World Events
Topic: Bush sucks; worst president in history...

#	Author	Message
221	Dabob2 Sun 5/18/2008 1:25p	<<Huh? Clinton reduced the deficits that exploded under Reagan and Bush I, and actually created a surplus briefly. But you'll believe what you wish.>> <I'm not refering to deficits and balanced budgets. I'm talking about the actual amount of money SPENT.> What you don't understand is a lot. <Woodrow Wilson brought about the concept of deficit spending. FDR lived out of national desparation using deficit spending.> Wilson had WWI. FDR had the depression and WWII. Hello? <Reagan was forced into deficit spending by Democrat congress budgets.> False. You've tried this before, and it continues to be false. Reagan proposed the budgets. All of them. The most the congress did in any given year was tinker around the edges. I know this challenges an obviously cherished view of yours, but it's true. If you can show me this is not the case, feel free to do so. But the facts are these: the 80's congresses never altered the proposed Reagan budgets by more than a few percent. The only time the deficit took a major hit under Reagan was after the 1986 tax raises. <Bush Sr. tried to cut it (with little help from his Democrat congress).> "Tried" to cut it? Think again. The deficits under Bush were even worse than those under Reagan. Remember SPP's chart? Or would you simply prefer to ignore it? <Clinton ignored deficit spending. With the populace conditioned to massive government spending, he just enjoyed spending period - and the highest amount of taxation in history to compensate.> It was not the highest amount of taxation in history. Where do you get this stuff? And he didn't ignore deficit spending - he reversed a longstanding trend. <Note that Clinton balanced his budget simply by stroking his pen. It was the Republican congress that wrote the bills that enabled the budget to be balanced. > Again, you don't seem to understand the process when you spout this stuff. Presidents propose budgets. Congress then has the power to alter them. Then the president signs them into law or not. I think both Clinton and the GOP congress deserve credit for cutting the deficit in the 90's. Trouble is, most partisans like to credit just one or the other. <Even then, it did nothing about the deficits of years passed. Balance budgets are not nearly enough. They only balance one year - supposedly.> There we agree. But considering how huge the national debt had gotten during the 80's/early 90's, it was fairly impressive to run a surplus at all. A surplus that might have continued and retired more of our national debt, had Bush II not insisted on big tax cuts for the wealthy and leading us into an ill-advised war. <Americans have been further conditioned to trust that massive spending continues to be OK.> Many Americans don't like to think about it at all. But more than previously, I think, understand we can't just keep charging everything to a national Visa card indefinitely. <It's not OK. Hence Bush has failed. And Clinton formulated the trend into this administration.> No. Clinton reversed the trend and presented Bush II with a surplus for the first time in decades. Bush II squandered it.
222	mrkthompsn Sun 5/18/2008 6:59p	<<Reagan proposed the budgets. All of them..Again, you don't seem to understand the process when you spout this stuff. Presidents propose budgets. Congress then has the power to alter them. Then the president signs them into law or not.>> You speak of the ficticious and theatrical process. I speak of the Constitutional process. Presidential budget proposals are nothing more than that: public presentations of the opinions of the presidents. Congress has zero obligation to follow any of it. As a matter of fact, they can follow ZERO of it. Presidents proposed budgets to guide congress into a non-veto situation. The constitution does not grant the president any authority to demand budgets. Only Congress has the authority to author and pass all spending and taxing. The president either strokes his pen, or slaps a veto stamp. He cannot spend unless authorized by law. He cannot tax unless authorized by law. He cannot make law. He can only authorize that which was authored by Congress.
223	X-san Sun 5/18/2008 7:07p	"As a matter of fact, they can follow ZERO of it." Heck, they could even follow NONE of it. ;p
224	mrkthompsn Sun 5/18/2008 7:32p	So at least it seems we both agree that excessive deficits are bad. Fortunately, the treasury is taking in revenues at a record rate. Here's a dilema: some of what is creating the record-setting revenue rate is not just the amount generated as a result of cuts in taxation, but also from the record profits by oil companies. Their "evil profits" are paying more to the IRS that more than 50% of the tax-paying population of citizens. How is Obama going to compensate for that is the price of oil goes down?
