• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

An Article that I found interesting.

nenmrancher

Well-known member
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES BY CHARLEY REESE:

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.



I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason, they have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want.

If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto. REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees
 

fff

Well-known member
No. Once again someone wants to blame all our problems on "politicians". The huge Federal deficit, war in Iraq, weakened military, lack of consumer confidence, sagging economy, etc., are not the fault of "politicians." They're mostly the fault of conservative Republicans in Congress and George W. Bush. We'll likely get rid of most of that Republican Congress in November and, for sure, Bush will be gone back to his bottle in Texas (if they'll have him) while Democrats work to heal the country.
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
FFF one word comes to mind straight away to your comments and that is BULLS**T. As far as I am concerned both parties are full of corrupt politicians and democrats are as guilty as rebulicans, and we as the voters need our butts kicked for letting them get us to the point we are at.
 

fff

Well-known member
nenmrancher said:
FFF one word comes to mind straight away to your comments and that is BULLS**T. As far as I am concerned both parties are full of corrupt politicians and democrats are as guilty as rebulicans, and we as the voters need our butts kicked for letting them get us to the point we are at.

You have an opinion, but it's wrong. Look at who was in charge of the Congress for 12 years. Look at which president left us with a projected Federal surplus and actually paid down some of the nation's debt.

The other funny thing about this rant you posted (the first being it wasn't posted during the time Republicans held Congress and started running up this deficit) is that polls show Congress has a terribly low rating among Americans. "Throw them out", people say, when asked about Congress in general. But when asked about their own Congressmen or Senator, they generally give him/her high marks. They're not actually wanting to throw their Senator or Congressman out, they want to throw mine and yours out.

You're a Republican, so tell me: will you vote for a Democrat in your Congressional race this year? or do you just want the rest of us to vote out our Congressmen?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
[ Look at which president left us with a projected Federal surplus and actually paid down some of the nation's debt.

You keep saying this crap and it is just not true. Clinton did pay down some of the nations debt. The National debt was higher when he left office than when he took office.

How is it that he paid some of it down?

See here is an issue you can not admit you are wrong on, look it up. Find what the National debt was the day he took office and what it was the day GW took office and then come back on here and admit you were wrong? I challenge you to be honest in your comment. No mumble jumble, you say "he actually paid down some of the nations debt" back that up with facts!
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
[ Look at which president left us with a projected Federal surplus and actually paid down some of the nation's debt.

You keep saying this crap and it is just not true. Clinton did pay down some of the nations debt. The National debt was higher when he left office than when he took office.

How is it that he paid some of it down?

See here is an issue you can not admit you are wrong on, look it up. Find what the National debt was the day he took office and what it was the day GW took office and then come back on here and admit you were wrong? I challenge you to be honest in your comment. No mumble jumble, you say "he actually paid down some of the nations debt" back that up with facts!

Why should I admit I'm wrong when I'm not? I don't respond well to bullying or whining.
Today, President Clinton will announce that The United States is on course to eliminate its public debt within the next decade. The Administration also announced that we are projected to pay down $237 billion in debt in 2001. Due in part to a strong economy and the President’s commitment to fiscal discipline, the federal fiscal condition has improved for an unprecedented nine consecutive years. Based upon today’s new economic and budget projections for the coming 10 years from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

The 4 year total debt paydown will be $600 billion. Over the last three years, we have already paid down $363 billion in debt. Therefore, The United States is on track to reduce the debt by $600 billion over four years, the largest four-year debt pay-down ever.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Fri_Dec_29_151111_2000.html

I have already posted links and will do it again right here below. You choose not to believe Bloomberg News?

The federal budget went from a $128 billion surplus in 2001, when Bush took office, to a record deficit of $413 billion in fiscal 2004. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will narrow to $158 billion this year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a82eq0PQMhZI&refer=home

Republican JC Watts?
Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

The New York Times and CBO?
Driven by the strong economy and the resulting flood of tax revenues, the federal budget surplus will surge over the next decade to levels that would have been inconceivable only a few years ago, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report made public today.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE4D9143CF935A15752C0A9669C8B63

Perhaps you don't understand the connection between Federal debt and Federal surplus?
Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

I already posted this link, too, but will do so again since you seem to be having a hard time stomaching the fact that Bill Clinton left us in remarkably good financial shape. And Bush gave it all away to the wealthy.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

There are dozens of other links supporting my claim about a Federal budget surplus. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that Clinton paid off the national debt.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Projected Budgets is all that mumble Jumble I am talking about. Projections do not mean crap.

