Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We were running a surpluses when Clinton was president & projections were for so much continued surplus that Bush decided to "give the money back to the people with tax cuts", got rid of pay as you go, handed out prescription drugs & never vetoed a single spending bill until the Democrats took congress.
Projections are total bullshit. This country, it's currency, deficits, inflation, economy, job loss & the markets were an absolute train-wreck when Obama took over. Now deficits are falling, gold falling, dollar rising, stocks rising, employment rising, economy growing.
That is fine. Predictions are oft times incorrect. What makes you think that the national debt will not continue to grow?
Also, "give the money back" to the people who paid the taxes is pretty damn accurate statement. What is bizarre is "tax cuts add to the national debt", meaning allowing American workers to keep more of their own money is a government expenditure--that all money is essentially the government's and they just let you keep what they decide.
During "Clinton's surplus"--the result of BALANCING THE BUDGET achieved by a GOP-controlled Congress--the country still had trillions in national debt.
To your first point. No. Not really. People elected people to spend money. They weren't like "No..don't give my state that package to make submarines!" or "No..we don't want to build Airplanes'. Everyone accepted the spending. Even the famous "Bridge To nowhere". Sarah Palin didn't give that money back to the Federal government. She used it.
Secondly..well no..the GOP didn't really do much to balance the budget. They voted against most of the Clinton initiatives. Why, in fact, they impeached him. The GOP then, as now, had very little to do with balancing anything and a lot to do with making life miserable. Not only did they impeach Clinton, they shut down government several times.
Man, the 'shrooms must have been something back on the 1990s.Secondly..well no..the GOP didn't really do much to balance the budget. They voted against most of the Clinton initiatives. Why, in fact, they impeached him. The GOP then, as now, had very little to do with balancing anything and a lot to do with making life miserable. Not only did they impeach Clinton, they shut down government several times.
We were running a surpluses when Clinton was president & projections were for so much continued surplus that Bush decided to "give the money back to the people with tax cuts", got rid of pay as you go, handed out prescription drugs & never vetoed a single spending bill until the Democrats took congress.
Projections are total bullshit. This country, it's currency, deficits, inflation, economy, job loss & the markets were an absolute train-wreck when Obama took over. Now deficits are falling, gold falling, dollar rising, stocks rising, employment rising, economy growing.
That is fine. Predictions are oft times incorrect. What makes you think that the national debt will not continue to grow?
Also, "give the money back" to the people who paid the taxes is pretty damn accurate statement. What is bizarre is "tax cuts add to the national debt", meaning allowing American workers to keep more of their own money is a government expenditure--that all money is essentially the government's and they just let you keep what they decide.
During "Clinton's surplus"--the result of BALANCING THE BUDGET achieved by a GOP-controlled Congress--the country still had trillions in national debt.
To your first point. No. Not really. People elected people to spend money. They weren't like "No..don't give my state that package to make submarines!" or "No..we don't want to build Airplanes'. Everyone accepted the spending. Even the famous "Bridge To nowhere". Sarah Palin didn't give that money back to the Federal government. She used it.
Secondly..well no..the GOP didn't really do much to balance the budget. They voted against most of the Clinton initiatives. Why, in fact, they impeached him. The GOP then, as now, had very little to do with balancing anything and a lot to do with making life miserable. Not only did they impeach Clinton, they shut down government several times.
That is fine. Predictions are oft times incorrect. What makes you think that the national debt will not continue to grow?
Also, "give the money back" to the people who paid the taxes is pretty damn accurate statement. What is bizarre is "tax cuts add to the national debt", meaning allowing American workers to keep more of their own money is a government expenditure--that all money is essentially the government's and they just let you keep what they decide.
During "Clinton's surplus"--the result of BALANCING THE BUDGET achieved by a GOP-controlled Congress--the country still had trillions in national debt.
To your first point. No. Not really. People elected people to spend money. They weren't like "No..don't give my state that package to make submarines!" or "No..we don't want to build Airplanes'. Everyone accepted the spending. Even the famous "Bridge To nowhere". Sarah Palin didn't give that money back to the Federal government. She used it.
Secondly..well no..the GOP didn't really do much to balance the budget. They voted against most of the Clinton initiatives. Why, in fact, they impeached him. The GOP then, as now, had very little to do with balancing anything and a lot to do with making life miserable. Not only did they impeach Clinton, they shut down government several times.
It is called the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and yes it had everything to do with the surplus. For Christ's sake, the GOP controlled Congress, they controlled the budget--yes they had everything to do with the surplus. Do you think Clinton would have proposed welfare reform if the GOP did not control congress?
Do you have any idea how completely ignorant of history your post is?
The hell you say?
