Current deficit under the "conservative" watch..8.5 trillion and counting

[Jabberwocky]

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Lets harken back to yesteryear and look at the Clinton economic record......

First, when Clinton won the White House, the federal budget deficit was at a historic high of $290 billion, 10 million Americans were out of work and the nation's economic growth rate under the outgoing Republican administration was the lowest in more than half a century. Clinton introduced his controversial economic plan that raised the income taxes of the richest 1.4 percent of Americans. We immediately heard from the Gloom and Doom congressional Republicans, every one of whom voted against the Clinton plan. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, announced, "This tax bill is a one-way ticket to a recession." House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich predicted, "This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable."
What followed is unarguable: creation of more than 22 million new jobs; the nation's lowest unemployment rate in 30 years; the lowest unemployment rate among women in 40 years; and the lowest Hispanic and African-American unemployment rate in history. The nation went from the largest budget deficits in history to the largest budget surpluses in history, while the average family's income went up more than $5,000.
Faced with a recession that never appeared, Republicans went from assigning blame to denying the improving economic situation. In 1996, GOP presidential nominee saw the dark side: "(Clinton's) big-government policies slammed on the brakes, starting with the largest tax increase in the history of America . . . His economic legacy is the Clinton crunch, slow growth, high taxes and stagnating wages."
Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, agreed, "Two factors combine to make up the Clinton crunch: taxes going up and incomes going down." That November, three out of four voters said they were better off economically than four years earlier, and Clinton became the first Democratic president since FDR in 1936 to win a second term.
Time to switch arguments for the GOP in the face of a booming economy. Former Vice President Dan Quayle spoke for many in his party: "We do have prosperity, but let's give credit where credit is due. Ronald Reagan started the prosperity we have today. George Bush continued it (sic). And Bill Clinton inherited it."
After the federal budget deficit had gone down each of the Clinton years and the cascading tax revenues generated by the prosperity led in 1998 to the first balanced budget in 30 years, Clinton still got no credit. "The federal government is balancing its budget, thanks to the Republican Congress," said Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi.
But what about the continuing great economic news under Clinton? Lott offered kudos: "I agree that Bill and Al deserve a lot of credit, but I'm talking about Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan." Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, agreed: "I agree that Bill and Al are responsible for the prosperity we are currently enjoying across America. That's Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan."
So Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the nation's economic record of the '90s, according to fair-minded Republicans. But wait, President George W. Bush in his speech on corporate responsibility blamed the faltering economy on the Clinton economic expansion: "We were in a land where there was endless profit. There was no tomorrow ... and now we're suffering a hangover from that binge."
Let's be blunt. Bill Clinton gave his political opponents a pistol loaded with his own reckless and unacceptable self-indulgence, and then re-loaded it on the way out the door with his pardon of the loathsome Marc Rich. But Mike Michaud was right. Bill Gates is still there. Alan Greenspan is still there. The House Republicans are still there. Ronald Reagan's tax and budget policies are still honored in the White House. The only two things missing are a good economy and Bill Clinton.

yeah, the facts bear it out...Bush is a great "conservative" leader and Clinton was a blundering moron. Keep it up neocons, you guys are doing a great job. The 250 million a day effort in Iraq is definitely going to pay off...thanks to the Bush backers, America is heading in the right direction. I shudder to think what this country would be without their steadfast resolve and broad vision for a better America.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Would imagine this admin "could" be in better shape than when Clinton left considering taking in more tax revenue "after" a tax cut.

--but too be in better shape all we had to do is not follow Clintons economic policys but his rather his miltary as that is where diff comes in.

if GW would have done nothing when trade center like Slick--would have been HUGE savings.

At 1st death in Afgan invasion if we'd run like rabbits and left the dead--ditto on huge savings again--same Iraq.

Rather than pay for bounties or search for UBL give him free ticket--more savings.

and then you have one admin cutting defence spending--the other increasing in general.

However could be worse we could have continued to give NK money-fuel-food so they can spend on their chips on military buildup--so saving a little money there

P.S. you might also make note that after dot.com bust he left office with this country in a reccession.

