Killer Joe
New member
Some would have you believe that those years were the worst in history. Not even the Bush administration can hold that title, Hoover's years were pretty bad or whoever let the Great Depression happen. 
Clinton, not winning the DNC nomination
- Thread starter Killer Joe
- Start date
B
Budget Player Cadet
Guest
Me liberal, you conservative! Me smash you with budgetary death in congress, but you parry with religion and fear! Liberal angry, goes and hugs more trees!
That's why I said "or so", 'cause I wasn't sure.
I thought there was a budget surplus in the last two or three years of Clinton's administration. Or least a balanced budget (where surpluses from whatever preceding years, '97-'99? ate away at the deficit until there was an overall surplus).
I thought there was a budget surplus in the last two or three years of Clinton's administration. Or least a balanced budget (where surpluses from whatever preceding years, '97-'99? ate away at the deficit until there was an overall surplus).
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Maybe this chart will help. See how spending starts to out strip GDP growth.....
PHP:
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Total spending 1381.6 1409.5 1461.9 1515.9 1560.6 1601.3 1652.7 1702
GDP 6239.9 6575.5 6961.3 7325.8 7694.1 8182.4 8627.9 9125.3
% change from previous year
Total spending 2.02% 3.72% 3.69% 2.95% 2.61% 3.21% 2.98%
GDP 5.38% 5.87% 5.24% 5.03% 6.35% 5.44% 5.77%
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Total spending 1789.2 1863.2 2011.2 2160.1 2293 2472.2 2655.4 2730.2
GDP 9709.8 10057.9 10377.4 10808.6 11499.9 12237.9 13015.5 13667.5
% change from previous year
Total spending 5.12% 4.14% 7.94% 7.40% 6.15% 7.82% 7.41% 2.82%
GDP 6.41% 3.59% 3.18% 4.16% 6.40% 6.42% 6.35% 5.01%Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
GDP is not Government Revenue, it just shows government spending and Gross Domestic Product (or how the economy is growing/shrinking)
Until 2000, GDP was growing faster than the Fed spending.... so the US could "afford" what it spent.... after 2000, the Fed started spending more and more, the economy could not keep up with it.......
The Bush tax "cuts", were really just tax rate cuts, since revenue went up, so it was a shifting of the tax burden from "these" sectors to "those" sectors of the tax base.
Until 2000, GDP was growing faster than the Fed spending.... so the US could "afford" what it spent.... after 2000, the Fed started spending more and more, the economy could not keep up with it.......
The Bush tax "cuts", were really just tax rate cuts, since revenue went up, so it was a shifting of the tax burden from "these" sectors to "those" sectors of the tax base.
B
Budget Player Cadet
Guest
And that's what I hated. I mean, who can afford to pay? The people he gave the largest cut to! I really hated that. My family got zilch.
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
The point is that if Tax revenues don't change any more than GDP, then there is no tax cut, since the money is coming from somewhere, it's a rate cut, with increases somewhere else. Quantify who is paying more all you like, but at least study a little economics before making broad sweeping statements.....
BTW - My taxes went up in the last 6 years and I am middle class..... hmmmmmm..... makes you think.......
BTW - My taxes went up in the last 6 years and I am middle class..... hmmmmmm..... makes you think.......
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Just to chime in. The fact is still that the top 5% of the social class still fund 90% of government (mainly in tax dollars). Just figured I would put that out there.
I just got a boost from the lower middle class to the Upper Middle class in income (I think) and am having to plan my taxes very carefully in order not to be caught with my pants down and my (insert body part here) in the fire.
Refund?...yeah, my days of that are well over.
I just got a boost from the lower middle class to the Upper Middle class in income (I think) and am having to plan my taxes very carefully in order not to be caught with my pants down and my (insert body part here) in the fire.
Refund?...yeah, my days of that are well over.
Killer Joe
New member
Well, it serves Clinton right to be picked on by her own (former) media courters. Why? I don't know but I guess as an avid watcher of MSNBC (now OMSNBC) I shouldn't ask "why".
