Minnesota to vote OUT Republicans after this nightmare and failed experiment

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by BentBow

The Progressive are like a kid in the candy store.

It takes a responsible Conservative to rebuild the business, after the Progressives loot the working capital by giving away to their friends and family.

Funny. Bill Clinton left Bush a huge budget surplus and Bush promptly spent it on tax cuts for the rich, two unfunded wars and Medicare Part D. Bush increased the deficit 72%, from $5.7 trillion to $9.8 trillion.

And if you want a comparison between the deficit under Bush vs. Obama, here it is:


Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph

Posted by Ezra Klein at 01:00 PM ET, 07/25/2011

What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph - The Washington Post


Before that? Likewise, the national debt increased during the Reagan years from $914 billion to $2.6 trillion; the annual service (interest) paid on the debt by the government more than doubled—from $71 billion to $150 billion—while Reagan was in office.
American President: Ronald Wilson Reagan: Domestic Affairs

And Reagan raised taxes eleven times.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...ial/?mobile=nc

Democrats have been cleaning up Republican messes for decades.

[waterboy7375]

And as we all know King George was a friggen moron. So whats that say about the fiscal conservative currently residing at 1600 penn ave?

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Funny. Bill Clinton left Bush a huge budget surplus .

the simple FACT is clinton never had a real surplus...

the FACT is that the clinton/newt budgets had a PROJECTED BUDGET surplus..for "on-budget"...but the "off-budget" spending brought a DEFICIT


an example that even you could follow:

you earn (after taxes) 60k...you BUDGET 58k..you have a PROJECTED SURPLUS of 2k.....during the year your transmission on your car goes...1k...your washer/dryer bust...2k..and you DECIDE to buy a bigscreen ty...2k.....you have now gone from a 2k PROJECTED surplus to a 3k DEFICIT


the simple FACT is clinton never had a real surplus...


Fiscal
Year........ YearEnding.... ..National Debt.......... Deficit

FY1994.... 09/30/1994.... $4.192749 trillion.... $281.26 billion
FY1995.... 09/29/1995.... $4.973982 trillion.... $281.23 billion
FY1996.... 09/30/1996.... $5.224810 trillion.... $250.83 billion
FY1997.... 09/30/1997.... $5.413146 trillion.... $188.34 billion
FY1998.... 09/30/1998.... $5.526193 trillion.... $113.05 billion
FY1999.... 09/30/1999.... $5.656270 trillion.... $130.08 billion
FY2000.... 09/29/2000.... $5.674178 trillion.... $17.91 billion
FY2001.... 09/28/2001.... $5.870463 trillion.... $133.29 billion




so here is the question


IF there was a surplus.for 2-3-4 years...........why did the DEBT go from 3.9 trillion to 5.87 trillion????????????????????????

the NATIONAL DEBT never decreased



you have to remember OFF BUDGET spending is not SHOWN on the budget...like all the floods that happen in the midwest...or the money to haiti and pakistan.......all OFF BUDGET

[Seacove]

If you go by that measure, Bush was a complete disaster! And you conveniently ignore the rest because you know (but won't say out loud) that Republicans are far far far worse when it comes to budget management while in the White House. History proves it.

[Bruin Rick]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

An editorial is not what an election makes. Although I'd love the people to vote out their Republican legislature, Republicans are like roaches, in that they both have a sneaky way of getting back in the house.

Yes. And once they get in, it is really hard to get them out. You have to keep killing them for months.

[Bruin Rick]

Originally Posted by PullMyFinger

I am not in lockstep with liberals or all Democrats. I believe we have to care for all in society, but I am not against rules to prevent future problems. I am for welfare reform. Personally, I don't think the state should ever give a dollar to poor people. They should provide food, housing and medicine and clothing ect. but never money. Their children should be looked after to prevent abuse from irresponsible parents. Parents should have to pass a drug test or lose their rights. We have to solve this welfare/dependency problem and more money isn't going to help at all.