 

[StevieD]

Dogs, the Trade Center was hit under Bush's watch, not Clintons. Stop making it sound like Bush is some big hero. Even the Olson Twins would have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11. But chances are they would of had the brains not to occupy Iraq while the rest of us are trying to fight a war against terrorists. And if Greenspan didn't cause the dot com bust the election never would have come down to the crooked state of Florida and we would not have had Bush anointed and we would not find ourselves in the mess we do now.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Excuse me but trade was also hit by same element on Clinton's watch--only did they didn't use enough exposives to get job done--thus he escaoed the billions of $$$ it cost our ecomomy.
Yep Olsen twins would have attacked Somlia also--but would they fight or run?
---and on greenspan/recession-- rates have been raised continuously and more times in GW's reighn than Bill's so explain to fellow liberals and we Neo Cons--HOW this (dummy)pres gets us out of recession with more interest rate increases than Bill had--which "supposedly" caused it in the 1st place. :shrug:

This should be a classic

 

[StevieD]

Dogs are you actually saying that Greenspan didn't cause the dot com bubble to burst? It is a universally accepted fact that he did. Not only by raising the interest rates but by his comments. He also caused the soon to be real estate bubble.

There was nowhere near the casualties with the first attack on the WTC. In hind site should we have gone after bin Laden then, of course. But guys like you and your fellow Neocons would have been screaming "Wag the Dog" as you were known to do.

Talk about a classic.

 

[Chadman]

Would imagine this admin "could" be in better shape than when Clinton left considering taking in more tax revenue "after" a tax cut.

--but too be in better shape all we had to do is not follow Clintons economic policys but his rather his miltary as that is where diff comes in.

if GW would have done nothing when trade center like Slick--would have been HUGE savings.

At 1st death in Afgan invasion if we'd run like rabbits and left the dead--ditto on huge savings again--same Iraq.

Rather than pay for bounties or search for UBL give him free ticket--more savings.

and then you have one admin cutting defence spending--the other increasing in general.

However could be worse we could have continued to give NK money-fuel-food so they can spend on their chips on military buildup--so saving a little money there

P.S. you might also make note that after dot.com bust he left office with this country in a reccession.

Interesting portrayal and spin here. Let's examine it more closely.

Your claim of increasing tax revenues this year is essentially a wash when it gets down to it. As I understand it, much of the revenue came from capital gains and stock appreciation, which certainly has taken a hit of late. And, of course, the wealthy paying plenty for their extra revenue based on the tax cuts. They made far more money, so the tax revenue based on their rapidly escalating profits was higher. So, when times were good, things were good. With the past year escalation in the price of oil and economic concerns moving forward (interest rates going up, price of everything going up), both factors will surely come back down, if not head south. The thing that continues to be interesting when listening to Bush economic supporters (especially with tax receipts) is that this recent success does not approach the tax receipts of the 90's when Clinton was in office. Of course NOW, it is Bush's fault for all successes. But THEN, it had nothing to do with Clinton. Convenient.

The tax receipt successes - of course - are being dwarfed by the skyrocketing deficit CAUSED by the choices of this administration. You have to assume some responsibility for the choices you make. Iraq was a choice made by Bush. We all have to live with that choice (except for those who died because of it, that is...). To continue to compare the response of Clinton in the first Trade Center incident compared to the response of Bush in the second Trade Center incident is pretty silly if you ask me. There is no comparison now, nor should there ever have been. A large group of terrorist flying planes into buildings and the Pentagon is a bit more of a response-generator than an unknown situation where a bomb went off - leading to far less uproar and understanding of what we were dealing with. But go ahead and call them equal.

It seems to me that in a large way, we have left Afganistan (i.e. run like rabbits) and the search for Bin Laden. Yeah, we still have some forces there, but we pulled out most of them to fight Bush's fight in Iraq. Even the most ardent supporter has to admit that was a choice to make, and to put Iraq on a pedestal with the man who sponsored World Trade Center attack is lu-da-cris, in my opinion. And the cost? We may never know the ultimate cost of that choice. And evidently, we may never find Bin Laden, either. I don't think he is in Iraq, for starters. I'd like to think that if we'd spent the trillions to stay the course there we would have found the son of a biscuit by now. But, as Dubbya pointed out..."I don't spend much time thinking about him, really." At least he was honest about THAT.

