Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Way to long!! We are stuck with this shit, and my son too.... getting sick of it fast..... Both sides blaming the other, when they are both doing it!Originally Posted by low drag
No, that graph is a load of crap. Reagan DID sacrifice his desired fiscal conservatism to get Tip O'Neill and company to support his fight against Communism but it was the Democrat program expansion that seriously increased the deficit. Reagan's tax RATE reductions actually increased tax revenues but Congress (which declared Reagan's proposed budget DOA every year) spent $1.86 (IIRC) for every additional dollar of tax revenue brought in.
There is no way the deficit as a %GDP would have dropped to zero in continuing the Democrat programs. Clinton's fabled surplus was nothing of the kind -- he and Newt conspired to call it that but they practiced Enron-style accounting by "borrowing" from the "Social Security Trust Fund" and counting that as income while never recording the future debt of paying back that "IOU". On the bright side, while it was nothing but a myth, they DID reduce how fast the deficit was growing.
That chart also blames Bush the Younger for the vast increase in spending pushed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid after the 2006 elections when they took control of both houses of Congress. GWB unfortunately had the same lesson Reagan did: they had to accept Dem spending increases to avoid what they thought would be greater evils. Personally, I wish both had pulled a Clinton and shut down the government until Congress gave them responsible authorization and spending bills.
The original graph is false as Snopes reveals in its usual partisan way. There was no 3 trillion surplus when G.W. Bush came to office. That's ridiculous. In fact, there was no surplus at all when he entered office as Clinton's last budget FY 2000 was not projected to be in surplus.
Sayonara
No, that graph is false. Just as one example, it blamed FY 09 on G.W. Bush when Congress did not pass the FY 09 budget until four months late, for Obama to sign after inauguration in Jan 09 and then Obama subsequently added hundreds of billions to its deficit with his faux "stimulus" bill.
That graph is a fraud.
Sayonara
Sweet mercy, there was no surplus when G. Ddub junior came into office his first term. The number Clinton and the Dem's were spouting to the public were "projected numbers" that everyone took as fact. Once Dubya was in there was no surplus at all, and the debt started accumulating due to the major funding we NEEDED for our Military... and yes, stupid pork barrel spending as well. Did everyone forget that little piece of awesome? The over 1/3rd our military shrunk by? The credit card bubble that was created during the 90's when EVERYONE was allowed to get an insane credit limit, even if you didn't have a dollar to your name?
I know both parties are to blame for their own crap, but goodness, quit talking about this imaginary surplus that never existed in the first place.
Whenever my wife asks me why I never wear pants around the house I simply remind her:
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” - Winston Churchill
The truth wears NO pants!
Budget surplus, not debt surplus.
Sure its all Tip O'Neill's fault... Quit looking at the world with rose colored lenses. Reagan was not the conservative saint he is portrayed as today. In fact if he was alive now, he would be branded as California left-winger by many people here.
I have a question about the calculations during President Shrub and the Bummer. When we started our imperial wars I understand they were not in the budget. They were emergency that came off budget to make the picture look better. It's a loathsome way of accounting and I believe Bummer followed Bush the Lesser's methods. Does this turn up in these figures?
Steve
In 2009 they were officially were accounted for.
Attachment 14823
This is based on misrepresentations made by the Democrats. The Iraq and Afghanistan operations were not included in the budget but rather funded by supplemental appropriations. Their costs were included in the deficit figures. By not including the operations in the budget, their costs were not considered "baseline" spending. And so not baked into the future Federal budget projections that are run out to 10 years. But the costs were not hidden in any way. They were always "accounted for".
When Obama heralded putting the operations into the budget, that just meant that when those operations ended as intended, that he'd claim that the disappearance of the spending was a "budget reduction". Which it plainly wasn't.
Note that since the Democrats have failed to actually pass a budget since FY 2009, as an intentional political strategem, they have not had to produce a document with that 10 year projection at all. And avoiding the responsibility of the required statutory 10 year budgeting provisions of Federal law is the purpose of not passing a budget. Pretending that including the war operations in the base budget was a virtue and then not producing a budget really puts paid to the fiction of Democrats being more fiscal responsible.
Sayonara
Yeh.. everything is someone else's fault. Nobody ever seems to take responsibility in this country.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote