Republicans who think that "Most" Americans don't want taxes raised.

[tbubster]

On another note: Bill Clinton did have a budget surplus when he left office.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Bill clinton had no such surplus.He cooked the books so to speak.What he did was borrow money from the social security fund to make it look like he had a surplus.but even a 1st grader knows if he borrows money from mommy to buy candy he owes mommy that money.You can not have a surplus when you borrow money to pay the bills.Many of the loans that clinton took from SS are now comeing due and as Obama has said their is no money to pay our bills with out borrowing more.

 

[Ragman]

Bill clinton had no such surplus.He cooked the books so to speak.What he did was borrow money from the social security fund to make it look like he had a surplus.but even a 1st grader knows if he borrows money from mommy to buy candy he owes mommy that money.You can not have a surplus when you borrow money to pay the bills.Many of the loans that clinton took from SS are now comeing due and as Obama has said their is no money to pay our bills with out borrowing more.

There we are, the undisputed facts! Never mind congress controls the purse strings.

Clinton had a republican congress.

 

[layoutshooter]

There we are, the undisputed facts! Never mind congress controls the purse strings.

Clinton had a republican congress.

Yep, who ever said that the ReBumLiCans were any better?

 

[Ragman]

Yep, who ever said that the ReBumLiCans were any better?

Exactly my point.

Reading the many posts here, one would think the repubs can solve all the problems! They are part of the problem.

 

[layoutshooter]

Exactly my point.

Reading the many posts here, one would think the repubs can solve all the problems! They are part of the problem.

I have never said different.

 

[Dakota]

Exactly my point.

Reading the many posts here, one would think the repubs can solve all the problems! They are part of the problem.

Both sides are part of the problem, one side is just slightly worse, but they are both bad.

 

[tbubster]

There we are, the undisputed facts! Never mind congress controls the purse strings.

Clinton had a republican congress.

So then I guess that means that surplus was from the republicans then and not clinton right?

 

[AMonger]

So then I guess that means that surplus was from the republicans then and not clinton right?

Jeez, I'm tired of pointing this out. This is a lot like the anthropogenic global warming issue, in that the truth is OUT THERE for everyone to see, and everyone should already know it's been debunked long ago.

(Now please pretend this is in 48-pt. font size...)

THERE WAS NO CLINTON SURPLUS. IT WAS A FRAUD AND IT NEVER EXISTED.

All that was done was the Clinton administration moved some items off-budget, which then caused them to not be counted when calculating the deficit, and what a coincidence, the amount moved off-budget was precisely the amount claimed to have been saved.

Want it in irrefutable terms?

In both years of the alleged surplus, the federal debt was LARGER than the previous year. Had there been a surplus, the federal debt would have been smaller the next year, but that never happened. Instead, the debt grew. Since it grew, that proves, ipso facto, that there was NO SURPLUS. It was an accounting sham from the beginning, and that fact was pointed out at the time.

Please read this part again:

THERE WAS NO CLINTON BUDGET SURPLUS. IT NEVER HAPPENED.

 

[witness23]

Jeez, I'm tired of pointing this out. This is a lot like the anthropogenic global warming issue, in that the truth is OUT THERE for everyone to see, and everyone should already know it's been debunked long ago.

(Now please pretend this is in 48-pt. font size...)

THERE WAS NO CLINTON SURPLUS. IT WAS A FRAUD AND IT NEVER EXISTED.

All that was done was the Clinton administration moved some items off-budget, which then caused them to not be counted when calculating the deficit, and what a coincidence, the amount moved off-budget was precisely the amount claimed to have been saved.

Want it in irrefutable terms?

In both years of the alleged surplus, the federal debt was LARGER than the previous year. Had there been a surplus, the federal debt would have been smaller the next year, but that never happened. Instead, the debt grew. Since it grew, that proves, ipso facto, that there was NO SURPLUS. It was an accounting sham from the beginning, and that fact was pointed out at the time.

