• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half

And Clinton, and HW Bush, and Reagan, the grand daddy of debt.

Clinton added very little to the national debt compared to either of the Bush's or Reagan. The vast majority of our debt was given to us by Republican Administrations.
 
Considering the Bush administration planned for the Iraq war long before it began, it would have been prudent to figure out how it would be paid for. Oh, they said Iraq's oil would pay for it. How did that work out?

They planned!
They planned!
How evil.

Should they not have planned?

I thought there was "no plan"? We kept hearing this from you folks and Kerry with his "Smarter and Better" plan... that was never revealed. Unless retreat, the Democrat platform of "cut-and-run" was the Kerry plan too.

Should they have not planned and sought the vote?

One Constitutional role of the government is to defend against enemies foreign and domestic. Securing the borders. Those are items that should be funded by our tax dollars. But this the socialists cannot do, and they want to do everything else except these things.

OK, the oil revenue didn't come through... yet. That means they made a false presumption. That's life in the big world. Nothing like the errors of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid... but OK.

I don't know how you get great intel when the foot soldiers were put OOB and Clinton watched the UN get their asses kicked out of Iraq in 1998. It does not negate the facts that Saddam posed a threat. It was consistent with his history. It was these facts that drove Democrats to vote twice in favor of sending troops.

Where was Congressional oversight? Oh right! The Dems were busy plugging the leaks created from decades of hostility to our military and intel services... before they did an about-face when the troops needed their support the most.

The Republicans were believers.
All but one Democrat were the most vile of opportunists.

Here is more to chew on. Because Clinton went to the UN for eight years, let them run a good portion of our Iraq policy... got the majority of the whopping 16 UN Resolutions passed... the UN was empowering Saddam... with Clinton's knowledge? He knew about the illegal sale of oil.

Fact: With the UN corrupt to the core (Oil for Food) allowed Saddam to believe he had the deck stacked in his favor.

Fact: Saddam was used to hollow threats from Clinton, he didn't reckon with Bush meaning precisely what he said.

Fact: Bush gave him more than one chance. Saddam refused.

It looks like the UN corruption gave Saddam false hope. Had the UN been straight, the war... loss of American blood might have been prevented.

Corruption, like pacifism... and issuing hollow threat after hollow threat... has its costs.
 
Last edited:
No................. The government spending less than they acquire from taxes and such, thats the reason.




HMM... my bad, what I meant to say was, wasn't his surplus a 10 year PROJECTION that included the social security fund escrow?
 
HMM... my bad, what I meant to say was, wasn't his surplus a 10 year PROJECTION that included the social security fund escrow?

Its actually very simple.

Eclipse spendings and incomes relevant to what they are now, and congratulations you have a surplus. The tech bubble btw benefitted the US population far more than it did your tax revenues.. I am sure if the republicans had been in charge they could easily have run you into 100 billion deficits in the 90s.
 
No................. The government spending less than they acquire from taxes and such, thats the reason.

And why do you think the government acquired so much in tax revenue?


(Hint: It's related to the tech bubble)
 
Clinton added very little to the national debt compared to either of the Bush's or Reagan. The vast majority of our debt was given to us by Republican Administrations.

Wrong again, Congress is the only government entity that can pass laws and spending legislation; it was given to us by DEMOCRAT Congresses. Again, the ONLY congress in recent history over five decades that got us to a surplus was a Republican Congress.

Carry on. :roll:
 
They planned!
They planned!
How evil.

Should they not have planned?

I thought there was "no plan"? We kept hearing this from you folks and Kerry with his "Smarter and Better" plan... that was never revealed. Unless retreat, the Democrat platform of "cut-and-run" was the Kerry plan too.

Should they have not planned and sought the vote?

One Constitutional role of the government is to defend against enemies foreign and domestic. Securing the borders. Those are items that should be funded by our tax dollars. But this the socialists cannot do, and they want to do everything else except these things.

OK, the oil revenue didn't come through... yet. That means they made a false presumption. That's life in the big world. Nothing like the errors of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid... but OK.

I don't know how you get great intel when the foot soldiers were put OOB and Clinton watched the UN get their asses kicked out of Iraq in 1998. It does not negate the facts that Saddam posed a threat. It was consistent with his history. It was these facts that drove Democrats to vote twice in favor of sending troops.

Where was Congressional oversight? Oh right! The Dems were busy plugging the leaks created from decades of hostility to our military and intel services... before they did an about-face when the troops needed their support the most.

The Republicans were believers.
All but one Democrat were the most vile of opportunists.

