Author Topic: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats  (Read 14846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Headinjun

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #150 on: April 24, 2014, 10:08:06 PM »


Now post a chart listing what party controlled Congress during those years.  You know Congress, aka the guardians of the nations purse strings.

Sadly, during the Clinton years, while the mythical "surplus" was being run, the national debt increased every single year.

But we've had this discussion before, and the billions in IOU's that went into the "lockboxes" that were used to create the "surplus" are immaterial to some on here.   Even leading Democrats were saying the "surplus" was a mirage.

We never got to see if the surplus thing could play out because once Jan. 01 came it was game on to get the donors paid back. Oil, defense, pharma, new civilian security hacks, and a buncha supply agencies and weapons makers.  Nobody gave an eff about deficits because  many thought the money would just fall out of the sky with supply side prayers.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #151 on: April 24, 2014, 10:22:59 PM »
Top marginal tax breaks didn't happen until 2003 and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think something catastrophic happened in 2001.

Dems have a spectacular dedication to the theory if you say something enough it becomes true. Sociopathic.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #152 on: April 24, 2014, 10:47:29 PM »
In the face of actual data, deny!  Supply side doesn't work! 

goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53340
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #153 on: April 25, 2014, 11:49:25 AM »


Now post a chart listing what party controlled Congress during those years.  You know Congress, aka the guardians of the nations purse strings.

Sadly, during the Clinton years, while the mythical "surplus" was being run, the national debt increased every single year.

But we've had this discussion before, and the billions in IOU's that went into the "lockboxes" that were used to create the "surplus" are immaterial to some on here.   Even leading Democrats were saying the "surplus" was a mirage.

We never got to see if the surplus thing could play out because once Jan. 01 came it was game on to get the donors paid back. Oil, defense, pharma, new civilian security hacks, and a buncha supply agencies and weapons makers.  Nobody gave an eff about deficits because  many thought the money would just fall out of the sky with supply side prayers.

You can't have a surplus, if you're technically still having to borrow money to meet the budget.  Every year the so called "surplus" occurred, the United States complied additional National Debt.   Much of that was in the form of inter-governmental borrowing, that resulted in billions of dollars in IOU's being thrown into the various "lockboxes".  IOU's that at some point have to be paid back and allow for no margin of error in the face of any economic downturn,  and really would have meant one thing in order to maintain in semblance of a faux surplus . . . significant Federal Tax Increases.

In looking at congressional composition, it's amazing how the explosion Federal Budget deficits and all time record annual national debt increases occurred under this administration with a Democratically dominated Congress.   Really even before that, as the House had a substantial Dem majority in 2007 and the Senate was split right down the middle 49/49 with 2 independents.   But the "independents" caucused with the Democrats.   

But, those are facts that will never make an indention on resident progressive libs.








Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #154 on: April 25, 2014, 01:55:01 PM »
The denial never ends, does it? 

Sad really.

 :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53340
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #155 on: April 25, 2014, 03:07:45 PM »
The denial never ends, does it? 

Sad really.

 :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:

Facts aren't denial.  We've been through this before, you spew forth the same old rhetoric, and it's fascinating that  you post a graph that ends in 2006.  The make-up of Congress is factual reality as well, as is the known political leanings of so called "independents". 

"So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000
."  Democratic Senator Earnest Hollings 10/28/1999 U.S. Senate General Sesssion


Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #156 on: April 26, 2014, 12:24:40 PM »
The facts are on my side, butthurt boy:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/



Quote
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.



Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53340
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #157 on: April 27, 2014, 02:39:31 PM »
I'll take the directly sourced words from a Senator on the floor of the U.S. Senate (A Democrat no less) over the non sourced words that likely came from a partisan website who just wants to continue to perpetuate the myth. 

You can't run a surplus, if you're increasing the debt on an annual basis at the same time.  The national debt increased every single year Bill Clinton was in office.   Admittedly in FY 2000, the national debt only increased $18 billion year over year.

In FY 2000 Intra-Governmental debt increased $248 billion dollars, as in $248 billion dollars worth of IOU's were tossed into the various lockboxes.  By the same token, the public debt side of the total national debt decreased $230 million dollars in FY 2000.   

From Federal Fiscal Year 1998 to Federal Fiscal Year 2001.   The Federal Gov't threw around $842 billion dollars worth of IOU's into the various lockboxes and the U.S. gov't ended that period with a net increase to the national debt of about $392 Billion, after retiring $450 billion dollars of the public side of the national debt.   So, despite all those "surplus" years, at the end of Federal FY 2001, the people of the United States were on the hook for an additional $392 billion in debt obligations.  Yet, somehow Democrat propagandist still want us to believe the Federal Gov't ran a surplus.  Only in the Federal government can borrowing be called revenue.
















« Last Edit: April 27, 2014, 02:43:36 PM by sonofdaxjones »

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #158 on: April 27, 2014, 03:40:03 PM »
www.factcheck.org, or the hysterical ramblings of a right wing hack?   

Hmmmm... tough decision!

