LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 391
0 members and 391 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-23-2005, 09:09 AM   #2581
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 6,034
Deficit.

Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The did not vote for the bill because like many Republicans they thought it was irresponsible fiscally. Kerry was going to vote against it because he thought it was an awful bill laden with pork but he changed his mind at the last minute when he realized his vote was needed to make it a tie so Gore could break the tie. All Republicans voted against it and a signficant number of Democrats. It is my memory that the structural deficit did not decrease, but may have once the Tax increases were back credited. I will check that out tomorrow. However, with economic growth you get deficit reduction automatically with increased tax revenues but even in such an environment they needed to increase taxes because of their increased spending. The markets did not consider this fiscal discipline.
Was there economic growth in the 1980s (other than the 1982 recession)? If so, why did the deficit grow so large under two Republican presidents? Didn't the GOP hold the Senate for six of those years? Ah, but it's all Tip's fault.

It sure looks to me like the CBO historical data says that your memory (that deficits didn't decrease until 1995 when Newt's boys took over the House after the 1994 elections) is simply wrong.

Why is it so hard for some GOPers to accept this, when even the someone writing in the National Review Online can? Bruce Bartlett:
  • I simply recited the facts. The budget went from deficit to surplus on Clinton’s watch and lower spending played a key role. He even abolished an entitlement program through welfare reform. By contrast, the deficit has exploded under Bush, in part because spending has risen well above what can reasonably be justified by the recession, Iraq, and homeland security.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0407070838.asp

Last edited by Not Bob; 08-23-2005 at 09:13 AM..
Not Bob is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 09:13 AM   #2582
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 6,034
Deficit

Oh, and here's my favorite:
  • Clinton's Economic Program: Myths and Realities
    by Richard W. Rahn
    Heritage Lecture #440


    February 24, 1993

    Washington's flight from reasoned and truthful discourse has never been more apparent. The advocates of the Clinton economic program have resorted to creating fantasy numbers to defend the indefensible. We are told that both a tax increase and a spending decrease -- which according to their own numbers is really a spending increase -- will reduce the deficit, reduce interest rates, create more new jobs, and increase economic growth. What economic theory provides such results? Certainly not the classical, Austrian, Keynesian, or supply-side. It's Alice in Big-governmentland!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/HL440.cfm

And yet it worked. Amazing!
Not Bob is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 09:52 AM   #2583
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,129
Deficit

Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
Oh, and here's my favorite:
  • Clinton's Economic Program: Myths and Realities
    by Richard W. Rahn
    Heritage Lecture #440


    February 24, 1993

    Washington's flight from reasoned and truthful discourse has never been more apparent. The advocates of the Clinton economic program have resorted to creating fantasy numbers to defend the indefensible. We are told that both a tax increase and a spending decrease -- which according to their own numbers is really a spending increase -- will reduce the deficit, reduce interest rates, create more new jobs, and increase economic growth. What economic theory provides such results? Certainly not the classical, Austrian, Keynesian, or supply-side. It's Alice in Big-governmentland!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/HL440.cfm

And yet it worked. Amazing!
You do realize he didn't get this program through, don't you?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 09:54 AM   #2584
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,129
anyone watching this

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/

I can't link to photos because they are too disturbing to be allowed on the board, but you should all watch this thing. Amazing.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:21 AM   #2585
SlaveNoMore
Consigliere
 
SlaveNoMore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pelosi Land!
Posts: 9,477
Aaron Burr, et al

Quote:
[iNot Bob [/i]
Was there economic growth in the 1980s (other than the 1982 recession)? If so, why did the deficit grow so large under two Republican presidents? Didn't the GOP hold the Senate for six of those years? Ah, but it's all Tip's fault.

It sure looks to me like the CBO historical data says that your memory (that deficits didn't decrease until 1995 when Newt's boys took over the House after the 1994 elections) is simply wrong.

Why is it so hard for some GOPers to accept this, when even the someone writing in the National Review Online can? Bruce Bartlett:
Hamilton loved the national credit earned by a national deficit.

I guess you are opposed?
SlaveNoMore is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:21 AM   #2586
nononono
I am beyond a rank!
 
nononono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In that cafe crowded with fools
Posts: 1,466
Deficit.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
1 post hoc
2 you are Notme.
1 Huh?
2 Huh?
__________________
Why was I born with such contemporaries?
nononono is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:34 AM   #2587
SlaveNoMore
Consigliere
 
SlaveNoMore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pelosi Land!
Posts: 9,477
anyone watching this

Quote:
Hank Chinaski
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/

I can't link to photos because they are too disturbing to be allowed on the board, but you should all watch this thing. Amazing.
Politcs aside:

1) We don't dishonor, besmirch or politicize anything re: the date of 9/11 here.