She came out mentioning the whole SNL skit (Barack do you need a pillow) and that WAS bad (but true). I don't think OMSNBC has to defend their reasoning either for backing Barack (why bother?).
I think that if Clinton wasn't good enough to run for the DNC candidate for President then no woman is,.....ever. This was the one chance America had. But that's never been my reasoning for being a Clinton supporter, I liked her BECAUSE of her experience, being a seasoned Washington insider and her "bxtchy" personality, in other words TOUGH!
So I'm going for the only other candidate that fits my taste and that's McCain. Changing my status to "Independent" is nearly a foregone conclusion for me now since my party has let me down. McCain is going to need all the help he can get and hopefully there will be Democratic fools who like that RALPH is running again (especially in Ohio and Florida).
Go Johnny! ...and hopefully Rudy at his side
She came out mentioning the whole SNL skit (Barack do you need a pillow) and that WAS bad (but true). I don't think OMSNBC has to defend their reasoning either for backing Barack (why bother?).
I think that if Clinton wasn't good enough to run for the DNC candidate for President then no woman is,.....ever. This was the one chance America had. But that's never been my reasoning for being a Clinton supporter, I liked her BECAUSE of her experience, being a seasoned Washington insider and her "bxtchy" personality, in other words TOUGH!
So I'm going for the only other candidate that fits my taste and that's McCain. Changing my status to "Independent" is nearly a foregone conclusion for me now since my party has let me down. McCain is going to need all the help he can get and hopefully there will be Democratic fools who like that RALPH is running again (especially in Ohio and Florida).
Go Johnny! ...and hopefully Rudy at his side
E
EricBess
Guest
Yeah, Upper Deck gave me a hard time when I declared 11 exemptions though. According to the charts, I should have been declaring 15.Spiderman said:
Killer Joe
New member
Does anyone else think this is true? She has been around a long time so there's more to 'pick on' and her mentioning the SNL skit during the debate was pretty 'lame' though I believe somewhat true.
It's been reported that Bill Clinton called Tina Fey after the skit was aired and thanked her for speaking on behalf of Hillary. Not sure what to think of that.
I do wonder why some media folks like Jon Alter (sp?) are asking for Clinton to withdraw from the race before next Tuesday, I mean, does it really matter whether or nor she quits now or waits a week or so to quit? What difference does it make. I've heard it's neigh impossible for her to catch up in delegates now even if she does win Texas and Ohio (even by 70%).
It's been reported that Bill Clinton called Tina Fey after the skit was aired and thanked her for speaking on behalf of Hillary. Not sure what to think of that.
I do wonder why some media folks like Jon Alter (sp?) are asking for Clinton to withdraw from the race before next Tuesday, I mean, does it really matter whether or nor she quits now or waits a week or so to quit? What difference does it make. I've heard it's neigh impossible for her to catch up in delegates now even if she does win Texas and Ohio (even by 70%).
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Well Well Well.... (Deep subject.....)
The times they are a changing......... looks like neither of them are gonna get the delegates before the convention. Then the super delegates are going to decide, and I find nothing wrong with that. They set this up just for this reason, if the states can't come to a clear decision then it's up to the tie-breaking super delegates. What else is there to do? Throw them both out???? Well, may not be that bad, if they could have a quick vote in all states for just these two and see who gets the majority...
But my $10 is starting to look like a politicians promise....... I thought Clinton all but lost Texas and that would have been it..... right?
My state is coming up soon and I'm sure the two of them will be hounding everyone that signed up as a Democrat.... (independents like me are left out of the party nomination process here)
I a finally proud that I didn't choose one of those two parties..... hehehehe
The times they are a changing......... looks like neither of them are gonna get the delegates before the convention. Then the super delegates are going to decide, and I find nothing wrong with that. They set this up just for this reason, if the states can't come to a clear decision then it's up to the tie-breaking super delegates. What else is there to do? Throw them both out???? Well, may not be that bad, if they could have a quick vote in all states for just these two and see who gets the majority...