No doubt, we have to increase military spending under Bush. Duh. We have to finance his world domination plans, don't we. Hey, that costs a lot of money. You are right, Clinton didn't think it appropriate to spend all our money - and our childrens' money - on an elective war on people who didn't attack us (other than shooting some flack into the air miles below our planes in our self-imposed no fly areas). I think that's smart, not weak.

And, in regards to your NK jibe, I'm glad Clinton saved some money by not financing Saddam and his military buildup, like daddy Bush did. That was some money well spent, eh? Not only did that create a bigger madman that we have to spend trillions on now, we still have Iraq waiting to soak up more of our money battling with in the coming years.

Your final comment about Clinton leaving us in a recession is extrememly arguable - to put it mildly. Here's an analysis by the >> National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of recessions and expansions. NBER has been run since 1977 by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, an architect of the Bush tax cut and an intellectual mentor to many prominent Republican policy-makers, including Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

According to NBER's definition, the recession did not begin until after President Clinton left office. NBER's most recent "recession dating procedure" says, "A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough." In other words, a recession begins as soon as the economy starts shrinking. And according to NBER, the economy peaked and started shrinking in March 2001, two months after the Bush presidency began. "The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began in March." So according to NBER, the most recent recession did not start during the Clinton administration. <<

I copied and pasted (essentially) the last two paragraphs which dispute your claim. And that was from the architect of the Bush tax cut plan. Who better to dispute your claim, eh?

It's all a matter of how you look at things, I guess.

 

[shamrock]

its so ridiculous how Bush supporters continually create excuses and alibis for his incredible failure. Only the right wing crowd could find someone less intelligent than Quayle.

I've up got to believe Clinton would have probably stayed the course in Afghanistan and not let UBL get away, as Bush let all his Saudi friends escape the country the immediate days after September 11. Probably wouldn't haven't given UBL a 8 week head start to get fortified & entrenched in Tora Tora.

Isn't it convenient to blame the unprecedented deficit on the Iraqi mess, a mess entirely created on lies and fabrications by Bush and his gang. But it was no problem, remember IRAQI OIL, was going to pay for the entire Iraqi mess, what ever happened to that notion??

Just continue to observe, as he drives the country further and further into debt and despair for 2 more years. His Republican Senate & House will end very shortly, and with everything under his control he has gotten absolutely 0 accomplished in his tenure. He is the monumental failure in modern American history and will go down as such.

 

[smurphy]

if GW would have done nothing when trade center like Slick--would have been HUGE savings.

At 1st death in Afgan invasion if we'd run like rabbits and left the dead--ditto on huge savings again--same Iraq.

Why do you continue to make this point of nonsense? You imply that Bush would have invaded Afghanistan in '93 and that Clinton would have done nothing in '01. Absolutely retarded. Why do you do that? You know you are spinning and I'm sure you don't believe your own writing - you are much smarter than that. So what gives?

 

[AR182]

i

I've up got to believe Clinton would have probably stayed the course in Afghanistan and not let UBL get away, as Bush let all his Saudi friends escape the country the immediate days after September 11. Probably wouldn't haven't given UBL a 8 week head start to get fortified & entrenched in Tora Tora.

shamrock....

i have issues with this administration with iraq & afghanistan. tommy frank pulled, imo a major blunder by relying too much on the afghan fighters to get osama in the back part of the bora bora mountains as the u.s. troops covered the front part of the mtns....but since bush wasn't in afghanistan at the time & i haven't read anything that is was bush's decision, i think he can't be blamed for that mistake.

meanwhile you can blame clinton for not being aggressive enough after the 1993 world trade center bombing & not taking osama when a country (forgot the name) offered him on a platter to the u.s.....

 

[Chadman]

He was not offered to us "on a platter" by anyone with a serious offer, by a reputable individual. That has been proven in this forum and elsewhere many times. But I can see the point of Clinton perhaps being more aggressive in that situation, after things became more clear about who was involved.

 

[AR182]

He was not offered to us "on a platter" by anyone with a serious offer, by a reputable individual. That has been proven in this forum and elsewhere many times. But I can see the point of Clinton perhaps being more aggressive in that situation, after things became more clear about who was involved.

are you sure about that ?

i have never seen anything to the contrary...

 

[smurphy]

are you sure about that ?

i have never seen anything to the contrary...

