Bush's Presidency

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Ohh! Looky.....either you're right and I'm wrong, or you're quoting a propaganda graph that doesn't bother to address the fact that Clinton's "balanced" budget improperly places revenues from FICA taxes intended for future expenses inton the "let's spend it now" column and pretend that future debts aren't being incurred.

Let's put it this way. Since I'm not wrong, the only question you have to ask is why aren't members of Congress and put in jail for pulling tricks with the numbers that would put any Enron exec in jail instantly.

They lied to you.

You don't have to believe the lie.

If you want to be free, you'll stop believing their lies.

Click to expand...

Question: did the deficit go up or down during Clinton's administration? Followup: how about during Carter, Reagan, Bush the elder, and Bush the younger?

Redress said:

Question: did the deficit go up or down during Clinton's administration? Followup: how about during Carter, Reagan, Bush the elder, and Bush the younger?

Click to expand...

If you look at total public debt, it increased throughout Clinton's two terms.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

On January 20, 1993, the total public debt was 4,188,092,107,183.60.

On January 20, 1998, the total public debt was 5,495,525,658,807.45

On January 20, 1999, the total public debt was 5,623,807,213,463.02

On January 20, 2000, the total public debt was 5,706,174,969,873.86

On January 19, 2001, the total public debt was 5,727,776,738,304.64

If there was a budget "surplus" and debt was increasing, there's some funky accounting going on, no?

Redress said:

Question: did the deficit go up or down during Clinton's administration? Followup: how about during Carter, Reagan, Bush the elder, and Bush the younger?

Click to expand...

Hello?

Question: Did The Rapist President have a budget surplus, as claimed?

Answer: No.

Question: Did The Rapist President have a Cold War to Fight?

Answer: No.

Question: Did The Rapist President have to clean up after the Democrat spawned S&L Crisis?

Answer: No.

Question: With the economy booming, did The Rapist President cut, marginalize, and eliminate any government programs intended to aid the poor and inept during times of economic downturn?

Answer: No.

Question: Was The Rapist President the most corrupt man to ever occupy the Oral...Oval Office?

Answer: Beyond measure, yes.

Those are several of the facts you have to address when heaping praise upon The Rapist Presidency.

Because of those facts, no honest American can praise The Rapist Presidency.

So what does that make you?

The deficit under The Rapist Presidency went down (didn't go to zero, didn't go negative), because, and only because, revenues rose with expenditures dropped for conditions that had absolutely no connection to any of the actions of the Rapist President.

Now, you mention The Idiot President and want to discuss his economic success. Well, Carter was the most inept president the nation ever had, and his utter failure as president got his sorry economically malaised ass hurled to the curb at the end of his first and thank the god that doesn't exist, only term.

Reagan the Great repaired what The Idiot broke, and then broke the Soviet Union, bringing the Cold War to an end.

The Oath Breaking President, Bush, had to clean up the aforementioned S&L crisis the Democrats imposed, and because he was foresworn, his tax hikes caused a recession that decreased federal revenues, just like The Messiah President is working so hard at doing.

Funny how neither one of you want to answer two simple questions...

Redress said:

Funny how neither one of you want to answer two simple questions...

Click to expand...

Funny how you don't want to discuss facts.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Funny how you don't want to discuss facts.

Click to expand...

Nothing either of you have said is relevant to what I am saying.

Redress said:

Nothing either of you have said is relevant to what I am saying.

Click to expand...

You're trying to say that we're supposed to worship The Rapist President because by accounting gimmicks illegal in private industry, some fancy book-cooking propagandists managed to show how wonderful everything was in the 1990's by falsely showing that a surplus that didn't exist did exist and the planets were aligned and the Age of Acquarius was upon us, and then the EVIL Bush smote the Angel of Rape from On High and the gates to the Garden of Paradise were closed to all.

Yeah, we can see what you're trying to say, buddy.

We don't agree with it.

I wasn't a little child then, and I'm not Benjamin Button.

Only way you will find out if you are right is if you answer my simple two questions. Your absolute fear of doing so is telling.