But my $10 is starting to look like a politicians promise....... I thought Clinton all but lost Texas and that would have been it..... right?
My state is coming up soon and I'm sure the two of them will be hounding everyone that signed up as a Democrat.... (independents like me are left out of the party nomination process here)
I a finally proud that I didn't choose one of those two parties..... hehehehe
Killer Joe
New member
She wins the "big" states and he wins lots of 'little' states, what a mess.
If Clinton starts to whine about Michigan and Florida voting again then she looks like a sore loser (maybe she is) but then that's not fair for Bahama-Bhama (aka Barack-Star). I think every democrat has pretty much made thier minds about who they're voting for so it just comes down to who's going to go to the polls and vote.
As for the "General Election" it seems that theorhectical match ups have already been done:
McCain v. Clinton: McCain wins
McCain v. Obama: McCain wins (really close though)
The thing that I can see getting in John McCain's way would be the so-called "Latte" voters, the intellects of that 21 - 35 age group. If they rally around either of the democrats in the general then it could mean a democrat in the White House (bad news for Republicans). Some conservative talking heads aren't helping anything by making snarky remarks about how STUPID young people are, and even if that was true I wouldn't be trying tick them off by calling them names or characterizing them in that light.
If Clinton starts to whine about Michigan and Florida voting again then she looks like a sore loser (maybe she is) but then that's not fair for Bahama-Bhama (aka Barack-Star). I think every democrat has pretty much made thier minds about who they're voting for so it just comes down to who's going to go to the polls and vote.
As for the "General Election" it seems that theorhectical match ups have already been done:
McCain v. Clinton: McCain wins
McCain v. Obama: McCain wins (really close though)
The thing that I can see getting in John McCain's way would be the so-called "Latte" voters, the intellects of that 21 - 35 age group. If they rally around either of the democrats in the general then it could mean a democrat in the White House (bad news for Republicans). Some conservative talking heads aren't helping anything by making snarky remarks about how STUPID young people are, and even if that was true I wouldn't be trying tick them off by calling them names or characterizing them in that light.
Kinda off-topic, but there was a cool article in the Washington Post from Tuesday that mentioned the "good ol days" of multiple voting in the Conventions back in the day. The most (in)famous was the 1924 Convention, where the Democrats went 103 ballots!
I'd link it, but you need to be registered at their website to view it and I figured it wasn't THAT important to read. But if you want, I'll still link it
I'd link it, but you need to be registered at their website to view it and I figured it wasn't THAT important to read. But if you want, I'll still link it
turgy22
Nothing Special
Wrong you are, my friend. For I am a registered Democrat, yet I have no idea who to vote for. I already know that in the presidential election, I'm going to vote for McCain, regardless of the Democratic candidate. But on the other hand, this is the first time in my lifetime that Pennsylvania has actually mattered in a presidential primary, so I feel like I should vote and I will. But I really don't know who to vote for. If anyone feels strongly one way or the other, I'd appreciate some input and reasons why one candidate is better than the other.Killer Joe said:
Killer Joe
New member
Well, it was just my observation about democrats and their already made up minds. I probably shouldn't 'generalize', my bad.
I like Clinton for some of the same reasons I like McCain; experience and security. I think McCain is probably better to deal with security than Clinton but (again, in my opinion) I think Clinton would be able handle security and foriegn relations way better than Obama.
New subject: I really like that McCain is the RNC's guy, I think he's what they used to be called: a Liberal Republican. But of course that's an oxymoron lable these days (too bad, too, I think there ought to be more like him in that party).
I like Clinton for some of the same reasons I like McCain; experience and security. I think McCain is probably better to deal with security than Clinton but (again, in my opinion) I think Clinton would be able handle security and foriegn relations way better than Obama.
New subject: I really like that McCain is the RNC's guy, I think he's what they used to be called: a Liberal Republican. But of course that's an oxymoron lable these days (too bad, too, I think there ought to be more like him in that party).