225	Dabob2 Mon 5/19/2008 8:31a	<<Reagan proposed the budgets. All of them..Again, you don't seem to understand the process when you spout this stuff. Presidents propose budgets. Congress then has the power to alter them. Then the president signs them into law or not.>> <You speak of the ficticious and theatrical process. I speak of the Constitutional process.> And yet you get the history wrong. <Presidential budget proposals are nothing more than that: public presentations of the opinions of the presidents. Congress has zero obligation to follow any of it. As a matter of fact, they can follow ZERO of it. Presidents proposed budgets to guide congress into a non-veto situation.> Correct. Yet the history shows that when given Reagan's budgets, the congresses of the day altered them very little. They COULD have altered them more; that would have been their constitutional right. But they didn't. There's no getting around that inconvenient little fact. <The constitution does not grant the president any authority to demand budgets. Only Congress has the authority to author and pass all spending and taxing. The president either strokes his pen, or slaps a veto stamp. He cannot spend unless authorized by law. He cannot tax unless authorized by law. He cannot make law. He can only authorize that which was authored by Congress.> Correct, but see above. Congress could have altered his proposed budgets greatly. They did not. Every budget Reagan presented to Congress had large deficits built in to them.
226	DouglasDubh Mon 5/19/2008 11:08p	<Every budget Reagan presented to Congress had large deficits built in to them.> And which the Democrats proceeded to increase. I don't think it's mrkthompsn getting history wrong.
227	dshyates Tue 5/20/2008 4:24a	I think he is getting it very wrong all because of his political bias. And know this has nothing to do with the deficit, but was another thing Republicans praise. Reaganomics "Trickle Down Theory" was an absolute disaster that we are still dealing with today. It lead to the creation of the "CEO Class", where CEOs went from making 1-5 million a year to 400 million a year while the mean salary of the American peole has declined since it was enacted. It turned the middle class into the servant class. IE: It did NOT trickle down. PERIOD. One of the first thing Clinton did was enact the single largest increase in the minium wage, as that was the about the only was to force any of it to actually be wrestled from the hands of the CEO. This is one of the major reason the business leader of this country requested the Repulican party to get this guy out of office. And thus began the Star unauthorized investigations. He was authorized to investigate one issue, and 10 unauthorized invetigatins later he caught him in a lie a martial infidelity.
228	DouglasDubh Tue 5/20/2008 6:17a	Reaganomics did work, and it was President Clinton's shady deals and personal conduct that lead to the Starr investigations.
229	dshyates Tue 5/20/2008 6:23a	Yeah, right. Keep on believing that.
230	DouglasDubh Tue 5/20/2008 6:37a	Unless credible evidence is presented to the contrary, I will.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-150
	151-160	161-170	171-180	181-190	191-200
	201-210	211-220	221-230	231-240	241-250
	251-260	261-270	271-280	281-290	291-300
	301-310	311-320	321-330	331-340	341-350
	351-360	361-365

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
This week on the LPP - Disney's 2008 Thea awards, Disney's Imax and 3D announcements, Bolt walkarounds and the crew's favorite Animal Kingdom attractions plus reader mail, Brent's Corner, the Captain's Challenge, Stump the Crew and 50 words or less on the new Bond.

What's on
The Latest
LP Guide to Bolt updated
Bolt Across America Cross-Country Journey Culminates at Red Carpet Premiere of "Bolt" 16 week tour visits 32 cities, raising awareness for the movie and for the ASPCA
Beauty and the Beast to be released in 3D in 2010
Disney's New Five-Picture Deal With IMAX to Begin With 'A Christmas Carol'
Buffalo International Film Festival presents a film benefit celebrating Mickey's 80th birthday December 13th
Disney's Hawai'i Project Begins with Ground Blessing
The Lion King to perform as part of 2008 Royal Variety Performance and BBC Radio 2's Friday Night is Music Night
Walt Disney Imagineering Earns Four Thea Awards
Travel Industry Honors Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Chairman Jay Rasulo
The Walt Disney Company Grants $1.5 Million to Reforest Fire-Ravaged Areas in Southern California

Click here for The Latest