Apology

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

JD. We didn't start the war , Remember 9/11. Your a pissa

Bush also inherited a failing ecomomy. Did you forget that also?

Are we going to start this again?

At the time, and even moreso now, there is absolutely no relationship between 9/11 and Iraq (or more specifically, Saddam). Not one.

Also, if Bush was such a great president and ever so wise, if he truly did "inherit a failing economy" then why in the hell would he push through the Bush tax cuts?

Bush's tax cuts + Bush's wars = a failing economy.

Here's the graph again since you seem to continually forget. Unfortunately, it only includes to 2006.

[fishbones]

Buckman's right, Johnny. You are a pissa.

I can't believe you tell someone in another thread that information form blogs doesn't count. Then you actually have the nerve to pull a graph from a blog and present it as the centerpiece of your argument.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I can't believe you tell someone in another thread that information form blogs doesn't count. Then you actually have the nerve to pull a graph from a blog and present it as the centerpiece of your argument.

Opinion vs. Facts

A blog post is an opinion piece. A graph is a visual collection of data. Anyone can scrape the Federal Reserve website for the information on that graph.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Opinion vs. Facts

A blog post is an opinion piece. A graph is a visual collection of data. Anyone can scrape the Federal Reserve website for the information on that graph.

Fact. The graph came from a blog. By your logic, any information in a blog can be fact, since it may come from another more reputable website. There can certainly be a persons own opinion mixed in, but they may base their opinion on facts, right? You can't have it both ways.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Fact. The graph came from a blog. By your logic, any information in a blog can be fact, since it may come from another more reputable website. There can certainly be a persons own opinion mixed in, but they may base their opinion on facts, right? You can't have it both ways.

You're conflating previous comments made about opinion pieces. The nice thing about numbers is that 2+2 always equals 4. As I stated above, the exact information in that graph can be scraped from the Fed's website.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. However, I'm also not going to dig through the Fed website to put an excel sheet together to demonstrate that Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all increased the national debt (quite significantly in the case of Bush 2) and that Clinton had a significant surplus.

[scottw]

hey ass clown....sorry, I just find that amusing when you say it...democrats controlled congress during Reagan and Bush the elder, they controlled the spending, Republicans controlled the congress for most of the Clintons years, and the spending...

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You're conflating previous comments made about opinion pieces. The nice thing about numbers is that 2+2 always equals 4. As I stated above, the exact information in that graph can be scraped from the Fed's website.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. However, I'm also not going to dig through the Fed website to put an excel sheet together to demonstrate that Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all increased the national debt (quite significantly in the case of Bush 2) and that Clinton had a significant surplus.

Can an opinion be bases on facts and be true?

You must be really busy to be able to go on blogs, but not check out the govt. site. I just went on there and oddly enough, there was much economic growth during Bush's terms. Clinton left office with many of the economic indicators in a downward pattern, and they actually rebounded while Bush was in office. Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first person to say that the economy is mostly cyclical. But, you have to look at where it is and where it's heading when each President takes and leaves office. Oh and also keep in mind the words of many of your fellow libs and conservatives. Deficits can be a good thing for the economy.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Deficits can be a good thing for the economy.

Brief deficits can be a good thing. What the Dems are doing right now is not. Spending during a down economy is only good if it is put towards quick growth and recovery areas. A historical example of the contrary would be Reagan's increased Cold War-era spending during a down economy. The deficits during these times had no long-term financial benefits (regardless of the debated necessity for the spending).

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Are we going to start this again?

At the time, and even moreso now, there is absolutely no relationship between 9/11 and Iraq (or more specifically, Saddam). Not one.

Also, if Bush was such a great president and ever so wise, if he truly did "inherit a failing economy" then why in the hell would he push through the Bush tax cuts?

Bush's tax cuts + Bush's wars = a failing economy.

Here's the graph again since you seem to continually forget. Unfortunately, it only includes to 2006.

The federal budget and the private sector are two different things. While it is good for private sector entities to have a surplus, ideally (ha-ha) the federal gov. balance should be zero. If it goes below that line on the graph your probably spending too much (or, some would say, you're not taxing enough). If it goes above that line, you're probably taxing too much (or, some would say, you're not spending enough). Generally, the President proposes and the congress disposes when it comes to spending. Look to the congresses of those presidents to foot much of the blame or credit for budget graphs. And, more importantly, look at private sector economic graphs to tell a more important picture.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The federal budget and the private sector are two different things. While it is good for private sector entities to have a surplus, ideally (ha-ha) the federal gov. balance should be zero. If it goes below that line on the graph your probably spending too much (or, some would say, you're not taxing enough). If it goes above that line, you're probably taxing too much (or, some would say, you're not spending enough). Generally, the President proposes and the congress disposes when it comes to spending. Look to the congresses of those presidents to foot much of the blame or credit for budget graphs. And, more importantly, look at private sector economic graphs to tell a more important picture.

