clinton lovers?

Desh said:
http://zfacts.com/p/869.html

Reagan made outrageous claims about what his tax cuts would produce and then made it look like overspending was the dems deal.





To understand how the ruse works, a brief review of the budget process is helpful. A budget passed by Congress is not written in stone; there are actually many flexible items in it. One example is unemployment. The budget says, "Pay each unemployed person XXXX amount in unemployment compensation." If the unemployment rate rises higher next year than anticipated, the budget automatically pays these extra individuals without requiring Congressional action.

Another example of a flexible budget item is interest on the debt. If interest rates soar or receipts drop more than expected, then interests costs are going to be greater. These are paid without Congressional action (unless the debt limit is reached).

In the president's budget proposals, he must estimate next year's unemployment rate, interest rates, and several other economic indicators. We have already seen that in Reagan's first budget, David Stockman came up with a super-optimistic forecast that predicted 5 percent economic growth. (The higher the growth, the less government has to spend on unemployment, welfare, stimulus packages, etc.) Today, Stockman derisively refers to his first budget as the "Rosy Scenario." Although Reagan's remaining budgets were not quite as far-fetched as the Rosy Scenario, they were indeed much too optimistic. In fact, the only reason why spending surpassed the requests in only 7 instead of all 8 years was because one year -- 1984 -- actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth.
Click to expand...

zfacts.com??? where do you find a partisan hack site like that?
 
Dungheap said:
Freak - Please also list the amounts Reagan sad he would spend for any veto override. For example, in 1982 Congress overrode a Reagan veto of a supplemental appropriations bill citing the cost. However, the bill was actaully 2 billion less than Reagan had origianlly requested, he just didn't like what the money was appropriate to. So, in this case Congress spent 14.2 billion that Reagan didn't approve but since his request was for about 16 billion he doesn't get a 14.2 billion dollar credit towards his bill. Get it?

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Again... even with a veto override.... it means BOTH parties were responsible. The dems did not have the votes on their own. BOTH parties were responsible for every bill during Reagans two terms.
 
Superfreak said:
Exactly. Which is why we have been saying both parties are just as bad as each other on spending. The only time you can point to one party or the other is when one party controls the Senate, House and White House. Which is why I said before that Bush is the worst. He had both houses under Rep control and still spent worse than anyone in history.
Click to expand...


But Clinton is still the best, since his deficit spending was far less than the others operating in a divided government environment. Right? And wouldn't the fact that all Republican control of government leading to huge explosion in deficit spending lead you to the inevitable conclusion that Republicans are worst, not just Bush?
 
Superfreak said:
Again... even with a veto override.... it means BOTH parties were responsible. The dems did not have the votes on their own. BOTH parties were responsible for every bill during Reagans two terms.
Click to expand...


Look, you're using the "technically, Bush didn't lie about WMD" rhetorical slight of hand.

Those budgets and the economic policy in the 1980s reflected to a very large extent the republican agenda. After getting clobbered in 1980 and 1984, the Dems in the House were afraid and enfeebled. They enabled Reagan's fiscal madness because they were weak. Not because they broadly shared his agenda. The GOP agenda was tax cuts, tax cuts tax cuts, and defense spending. And on a whim and a prayer, they hoped that it would all work out mathematically. It didn't. It was a fiscal train wreck. THAT was the agenda of the republican adminstration, backed up by a republican senate, and to a small degree enabled by a weak and feeble Democratic house.

but it was YOUR agenda that caused the fiscal train wreck. Pointing to the weak ass democrats in the House, does nothing to divert from the fact that it was your agenda that caused the train wreck.
 
Dungheap said:
But Clinton is still the best, since his deficit spending was far less than the others operating in a divided government environment. Right? And wouldn't the fact that all Republican control of government leading to huge explosion in deficit spending lead you to the inevitable conclusion that Republicans are worst, not just Bush?
Click to expand...

1) No, because both had a divided government.

2) No, because the Dems have been just as spend happy as the Reps were under Bush. Bush is the worst.
 
Dungheap said:
But Clinton is still the best, since his deficit spending was far less than the others operating in a divided government environment. Right? And wouldn't the fact that all Republican control of government leading to huge explosion in deficit spending lead you to the inevitable conclusion that Republicans are worst, not just Bush?
Click to expand...

It's the same Republicans in Congress under Bush that were under Clinton. With Clinton as President the Republicans fought him on all spending and it turned out positive as a whole. Under Bush the Repubicans in Congress just rolled over and spent everything he wanted.

There are some that argue for always having split government as they feel its the best check on both parties. That obviously can be debated.
 