I actually agree with that. The reason many of these folks are in the shape they are in is because of stupid choices they have made whether it was dropping out of school, having babies when they are teenagers, using drugs or gambling or drinking too much alcoholic drinks. Giving them money is like giving heroin to an addict. But I don't agree with abandoning the poor either. They should be put into highly structured programs that can help them overcome their problems.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

the simple FACT is clinton never had a real surplus...

the FACT is that the clinton/newt budgets had a PROJECTED BUDGET surplus..for "on-budget"...but the "off-budget" spending brought a DEFICIT


an example that even you could follow:

you earn (after taxes) 60k...you BUDGET 58k..you have a PROJECTED SURPLUS of 2k.....during the year your transmission on your car goes...1k...your washer/dryer bust...2k..and you DECIDE to buy a bigscreen ty...2k.....you have now gone from a 2k PROJECTED surplus to a 3k DEFICIT


the simple FACT is clinton never had a real surplus...


Fiscal
Year........ YearEnding.... ..National Debt.......... Deficit

FY1994.... 09/30/1994.... $4.192749 trillion.... $281.26 billion
FY1995.... 09/29/1995.... $4.973982 trillion.... $281.23 billion
FY1996.... 09/30/1996.... $5.224810 trillion.... $250.83 billion
FY1997.... 09/30/1997.... $5.413146 trillion.... $188.34 billion
FY1998.... 09/30/1998.... $5.526193 trillion.... $113.05 billion
FY1999.... 09/30/1999.... $5.656270 trillion.... $130.08 billion
FY2000.... 09/29/2000.... $5.674178 trillion.... $17.91 billion
FY2001.... 09/28/2001.... $5.870463 trillion.... $133.29 billion




so here is the question


IF there was a surplus.for 2-3-4 years...........why did the DEBT go from 3.9 trillion to 5.87 trillion????????????????????????

the NATIONAL DEBT never decreased



you have to remember OFF BUDGET spending is not SHOWN on the budget...like all the floods that happen in the midwest...or the money to haiti and pakistan.......all OFF BUDGET

I would gladly have preferred Clinton's responsible tax-rates, with those 'off-budget' items than the irresponsible on-budget deficits under Bush.

At the time, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the entire debt would be paid off by 2006. Then we got Bush.

Difference Between 2001 Projection and 2011 Actual:

[buzzards27]

You are looking at a figures that includes money the government owes to itself. The debt owed to the public went down in fiscal 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

the simple FACT is clinton never had a real surplus...

the FACT is that the clinton/newt budgets had a PROJECTED BUDGET surplus..for "on-budget"...but the "off-budget" spending brought a DEFICIT


an example that even you could follow:

you earn (after taxes) 60k...you BUDGET 58k..you have a PROJECTED SURPLUS of 2k.....during the year your transmission on your car goes...1k...your washer/dryer bust...2k..and you DECIDE to buy a bigscreen ty...2k.....you have now gone from a 2k PROJECTED surplus to a 3k DEFICIT


the simple FACT is clinton never had a real surplus...


Fiscal
Year........ YearEnding.... ..National Debt.......... Deficit

FY1994.... 09/30/1994.... $4.192749 trillion.... $281.26 billion
FY1995.... 09/29/1995.... $4.973982 trillion.... $281.23 billion
FY1996.... 09/30/1996.... $5.224810 trillion.... $250.83 billion
FY1997.... 09/30/1997.... $5.413146 trillion.... $188.34 billion
FY1998.... 09/30/1998.... $5.526193 trillion.... $113.05 billion
FY1999.... 09/30/1999.... $5.656270 trillion.... $130.08 billion
FY2000.... 09/29/2000.... $5.674178 trillion.... $17.91 billion
FY2001.... 09/28/2001.... $5.870463 trillion.... $133.29 billion




so here is the question


IF there was a surplus.for 2-3-4 years...........why did the DEBT go from 3.9 trillion to 5.87 trillion????????????????????????

the NATIONAL DEBT never decreased



you have to remember OFF BUDGET spending is not SHOWN on the budget...like all the floods that happen in the midwest...or the money to haiti and pakistan.......all OFF BUDGET