Redress said:

Only way you will find out if you are right is if you answer my simple two questions. Your absolute fear of doing so is telling.

Click to expand...

I've already explored, in depth, the irrelevancy of the deficit going down under The Rapist presidency and explained The Idiot presidency sufficiently to indicate his irrelevancy, also.

Are you trying to claim that The Rapist Presidency was better because, by trying to everything to prevent it, the economy grew in spite of what the Rapist did, and therefore, the Rapist was a better President than The Bumbling Liberal President who managed to reverse the recession the Rapist finally left office with, and managed also to achieve six straight years of postive economic growth while responding to the economic twang caused by the terrorists Clinton failed to do anything about, and thereafter fighting two simultaneous wars?

You're trying to claim that a president with a predilection towards sexual molestation and lying who was lucky enough to not actually have to do anything is a better president than the man that had to clean up the messes The Rapist left behind, and did so fairly well.

Six years economic growth, new jobs created, from inheriting the Rapist's recession and dealing with significant economic issues. That's a fact of the Bumbling Liberal Presidency you people have to deal with.

Bush didn't do a number of things he absolutely had to do. But he managed to grow the economy in spite of his liberal flaws anyway.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

I've already explored, in depth, the irrelevancy of the deficit going down under The Rapist presidency and explained The Idiot presidency sufficiently to indicate his irrelevancy, also.

Are you trying to claim that The Rapist Presidency was better because, by trying to everything to prevent it, the economy grew in spite of what the Rapist did, and therefore, the Rapist was a better President than The Bumbling Liberal President who managed to reverse the recession the Rapist finally left office with, and managed also to achieve six straight years of postive economic growth while responding to the economic twang caused by the terrorists Clinton failed to do anything about, and thereafter fighting two simultaneous wars?

You're trying to claim that a president with a predilection towards sexual molestation and lying who was lucky enough to not actually have to do anything is a better president than the man that had to clean up the messes The Rapist left behind, and did so fairly well.

Six years economic growth, new jobs created, from inheriting the Rapist's recession and dealing with significant economic issues. That's a fact of the Bumbling Liberal Presidency you people have to deal with.

Bush didn't do a number of things he absolutely had to do. But he managed to grow the economy in spite of his liberal flaws anyway.

Click to expand...

Why are you so needing to avoid the subject? It was simple questions, and you still do everything in your power to avoid them.

Redress said:

Why are you so needing to avoid the subject? It was simple questions, and you still do everything in your power to avoid them.

Click to expand...

Haven't avoided the subject.

If you've refused to notice, I've been discussing the subject.

Now, are you still trying to claim The Rapsit presidency was in some way "better" than those others? Sure, you can say The Rapist was better than The Idiot. We all know that, some of us aren't even embarassed to say so.

But, no, by objective measure, The Rapist was inferior in presidenting skills to The Great President, The Oath Breaking President, and even worse than The Bumbling Liberal President. Since The Messiah is eagerly seeking ways to become worse than The Worst President, aka Wilson, it's probable that The Rapist President will finally have a second president he can be compared favorably against who lived in his lifetime.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Haven't avoided the subject.

If you've refused to notice, I've been discussing the subject.

Now, are you still trying to claim The Rapsit presidency was in some way "better" than those others? Sure, you can say The Rapist was better than The Idiot. We all know that, some of us aren't even embarassed to say so.

But, no, by objective measure, The Rapist was inferior in presidenting skills to The Great President, The Oath Breaking President, and even worse than The Bumbling Liberal President. Since The Messiah is eagerly seeking ways to become worse than The Worst President, aka Wilson, it's probable that The Rapist President will finally have a second president he can be compared favorably against who lived in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

hmm..... appears conservatives can't name opposing party members, or shunned Republicans....

Since you still seem afraid to answer, lets look at some numbers I found. Let's use debt a a purer metric. I will use the same source celticlord did to get his numbers.

Carter: 9/30/77 698,840,000,000
9/30/81 997,855,000,000

About a 1/3 increase in 4 years.

Reagan: 9/29/89 2,857,430,960,187

That is almost triple, in 8 years.

