JoesXJ
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- California
I'm curious to see what everyone is voting for.
RichP said:After he announced his VP choice it got me off the fence and probably wasting my vote on Bob Barr..
Please, do a little research before posting nonsense.Ecomike said:Clinton's budget had a surplus because he reduced corporate welfare, and increased the number of quality, high paying US jobs with the policies he pushed through Congress in the early years of his administration.
Bent said:Hmmm, 73.21% idiots here so far; that's too many.
Ecomike said:There I corrected it for you!
Tom R. said:Please, do a little research before posting nonsense.
Tom R. said:Under Bill Clinton, federal spending increased 29.5%. How was this increase offset? By increasing tax revenues by over 85.5%! Much of it was from Clinton's historic tax increase on the rich. Now, to be fair, G. Bush the 1st also raised taxes (remember his "Read my lips" line?), so that contributed as well.
Tom R. said:Lest you forget, an economic boom was already underway (no credit to Bill C.), which provided more tax revenues. Actually, a much stronger (and factual) case can be made that the Republicans under Newt G. were directly responsible for balancing the budget.
Tom R. said:After all, Congress is responsible for setting the budget. They laid out a 7-year plan to have the budget balanced and actually did it in 4 years.
Tom R. said:Also, yearly surpluses did not start with Clinton. The largest surplus in a single year ($290B) occurred in G. Bush's last year in office.
Tom R. said:What this means is that Clinton was mostly not responsible for balancing the budget and he certainly did not create any surplus by controlling spending.Tom R. said:I disagree, he did help control spending. The president has enough power and authority, political clout, to screw the budget over, just look at how successful Reagan and Bush Jrs. were at convincing Congress to pass run away defeceit budgets for year after year.
Tom R. said:He happened to be in office when these things occurred. To his credit, he did support applying the surplus to balance the budget rather than use it elsewhere.
My point exactly.
Tom R. said:And don't forget that a significant portion of "savings" came from Clinton stripping the military, essentially producing a hollow force that made it possible for military personnel to carry out their jobs with extreme difficulty.
From what I recall, and I was very close to this at the time, Bush Sr. and the Republican Congress started that and initiated most of the downsizing during Bush Sr's term in office in response to reduced tensions with the Soviet Union. It was already on the books by the time Clinton took office. Probably had a lot to do with balancing the budget in Bushes last year.
Of course Bush Sr's strategy of getting the wealthiest nations of the world at the time, like Japan and SA, UAE, to pay for the cost of Desert Storm was also briliant, and no doubt saved his budget. A shame Jr did not learn from his father's successes!
The spending and tax revenue figures come from the U.S. Government's GPO Web site.
So where is the link to that source?
scottmcneal said:One of the comments I have heard Oboma say many times is that it is time to reward corporations that create good paying jobs here in the USA, and stop rewarding corporations that export good jobs overseas while closing down US plants. Said, incentives and rewards being acomplished by making changes in the tax codes for corporations that operate in the US.
Does this mean he is going to tax the crap out of us? The corporations went over seas for less taxes, why would they come back here for.. He has to get a tax base from them or us right?
Ecomike said:I think Obama is the best presidential choice we have had since Reagan.
Tom R. said:Mike, it's impossible to discuss this rationally if you keep using information from overtly biased sources. I would also suggest looking at budget (tax & spend) information from the U.S. Government's own data. I've done my research; I'm not doing yours.
Sadly, you work with conjecture and your own revised history most of the time, and half truths the rest.
Tom R. said:Mike, it's impossible to discuss this rationally if you keep using information from overtly biased sources. I would also suggest looking at budget (tax & spend) information from the U.S. Government's own data. I've done my research; I'm not doing yours.
Your arguments remind me of the democrats accusing Bush Jr. of not supporting the school lunch program. The liberal democrats were acting all huffy and puffy mad in front of the liberal news media saying things such as "President Bush wants your kids to starve" and other outright lies. What they didn't say was that Bush didn't support the dems bill because it didn't provide ENOUGH funding. He actually wanted to give more. You perspective can only be objective when you have all the facts. Sadly, you work with conjecture and your own revised history most of the time, and half truths the rest.