Surplus-Are we forgetting 9-11
Posted By: Long-Time MY-NY on 2009-03-21
In Reply to: I just don't get it - ok
Are you all forgetting that 9 months after being elected we were attacked on our own soil, with thousands of people losing their lives and NY City a disaster? What do you think that did to the surplus and the need to protect our country. How short your memory is until the next time it happens and they you will be begging for a stronger president than we have now.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
What everyone is forgetting here is s/m
that congressman is from Georgia and is a Republican, and he is trying the usual dirty tactics that were employed by McCain et. AL to scare people into voting for Chambliss here in Georgia in the December runoff, because Jim Martin (the dem) has the support of Barack Obama, and these desperate Republicans will stop at nothing to win one more precious Senate seat!!
No, we are not forgetting 9/11.
We are also not forgetting that George W. Bush was given a number of specific warnings about the probability of such an attack and did absolutely nothing to prevent it. Shame on him, and shame on you for saying President Obama has done nothing to protect us from our enemies when he has only been in office for a little over a month. George W. Bush has made the entire world a more dangerous place to live, and he will go down in history as being one of the worst presidents the United States of America has ever had.
You are forgetting...........sm
that when a new minimum wage law goes into effect, it only raises the wages of those who receive minimum wage, which in turn raises the basic cost of food, both at McDonald's as the illustration below describes and at the grocery store because minimum wage workers have to be paid more to plant, tend and harvest crops; prepare meals at restaurants, etc. Those minimum wage earners, in turn, will have to spend more at the grocery store to purchase groceries. A minimum wage increase would also, in order to have any real impact for low-wage earners, have to be substantial and not just a 50-cent/hour raise, which would then impact the buying power of the next eschelon of workers. In short, while it might sound like a good idea in concept, the logistics don't bear out the benefits in the long run.
With that said, don't ask me what my solution would be because I really have no idea.
Are you people forgetting 911?
Are you people all forgetting 911 and what our country went through and how unprepared we were to have terrorism on our own soil??? Bush at least stepped up to the plate and made Americans feel safe-all Americans, both dems and pubs as I recall his rating being very high after 911. Bush did not create this deficit alone-Congress controls the money and the democrafts controlled the Congress for the last 2 years, and at least he protected us from our enemies, which is more than I can say for our current President. How soon we forget the people that were killed here in our own country; decent, hardworking Americans. Shame on you.
I think what you're forgetting is that...(sm)
if anyone were allowed to go beyond a second term, then they would still have to be elected. I think this could be a good thing. If you have a president who's doing a great job, why not let him keep going if the public is happy with him? If he isn't doing a good job, then the vote will take him/her out anyway -- thus killing the concept of a king {rolling eyes}. I also think it's a double standard for senators to be able to run consecutively like that (as well as lifers, i.e. supreme court--which I don't agree with at all), but not the president.
forgetting your religion? yeah, right
Your forgetting B. Franks, J. Kerry, N. Pelosi and
all the others in the senate who voted for it. You should listen to that youtube economic expert talking in the post Economics I can understand. He was right on.
and came in with a huge surplus!
I repeat....there was no surplus...
that was just clever use of word. It was a "projected" surplus, and it was contingent upon a cap on federal spending for 15 years, and no added federal programs. There was no real "surplus" sitting around.
Mea culpa on the borrowing. I have already said Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Spending needs to be curbed. Neither candidate is willing to say what I think needs to be done...no more new programs and stop the ones that are not working. When we get back in the "black" again, then we can look at increasing programs. Throwing more money at stuff is obviously not the answer.
The budget surplus from BC was a ...
PROJECTED surplus that would happen over 10 years IF no added spending, IF no added programs. Even if the war in Iraq had not happened, Congress could not go 10 years without adding spending and added programs. You act as if there was 559 billion dollars laying around. There wasn't.
I realize that you have bought into the whole socialist class warfare thing. Like O's hero Alinsky said...it doesn't matter if it is the truth or not...it just matters if you can make them believe it.
And they darned sure have made sure you believe it.
Clinton had a surplus because he had a...sm
Republican Congress. Left to his own devices, he would have put us belly up, have no fear.
Bush, has a Democratic Congress at the end of his term, who have really jacked up the national debt, all on their own (war not included, thank you very much).
Not that old surplus crud again....lol
do the research...there was no "surplus." It was a surplus that COULD be IF spending was not increased over like 10 years. Like Congress could go 10 years without increasing spending. Clinton did NOT leave a surplus.
There was no surplus. That was debunked years ago.
And the Democrats are largely responsible for the shape we are in. John McCain tried to pass legislation in 2005 to regulate Fannie/Freddie. However, Chris Dodd (head of banking and commerce committee, and largest recipient of Fannie/Freddie contributions) and the Democrats blocked it. Fannie/Freddie started this freefall in the economy. Obama is #2 on the contributions list. John McCain is wayyyyy on down the list. Then the democrats (the ones sitting now) pushed by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in turn pushed fannie/freddie to give all those subprime loans to minorities and lower income folks, to people with either no credit or bad credit, knowing full well most of them didn't have a hope in heck of paying it back...it is THOSE mortgages we are going in hock to pick up.
Franklin Raines, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Timothy Howard...all Democrats, two of them Obama advisors...ALL walked away from Fannie with golden parachute of MILLIONS after cooking the books.
And WE are picking up the tab.
NOBAMA, NODEMOCRAT, NO WAY, NO HOW!!
The surplus also followed him out eh? We know because it's now in the bank accounts of the rich.
A lot of people made a lot of money during the Clinton years - that's real money, honey, and they're still rich, accounting for our current revenues. Without the Clinton boom years your president's buds (and your president himself, let us remind you) wouldn't have gotten their 100,000 tax break checks. Sure, the boom couldn't hold, but the point is that the favorable conditions created by a sounder Democratic fiscal policy allowed that boom to come about.
Now all we have is empty coffers, slashed public spending, and China owns us. Big improvement huh? Oops, but people like Frist are still getting over big time on their big time stock trades - all's clear in the upper 1% But since you likely aren't in it, it's hard to see what you find so appealing about being a credit slave one paycheck away from poverty. Is that working out good for you?
Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt
Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.
After 8 years of Bush...As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion.
The myth of the Clinton surplus - been disproved -sm
A lot of democrats keep pushing this bogus claim that there was a surplus when in fact there never was. This has been discussed on this board, so by this message I'm assuming you never saw the message or went the the US Treasury website to check it out. Below is a link to it and explains what really happened.
The US National Debt proves there was never a surplus, and the article explains why people claim otherwise for political reasons. - good read. Even my most conservatives friends bought into this surplus craze, and said they were glad their eyes were opened.
I'll credit another poster for origianlly posting this (it's been so long I forget who now).
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Like all those years of prosperity, budget surplus
scorched earth administration?
Bush inherited a 559 billion surplus nuff said? NM
x
Bush inherited a 559 billion surplus nuff said? NM
x
The myth of the Clinton surplus...I'm a libertarian but I am sick of hearing this..SM
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Oil/oil revenue surplus in Iraq…to reconstruct or not to reconstruct? sm
That is the question. The Bush boo/boo just keeps getting bigger and bigger. http://www.slate.com/id/2081831/
Oil/oil revenue surplus in Iraq…to reconstruct or not to reconstruct? sm
This is the correct link. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/world/middleeast/06surplus.html?ref=worldspecial
|