Bush the elder: 9/30/93 4,411,488,883,139

Not quite double in 4 years.

Clinton: 9/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200

about a 1/3 increase in 8 years.

Bush the younger: 9/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912

Not quite double in 7 years. The 8th year should take it to over double.

Spin it how you want, but under democratic presidents, debt has risen at a lower pace prior to Obama than under republican presidents. What Obama's numbers will look like, I am afraid to guess.

The further truth is that it is not even close. Debt has risen dramatically faster under republicans than democrats.

Redress said:

Debt has risen dramatically faster under republicans than democrats.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is an entirely fair assessment. For one thing, you have to look at who was in Congress too. Sure, Bill Clinton was a Democrat, but the Congress he presided over for 6 of his 8 years had Republicans in the majority. Reagan and Bush Sr. presided over a Democratic Congress.

Of course, that's no excuse for Bush Jr., who was a Republican when Congress was Republican, nor is it for Carter. But under Carter our military was severely underfunded, and Bush had the whole War on Terror thing to attend to, although that doesn't entirely excuse him for F*ing the budget. Reagan won the Cold War at a high cost, and Clinton presided over a rare decade of peace in the U.S. Anyways, my point is that there are much more variables to take into account than the party of the president.

Dav said:

I don't think that is an entirely fair assessment. For one thing, you have to look at who was in Congress too. Sure, Bill Clinton was a Democrat, but the Congress he presided over for 6 of his 8 years had Republicans in the majority. Reagan and Bush Sr. presided over a Democratic Congress.

Of course, that's no excuse for Bush Jr., who was a Republican when Congress was Republican, nor is it for Carter. But under Carter our military was severely underfunded, and Bush had the whole War on Terror thing to attend to, although that doesn't entirely excuse him for F*ing the budget. Reagan won the Cold War at a high cost, and Clinton presided over a rare decade of peace in the U.S. Anyways, my point is that there are much more variables to take into account than the party of the president.

Click to expand...

In how many cases did the congress have a veto-proof majority of one party? Republicans like to talk like they are these big budget hawks, but the numbers indicate otherwise. When you point this out, they make tons and tons of excuses. "oh, but our spending was needed..." Mention the deficit under Clinton, and they bring up the fact that there was no real surplus, but forget that there was a reduction of deficit.

Notice the pattern there?

Redress said:

In how many cases did the congress have a veto-proof majority of one party? Republicans like to talk like they are these big budget hawks, but the numbers indicate otherwise. When you point this out, they make tons and tons of excuses. "oh, but our spending was needed..." Mention the deficit under Clinton, and they bring up the fact that there was no real surplus, but forget that there was a reduction of deficit.

Notice the pattern there?

Click to expand...

How does veto-proof majority matter when it comes to budget?

I notice no pattern, just a mass of many variables, a single one of which is the party of the president.

Dav said:

How does veto-proof majority matter when it comes to budget?

I notice no pattern, just a mass of many variables, a single one of which is the party of the president.

Click to expand...

It means a president with sufficient determination could stop any budget passed by congress. They chose not to.

Our right wing friends want to deny credit for any lessening of the deficit under Clinton, and deny blame for the increases in the deficit under republican presidents. They have a point in that it is not entirely the presidents fault, but the president is part of the equation, and should share credit/blame.

Redress said:

It means a president with sufficient determination could stop any budget passed by congress. They chose not to.

Click to expand...

The president will take what he can get... if he doesn't think Congress can compromise with a budget that looks more like what the president wants, I think he would just go ahead and approve it.

Our right wing friends want to deny credit for any lessening of the deficit under Clinton, and deny blame for the increases in the deficit under republican presidents. They have a point in that it is not entirely the presidents fault, but the president is part of the equation, and should share credit/blame.

Click to expand...

I do agree, the President isn't completely blameless.

It's discussions like these that reveal the dangers of hyper-partisans. The truth is, every president does some good, some bad. When measuring the overall job, we arrive at different measures for presidents based on how we weigh the successes and failures. I rate Clinton higher than Bush because the things Clinton did well are more important to me than the things Bush did well. I can accept that to another person with different priorities would come to a different conclusion. However, the hyper-partisans cannot accept that it is possible to see things in ways other than they see it.