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53340
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #159 on: April 27, 2014, 06:40:51 PM »
LOL, factcheck.   :ROFL:

Fiscal Year End National Debt Total:
 1996: 5.224 Trillion
 1997: 5.413 Trillion 
 1998: 5.526 Trillion 
 1999: 5.656 Trillion 
 2000: 5.674 Trillion
 2001: 5.807 Trillion

Souce:  U.S. Treasury Department








Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #160 on: April 27, 2014, 06:56:10 PM »
I think the lesson learner here is that GWB should have budgeted for deficit spending and then spent slightly less so he could show a "surplus", like the misogynist in chief.

Also, lol at factcheck.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Headinjun

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #161 on: April 27, 2014, 08:47:21 PM »
I'll take the directly sourced words from a Senator on the floor of the U.S. Senate (A Democrat no less) over the non sourced words that likely came from a partisan website who just wants to continue to perpetuate the myth. 

You can't run a surplus, if you're increasing the debt on an annual basis at the same time.  The national debt increased every single year Bill Clinton was in office.   Admittedly in FY 2000, the national debt only increased $18 billion year over year.

In FY 2000 Intra-Governmental debt increased $248 billion dollars, as in $248 billion dollars worth of IOU's were tossed into the various lockboxes.  By the same token, the public debt side of the total national debt decreased $230 million dollars in FY 2000.   

From Federal Fiscal Year 1998 to Federal Fiscal Year 2001.   The Federal Gov't threw around $842 billion dollars worth of IOU's into the various lockboxes and the U.S. gov't ended that period with a net increase to the national debt of about $392 Billion, after retiring $450 billion dollars of the public side of the national debt.   So, despite all those "surplus" years, at the end of Federal FY 2001, the people of the United States were on the hook for an additional $392 billion in debt obligations.  Yet, somehow Democrat propagandist still want us to believe the Federal Gov't ran a surplus.  Only in the Federal government can borrowing be called revenue.

We,know,who controlled congress when the budget busters below were implemented .

-two Middle East occupations.
-Medicare prescription drug benefit
- over 100% increase in pentagon spending
-new homeland security dept.

These things are still with us and Republicans have never ever wanted to raise a dime to pay for it.

Your ilk is lousy at managing and governing. 

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #162 on: April 27, 2014, 09:48:54 PM »
What is a list of thing Democrats voted for, Alex?
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #163 on: April 27, 2014, 09:54:30 PM »
If there's anything that came away from this thread, it's definitely that beems proved himself as an independent. :lol:

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53340
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #164 on: April 27, 2014, 10:57:25 PM »
I'll take the directly sourced words from a Senator on the floor of the U.S. Senate (A Democrat no less) over the non sourced words that likely came from a partisan website who just wants to continue to perpetuate the myth. 

You can't run a surplus, if you're increasing the debt on an annual basis at the same time.  The national debt increased every single year Bill Clinton was in office.   Admittedly in FY 2000, the national debt only increased $18 billion year over year.

In FY 2000 Intra-Governmental debt increased $248 billion dollars, as in $248 billion dollars worth of IOU's were tossed into the various lockboxes.  By the same token, the public debt side of the total national debt decreased $230 million dollars in FY 2000.   

From Federal Fiscal Year 1998 to Federal Fiscal Year 2001.   The Federal Gov't threw around $842 billion dollars worth of IOU's into the various lockboxes and the U.S. gov't ended that period with a net increase to the national debt of about $392 Billion, after retiring $450 billion dollars of the public side of the national debt.   So, despite all those "surplus" years, at the end of Federal FY 2001, the people of the United States were on the hook for an additional $392 billion in debt obligations.  Yet, somehow Democrat propagandist still want us to believe the Federal Gov't ran a surplus.  Only in the Federal government can borrowing be called revenue.

We,know,who controlled congress when the budget busters below were implemented .

-two Middle East occupations.
-Medicare prescription drug benefit
- over 100% increase in pentagon spending
-new homeland security dept.

These things are still with us and Republicans have never ever wanted to raise a dime to pay for it.

Your ilk is lousy at managing and governing.

Who said they were my ilk.  I just enjoy tweaking progressives who attempt to obfuscate and lay blame elsewhere when they're in charge and everything is going even farther into the shitter at a more rapid rate. 

Who has embraced DHS, the CIA and the NSA with extreme zeal since taking office in 2008?  Who has given the CIA a perpetual hall pass since 2008?   Which has culminated in the destabilization of multiple countries, has killed 1000's of people, created hundreds of thousands of refugee's and has potentially made Al Queda or Al-CIAda stronger than ever?   Who has defended the so called draconian measures of the previous administration in court with such a fervor, even former leaders of the East German Stasi look upon in awe?   Which administration has embraced and propagates the concept of indefinite detention?   Which administration has the New York Times and the Associated Press calling it the most closed, most secretive and least transparent administration in modern American presidential history? 