Here is the actual National Debt below not projections or what ifs. If you notice the National Debt when Bill Clinton took office was around 4 1/2 Trillion Dollars and when he left office it was almost 6 Trillion Dollars.

Now please tell me how he "Actually paid down this debt"?

history.gif



Would you like to clarify your statement when you said he "Actually paid down the debt"?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
I don't think anyone has ever suggested that Clinton paid off the national debt.

But someone did suggest that he paid it down, and that person was wrong!!!!!!!!!!!

fff said:
Look at which president left us with a projected Federal surplus and actually paid down some of the nation's debt.

Now the question is will that person admit they were wrong?????????

Because increasing the National Debt by a few Trillion is not something most economist would consider "paying it down"
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
thanks A-

Look at the way that increase in debt skyrocketed under Reagan/Bush I, then almost plateaued under Clinton the skyrocketed again under dumya. Guess the Republicans really do know how to spend everyone else's money.
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
I don't think anyone has ever suggested that Clinton paid off the national debt.

But someone did suggest that he paid it down, and that person was wrong!!!!!!!!!!!

fff said:
Look at which president left us with a projected Federal surplus and actually paid down some of the nation's debt.

Now the question is will that person admit they were wrong?????????

Because increasing the National Debt by a few Trillion is not something most economist would consider "paying it down"

You're a dishonest person, A+. Dishonest. And yet you quote scripture and have a religions reference on your signature. :mad:

From your own post here:

fff wrote:
[ Look at which president left us with a projected Federal surplus and actually paid down some of the nation's debt.

Yet you continue to claim that I said
he "Actually paid down the debt"?

I said no such thing. I said very clearly and posted several reputable sources that say Clinton had a Federal surplus and paid down SOME of the national debt. You can spin all day, but the facts are the facts.

If Clinton had not paid down some of the nation's debt with the surpluses he created instead of putting them all into tax breaks, we'd have had a higher national debt than we did when he left office.

I'm not wrong. You can twist and turn and pretend all you want. You're only showing what a dishonest person you are.

Goodpasture, here's another good link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
You just do not get it, it does not count if he runs up the debt say 1 1/2 trillion dollars and then pays it back down one year by a few Billion.

It is still a net gain on the National Debt, it is still higher the day he left office than the day he took office.

The facts and honest answer is Clinton left us with a larger national debt than when he took office. There is a chart above for you to look at.

Even Goodpasture was smart enough to make his stab at Bush because the debt rose more under Bush than under Clinton. I will give you that, because that is a fact.

You have to look all his years, this supposed pay down of the debt was just a fraction of what it rose during his earlier years. He as all Presidents before and after him left a Larger Debt than when he took office that is a FACT! :roll:
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
You just do not get it, it does not count if he runs up the debt say 1 1/2 trillion dollars and then pays it back down one year by a few Billion.

It is still a net gain on the National Debt, it is still higher the day he left office than the day he took office.

The facts and honest answer is Clinton left us with a larger national debt than when he took office. There is a chart above for you to look at.

Even Goodpasture was smart enough to make his stab at Bush because the debt rose more under Bush than under Clinton. I will give you that, because that is a fact.

You have to look all his years, this supposed pay down of the debt was just a fraction of what it rose during his earlier years. He as all Presidents before and after him left a Larger Debt than when he took office that is a FACT! :roll:

No. My claim is backed up by recognized, reliable references. You continually ignore them and post one chart that shows what you want to talk about. Clinton paid down some of the national debt with surpluses during his term. He inherited a terrible Federal deficit from the preveious two Republican administrations. It took him a while to get things under control and it'll probably take Hillary/Obama a few years to get things working right.

I don't HAVE to look at anything. You've claimed that I said something that I didn't. You demand that I look at the facts and figures your way. But you're wrong and you're dishonest. That's a fact.