Here is more to chew on. Because Clinton went to the UN for eight years, let them run a good portion of our Iraq policy... got the majority of the whopping 16 UN Resolutions passed... the UN was empowering Saddam... with Clinton's knowledge? He knew about the illegal sale of oil.

Fact: With the UN corrupt to the core (Oil for Food) allowed Saddam to believe he had the deck stacked in his favor.

Fact: Saddam was used to hollow threats from Clinton, he didn't reckon with Bush meaning precisely what he said.

Fact: Bush gave him more than one chance. Saddam refused.

It looks like the UN corruption gave Saddam false hope. Had the UN been straight, the war... loss of American blood might have been prevented.

Corruption, like pacifism... and issuing hollow threat after hollow threat... has its costs.

Zimmer, don't you know it is not nice to confront Liberals hypocrisy with the facts? :rofl
 
Tax income is completely irrelevant if you keep spending more than you earn.

Considering "tax income" IS "what you earn," I think "tax income" is certainly relevant if you're trying to avoid spending more than you earn. :rofl
 
Considering "tax income" IS "what you earn," I think "tax income" is certainly relevant if you're trying to avoid spending more than you earn. :rofl

If you run deficits you keep spending more than you earn, its irrelevant than if tax income is $2.1 trillion or $2.4 trillion. Its still budget deficits.

You had a housing boom and many other booms in the 90s and which kept continuing long into the Bush terms, yet he ran deficits, so it seems irrelevant.
 
If you run deficits you keep spending more than you earn, its irrelevant than if tax income is $2.1 trillion or $2.4 trillion. Its still budget deficits.

You had a housing boom and many other booms in the 90s and which kept continuing long into the Bush terms, yet he ran deficits, so it seems irrelevant.

lol

It most certainly does matter if tax income is $2.1T or $2.4T, especially if expenditures are $2.3T.

Recap:

MZ: "Clinton ran a surplus"
RH: "The tech bubble caused the surplus"
MZ: "No, the government spent less than they took in, that's why there was a surplus."
NYC: "And why do you think the government acquired so much in tax revenue? Hint: It's related to the tech bubble"

Now think real hard about why artificially inflated tax revenues during the late 90's might have had an impact on whether or not the US had a budget surplus.
 
lol

It most certainly does matter if tax income is $2.1T or $2.4T, especially if expenditures are $2.3T.

Recap:

MZ: "Clinton ran a surplus"
RH: "The tech bubble caused the surplus"
MZ: "No, the government spent less than they took in, that's why there was a surplus."
NYC: "And why do you think the government acquired so much in tax revenue? Hint: It's related to the tech bubble"

Now think real hard about why artificially inflated tax revenues during the late 90's might have had an impact on whether or not the US had a budget surplus.

Yeah, thats exactly what you think I said, but its actually the completely opposit..

You think the tech bubble is the reason for the surplus of Clinton, yet your tax incomes were greater under Bush who ran huge deficits, so tax incomes is irrelevant.

And yes, if your tax income is $2.1 trillion and you spend $2.3 trillion, or if your tax income is 2.5 trillion and you spend 2.9 trillion, tax income is still irrelevant to surpluses or deficits, because it ONLY depends on how much you spend vs how much you make. Obviously a rather advanced concept for you to understand.

I can write you a 5 page explanation if you still do not understand.
 
Yeah, thats exactly what you think I said, but its actually the completely opposit..

You think the tech bubble is the reason for the surplus of Clinton, yet your tax incomes were greater under Bush who ran huge deficits, so tax incomes is irrelevant.

And yes, if your tax income is $2.1 trillion and you spend $2.3 trillion, or if your tax income is 2.5 trillion and you spend 2.9 trillion, tax income is still irrelevant to surpluses or deficits, because it ONLY depends on how much you spend vs how much you make. Obviously a rather advanced concept for you to understand.

I can write you a 5 page explanation if you still do not understand.

I don't think you understand what the word "irrelevant" means.

The point is that if the tech bubble hadn't happened under Clinton, we likely wouldn't have have the tiny surplus that we did. It has nothing to do with Bush's later spending, try as hard as you might to bring that in.
 
I don't think you understand what the word "irrelevant" means.

The point is that if the tech bubble hadn't happened under Clinton, we likely wouldn't have have the tiny surplus that we did. It has nothing to do with Bush's later spending, try as hard as you might to bring that in.

This is getting quite uninteresting just about now. You have no idea about what I am talking about, and really you are just debating with yourself.

So, see you later.
 
Back
Top Bottom