namelesstavern.net

You fucking retard is a bit childish eh?

Back on track!

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst053005.htm

Link to Monday's article from Congressman Ron Paul.[/url]

I figured you of all people would get my warped and sarcastic humor, Ez.

Best quote of that article

it’s never compassionate to spend other people’s money for political benefit.

lyion you know the difference between debt and deficit, right? it doesn't sound like you do, since you say clinton didn't have a surplus even though he did for three consecutive years (and the economy expanded for over 100 months consecutively)

clinton's administration had a surplus because they borrowed more than they spent. the nat'l debt rose because the gov't had to come up with $600billion over eight years to rise out of the deficit.

deficit =/= debt

Drem wrote:clinton's administration had a surplus because they borrowed more than they spent. the nat'l debt rose because the gov't had to come up with $600billion over eight years to rise out of the deficit.

edit: to add something about Drems illogic here.

Hmm, that doesnt really make sense. The debt is a result of budget deficits. The deficit or surplus is the inequality of cash each year. If the government spends more than it takes in, it results in a deficit. The vast majority of Presidents from both sides of the aisle have deficit spent throughout history. Clinton managed to have budget surpluses the last two years of his 8 year term, not 3. You know W had a surplus through the first two years of his term. The ones before we entered into the Iraq war

In Clinton's eight years, the national debt tripled to 6.9 trillion. Small surpluses due to the increased earnings of the high tech boom, and to some degree the fiscality imposed by a GOP Congress with a DNC President are good, but as I said before those surpluses were a result of the American Economy, not his policy. Long range planning based on those proved to be impudent.

Budget deficits are a problem. They are a matter of entitlements and 'pork' spending. I'm all for a balanced budget amendment, but both parties are beholden to separate special interests that control the lion share of the budget. If we had kept up the 'dot com' boom, then we wouldn't have all these issues, regardless of the massive financial impact of 9/11, but unfortunately that didn't happen.

Reagan roughly tripled the National Debt in his time. So did Bill. Notice a trend? Thats even with Bill being the beneficiary of being lucky in regards to the dot.com boom. I think his impeachment and the gridlock also were partially responsible for things. Having a GOP Congress and President certainly doesn't seem to be helping too much in regards to spending, as anything GW does is demonized, even if its merely freezing spending for a year.

Check out the CBO site.

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

I'd call it more streamlined.

Thats because you never served and didnt see it first hand. He gutted it.

The military is so useless.

lyion wrote:Thats because you never served and didnt see it first hand. He gutted it.

Yep, what the military is doing now is streamlining. What happened under Clinton comprimised core capabilities of the various arms, including the civilian intel agencies.

mappatazee wrote:The military is so useless.

Yeah. Fuckin' military. All eatin' up the tax payer dollars, sittin' on their asses and watchin' TV.

lyion wrote: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.

Lyoin, try again.

I was actually defending your position that Clinton was NOT to blame nor should be given credit for the state of the economy as a result of the dotcom boom, after Kill whined that you were blaming him(Clinton) for the problems that arose while refusing to give him credit for the good times. You did neither, which I pointed out. Which in turn resulted in you attacking me for it.

Lyion wrote:you fucking retard

So which is it?

Was he?

Lyion wrote:He was just along for the ride

Or was he not?

Lyion wrote:Presidents are NOT just along for the ride

The fucking retard comment was meant to be funny. I should've appended a smiley to it. Forgive me if my warped sense of humor doesn't always translate to text well.

Those quotes are for two completely different scenarios.

For the DOT COM boom, Clinton did not CAUSE it. He was along for the ride.

In regards to budgets, tax cuts, spending, and spending programs they are active and cause a ripple effect . However, nothing our government did was responsible for the boom and subsequent bust that occured in high tech.

My only gripe with Clinton was in what he did to the military, and especially our Intel groups. Other than that, he was a decent president.

mappatazee wrote:The military is so useless.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this wasn't sarcasm.

Grow up.