2) For those missing context, I'll be happy to "cut and paste" the posts from that day - when I got out alive 4 blocks away and several friends died.

3) Send money to Paul's kids,* among others:



http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/paulgill/index.html

*I'll gladly rotate my HS fireman/cops families' that deserve a donation.
SlaveNoMore is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 11:08 AM   #2588
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,129
anyone watching this

Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Politcs aside:

1) We don't dishonor, besmirch or politicize anything re: the date of 9/11 here.

2) For those missing context, I'll be happy to "cut and paste" the posts from that day - when I got out alive 4 blocks away and several friends died.

3) Send money to Paul's kids,* among others:



http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/paulgill/index.html

*I'll gladly rotate my HS fireman/cops families' that deserve a donation.
The NG special is an in depth look at what happened during the 10 years or so that 9/11 was in the planning. Example- i had heard of a mid-90's report from Asia that terrorists were planning to fly airplanes into US landmarks. The report I heard made it seem like it was based upon some obscure reference/gossip, or the imagination of an FBI guy. In fact it came from the computer of the mastermind of the first WTC bombing. Shit.

The special is a graphic reminder of where we really still are today. You should all watch it- everyone in America should be required to watch it.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts

Last edited by Hank Chinaski; 08-23-2005 at 11:15 AM..
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 11:12 AM   #2589
futbol fan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Deficit.

Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I see you also got the latest email from John Kerry.
I did it without ever seeing the e-mail. I'm in the zone.

And look! GWB says that 'cause he's already gotten around 2000 Americans killed for a war that didn't have to be fought (Iraqi deaths don't factor in) we're gonna stick around until . . . well, I guess until the number of mothers of dead sons asking "what the hell was my kid doing there in the first place?" reaches some kind of critical mass. Which won't be long. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but when your kid gets blown up looking for non-existent WMDs you start asking the hard questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 23, 2005
Citing Sacrifice, President Vows to Keep Up Fight
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
SALT LAKE CITY, Aug. 22 - President Bush hailed the sacrifice of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on Monday and vowed, in a rare reference to the number of American deaths, that the nation owed it to the more than 2,000 Americans killed in the two wars not to end their mission prematurely.

"Each of these men and women left grieving families and loved ones back home," Mr. Bush said here at the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "Each of these heroes left a legacy that will allow generations of their fellow Americans to enjoy the blessings of liberty."

Then he said he would not bow to growing pressure to withdraw troops immediately from Iraq: "We owe them something. We will finish the task that they gave their lives for."

Mr. Bush made his speech at his first public appearance in nine days, interrupting his monthlong vacation at his Texas ranch. In recent weeks, political pressures have intensified over his Iraq policy as sentiment has grown among Democrats and some Republicans that the war has become reminiscent of Vietnam.

Mr. Bush's speech appeared intended to capitalize on good news, the drafting of an Iraqi constitution. In his remarks, delivered as Iraqis were negotiating against a deadline, Mr. Bush hailed the constitution as a "landmark event" in the Middle East. Hours after his address, Iraqi negotiators announced they had only a partial draft and were seeking more time.

"Producing a constitution is a difficult process that involves debate and compromise," Mr. Bush said. "We know this from our own history. Our Constitutional Convention was home to political rivalries and disagreements." Americans, Mr. Bush said, saluted the Iraqis' determination "to lay the foundation for lasting democracy amid the ruins of a brutal dictatorship."

After the Baghdad deadline and the president's speech, with major issues still unresolved in the constitution, the White House nonetheless issued a positive statement, calling the work in Baghdad "impressive" and "another step forward."

Mr. Bush made no mention of Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier slain in Iraq who has staged a protest outside the president's ranch and inspired antiwar vigils across the country. But Mr. Bush, in citing specific numbers of Americans killed - 1,864 in Iraq and 223 in Afghanistan, he said - appeared to acknowledge to protesters that he understood the human cost of the battles.

Still, as a counterpoint to Ms. Sheehan's demand for an immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq, Mr. Bush said, "We'll honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive against the terrorists."

Ms. Sheehan's supporters followed Mr. Bush to Salt Lake City, where more than 1,000 people staged an antiwar protest in Pioneer Park, not far from the Salt Palace Convention Center where Mr. Bush was speaking. A main speaker was Celeste Zappala of Philadelphia, a co-founder of the antiwar group Gold Star Families for Peace and the mother of a son who died in Iraq.

In a telephone interview after the protest, Ms. Zappala said she disagreed with the president's view that the way to honor the Americans killed in Iraq was to continue to fight.

"It pains me to hear that more people should die because those people have died," said Ms. Zappala. "That makes no sense. We can honor them by having an intelligent, honest policy." Ms. Zappala's eldest son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, a National Guardsman, was killed in Baghdad in April 2004 while protecting the Iraq Survey Group, which was searching for large unconventional weapons. None were found.

The mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson, a Democrat, attended the protest as well. "We are here today to let the world know that even in the reddest of red states, there is enormous concern about the dangerous, irresponsible and deceitful public policies being pursued by President Bush and his administration," Mr. Anderson said. The mayor was greeted with a smattering of boos when he spoke to the veterans' group a few hours before the president.

The veterans' audience of 15,000 people greeted Mr. Bush with loud applause in this heavily Republican state, where Mr. Bush received the highest percentage of the popular vote in the 2004 election. Many veterans said they were supportive of Mr. Bush's course in Iraq.

"If they needed us, as old as we are, I'd go again in a heartbeat," said John T. Edward, a Vietnam veteran from Reno, Nev. Mr. Edward said that he sympathized with Ms. Sheehan, but that he did not think the president should meet with her as she has demanded, and that it was important to fight terrorists in Iraq.

"When do you stop?" Mr. Edward said. "I understand how bitter she is, but we need to keep our country safe."

Others said they supported the president as commander in chief, but disagreed with how the war and occupation had been carried out.

"I think the president was listening too much to his secretary of defense," said Dennis Guthrie of Redmond, Ore., a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars national council. "He should have been listening to Colin Powell."

Mr. Guthrie's wife, Dianne, a leader of a women's auxiliary of the veterans' group, objected strongly to what she said were inadequate Bush administration funds for veterans. "If you continue to fight a war, and you don't put more money in the V.A. budget, it's immoral," she said.

Last month, Congress appropriated $1.5 billion in emergency funds to cover a shortfall in the Veterans Affairs budget after the administration acknowledged that it had not taken into account the additional cost of caring for veterans hurt in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his speech, Mr. Bush also praised the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for a "courageous and painful step" and then reiterated that the United States was providing $50 million to the Palestinians for new housing and development.

Mr. Bush ended his day at Tamarack Resort overlooking Lake Cascade in Donnelly, Idaho, where he is to spend Tuesday fishing and biking before a speech on Wednesday to National Guard personnel.

Melissa Sanford contributed reporting for this article.



Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top
 
Old 08-23-2005, 11:16 AM   #2590
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 6,034
Aaron Burr, et al

Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hamilton loved the national credit earned by a national deficit.

I guess you are opposed?
Who won the duel?

Seriously, I am of mixed views regarding deficit spending, and a fairer measure of a deficit is probably looking at it as a percentage of GDP. I just got annoyed at the implication that Clinton deserves no credit for the economic and fiscal policies of the 1990s.

Heck, there's a bunch of stuff that Reagan did that I was opposed to at the time that turned out to be correct. I'm big enough to admit it.
Not Bob is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 11:18 AM   #2591
futbol fan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
anyone watching this

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The NG special is an in depth look at what happened during the 10 years or so that 9/11 was in the planning. It is a graphic reminder of where we really still are today. You should all watch it- everyone in America should be required to watch it.
Had a quick flip through the pictures (don't have the plug in for the video preview). Looks like more 9/11 porn. I think everyone in America should be required to run for their lives from the collapsing towers before they're permitted to refer to the attacks as vindicating their political views.
 
Old 08-23-2005, 11:29 AM   #2592
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,129
anyone watching this

Quote:
Originally posted by ironweed
Had a quick flip through the pictures (don't have the plug in for the video preview). Looks like more 9/11 porn. I think everyone in America should be required to run for their lives from the collapsing towers before they're permitted to refer to the attacks as vindicating their political views.
No worries. No one expected you to be interested in facts. The DU has a proposal for resolving this whole Islamic- guys- blowing us up stuff doesn't it?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 11:43 AM   #2593
futbol fan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
anyone watching this

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No worries. No one expected you to be interested in facts. The DU has a proposal for resolving this whole Islamic- guys- blowing us up stuff doesn't it?
Dunno. Apparently only Slave reads DU so you should probably ask him.
 
Old 08-23-2005, 12:06 PM   #2594
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,129
anyone watching this

__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 12:09 PM   #2595
Penske_Account
WacKtose Intolerant
 
Penske_Account's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PenskeWorld
Posts: 11,627
anyone watching this

Quote:
Originally posted by ironweed
Dunno. Apparently only Slave reads DU so you should probably ask him.


The DU is like an amalgation of your posts with those of Ty and then refracted through a lens etched with the text of Sexual Harassment Panda's posts. IOW, equally non-substantive but more mind numbingly insipid in form than the run of the mill drivel that the rank and file riff raff of the faux intellectual elitist wing of the liberals pound out here.
__________________
Since I'm a righteous man, I don't eat ham;
I wish more people was alive like me



Penske_Account is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58 AM.