Jump to content

A little comparision.


swede316

Recommended Posts

Guest RabidBillsFanVT
This needs updating. We left 87 billion in the dust a long time ago, and we're still spending like mad.  This weekend on Meet the Press I heard the current cost of the Iraq war was at 200+ billion (last I recall, Congress had approved around 160 billion but I'm sure that has been increased) and obviously, still growing, with no end in sight.

 

I really wish Moveon, an obviously biased organization, would air that debt-related ad with the kids working more frequently. No matter what party you belong to, the sentiment of that ad- our kids will be paying off the debt we incur- is right on target.

 

Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.  If you say it enough times, I guess you start to believe it.

25536[/snapback]

 

Speak softly and carry a big stick!

 

What in the name of George B. Cortelyou is going on here? Those are VERY big numbers to be fighting well after Saddam is gone. It's very sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, but the "deficit" you refer to in the second para is usually called the "national debt," in order to distinguish it from the yearly budget deficits that the Bushes and Reagan, among others, regularly gave us.  I was talking about the deficit, not the debt.

25502[/snapback]

You're also not right on that side of it. The government's "accounting" allows them to steal heinous amounts of money every year from the Social Security Surplus and use it to pay for stuff. They stick an IOU in the box. The Clinton Administration were masters of this technique, and benefitted more than anyone else because more people were working and therefore paying more into SS. The ultimate in economic deception lapped up by the terminally stupid partisans who can do no more than repeat talking points ad nauseum. Remember "lockbox?" What do you think that actually meant?

 

I won't even get into the record capital gains revenues collected because of an unbelievable amount of bubble investing by people who wouldn't know the difference between a P/E ratio and an RPG . Obviously you are too much of a simpleton to understand the nuances beyond what a politician (from your party of choice) states on CNN. Good for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're also not right on that side of it.  The government's "accounting" allows them to steal heinous amounts of money every year from the Social Security Surplus and use it to pay for stuff.  They stick an IOU in the box.  The Clinton Administration were masters of this technique, and benefitted more than anyone else because more people were working and therefore paying more into SS.  The ultimate in economic deception lapped up by the terminally stupid partisans who can do no more than repeat talking points ad nauseum.  Remember "lockbox?"  What do you think that actually meant?

 

I won't even get into the record capital gains revenues collected because of an unbelievable amount of bubble investing by people who wouldn't know the difference between a P/E ratio and an RPG .  Obviously you are too much of a simpleton to understand the nuances beyond what a politician (from your party of choice) states on CNN.  Good for you.

25649[/snapback]

The one thing we can take out of your drivel is that more people were working during the Clinton era than are now, and the stock market was higher than than it is now. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing we can take out of your drivel is that more people were working during the Clinton era than are now, and the stock market was higher than than it is now.  Thanks!

25719[/snapback]

Look everyone! BRH completely missed the nuances and concentrated only on the standard DNC talking points! How very odd!

 

Head over to the microwave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)

You forgot to tell him not to overcook them. Cause he may burn his mouth, wait, to late.

25732[/snapback]

Yeah then he'll complain he doesn't have healthcare, because his bad company laid him off because he spoke out at a Bush rally that his companies client gave him tickets too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(erynthered @ Sep 10 2004, 11:50 AM)

 

You forgot to tell him not to overcook them. Cause he may burn his mouth, wait, to late.

 

 

VABills  Today, 12:51 PM Post #26 

 

Yeah then he'll complain he doesn't have healthcare, because his bad company laid him off because he spoke out at a Bush rally that his companies client gave him tickets too.

 

 

You guys are hysterical.

 

It's to hard for me to get tickets too a Bush rally anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are hysterical.

 

It's to hard for me to get tickets too a Bush rally anyway.

25740[/snapback]

Probably a good thing. You might mouth off and have the secret service blow a few holes in you with their Glocks.

 

Then you'll complain you don't have healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which is it? All of Clinton's actions were good, or they were bad but since Clinton did them then so can Bush?
Again my point was to point out Clinton policy that when compared to Bush policy is similar.......Yet Dems criticise Bush while lauding Clinton...Not saying everything is 100% correct...But enough similarities exist to point to partisianship. All I'm sayin is be fair....and I got it from an email not the internet :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...