Ok I am no Reagan apologist. I believe the last two years of his presidency he was in his head as much as he was out. BUT, Clinton inherited a United States that was vastly different than the one Reagan inherited and Clinton's US was due in great part to the deficit spending of Ronald Reagan. By January of 1993 the Cold War was over. We started drawing down the military. There was a huge peace dividend that was there because the USSR tried to keep up with Reagan's mushrooming Defense budget. Reagan accelerated the the demise of the USSR which was to Clinton's benefit.
 
Desh said:
How much of it was off budget interest on what Reagan left us?
Click to expand...
At that time they included the interest into the budgets, exactly as they should have done during Clinton's Presidency instead of trying to hide their irresponsibility and proclaim "balance" when none existed.
 
Damocles said:
At that time they included the interest into the budgets, exactly as they should have done during Clinton's Presidency instead of trying to hide their irresponsibility and proclaim "balance" when none existed.
Click to expand...

8-20070928-DEBT.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg


bg1104c2.gif




Just stop it already. We've discussed this at length in the other thread. You're just being obtuse at this point.
 
Socrtease said:
Ok I am no Reagan apologist. I believe the last two years of his presidency he was in his head as much as he was out. BUT, Clinton inherited a United States that was vastly different than the one Reagan inherited and Clinton's US was due in great part to the deficit spending of Ronald Reagan. By January of 1993 the Cold War was over. We started drawing down the military. There was a huge peace dividend that was there because the USSR tried to keep up with Reagan's mushrooming Defense budget. Reagan accelerated the the demise of the USSR which was to Clinton's benefit.
Click to expand...

Well said. I knew you ambulance chasers were good for sumthin. :rolleyes:
 
Socrtease said:
Ok I am no Reagan apologist. I believe the last two years of his presidency he was in his head as much as he was out. BUT, Clinton inherited a United States that was vastly different than the one Reagan inherited and Clinton's US was due in great part to the deficit spending of Ronald Reagan. By January of 1993 the Cold War was over. We started drawing down the military. There was a huge peace dividend that was there because the USSR tried to keep up with Reagan's mushrooming Defense budget. Reagan accelerated the the demise of the USSR which was to Clinton's benefit.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is my bias coming through but I thought your comments were very well stated. What you wrote wasn't a negative toward Clinton but it does show each came to office at a different time and faced different challenges.
 
cawacko said:
Maybe this is my bias coming through but I thought your comments were very well stated. What you wrote wasn't a negative toward Clinton but it does show each came to office at a different time and faced different challenges.
Click to expand...
I liked Clinton. I honestly think that a great deal of the animosity toward him was because after 12 years of Reagan Bush, the right thought they were unbeatable. Clinton beat them and they were mad. The DAY after the election I heard Rush tell everyone to prepare for inflation, recession and unemployment in double digits. Never happened.

And as I have gotten older I have mellowed on my perception of Reagan. He was not that bad of guy, his social conservatism was mostly lip service to the Religious Right. He appointed Meese to the AG position which was a bone to the RR. But for the most part he was a fervent anti-communist and believer in regulated capitalism but not as regulated as the some dems wanted. History will be kind to him cause he accelarated the collapse of the USSR and championed freedom.
 
Socrtease said:
I liked Clinton. I honestly think that a great deal of the animosity toward him was because after 12 years of Reagan Bush, the right thought they were unbeatable. Clinton beat them and they were mad. The DAY after the election I heard Rush tell everyone to prepare for inflation, recession and unemployment in double digits. Never happened.

And as I have gotten older I have mellowed on my perception of Reagan. He was not that bad of guy, his social conservatism was mostly lip service to the Religious Right. He appointed Meese to the AG position which was a bone to the RR. But for the most part he was a fervent anti-communist and believer in regulated capitalism but not as regulated as the some dems wanted. History will be kind to him cause he accelarated the collapse of the USSR and championed freedom.
Click to expand...

Anti-communist yes.

Champion of freedom? I completely disagree. His support of rightwing dictators, his support of terrorist organizations (CONTRAS), his apathy about south african apartheid, etc. Let's face it, most US presidents put US economic and political hegemony above international human rights. That's a fact. Reagan was worse than most, IMO.
 
All I'm hearing is wishful thinking. Bill dead. Hillary in WH via sympathy or out because of loss of the real candidate. Only thing in common, Bill dead. Kinda morbid IMO.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep, Kinda morbid but it has been the Republicans greatest wish for 17 years.
Click to expand...

Unlike you citizen who has wished for or celebrated politicians death's whom you disagreed with on this board people aren't wishing for Clinton's death.
 
cawacko said:
Unlike you citizen who has wished for or celebrated politicians death's whom you disagreed with on this board people aren't wishing for Clinton's death.
Click to expand...

show me a post where I wished for a politicians death.
I think the worst I have done is to say I would feel little sadness if one or two of them died.

come on Cawacko, you said that with such assurance that I know you have an example lying around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top