't done anything escept spend/borrow money in a shitty economy...even your wife would tell you that's stupid as shit.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: as I recall, Clinton was President when the Internet first exploded onto the scene...money was flowing like a river to whomever had an idea and a business plan written on a napkin....a blind, deaf and mentally challenged amoeba could have administered a surplus in that era.
You do realize how patently partisan that posting portrays you, I trust.
Depends what we mean by failure. Stocks are up, and unemployment is down.
Depends what we mean by success. Romney got Massachusetts more financially stable by raising fees and taxes. He was successful enough that he left after one term with a 34% approval rating.
These things are eminently spinnable, for both sides.
unemployment DOWN? It's 8.3%...our deficit is 16 trillion dollars? If that's successful, I'd hate to see what you call a failure.
How quick one forgets the government shutdowns of 1995 & 1996 which the GOP basically handed Clinton his 2nd term by making him look like the only adult willing to get sh** done.
if you mean sticking a cigar up an intern's pussy and getting impeached qualifies him as an "adult getting shit done".
Chicchowmein
Posts: 13,501
Palm Beach, Florida, US
Click Hamilton wrote:
chicchowmein wrote: Let's bring back slavery and indentured servitude too.
Oh and why stop there. Take away the woman's right to vote.
Biden aside for the moment, this is what they teach in schools now.
I don't need to listen to anyone -- who the hell can survive on minimum wage?
Though I did hear Romney say that he wanted to repeal Roe vs Wade.
Corporate American runs roughshod all over workers, CEOs screw up, embezzle money or run their companies into the ground and still take huge bonuses, big business runs this country, pollutes the environment and the middle class and the poor get screwed.
chicchowmein wrote: I don't need to listen to anyone -- who the hell can survive on minimum wage?
Though I did hear Romney say that he wanted to repeal Roe vs Wade.
Corporate American runs roughshod all over workers, CEOs screw up, embezzle money or run their companies into the ground and still take huge bonuses, big business runs this country, pollutes the environment and the middle class and the poor get screwed.
Business as usual.
you have a pretty negative view of America and a REALLY fucked up view of how business runs. So in your view, companies should be more focused on hiring people they don't need than making a profit...and that companies with big union support should receive endless bailouts and be run by our government and that spending more money than we bring in is an answer to prosperity.
By the way, many years ago, I was in a house with 7 other people. We all made minimum wage. We paid our bills, kept the lights on and didn't miss a meal. Maybe you're expecting too much of people to actually EARN a living rather than having money THROWN at them.
Hall Photo wrote: Though he did say that he supported the Ryan budget and would have signed it. So if you're looking to clues to his economic thinking and therefore the sort of thing that might actually pass (I think we can agree that whatever passes won't resemble anything that comes out before the election), it's fair to look at the Ryan budget.
Or at least, what he says illustrates his economic thinking. Which is not always a perfect guide to what Romney actually thinks.
Just saw the following quote today in the Washington Post...
Romney has said his own plan would be similar to that put forward by Ryan in budget proposals in Congress.
“Actually, Paul Ryan and my plan for Medicare, I think, is the same, if not identical -- it’s probably close to identical,” he told a Green Bay station Wednesday.
But when he has been pushed on Ryan’s proposal, which would provide seniors capped subsidies with which to buy private insurance, he has simply noted that the ticket is running his ideas and not Ryan’s.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: unemployment DOWN? It's 8.3%...our deficit is 16 trillion dollars? If that's successful, I'd hate to see what you call a failure.
Yes. Unemployment hit its apex from its climb starting in 2008 to10% in, I believe, May of 2009.
Deficit is up. No question. I don't consider that a success - unless it was necessary to keep the entire economy from cratering a mile deep. But all that is highly debatable.
I note that you're not disputing my statement that stocks are up. Is that what you consider a failure?
as I recall, Clinton was President when the Internet first exploded onto the scene...money was flowing like a river to whomever had an idea and a business plan written on a napkin....a blind, deaf and mentally challenged amoeba could have administered a surplus in that era.
Then you should credit Al Gore for making Internet commerce possible. Before you start with your "Al Gore didn't invent the Internet" BS, how about taking the word of Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn, recognized as the fathers of the Internet for their work on ARAPANET and the creators of the TCP/IP protocol that is the foundation of the Internet. Here's what they had to say about Gore's contribution to the development of the Internet:
"As the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to
our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of
time.
There is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's
initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving
Internet.
The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value
of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and
consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American
citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world."
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: ..our deficit is 16 trillion dollars? If that's successful, I'd hate to see what you call a failure.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers but you're not even close. The projected deficit for this FY by the CBO is $1.1 trillion -- not $16 trillion -- more than a 20 percent decline since the last deficit of the Bush administration, so yes that is a success to cut the deficit 20 pecent in four years as opposed to turning a $230 billion surplus into a $1.4 trillion deficit in eight years
I don't know where you're getting your numbers but you're not even close. The projected deficit for this FY by the CBO is $1.1 trillion -- not $16 trillion -- more than a 20 percent decline since the last deficit of the Bush administration, so yes that is a success to cut the deficit 20 pecent in four years as opposed to turning a $230 billion surplus into a $1.4 trillion deficit in eight years
feel free to look at the debt we're in and THEN come back and applaude your idiot in chief who brought much of it on
Let There Be Light wrote: I don't know where you're getting your numbers but you're not even close. The projected deficit for this FY by the CBO is $1.1 trillion -- not $16 trillion -- more than a 20 percent decline since the last deficit of the Bush administration, so yes that is a success to cut the deficit 20 pecent in four years as opposed to turning a $230 billion surplus into a $1.4 trillion deficit in eight years
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: feel free to look at the debt we're in and THEN come back and applaude your idiot in chief who brought much of it on
Let there be LIght is correct, but ... you are talking about two different things. You are talking about the national debt, not the deficit. Generally speaking, the national debt increases every year under every administration. The exception in recent years was Clinton who was actually paying it down.
Light is correct, Bush's last budget was indeed a $1.4 trillion deficit. Obama has reduced it to $1.1 trillion this year. The deficit is way too high, but Obama has reduced it from the astronomical levels it was when he started.
On the other hand, you are correct as well. The total national debt has increased dramatically. That, however, wasn't an amount strictly caused by Obama, his deficit, as did George Bush's added to it.
I happen to agree with you though, it is still way too high. At some point we have to address it seriously.
| 
| 
| edu