The truth, the fact that Clinton paid down some of the national debt down kept it from being larger than it was when he left office. And that's what I said. Has any Republican done that in your lifetime? I don't think so. But keep spinning for everyone to see.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Clinton paid down some of the national debt with surpluses during his term.

The "National Debt" was not reduced during the Clinton Admin. In other words, the National Debt was higher when he went out of office than when he went in.

This is not compared to GNP. Real dollars figures only. Look it up.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

You really need to look at your own link!

First off I see one place you are getting all excited and getting your info you are looking at the first graph, but you do realize that graph is showing the national debt as percentage of the GDP, we are dealing with a percentage figure here not actual dollars. And based on percentage of GDP there was lots of presidents that had a decrease in debt by percentage of GDP, Even Carter did and we know how great the economy was in those years.

But if you will go on down to the third graph on the page and look under the column of federal spending you will notice that every single year that Clinton was president his spending increased, if you will look at the increase column and follow it down you will notice that the only ones with a ---negative spending increase was Reagan in 1987 and Bush1 in 1993

If you look at Federal Debt, and follow down every year you will see that Clinton's debt increased every year. If you notice the percentage of change does show a decrease in 2000 but that is talking about adjusted for inflation. If you look at the actual spending not adjusted he increased his spending also in that year.

Now here is were it gets real interesting, the first year of a president they are operating under the previous presidents Budget plan still so you have to actually look back a year or forward a year to get a true understanding. And if you will notice the change in 2000 and 2001 adjusted for Clinton they were -2.1% in 2000 and then back in the red in 2001 with 0.2% both good figures. But now look at Bush first year which is actually the last Budget plan of Bill Clinton and you will see a large jump in 2002 to 5.5% larger than any other Clinton year.

How did the debt decrease after adjusted for inflation (not in actual dollars) those last two years but go up the last year of Clinton's budget which Bush was still working under. That is because he put off things and cut things 2 years previous to tweak the numbers then made adjustments on the Budget when he new most people would see it as Bush spending more even though it was his actual Budget Bush was working from.

If you notice in the split between Clinton and Bush the actual spending increased like 300 billion dollars, more than any other year, because he knew to most people looking at charts it would appear to be a spending increase on Bush part.

Clinton was not called Slick Willy for nothing! You need to get a better grasp fff and understand differences in adjusted amounts for inflation, %'s of GDP and how presidents can tweak the numbers and put off things to make the next one pay for it.
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

You really need to look at your own link!

I know what the link says. It's for Goodpasture, not for you. It has nothing to do with your claim that I said Clinton had paid off the national debt. I didn't. You're being dishonest.

First off I see one place you are getting all excited and getting your info you are looking at the first graph, but you do realize that graph is showing the national debt as percentage of the GDP, we are dealing with a percentage figure here not actual dollars. And based on percentage of GDP there was lots of presidents that had a decrease in debt by percentage of GDP, Even Carter did and we know how great the economy was in those years.

Again, this link is for Goodpasture, not a reference in the discussion with you.

But if you will go on down to the third graph on the page and look under the column of federal spending you will notice that every single year that Clinton was president his spending increased, if you will look at the increase column and follow it down you will notice that the only ones with a ---negative spending increase was Reagan in 1987 and Bush1 in 1993

Spending has nothing to do with paying down the national debt. You're spinning and trying to move the goal posts again.

If you look at Federal Debt, and follow down every year you will see that Clinton's debt increased every year. If you notice the percentage of change does show a decrease in 2000 but that is talking about adjusted for inflation. If you look at the actual spending not adjusted he increased his spending also in that year.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that he payed down some of the national debt, JUST AS I SAID.

Now here is were it gets real interesting, the first year of a president they are operating under the previous presidents Budget plan still so you have to actually look back a year or forward a year to get a true understanding. And if you will notice the change in 2000 and 2001 adjusted for Clinton they were -2.1% in 2000 and then back in the red in 2001 with 0.2% both good figures. But now look at Bush first year which is actually the last Budget plan of Bill Clinton and you will see a large jump in 2002 to 5.5% larger than any other Clinton year.

Yawn.

