namelesstavern.net

Diekan wrote:Clinton? ROFL Life was better when we didn't have a partially retarded chimp taxing the living shit out of us. Or, sending off to die in some war so he can out do his daddy.

W H A T ? ? ?

No. You were paying more taxes under the Clinton administration. I guess you wouldn't notice because your line of work only gives you tips instead of paychecks.

Electing a democrat in the US is like feeding a child some vegetables. They don't want em, but they're all way better off in the end.

Gov't funding for programms like this is necessary. Private funders tend to want to know how their funding will benefit them. Telling them its for the good of all doesn't cut it. They want to know how outting $$ into something will in turn put more $$ in their pockets.

If we didn't have federal funding for things like this, our current medical field would be far smalled and far less advanced then it is today. I love how people argue up and down about having to help fund medical research, but they have no problems at all using cure that result from that research.

For those who think phramasudical companies are there to cure people, think again. They like every other company are there to make $$ any way they can. They make their money from the sick and the dieing, if they were to actually cure the illneses that everyone had, they would go out of business. No CEO is in business to lose money.

Democrats have ALWAYS been about TAX AND SPEND politics, and BIGGER government.

I cant think of a single political party who didn't have the SPEND portion of that down to a fine art. Thye just disagree with where to get the $$ and what to spend it on.

Mindia wrote:Democrats have ALWAYS been about TAX AND SPEND politics, and BIGGER government.

Unfortunately the GOP is now tax less and still spend. It's how they've managed to take over, by following the bloated expenditures and lack of Federalism that got the DNC in power before.

Unfortunately, true libertarian federalistic conservative politics seems long gone.

W gave me 300 bucks back just a few months after he was elected the FIRST time. He gave my parents 600 bucks back.

You'll need to elect a democrat in the next election to create some surplus so the republicans can spend it all.

Its great that they gave $$ back to the people. However they dont seem to realize that when you give $$ back to the people you need to spend less to make up for that. We are spending as much if not more then ever. A huge amount of $$ is being pumped into this was and we have now really lowerd our speding across the board. In the long run the tax cut can hurt far more then it helps if the gov't doesn't adjust to go along with it.

Zanchief wrote:You'll need to elect a democrat in the next election to create some surplus so the republicans can spend it all.

Hi, you weren't around for Jimmy Carter.

However, we do have a Republican majority like in the 90s so it might be the same.

The problem is we need another dot com boom, regardless of who is elected. Clinton did jack for the economy, but ride the wave of high tech surplus which unfortunately is offshored now a days.

Fortunately our unemployment and economy are doing quite well, unlike Europe now a days.

And what has Bush done to try and curve the offshoring? Nothing.

Our current government is taxing us just as much as any Democrat controlled fed would, if not more.

Yeah, I got 300 bucks back to a few years ago... then ended up owing the IRS at the end of the year anyway. That 300 bucks was a joke.

The rich always enjoy tax breaks while the GOP is in office...

Mid tier jobs are being outsourced, low level jobs are being taken over by illegals, high level jobs are far and few in between... the cost of living is continuing to rise and wages are staying the same, if not actually going down. We're in the middle of a war with a country that we shouldn't even be in right now and we're on the verge of going to war with what... potentially three other countries? We've pissed off most of Europe, Russia and China isn't exactly thrilled with us. We're slowly but surely losing our seat as the worlds technology, engineering and science leaders... our public schools are in smables...

Yes, George W Bush is doing an absolutely wonderful job as our President.

But, hey our *leaders* are put into office by a country populated with mindless sheep who vote through their emotions and not their God given logic... what do you expect?

Diekan wrote:Yes, George W Bush is doing an absolutely wonderful job as our President.

/concur

Q: Who is the only president in our lifetimes to balance the budget, elminate the deficit, and begin to pay down the debt?

Hint : He also enacted welfare reform.

A: BILL CLINTON.

mofish wrote:Q: Who is the only president in our lifetimes to balance the budget, elminate the deficit, and begin to pay down the debt?

Hint : He also enacted welfare reform.

A: BILL CLINTON.

He did not eliminate the deficit. Are you saying our deficit was paid off by the Clinton Administration? Might want to check the CBO. He also would've had a big deficit if not for the boom, but again you are ignoring the circumstances.

Clinton also started a catastrophic recession a year before leaving office, but your bullshit spin seems to ignore that. Except, of course, he didn't. He was just along for the ride, just like when the dot com boom hit, he was not responsible for the bust

If not for the boom he would've had a budget deficit, so he benefited from being in the right place at the right time. Funny, that's just how he got elected, via a large gift check from Ross Perot who took from the GOP and allowed Clinton to get elected without a majority.

Except none of that really mattered. Alan Greenspan has done more for the country over the last 15 years than either GW or Billy.

?

Funny how we still seem to have a Nhuge ational Debt, despite the dot.com boom, again, which Clinton was not responsible for.

I do believe our government works better with balance, and we need at least the house or senate to go back to DNC control. A big reason for Clinton not spending cash, is the GOP people in congress wouldn't let him.

Anyway you slice it, we need a better job of paying off the deficit and to work more on Federalism and decentralization of government.

lyion wrote:

mofish wrote:Q: Who is the only president in our lifetimes to balance the budget, elminate the deficit, and begin to pay down the debt?

Hint : He also enacted welfare reform.

A: BILL CLINTON.

He did not eliminate the deficit. Are you saying our deficit was paid off by the Clinton Administration? Might want to check the CBO. He also would've had a big deficit if not for the boom, but again you are ignoring the circumstances.

