While the nation was watching football.........

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3181864
ah - I didn't realize the Johnson administration left Nixon w/ a surplus. I was referring to the Clinton administration.

Kennedy may have balanced the budget too, but I was only three when he was assasinated, so my recollection may be off.
Then again, what surplus means when the term is used by politicians vs the real world is arguable.
Surplus as in we had actual cash reserves.
I was 4 when Kennedy was offed and can still remember watching the funeral on TV. Had no clue about what all the fuss was about but remember watching it.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3181874
Surplus as in we had actual cash reserves.
I was 4 when Kennedy was offed and can still remember watching the funeral on TV. Had no clue about what all the fuss was about but remember watching it.
Amazes me that there used to only be 3 channels...lol
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3181874
Surplus as in we had actual cash reserves.
I was 4 when Kennedy was offed and can still remember watching the funeral on TV. Had no clue about what all the fuss was about but remember watching it.
Kennedy also lowered taxes...
btw a surplus is different than not having any national debt. Economically a surplus would be more tax revenues than spending outflows.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3181907
btw a surplus is different than not having any national debt.
Quite. The last time the budget was both balanced and there was no national debt was in 1835 under Andrew Jackson, if memory serves.
Economically a surplus would be more tax revenues than spending outflows.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but just because there is a budget surplus does not mean that the national debt is being reduced either. It's just growing more slowly.
Clinton ran a budget surplus, but did not use it to retire debt. (I'm hard pressed to recall a recent Republican administration which was able to achieve even that, however.) Instead Clinton passed the surplus on to Bush II, who spent it and then some.
The budget for fiscal year 1969 (created in 1968 under Lyndon Johnson (D)), was balanced. In the 40 years since then the White House has been occupied by Republicans for all but 12 of those years, and there was a budget surplus for only 4 of them - all under Clinton.
The process of masking the increase in the deficit using Social Security began in 1986 under Reagan's Supply Side smoke and mirrors. Not that the Democrats didn't continue the process, but Obama's only the 2nd one to hold the White House since then.
What I don't get is how those who bash me as a liberal are able to cling so ardently to the R brand while the party itself so grossly misses the mark on that most fundamental economic point.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3182132
Quite. The last time the budget was both balanced and there was no national debt was in 1835 under Andrew Jackson, if memory serves. Not to put too fine a point on it, but just because there is a budget surplus does not mean that the national debt is being reduced either. It's just growing more slowly.
Clinton ran a budget surplus, but did not use it to retire debt. (I'm hard pressed to recall a recent Republican administration which was able to achieve even that, however.) Instead Clinton passed the surplus on to Bush II, who spent it and then some.
The budget for fiscal year 1969 (created in 1968 under Lyndon Johnson (D)), was balanced. In the 40 years since then the White House has been occupied by Republicans for all but 12 of those years, and there was a budget surplus for only 4 of them - all under Clinton.
The process of masking the increase in the deficit using Social Security began in 1986 under Reagan's Supply Side smoke and mirrors. Not that the Democrats didn't continue the process, but Obama's only the 2nd one to hold the White House since then.
What I don't get is how those who bash me as a liberal are able to cling so ardently to the R brand while the party itself so grossly misses the mark on that most fundamental economic point.
Before you go touting Clintons fiscal responsibility remember exactly when all the responsible spending took place and who was responsible for the bills, Newt Gingrich's House of Representatives back when Republicans still acted like Republicans. I am hoping for a Republican takeover in the house but not sure the current generation of R's would have the backbone to do what Newt did. Actually the tech bubble in the stock market was more responsible for the yearly surpluses than either Clinton or the Congress. You could make bucks in the market in spite of yourself and all those capital gains taxes made a big difference.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3182178
Before you go touting Clintons fiscal responsibility remember exactly when all the responsible spending took place and who was responsible for the bills, Newt Gingrich's House of Representatives back when Republicans still acted like Republicans. I am hoping for a Republican takeover in the house but not sure the current generation of R's would have the backbone to do what Newt did. Actually the tech bubble in the stock market was more responsible for the yearly surpluses than either Clinton or the Congress. You could make bucks in the market in spite of yourself and all those capital gains taxes made a big difference.
I'm not touting Clinton's responsibility. I'm illustrating the R president's lack of it.
In some regard, I'm leaving those points out because the forum itself has rather a Conservative leaning and, as such, should already understand them I should think. I'm not disregarding them, I'm simply trying to point out that it's not all R's good and D's bad.
In another regard, I'm just trying to represent the underdog here. After all, if we all agreed, it'd not only be boring, but there'd be nothing to discuss. While I occaisionally hate to admit it, I don't think I'm so much a dogmatist that I'm unable to admit when you have a point.

Bottom line is: There is nothing to be learned from agreement.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3182208
I'm not touting Clinton's responsibility. I'm illustrating the R president's lack of it.
In some regard, I'm leaving those points out because the forum itself has rather a Conservative leaning and, as such, should already understand them I should think. I'm not disregarding them, I'm simply trying to point out that it's not all R's good and D's bad.
In another regard, I'm just trying to represent the underdog here. After all, if we all agreed, it'd not only be boring, but there'd be nothing to discuss. While I occaisionally hate to admit it, I don't think I'm so much a dogmatist that I'm unable to admit when you have a point.