Redress said:

It means a president with sufficient determination could stop any budget passed by congress. They chose not to.

Our right wing friends want to deny credit for any lessening of the deficit under Clinton, and deny blame for the increases in the deficit under republican presidents. They have a point in that it is not entirely the presidents fault, but the president is part of the equation, and should share credit/blame.

Click to expand...

I will not pretend that debt did not increase under Republican Presidents, however, you also have to consider that inflation was also under way during most of these cases. In Reagan's case, he had planned to give the welfare program to the states and planned his budget accordingly. Obviously this did not happen, resulting in an increase. Bush Sr. had the gulf war and rising welfare and social program costs, Bush Jr. had the same. Clinton never balanced the budget, though he did manage to spend less by cutting the military. Just an FYI, to Congress "balanced" means the government is racking up less debt than it did last year.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Haven't avoided the subject.

If you've refused to notice, I've been discussing the subject.

Now, are you still trying to claim The Rapsit presidency was in some way "better" than those others? Sure, you can say The Rapist was better than The Idiot. We all know that, some of us aren't even embarassed to say so.

But, no, by objective measure, The Rapist was inferior in presidenting skills to The Great President, The Oath Breaking President, and even worse than The Bumbling Liberal President. Since The Messiah is eagerly seeking ways to become worse than The Worst President, aka Wilson, it's probable that The Rapist President will finally have a second president he can be compared favorably against who lived in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

You know you might have a valid point if you used facts and real names. None of us even knows what you are talking about. Sure, we could decode it if we really wanted to, but personally the lack of facts to back up your statement lead me to believe it wouldn't be worth my time.

They all build on the tyranny of the last president, Bush was no exception.

Redress said:

A couple things. Using the chart provided above(which I do not vouch for the accuracy of), the deficit was already trending down before the republican congress.

Click to expand...

We can quibble over what forces and policies were at work during the 90s that resulted in lower deficits. There's no doubt that under the Bush years, deficits grew by leaps and bounds. What's most frightening is looking at the projected figures under Obama...

Secondly, alot of the reduction in military spending was a result of efforts by both Bush the elder and Clinton administrations to streamline and improve efficiency in the military. My favorite example is the base closure commission started by Bush the elder, and continued under Clinton, which did not reduce military readiness, and I think next year we reach the break even point, where the cost of the closings is surpassed by the savings from closing the bases.

Click to expand...

I was in the Pentagon during the BRAC. I watched as our forces were cut about 30% across the board. I watched as everyone struggled to develop charts and graphs demonstrating that readiness was 'not impacted.'

If your family budget were cut 30%, are you seriously telling me that would have no impact on your capabilities to function? If your business budget and workforce were slashed 30%, do you think your business would be able to handle the same workload through streamlining?

:doh

Republicans like to talk like they are these big budget hawks, but the numbers indicate otherwise.

Click to expand...

Indeed. From 1980 until now they have somehow managed to fool the idiots into thinking they are the party of "small government". Ahhh, yeah. Sure.

stekim said:

Indeed. From 1980 until now they have somehow managed to fool the idiots into thinking they are the party of "small government". Ahhh, yeah. Sure.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which idiots you're referring to. One of the largest concerns and criticisms of Bush among conservatives over the past years has been his irresponsible fiscal policy and expansion of government. Some have justified it due to the war. But most of us have protested deficit spending and greater government involvement in our lives. Deficit spending is what ultimately cost George Sr. the election in 1992. Deficit spending galvanized a large number of conservative-leaning independents to vote for Ross Perot, allowing Clinton to win election with only 43% of the popular vote. Clinton understood that, which was one of the great incentives for him to reign in spending. Deficit spending is one of the galvanizing factors behind the Ron Paul movement last year.

Most Americans are keenly in tune with deficits and vote accordingly.

I think this will prove to be Obama's Achilles' heel. He's got no plan to reduce the deficit... other than to raise taxes, something he's been pretty quiet about up till now. Taxes are not a pill American's like to swallow.

..