I can see your point, but I do think there are some issues with zero-balance budgeting. For example, without cash reserves, there is nothing to buffer a down economy when people aren't making as much money and as such, tax contributions are down. Also, massive, massive cash reserves are how the Chinese became the military super-power that they are now. This is how they have significantly increased their space exploration as well.

If we had at least some cash reserves, some of that could have gone towards funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to help offset the massive amount the average taxpayer is now on the hook for.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I can see your point, but I do think there are some issues with zero-balance budgeting. For example, without cash reserves, there is nothing to buffer a down economy when people aren't making as much money and as such, tax contributions are down. Also, massive, massive cash reserves are how the Chinese became the military super-power that they are now. This is how they have significantly increased their space exploration as well.


The concept of a "rainy day fund" in reserve to bail out of a possible future emergency, much as it would be prudent in private endeavors, is inimical to the federal gov. "mind." Congress will find ways to spend surpluses (unless you can put them into a"lock box). The U.S. became a military super power not as a result of cash reserves, but as a policy and will to do so. We will do what is necessary if the people are behind it.

If we had at least some cash reserves, some of that could have gone towards funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to help offset the massive amount the average taxpayer is now on the hook for.

The question is not where the money comes from for these endeavors, but should we do them.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The question is not where the money comes from for these endeavors, but should we do them.

I couldn't agree with you more, on both points.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Generally, the President proposes and the congress disposes when it comes to spending. Look to the congresses of those presidents to foot much of the blame or credit for budget graphs. And, more importantly, look at private sector economic graphs to tell a more important picture.

Interesting. Many debating me here have made the exact reverse argument that "the President is the one at the helm. He's the one to blame or be praised for what happens to our country."

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Interesting. Many debating me here have made the exact reverse argument that "the President is the one at the helm. He's the one to blame or be praised for what happens to our country."

When you have a President whose party is the majority in the House and Senate, the President is proposing spending that is most likely going to be approved. This is what we have now. When Bush and Clinton were in office, there was a system of checks and balances that we no longer have.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Interesting. Many debating me here have made the exact reverse argument that "the President is the one at the helm. He's the one to blame or be praised for what happens to our country."

The President being "responsible" for what happens to our country has grown from being the head of one of the three co-equal branches of government to ridiculously being the face of who we are. And too much intrusion into the shape of our society HAS resulted from the mythical power of this face. In conjunction with legislative power being assumed by the Supreme Court (abetted by Presidential appointees) the executive branch has gone well beyond its originally intended power. Even so, when it comes to spending, Congress has the final say.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The President being "responsible" for what happens to our country has grown from being the head of one of the three co-equal branches of government to ridiculously being the face of who we are.

I agree, Bush 43 did focus too much on capturing executive power. Cheney does a tremendous job of articulating why this was important.

As to the comment before on running a zero balance budget, I think this would be great if you had a serviceable debt load, which even with Clinton's surplus, we certainly didn't.

-spence

[scottw]

this is hilarious...take a snippet what Detbuch says and just twist up an argument against Bush...you are deranged Spence...no president has engaged in the coalescing of power in the executive branch like this current pres., and in less than one year...so far...

but who can blame Obama when his constituents worship on hand and knee at his feet and the media licks his boots till they're shiny on a hourly basis...

[Swimmer]

Did you know that if the entire congress takes the sanction of admonishment against Joe Wilson that what happens is they stand up and turn thier back to him for a brief period of time.

Nancy Pelosi could turn her back on a full room of people and turn around and find they all left the room on her.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I agree, Bush 43 did focus too much on capturing executive power. Cheney does a tremendous job of articulating why this was important.-spence

Actually, Presidential power has grown almost from the beginning. Certainly Pres power grew greatly under FDR. As well under Lincoln. "Emergencies" and "crises" are always ripe times for power grabbing, not only by the executive branch from the legislative, but by all branches of government from the people (private sector). As we are seeing in this current administration.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, Presidential power has grown almost from the beginning. Certainly Pres power grew greatly under FDR. As well under Lincoln. "Emergencies" and "crises" are always ripe times for power grabbing, not only by the executive branch from the legislative, but by all branches of government from the people (private sector). As we are seeing in this current administration.

Absolutely, every thing under Obama, except maybe for the banking problem, has been a fear mongering Emergency.
He knows exactly what he's doing.
It's turning out that the deep recession which required the Emergency stimulus/pork bill, according to Obama,seems to be a cyclical recession, which lasts the normal 6 to 18 months.