Bottom line is: There is nothing to be learned from agreement.
Reagan actually tried but the Dems in congress controlled the purse strings. I am thinking Dem in the white house with republicans in congress might be the best formula. Having the civil war with Conservatives pulling in on spending to tweak a liberal president worked before. Obviously having a Republican president that wasn't all that conservative with Republicans in congress only interested in being re elected isn't the answer.
 
stevedave08

stevedave08

Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3182462
Reagan actually tried but the Dems in congress controlled the purse strings. I am thinking Dem in the white house with republicans in congress might be the best formula. Having the civil war with Conservatives pulling in on spending to tweak a liberal president worked before. Obviously having a Republican president that wasn't all that conservative with Republicans in congress only interested in being re elected isn't the answer.
I'll have to agree with you on this.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I guess this may be a little out of line but I thought I might change the subject.... Back to the original subject of the thread, Health Care.
So the Dems/liberals say charging higher premiums for women is wrong. OK, fair enough but today they amended the bill to eliminate certain woman's health screenings from deductibles or Copay's. How is that not just as discriminatory as charging them higher premiums?
 
fishtaco

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3182504
I guess this may be a little out of line but I thought I might change the subject.... Back to the original subject of the thread, Health Care.
So the Dems/liberals say charging higher premiums for women is wrong. OK, fair enough but today they amended the bill to eliminate certain woman's health screenings from deductibles or Copay's. How is that not just as discriminatory as charging them higher premiums?

I have been trying to pay a little attention to what is going on with the health bill, but it is like trying to herd kitties. Many kudo's to you if at this point you have a clear view on what it actually contains.
Fishtaco
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3182462
Reagan actually tried but the Dems in congress controlled the purse strings. I am thinking Dem in the white house with republicans in congress might be the best formula. Having the civil war with Conservatives pulling in on spending to tweak a liberal president worked before. Obviously having a Republican president that wasn't all that conservative with Republicans in congress only interested in being re elected isn't the answer.
I agree with you there. My general voting strategy is to vote for the opposite party in the legislative branch to the one in the executive branch. I figure if the two branches are in agreement, I lose.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3182504
I guess this may be a little out of line but I thought I might change the subject.... Back to the original subject of the thread, Health Care.
So the Dems/liberals say charging higher premiums for women is wrong. OK, fair enough but today they amended the bill to eliminate certain woman's health screenings from deductibles or Copay's. How is that not just as discriminatory as charging them higher premiums? %%
It isn't. It's equivalent to saying that charging higher premiums based on race is wrong and then saying that sickle cell or hemophilia tests aren't covered.
God our gov't is screwed up.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3182208
I'm not touting Clinton's responsibility. I'm illustrating the R president's lack of it.
In some regard, I'm leaving those points out because the forum itself has rather a Conservative leaning and, as such, should already understand them I should think. I'm not disregarding them, I'm simply trying to point out that it's not all R's good and D's bad.
In another regard, I'm just trying to represent the underdog here. After all, if we all agreed, it'd not only be boring, but there'd be nothing to discuss. While I occaisionally hate to admit it, I don't think I'm so much a dogmatist that I'm unable to admit when you have a point.

Bottom line is: There is nothing to be learned from agreement.
You know, I do have to say, we complain about Bush's and the republicans spending like drunken sailors, and they did, but holy crap, the democrats have 2-3 TRILLION dollars of new spending in new bills they've got somewhere in congress and that is cooking their books. And wasn't the most recent budget deficit for this year around 1.5 trillion (I might be wrong on that number) And don't forget Clinton tried to do the same thing Obama's trying with socializing medicine. If Clinton had got his way, the crowning achivement democrats love to bestow on him would have never happened...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3181320
the same laws that started this mess are no longer in effect. the people who qualified for those loans should be able to pay them. both are a HUGE sucess and both helped pull the american auto industry and the housing market out of the abyss.
To bad we can't play the twilight zone song while people read your post...
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3181521
That is the problem. exactly 0% of federal revenue should come from FICA but thanks to the great society we have been spent into a debtor nation.
bahaha good point.
Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3181709
You make no sense. Having a gun at a peaceful protest is also ridiculous, and I don't care what color the guy with the gun was. Not all Obama haters are white, but most of them are. Keep grasping for straws though, it seems to be working for you.
You love to skip content in posts apparently and just respond to what you want. I didn't say all people who opposed Obama were dumb and intolerant, but the ones who are out there at these "tea parties" are rather stupid.
Is it? Not really, they don't leave their guns in the car at my church...
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3182744
You know, I do have to say, we complain about Bush's and the republicans spending like drunken sailors, and they did, but holy crap, the democrats have 2-3 TRILLION dollars of new spending in new bills they've got somewhere in congress and that is cooking their books. And wasn't the most recent budget deficit for this year around 1.5 trillion (I might be wrong on that number) And don't forget Clinton tried to do the same thing Obama's trying with socializing medicine. If Clinton had got his way, the crowning achivement democrats love to bestow on him would have never happened...
True. OTOH, don't disclude the trillion the Bush administration passed in deficit spending just before he left office.
What I really don't get is that all of that money is borrowed from the Federal Reserve. Are their officers really so stupid as to believe we, the taxpayers, can pay it all back?
Greater empires have failed on lesser ledgers.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3182762
True. OTOH, don't disclude the trillion the Bush administration passed in deficit spending just before he left office.
What I really don't get is that all of that money is borrowed from the Federal Reserve. Are their officers so stupid as to believe we, the taxpayers, can pay it all back?
Who cares the money borrowed from the fed is monopoly money anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top