Democrats positioned to widen majority in Senate

[Lemon law]

Come on Come on. GWB is already on record as saying the budget will balance in 2012. A full three years after he leaves office. The logic may be baffling to some, but it sounds suspiciously like an admission that GWB is the problem. The same GWB who took a Clinton surplus and in one short year put things in the deep deep red with a giant tax cut for the rich. And now the budget is going to be so screwed up that any saner successor will have to spend at least three full years climbing out of the deep deep hole GWB is leaving them in to start. With saner likely contingent on repealing the GWB tax cuts.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Profjohn, I already told you that you can't look at the proposed budgets. So why are you running back to it? Clinton appointed fiscal hawks right from the bat. What you fail to understand, or purposely don't want to understand, is that the proposed budgets were based on a year by year breakdown but were germane only to a particular year. You know what else changed between 94-96? The overall assessment of the economy rose.

In other words you are going to ignore his track record prior to the Republicans taking control of congress?
?Yea he proposed $1 trillion worth of deficits, but he really wanted to balance the budget.? :roll:

Dear Yaweh you're an odd man. Let's see, you're looking at a narrow and inconclusive piece of evidence to the ignorance of everything else and using the serendipity of dates lining up with the republican takeover to baselessly claim the republicans were responsible for the balanced budget. Does that really make any sense to you?

1) Bill Clinton appointed FISCAL HAWKS
2) Bill Clinton TRIED to balance the budget.
3) You are looking at the proposed budget for one year and their estimates for the years prior. THose DO NOT take into account changed circumstances and are typically rather conservative.
4) YOU HAVE SHOWN NO EVIDENCE THAT THE REPUBLICANS CAUSED A BALANCED BUDGET. Correlation does not equal causation.

If you had any clue about the budget process you would understand that America does not have 5 year plans.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Profjohn, I already told you that you can't look at the proposed budgets. So why are you running back to it? Clinton appointed fiscal hawks right from the bat. What you fail to understand, or purposely don't want to understand, is that the proposed budgets were based on a year by year breakdown but were germane only to a particular year. You know what else changed between 94-96? The overall assessment of the economy rose.

In other words you are going to ignore his track record prior to the Republicans taking control of congress?
?Yea he proposed $1 trillion worth of deficits, but he really wanted to balance the budget.? :roll:

Dear Yaweh you're an odd man. Let's see, you're looking at a narrow and inconclusive piece of evidence to the ignorance of everything else and using the serendipity of dates lining up with the republican takeover to baselessly claim the republicans were responsible for the balanced budget. Does that really make any sense to you?

1) Bill Clinton appointed FISCAL HAWKS
2) Bill Clinton TRIED to balance the budget.
3) You are looking at the proposed budget for one year and their estimates for the years prior. THose DO NOT take into account changed circumstances and are typically rather conservative.
4) YOU HAVE SHOWN NO EVIDENCE THAT THE REPUBLICANS CAUSED A BALANCED BUDGET. Correlation does not equal causation.

If you had any clue about the budget process you would understand that America does not have 5 year plans.

Where is the evidence that he TRIED to balance the budget?
He did not try, if he had tried it would have show up in HIS budget projections.

He didn't even talk about balancing the budget, he talked about reducing the deficit to 2% of GDP, no lower. The proof is in the budget that he submitted.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Democrat will enact a tax cut? :laugh:

As is par for the course every Democrat running for President is proposing billions of dollars worth of new spending to fight every perceived problem in this country.

When is the last time a Democrat President and Congress actually passed a real meaningful tax cut?

The Democrats have passed literally dozens and dozens of tax cuts in the last 100 years. Just never one so reckless or weighted toward the rich that the Republicans did.

Man, if you are any indication of Republican thinking, the Democrats may get to 70*

Your idea of rich is anybody who makes enough to pay income tax. So how does one pass a tax cut on people who dont pay income taxes?

You are living in a dream world. The DFL, democrat for people out of the state of MN, ran on no tax increases. It didnt take them 1 day before they introduced a whole slew of tax increases. Both progressive and regressive.

I for one almost welcome a majority with a demcorat president so people can watch their paycheck dwindle and the economy stagnant. Sometimes people need a reminder why we as a nation drifted from democrats and their progressive programs over the past 25 years.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In dollar value I am sure Clinton?s was the largest.

In inflation adjust dollars? Not even close to being the largest.

Frame it anyway you want, but in the end you cannot deny the fact that Democrats have a history of raising taxes and Republicans have a history of cutting taxes.

Then you would definitly agree the Republicans are wholly responsible for the deficit?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Democrat will enact a tax cut? :laugh:

As is par for the course every Democrat running for President is proposing billions of dollars worth of new spending to fight every perceived problem in this country.

When is the last time a Democrat President and Congress actually passed a real meaningful tax cut?

Please explain why tax cuts are ipso facto a good thing.

Is it EVER justifiable to raise taxes?

If government spending increases unavoidably, is it better to borrow money and run deficits or to raise taxes and have a balanced budget? Please justify your answer.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Democrat will enact a tax cut? :laugh:

As is par for the course every Democrat running for President is proposing billions of dollars worth of new spending to fight every perceived problem in this country.

When is the last time a Democrat President and Congress actually passed a real meaningful tax cut?

Please explain why tax cuts are ipso facto a good thing.

Is it EVER justifiable to raise taxes?

If government spending increases unavoidably, is it better to borrow money and run deficits or to raise taxes and have a balanced budget? Please justify your answer.

Tax cuts have shown in the past to be followed by economic growth which over the long run bring in more money than the initial taxes could have. The problem of course is the govt continues to spend outside of its budget. Which is a completely different issue. People are taxed enough, the govt spends too much.