Please read this part again:

THERE WAS NO CLINTON BUDGET SURPLUS. IT NEVER HAPPENED.

I am not disputing what you say, I only ask where did you do your research on this?

 

[greg334]

I am not disputing what you say, I only ask where did you do your research on this?

The GAO and the CBO both had reported that the surplus was a projection, not an actual surplus. The idea that there was or could be a surplus is highly suspect because of the way the budgeting process is done.

Baseline Budgeting Makes Real Cuts Impossible in Washington

It is like the BS line that we will default if we can't pass thie increase. We won't default on anything if congress gets their crap together and force Obama to make decisions on what to pay. We don't have to pay medicare or medicaid stuff right now, and we don't have to pay for the interest on some of the bonds and treasuries that the Federal Reserve and other domestic investors hold. We don't need to pay the military suppliers and suspend payments for the Military medical insurance programs. We could just fire 30% of the federal workforce and be alright.

 

[Turtle]

It's not unlike Obama's proposed budget "cuts" in several areas, but for USAID in particular, so that he can show a dramatic cut in their funding, but in reality it's nearly a doubling of the USAID budget. It's smoke and mirrors and creative accounting, where the bulk of the USAID budget is simply removed from the State Department's accounting ledger and is placed along with the money for Iraq war cleanup funds, which are off-budget.

 

[witness23]

We could just fire 30% of the federal workforce and be alright.

And there you have it, in a nutshell.

Now I'm not opposed to getting rid of 30% of the federal workforce, I'm against using the debt limit as the means of accomplishing it. Instead of using the debt limit debate to make this happen, just come out and say that you want to get rid of, or slash S.S., Medicare, Medicaid all at once and OWN IT! Then let the American people decide if that is what they want as well. When the elections come around then we will know what the American people think.

 

[layoutshooter]

And there you have it, in a nutshell.

Now I'm not opposed to getting rid of 30% of the federal workforce, I'm against using the debt limit as the means of accomplishing it. Instead of using the debt limit debate to make this happen, just come out and say that you want to get rid of, or slash S.S., Medicare, Medicaid all at once and OWN IT! Then let the American people decide if that is what they want as well. When the elections come around then we will know what the American people think.

Do you REALLY expect even more than a hand full of our glorious elected officials to accept responsibility for what they have done and move to fix it?

What WILL happen is they will continue to blame each other and do nothing. They are not interested in fixing this, only getting reelected.

It is our fault for electing them, and if this continues and our credit rating is dropped, it will be our if we reelect ANY of them.

Real cuts need made, entire departments need to go. 30% of the work force is not enough.

 

[witness23]

Real cuts need made, entire departments need to go. 30% of the work force is not enough.

And there you have it in a nutshell.

Unfortunately, not everyone thinks or shares in your opinion. And that's the reality of it all.

Then the name calling and mud slinging starts(I'm not talking about our representitives either), that's when the communication that needs to be had comes to a halt. It's a sad commentary.

 

[layoutshooter]

And there you have it in a nutshell.

Unfortunately, not everyone thinks or shares in your opinion. And that's the reality of it all.

Then the name calling and mud slinging starts(I'm not talking about our representitives either), that's when the communication that needs to be had comes to a halt. It's a sad commentary.

Part of the problem is that we do not REQUIRE our glorious elected officials to DO the job that they are sent to Washington to do. When they don't, we reelect them anyway.

I am going to use the Dumb-O-Crats and Obama as an example. Not that the ReBunLiCans are any better but because it is current.

Obama had solid majorities both the house and senate. They COULD have, without any problem, cut the deficit in a meaningful way AND raised the debt limit to avoid the problems while the cuts took hold. They did not. Instead they created a massive new program, Obama Care, and spent money like a drunken sailor, and did NOTHING about the debt limit. IF Obama and that congress had been honest and SERIOUS about the problem they would have NOT spent the trillions they did and would have worked on the problems instead.