Trying to find non-biased sources is a bitch. So far, this is about as middle of the road and current as I can find. Basically, this story that's been hyped up by shallow right wing talking heads was proven to be a major exaggeration, if not outright lie. ...Just use your common sense - what would the motive be for not accepting a "silver platter"? It simply wasn't the case.

http://www.sudanembassy.org/default.asp?page=viewstory&id=66

 

[shamrock]

Al, I say Bush, because he is the president, and all decisions of that magnitude must cross his desk, but technically its my understanding that the "war planners", Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, Pearlman etc. were the ones that quickly and prematurely pulled huge troop population from Afghanistan and reassigned them to Iraq. If that's not true, I learned something today.

My understanding is the best chance to get OBL was in his camp in Afghanistan, I forget the name of the camp. Problem was the prince of UAE was with him hunting. Politically Clinton was advised the possible death of the prince was not favorable to Arab relations at that time.

 

[dr. freeze]

looks to me like the Rep's are going to get whacked this fall

might actually be a good thing as long as Bush can veto 2 years worth of similar leftist garbage coming out of the House and instead of Rep' leftists whose pork barrel spending gets passed we will have Dem leftists whose pork barrel spending gets vetoed

then we can MAYBE get some REAL conservatives in there in 2008

giving the Rep's another free ride after all this spending may seem like another blank check to them and would be bad for us Conservatives

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

- what would the motive be for not accepting a "silver platter"?

Because Clinton hates us for our freedom

 

[djv]

Boy Strange memories here. And Most forget half this chit we got are self's in goes back as far as Reagan. And some before that. As for spending last few years. It Sure as hell Is Out of Hand. BY far the worse I ever seen in over 40 years.

 

[hammer1]

Sham U are right on...

Sham U are right on...

If U really want to know what Bill Clinton Did and What The Bush Cabal did...Read the Transcript of the 4 day 9 -11 testimony.
Clinton made 3 attempts to get Bin Laden with military insertions 1 was only 24 hrs away but called off by Tenet because United Arab Emirates Royal Fam was in the area. There was no credible deal to get Bin Laden in the Sudan........Clinton's own words. I have not read the book "First In" but from an interview with the author evidently we had Bin Laden talking on his cell 100 yards away in Tora Bora and the call came from the White House to "Stand Off" and let the Mujaheddin go in and get him. Well they did ..they went in had tea and let Bin Laden go.
The book was by the commander i believe of the Special Forces team that was sent to get Bin Laden. I first heard the story of the fact that the Bin Laden family's plane was the only plane in the air after 9 - ll other than Air Force One from a close acquaintance high up in the Dept of the Navy. They are in charge of our securing air space over US soil. Of all the families in the US why Bin Ladens. Of course when this was brought out in Michel Moore's movie the RWNeo Cons branded the whole movie as BS.


The most Gut wrenching thing to me is the fact that we were an eye lash away from peace in the Middle East at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency. Bush campaigns on a hands off Israel policy.........Sharon goes on the Temple Mount sh$ts on the Arabs and the Intafada and the suicide bombing starts.

In that 9-11 testimony you will hear how incompetent every link in the Bush Adm was from Miss Rice to Coffer Black about all the information about the impending attack on the trade center..and they dismissed it all as not credible.

One more little aside.......you never know but perhaps sometime in the future i may meet some of you..and from those few of you that accused me of being
a bigot or anti Semite and not worth responding to i may expect an apology.and if i dont get one .. well who knows .
The blood in my veins runs deep red. And it has a love for this country that those who may think i may have lowered the content of this forum by some of my statements
cant imagine or begin to identify with.
"Don't Tread On ME"""

Sorry I lied....If u want one more nail in the coffin of the Power of the Israeli lobby.i refer u to Paul Wolfowitze's request in 1996 in front of congress for money to fund an Israeli invasion of Iraq. Can u imagine this for any other nation on the planet??
C Span archives i wd think...may be off on the year.

Have A Nice Day!!

 

[hammer1]

Sham U are right on...

Sham U are right on...