Which administration is pointing their finger with pride at a relatively anemic "recovery" only brought about by the constant pumping of the Fed, while overseeing the lowest workforce participation rate since they began compiling that statistic . . . now halfway through a 2nd term?  Thus artificially lowering the unemployment rate.   Which administration thanks the flying spaghetti monster every day that commodities like food and fuel aren't factored into the inflation rate?    Who has U.S. corporations so scared that they continually stockpile cash offshore?   Which administration breaks its own rules repeatedly when it comes to amending what will likely be the single most catastrophic piece of legislation in American history?   Which administration has significant portions of the constituency that they supposedly championed now saying that the current administration has pretty much failed them in every conceivable fashion?   Only coming back around when its time to open up the voting booths.   

And on, and on, and on, and on.

The Democratic party:  It's always somebody else's fault when we're in charge.


Offline Headinjun

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #165 on: April 27, 2014, 11:28:04 PM »
You won't get an argument out of me because I think democrats are basically just lousy republicans on the corporates take.

Sounds to me tough that republicans act irresponsible and then blame everybody else. Those things I listed are still with us and are rooted in republican legislation. That's a fact.

Sorry if I mistaken you for a lousy republican, but you come off as a huge winger for everything anti-liberal.

Offline Headinjun

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #166 on: April 27, 2014, 11:31:37 PM »
What is a list of thing Democrats voted for, Alex?

So. Who wrote it, who signed it?

I don't care if the Dems did or not because I've washed my hands of them.

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #167 on: April 28, 2014, 01:35:01 PM »
If there's anything that came away from this thread, it's definitely that beems proved himself as an independent. :lol:


Independents typically lean one way or the other.  Clinton was a moderate Democrat who balanced the budget and didn't get us into war.  I'll take that kind of President any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53340
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #168 on: April 28, 2014, 05:54:15 PM »
If there's anything that came away from this thread, it's definitely that beems proved himself as an independent. :lol:


Independents typically lean one way or the other.  Clinton was a moderate Democrat who balanced the budget and didn't get us into war.  I'll take that kind of President any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I don't disagree with you entirely.  But as long as the gov't is allowed to the kind of accounting that they do (that you and I, and everybody else in America can't do) than there's going to be fun and games with the budget, and surpluses and deficits.   Some people try to claim that inter-governmental borrowing is not debt.   Well, unless they change the legislation on that, it is absolutely debt, and by law must be paid back. 

But you can't say Clinton kept us out of wars, because he bombed a sovereign nation for nearly 80 days with no congressional approval, no UN mandate and in violation of the NATO charter.   Today, we pay a price for that action in numerous ways, and the memory of that situation has never left the mind of people like Putin. 






Offline Ghost of Stan Parrish

  • I found my password
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1815
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #169 on: April 29, 2014, 11:07:48 AM »

But you can't say Clinton kept us out of wars, because he bombed a sovereign nation for nearly 80 days with no congressional approval, no UN mandate and in violation of the NATO charter.   Today, we pay a price for that action in numerous ways, and the memory of that situation has never left the mind of people like Putin.

Are you saying NATO shouldn't have bombed Serbia and Milosevic?   :sdeek:

And if so, is it your position that nations should only ever move beyond economic sanctions and diplomacy when there's a UN madate?
« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 11:23:29 AM by Ghost of Stan Parrish »
"I'm thankful our MHK forefathers had the foresight to lynch white dudes so that we might be able to throw up the mob with a clear conscience."

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #170 on: April 29, 2014, 11:27:21 AM »

But you can't say Clinton kept us out of wars, because he bombed a sovereign nation for nearly 80 days with no congressional approval, no UN mandate and in violation of the NATO charter.   Today, we pay a price for that action in numerous ways, and the memory of that situation has never left the mind of people like Putin.

Are you saying NATO shouldn't have bombed Serbia and Milosevic?   :sdeek:

And if so, is it your position that nations should only ever move beyond economic sanctions and diplomacy when there's a UN madate?

Isn't this the current foreign policy?

Offline Ghost of Stan Parrish

  • I found my password
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1815
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #171 on: April 29, 2014, 11:53:13 AM »

But you can't say Clinton kept us out of wars, because he bombed a sovereign nation for nearly 80 days with no congressional approval, no UN mandate and in violation of the NATO charter.   Today, we pay a price for that action in numerous ways, and the memory of that situation has never left the mind of people like Putin.

Are you saying NATO shouldn't have bombed Serbia and Milosevic?   :sdeek:

And if so, is it your position that nations should only ever move beyond economic sanctions and diplomacy when there's a UN madate?

Isn't this the current foreign policy?

Is dax Obama?!   :sdeek:
"I'm thankful our MHK forefathers had the foresight to lynch white dudes so that we might be able to throw up the mob with a clear conscience."

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #172 on: April 30, 2014, 09:17:32 PM »
1Q GDP came screaming in at 0.1% today, for those keeping score on the "recovery".

Dem on msnbc said it's because GDP is racist.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 21455
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #173 on: April 30, 2014, 09:20:10 PM »
1Q GDP came screaming in at 0.1% today, for those keeping score on the "recovery".

Dem on msnbc said it's because GDP is racist.

God Damn Protestants.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Things that non-'crats love about 'crats
« Reply #174 on: April 30, 2014, 11:15:47 PM »
1Q GDP came screaming in at 0.1% today, for those keeping score on the "recovery".

Dem on msnbc said it's because GDP is racist.

I heard it was because of the weather.