 

[Stoneburner]

Profjohn, just stop. YOu don't even know what the purpose of a projected budget is? I've already explained to you that those ARE NOT evidence for your position. Nor have you provided real evidence that the republican congress balanced the budget.


The simple answer to your question is LEON PANETTA. I was a kid back then and I still remember more about what actually happened than your geriatric self. Stop using misleading evidence of this sort, for your own credibility.

 

[shira]

Here is a very interesting chart of change in the national debt, as a percentage of GDP, by President (from wikipedia)

Roosevelt/Truman 1945-1949 -24.3%

Truman Harry Truman 1949-195 -21.9%

Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower 1953-1957 -10.8%

Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower 1957-1961 -5.4%

Kennedy/Johnson 1961-1965 -8.2%

Johnson Lyndon Johnson 1965-1969 -8.3%

Nixon1 Richard Nixon 1969-1973 -2.9%

Nixon2 Nixon/Ford 1973-1977 +0.1%

Carter Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 -3.2%

Reagan1 Ronald Reagan 1981-1985 +11.3%

Reagan2 Ronald Reagan 1985-1989 +9.2%

Bush GHW George H. W. Bush 1989-1993 +13.1%

Clinton1 Bill Clinton 1993-1997 -0.6%

Clinton2 Bill Clinton 1997-2001 -8.2%

Bush GW1 George W. Bush 2001-2005 +8.3%

Bush GW2 George W. Bush 2005-2009 projection +4.3% projection

Note that no Democrat President, from Roosevelt onward, has presided over an increase in the national debt as a percentage of GDP.

Note that even during the a major war - Viet Nam - the national debt SHRUNK until Nixon 2/Ford (and even then, it grew only very slightly).

Finally, note the pattern of growth and shrinkage of the national debt starting with Carter: It gets smaller under Democrats and gets larger under Republicans.

But we all know that Republicans are fiscally responsible, don't we?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: shira
Here is a very interesting chart of change in the national debt, as a percentage of GDP, by President (from wikipedia)

Roosevelt/Truman 1945-1949 -24.3%

Truman Harry Truman 1949-195 -21.9%

Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower 1953-1957 -10.8%

Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower 1957-1961 -5.4%

Kennedy/Johnson 1961-1965 -8.2%

Johnson Lyndon Johnson 1965-1969 -8.3%

Nixon1 Richard Nixon 1969-1973 -2.9%

Nixon2 Nixon/Ford 1973-1977 +0.1%

Carter Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 -3.2%

Reagan1 Ronald Reagan 1981-1985 +11.3%

Reagan2 Ronald Reagan 1985-1989 +9.2%

Bush GHW George H. W. Bush 1989-1993 +13.1%

Clinton1 Bill Clinton 1993-1997 -0.6%

Clinton2 Bill Clinton 1997-2001 -8.2%

Bush GW1 George W. Bush 2001-2005 +8.3%

Bush GW2 George W. Bush 2005-2009 projection +4.3% projection

Note that no Democrat President, from Roosevelt onward, has presided over an increase in the national debt as a percentage of GDP.

Note that even during the a major war - Viet Nam - the national debt SHRUNK until Nixon 2/Ford (and even then, it grew only very slightly).

Finally, note the pattern of growth and shrinkage of the national debt starting with Carter: It gets smaller under Democrats and gets larger under Republicans.

But we all know that Republicans are fiscally responsible, don't we?

Dang those pesky facts !!! :laugh:

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs... name a major tax cut be a Democrat President and Democrat Congress...
Provide me with the date and figures...

You are either so COMPLETELY bamboozled by your neo-con masters or have NEVER picked up a book in your life.
You might as we have said the Yankees never won the world series.
You need serious education.

Personal attack as opposed to an answer to a simple question?

Since you are so brilliant why don?t you educate me about Democratic tax cuts?

No one here is under any obligation to educate you, profjohn. If it is not in the realm of possibility for you to research the issues yourself, then it is not likely you would listen to anything anybody has to say to you that is not in agreement with your beliefs.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs... name a major tax cut be a Democrat President and Democrat Congress...
Provide me with the date and figures...

You are either so COMPLETELY bamboozled by your neo-con masters or have NEVER picked up a book in your life.
You might as we have said the Yankees never won the world series.
You need serious education.

Personal attack as opposed to an answer to a simple question?

Since you are so brilliant why don?t you educate me about Democratic tax cuts?

1964 tax cut which was proposed by JFK in 1963.

 

[StageLeft]

No. The dems do not deserve this. They have done nothing with their majority. Why give them 60%? Nobody deserves lost seats; give them to monkeys or something.

Techs is on meth if he thinks dems will give meaningful tax cuts. Here's how it goes: Democrats give tax hikes. Republicans do no major cuts normally, or give a small one but in any case spend, spend, spend, spend, so deficit goes up and dems give more tax cuts and spend more themselves.

Both parties are a fvcking abomination, but what's worse is that both continue to be so supported by some people. Despicable!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: shira
Here is a very interesting chart of change in the national debt, as a percentage of GDP, by President (from wikipedia)

-snip-

Note that no Democrat President, from Roosevelt onward, has presided over an increase in the national debt as a percentage of GDP.

Note that even during the a major war - Viet Nam - the national debt SHRUNK until Nixon 2/Ford (and even then, it grew only very slightly).

Finally, note the pattern of growth and shrinkage of the national debt starting with Carter: It gets smaller under Democrats and gets larger under Republicans.

But we all know that Republicans are fiscally responsible, don't we?

Dang those pesky facts !!! :laugh:

[/quote]

It might be interesting, even relevant if the President had budgeting authority. Unfortunately, that rests with Congress.

If the chart showed who controlled Congress it would be much better information.

Even better, a chart showing what happened when a single party controlled majorities in Congress and the White House.

Fern