If U really want to know what Bill Clinton Did and What The Bush Cabal did...Read the Transcript of the 4 day 9 -11 testimony.
Clinton made 3 attempts to get Bin Laden with military insertions 1 was only 24 hrs away but called off by Tenet because United Arab Emirates Royal Fam was in the area. There was no credible deal to get Bin Laden in the Sudan........Clinton's own words. I have not read the book "First In" but from an interview with the author evidently we had Bin Laden talking on his cell 100 yards away in Tora Bora and the call came from the White House to "Stand Off" and let the Mujaheddin go in and get him. Well they did ..they went in had tea and let Bin Laden go.
The book was by the commander i believe of the Special Forces team that was sent to get Bin Laden. I first heard the story of the fact that the Bin Laden family's plane was the only plane in the air after 9 - ll other than Air Force One from a close acquaintance high up in the Dept of the Navy. They are in charge of our securing air space over US soil. Of all the families in the US why Bin Ladens. Of course when this was brought out in Michel Moore's movie the RWNeo Cons branded the whole movie as BS.


The most Gut wrenching thing to me is the fact that we were an eye lash away from peace in the Middle East at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency. Bush campaigns on a hands off Israel policy.........Sharon goes on the Temple Mount sh$ts on the Arabs and the Intafada and the suicide bombing starts.

In that 9-11 testimony you will hear how incompetent every link in the Bush Adm was from Miss Rice to Coffer Black about all the information about the impending attack on the trade center..and they dismissed it all as not credible.

One more little aside.......you never know but perhaps sometime in the future i may meet some of you..and from those few of you that accused me of being
a bigot or anti Semite and not worth responding to i may expect an apology.and if i dont get one .. well who knows .
The blood in my veins runs deep red. And it has a love for this country that those who may think i may have lowered the content of this forum by some of my statements
cant imagine or begin to identify with.
"Don't Tread On ME"""

Sorry I lied....If u want one more nail in the coffin of the Power of the Israeli lobby.i refer u to Paul Wolfowitze's request in 1996 in front of congress for money to fund an Israeli invasion of Iraq. Can u imagine this for any other nation on the planet??
C Span archives i wd think...may be off on the year.

Have A Nice Day!!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Clinton was offered Ubl supposed twice--however one is arguable and one is not.

On 93 world trade---is it possible or probable had Clinton did "anything" in retaliation there might not have been a 911?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Dogs are you actually saying that Greenspan didn't cause the dot com bubble to burst?"

I will say emphatically dot.com bust was NOT caused by interest rate hikes but solely because they were EXTREMELY over priced.
Will say rate hikes aided recession--but dot bubble would have burst either way--
You had major tech stocks and not just hyped ones that are no longer in existance--that traded in the 100+ P/E's
Look at Cisco-Oracle and other major tech stocks--10 years later they are stagnant at 20 and under P/E's.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
we can argue all day on Bill/Gw and their approaches

but per tiltle of thread--
You can believe Muslim fantics are a threat we need to take stance against miltarily-which will cause deficeit

or you believe we can resolve threat by negotiating and have surplus.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Per Hammer--
"The most Gut wrenching thing to me is the fact that we were an eye lash away from peace in the Middle East at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency."

--Let me save you some gut wrenching pain--There hasn't been nor will there ever be peace in the middle east regardless of who is pres.

The closest chance we had for peace there was when Arafat died--and had nothng to do with who was pres.

 

[hammer1]

Peace

Peace

--Let me save you some gut wrenching pain--There hasn't been nor will there ever be peace in the middle east regardless of who is pres.

I dont think i buy that........Jews and Palestinians
in General for quite awhile after 1973 War ...and yes there was Arafat who probably was a stumbling block but so is Israeli Policy of not returning the WestBbank and dismantling ""All the settlements"" and ending the occupation. I remember all discussions between Perez and some of the Palestinians and darn if it didn't seem like it all was a signature away. 50 years ago nobody would have predicted the fall of the Soviet Union and what the world is today.
If there is any thing i have learned in travels around the world it is that all people's every where are pretty much the same...just basically decent.its the Politics and Religions that divide us
and tell us who to hate who is not going to Heaven who is not among the Chosen who is an Infidel etcetera. I was in the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War and it was astounding how warm the Russian People I met were to me ....when i was the enemy.


and what was the 2nd supposed time we could have had Bin laden under Clinton other than the time he was in a Sudanese jail??