How did the debt decrease after adjusted for inflation (not in actual dollars) those last two years but go up the last year of Clinton's budget which Bush was still working under. That is because he put off things and cut things 2 years previous to tweak the numbers then made adjustments on the Budget when he new most people would see it as Bush spending more even though it was his actual Budget Bush was working from.

Again, nothing to do with the fact that Bill Clinton actually payed down some of the national debt, but keep on spinning.

If you notice in the split between Clinton and Bush the actual spending increased like 300 billion dollars, more than any other year, because he knew to most people looking at charts it would appear to be a spending increase on Bush part.

Clinton was not called Slick Willy for nothing! You need to get a better grasp fff and understand differences in adjusted amounts for inflation, %'s of GDP and how presidents can tweak the numbers and put off things to make the next one pay for it.

One last quote and reference. If you can come up with something to show it's wrong, that Bloomberg is wrong, that JC Watts is wrong, that CBO is wrong, please post them. Otherwise I'm through with messing with you. You are simply wrong. I said Clinton payed down some of the Federal debt. He did. You want to keep moving the goal posts, claiming that I said something that I didn't. That spending had something to do with Clinton paying down some of the debt, go for it. But the facts are here on this board. People can read them.

President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."


President Clinton announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 is the largest in U.S. history

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

"Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow Al Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said.

In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.

The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.

"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said.

"These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.

Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."

That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.

Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.

"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
To Quote my niece "Whatever" :roll:

You are clueless and no reason to try to explain it to you.

Go on believing Republicans are evil and Democrats are the savior.

Any smart person realizes they are all evil and none of them can be trusted.

Got to hand it to you rather it is CAB or Democrats you are one loyal person!
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
The facts and honest answer is Clinton left us with a larger national debt than when he took office. There is a chart above for you to look at.
But the budget was BALANCED......we paid our bills and had a little left to put down on the debt. Not enough to cover all the interest, but it was being managed. Take a CLOSE look at the skyrocketing debt of dumya. Then look at the GDP in either real terms or in nominal terms.

dsg353_500_350.jpg


http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353

do you see a parallel in the skyrocketing growth in GDP? or is it STAGNANT!!!!! Can you say Republican FAILURE??????

Debt growth DECREASED under Clinton. Too bad we can't say the same about dumya.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Those years you talk about all he did was put the bills in a drawer and saved it for later president. That is why you see Bush's first year as having a 5.3% swing over the last year listed with Clinton. He shuffled things around knowing that most people would not catch it and he could always have people like you and fff defending him all the time he sets back and laughs at what he did....Slick Willy!

Surely you know the Government goes off of a fiscal year not a literal year, so when Clinton turned in his budget in October of 2000 he could correct those previous two years that he cut spending and make up for it on the 200-2001 budget that Bush would inherit.

Just look at how large of a spending growth there was in that year and then look up and see that was Clinton's budget that got that 5.3 % swing.....pretty sneaky of him wasn't it?

I have seen some managers do those kind of things in retail business, cut, cut and tweak the books to look like they made a difference and leave someone else the mess to clean up.

And for your GDP chart, I am not sure what should have been expected, I would have to see more than one presidents GDP increase not just the last 2 1/2 years of Bush. Is a couple trillion increase in GDP not good? Correct me if I am wrong but is not 2,000 Billion actually 2 Trillion? I am not good with that many zero's.

What is an acceptable increase in that short of a period? The graph makes you think we are talking about a long time, but really we are only talking about a fraction of his presidency, were did things stand back in 2001 so we can see how much it increased under his whole presidency?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Debt growth DECREASED under Clinton. Too bad we can't say the same about dumya.

It should have the cold war was over thanks to Reagan and Clinton was going to benefit from the end of the arms race and less spending that was the result of it. And since he was not willing to do something about all the Terrorist attacks during his watch he could just hide his head in the sand.

Also you give no credit to the Republican Congress that cut spending and earmarks during those times and worked to lower spending.

I grant you the congress that followed did not maintain this conservative line of thinking and they are paying the price by loosing seats these past few years.

And I will grant you that Bush has not worked on spending like he should have, that is one reason I would not call him a Conservative, he may be a Republican but not a Conservative. But he did also have Katrina, and two wars to deal with not to mention a recession from Clinton and a inflated budget his first year thanks to Clinton. But still a conservative would have held spending down!
 
Top