Clinton also started a catastrophic recession a year before leaving office, but your bullshit spin seems to ignore that. Except, of course, he didn't. He was just along for the ride, just like when the dot com boom hit, he was not responsible for the bust

If not for the boom he would've had a budget deficit, so he benefited from being in the right place at the right time. Funny, that's just how he got elected, via a large gift check from Ross Perot who took from the GOP and allowed Clinton to get elected without a majority.

Except none of that really mattered. Alan Greenspan has done more for the country over the last 15 years than either GW or Billy.

ROFL. I love how when it comes to Clinton, all of the sudden Presidents ARE responsible for the economy.

Mention a Bush and quickly they escape blame because the economy is cyclic.

.com BOOM .com BOOM BLAHH BLAHHH ...

and conservatives have the balls to call liberals sheep.

that chart isnt helping your argument either

Because I'm not trying to bullshit partisan spin. GW and the GOP are spending way too much fucking money, albeit on the Iraq War and other pet projects, as well as some uncool tax cuts.

I was trying to explain things, Albut since nobody here seems to understand economics and that a 'budget surplus' is because the Murican Taxpayers made more cash than expected (In the late 90s this was due to the dot com bubble, which burst under GW), and has really nothing to do with the Government. Especially one in which the GOP controlled congress.

Clinton did not pay off the deficit. He raised it. He 'proposed' a surplus after he left office that never occured, just like GW has a lot of 'proposals' for things long after he leaves.

Try reading my posts Kill. ya know, the part where I inform you Greenspan has done more than the Bushies and Bill?

Let me simplify it even further. This is our national debt over the last 15 years. The 'budget' isn't really a big deal, because that's congress haggling over spending, and its moreso how much we earn and pay in taxes. It'd be nice if we had a balanced budget amendment, but I wouldn't count on it. Neither party wants to stop pork spending.

Notice the national debt going up, due to entitlement spending? Up, up, up. Notice during the Clinton years it never goes down at all. Notice how it doesnt go down, period?

Those who understand what the US 'Budget' is, unlike Map who is clueless, realize that number is essentially meaningless. What matters is 'cuts' made to programs within the budget to reign in spending, and ensuring financial and GDP growth so we can make more cash, create more jobs, and ensure our economy grows.

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16

I could explain the Federal Reserve, but I'm sure some here just prefer nice little charts without having a whit of comprehension.

Aye, it seems no one can curb spending anymore. That's the single biggest disappointment I've had with Bush.

KILL wrote:

lyion wrote:

mofish wrote:Q: Who is the only president in our lifetimes to balance the budget, elminate the deficit, and begin to pay down the debt?

Hint : He also enacted welfare reform.

A: BILL CLINTON.

He did not eliminate the deficit. Are you saying our deficit was paid off by the Clinton Administration? Might want to check the CBO. He also would've had a big deficit if not for the boom, but again you are ignoring the circumstances.

Clinton also started a catastrophic recession a year before leaving office, but your bullshit spin seems to ignore that. Except, of course, he didn't. He was just along for the ride, just like when the dot com boom hit, he was not responsible for the bust

If not for the boom he would've had a budget deficit, so he benefited from being in the right place at the right time. Funny, that's just how he got elected, via a large gift check from Ross Perot who took from the GOP and allowed Clinton to get elected without a majority.

Except none of that really mattered. Alan Greenspan has done more for the country over the last 15 years than either GW or Billy.

ROFL. I love how when it comes to Clinton, all of the sudden Presidents ARE responsible for the economy.

Mention a Bush and quickly they escape blame because the economy is cyclic.

.com BOOM .com BOOM BLAHH BLAHHH ...

and conservatives have the balls to call liberals sheep.

Which part of "Clinton also started a catastrophic recession a year before leaving office, but your bullshit spin seems to ignore that. Except, of course, he didn't. He was just along for the ride, just like when the dot com boom hit, he was not responsible for the bust" did you NOT understand?

Moron.

I misspoke on the trade deficit, my bad. Stilll doesnt change the fact that Bill Clinton, that dirty Decmocrat, was the most fiscally responsible president weve had since Ive been alive. Argue all you want, its the truth.

Call me when W balances the budget. I wont be waiting by the phone. Did I mention he also has a republican controlled congress working with him and still cant (=doesnt want to) get it done?

I have but a simple question...

Why is it people are quick to point out that Clinton just rode the dotcom bubble... saying he had nothing to do with it... but then are just as quick to blame the shit of today on Clinton, too?

Unless I'm missing the point here - what you're essentailly saying is that - Clinton gets no credit for the economic boom of the mid 90's (because that was something that had started long before) - but we'll pile up all the shit of *today* on Clinton's shoulders... even though we've had a baboon in office for the past 5 years?

Wratih, try again.

Presidents are NOT just along for the ride. Their actions cause ripple effects which definitely hurt or help the economy and our growth.

Clinton in many's estimation by gutting our intel group and massively cutting the military and our defense infrastructure has a big portion of the responsiblity for 9/11, He also did nothing to help stem early offshoring and the initial problems with the dot com bust. Which left the country in recession while he left office.

Was he as instrumental over a long period of time as the Fed in lifting or stalling the economy? No. Did he have a big impact on the 90s? Absolutely.

He also spent like it was going out of style the first few years. It seems his second term he was too busy ducking from Monica's lips, both in the oval office and on TV.

Watch the personal insults also, you fucking retard. Read the forum rules, Wraith.

Diekan, nobody is blaming Clinton for the bubble boom or bust. The simple fact is neither event was attributed to him, but merely happened on his watch.

Likewise, if we had a new high tech boom, it would not be 'because' of Bush, but merely be on his watch.

Clinton did gut the military and intel departments, though. That is a fact.