As I said, the ReBumLiCans are NO different. I ONLY used that example because it is recent. We shall see if the ReBumLiCans can come through in the next day or so. I doubt that they can. They have NO intention on working on this in any meaningful way.


We all ready know that the Dumb-O-Crats have NO intention of truly working on this in any meaningful way.

 

[wimpy007]

If or when the Gov. goes into default make a list of the ones who should NOT be paid:

1. Senators & staff
2. US Reps. & staff
3. All foreign Aide
4. All so call Czars & staff

I know this is a short list, but think of the money it would save. Start your on list or add to this one, I'm sure you will be amazed at the length it will grow too. Can't forget Obama and his Cabnet and staff.

 

[Pilgrim]

How many times have we heard "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem?". This is really a more profound statement that lots of people realize. Because of the Baseline Budgeting system that the US Govt uses (which would NEVER be allowed in any kind of business), the "draconian cuts" as described by the Democrats are really just reductions in spending increases.

Several Republicans have brought up a point that the MSM refuses to emphasize: if Congress passed a spending freeze in which there would be no more money spent going forward in 2012 than is spent in 2011, the Congressional Budget Office would score that as a $9.5 TRILLION CUT. Baseline budgeting means there is about a 7% annual increase built into govt spending as far as the eye can see. If that is cut back 1% the politicians call it a "cut in spending" instead of a reduction of the increase.

Of course the liberals scream that a true spending freeze would mean that seniors, the military, police, all the critical elements of society would be left high and dry - nothing could be farther from the truth. The profligate spending machine of the Barack Hussein Obama administration has to be stopped. The only way this happens is to stop spending more than we have coming in. So far, no one in Washington save the Tea Party affiliates that are holding to their principals seems to realize this. The others - Boehner included - are only concerned with enhancing their re-election prospects in 2012.

It's about time that somebody challenged the economic incompetence of the boy president and his socialist lackeys in the democrat party. With that in mind, three cheers for Jim Johnson, Eric Cantor and the others that might stand firm for the concept that we refuse to spend not-yet- borrowed money and pass the bill to our grandchildren.

 

[greg334]

Well you know Pilgrim, the people need a good wakeup call and because reid and the dems all voted to table the house bill in the senate, we are still without any positive movement and most likely will just get an increase to "save" the country at the last minute.

This is the fault of the republicans as much as it is the dems because the republicans kept compromising on the issue when the country needed them just to present one unified plan and stick to it.

But with that said, the short fall will be less than $150B thanks to the treasury department now saying they expect more revenue.

So I say who cares what happens at this point, the dems and republicans are playing politics while ignoring the people, and the president is instigating all of it because he has to distract people from his actions. Maybe it is the pain of no SS checks or military pay we need to get rid of the old guard and move the country into a positive forward movement, because if we get the same old "in the nick of time" solution - nothing will ever change.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Well you know Pilgrim, the people need a good wakeup call and because reid and the dems all voted to table the house bill in the senate, we are still without any positive movement and most likely will just get an increase to "save" the country at the last minute.

This is the fault of the republicans as much as it is the dems because the republicans kept compromising on the issue when the country needed them just to present one unified plan and stick to it.

But with that said, the short fall will be less than $150B thanks to the treasury department now saying they expect more revenue.

So I say who cares what happens at this point, the dems and republicans are playing politics while ignoring the people, and the president is instigating all of it because he has to distract people from his actions. Maybe it is the pain of no SS checks or military pay we need to get rid of the old guard and move the country into a positive forward movement, because if we get the same old "in the nick of time" solution - nothing will ever change.

IMO, there's a certain tree that needs its natural manure, according to Thomas Jefferson.

 

[BillChaffey]

Congress\the Government will continue to spend forever.

It's not there money!

As long as nothing comes out of their pockets, there is no reason to stop spending.