Stocks are overvalued and due for a correction of, in your opinion, nearly 1/3, yet there is no bubble?
How do you figure?
What exactly is bill trying to tell us here?
His hands spread that far apart means what exactly...
Will Hillary let us know?
Says the delusional DNC party man bootlicker.Man, the 'shrooms must have been something back on the 1990s.Secondly..well no..the GOP didn't really do much to balance the budget. They voted against most of the Clinton initiatives. Why, in fact, they impeached him. The GOP then, as now, had very little to do with balancing anything and a lot to do with making life miserable. Not only did they impeach Clinton, they shut down government several times.
Says the poster with a topless winged female holding a gun as an avatar.
You betcha!
When your argument falls flat... insult your opponents avatar. Wonderful.
When you get insulted.
Insult back.
Don't like it?
Tell your buddies to stop with the insults instead of attacking me.
You are really something else.
The hell you say?We aren't in a stock market bubble.
Stocks are over-valued, however.
I'm hoping for a 30% correction.
Stocks are overvalued and due for a correction of, in your opinion, nearly 1/3, yet there is no bubble?
How do you figure?
The hell you say?We aren't in a stock market bubble.
Stocks are over-valued, however.
I'm hoping for a 30% correction.
Stocks are overvalued and due for a correction of, in your opinion, nearly 1/3, yet there is no bubble?
How do you figure?
I didn't say the market was a third over-valued. I said I'd like to see a 30% correction.
To your first point. No. Not really. People elected people to spend money. They weren't like "No..don't give my state that package to make submarines!" or "No..we don't want to build Airplanes'. Everyone accepted the spending. Even the famous "Bridge To nowhere". Sarah Palin didn't give that money back to the Federal government. She used it.
Secondly..well no..the GOP didn't really do much to balance the budget. They voted against most of the Clinton initiatives. Why, in fact, they impeached him. The GOP then, as now, had very little to do with balancing anything and a lot to do with making life miserable. Not only did they impeach Clinton, they shut down government several times.
It is called the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and yes it had everything to do with the surplus. For Christ's sake, the GOP controlled Congress, they controlled the budget--yes they had everything to do with the surplus. Do you think Clinton would have proposed welfare reform if the GOP did not control congress?
Do you have any idea how completely ignorant of history your post is?
1. That's what the closed the government down over. It passed, but the bill initially cut payments to healthcare providers which had to be amended later on. The majority of the deficit reduction came from paygo and tax hikes.
2. Not ignorant at all. Closing down the government? Cost big. As did the impeachment.
Your slavish crediting of only Clinton for the pretend balanced budget, insults anyone with a shred of intelligence.When your argument falls flat... insult your opponents avatar. Wonderful.
When you get insulted.
Insult back.
Don't like it?
Tell your buddies to stop with the insults instead of attacking me.
You are really something else.
OK, fair enough. My misread.The hell you say?We aren't in a stock market bubble.
Stocks are over-valued, however.
I'm hoping for a 30% correction.
Stocks are overvalued and due for a correction of, in your opinion, nearly 1/3, yet there is no bubble?
How do you figure?
I didn't say the market was a third over-valued. I said I'd like to see a 30% correction.
We aren't in a stock market bubble.
Stocks are over-valued, however.
I'm hoping for a 30% correction.
We aren't in a stock market bubble.
Stocks are over-valued, however.
I'm hoping for a 30% correction.
If stocks are over valued, that blows apart the retards on here claiming Dodd-Frank hurt investing. Fund flowed out of markets until Obama was elected, then they reversed & flowed into the market because real regulation built trust in the markets again to the point of over investment. Deregulated shaddow banking destroyed faith in markets. Now it's back stronger.
And QE infinitum has had nothing to do with all that?We aren't in a stock market bubble.
Stocks are over-valued, however.
I'm hoping for a 30% correction.
If stocks are over valued, that blows apart the retards on here claiming Dodd-Frank hurt investing. Fund flowed out of markets until Obama was elected, then they reversed & flowed into the market because real regulation built trust in the markets again to the point of over investment. Deregulated shaddow banking destroyed faith in markets, the VIX was through the roof & Gold was soaring. Now it's back stronger.
Clinton... Bush... Clinton... Bush. Good-ness gracious. When Democrats took over in 2007 spending skyrocketed.
And when your argument falls flat? "The projections are bullshit."
Spending skyrocketed when Bush got in. Not only that, he gave the rich huge tax breaks which contributed to bankrupting the country. Don't forget bush would have fallen into a recession a couple times if he didn't send out that $300 stimulus check. Basically he borrowed from china, put the $300 on the debt and gave you a loan that you have to pay back with interest. Only the rich benefitted from Bush's policies. Are you rich? Didn't think so. Then you are stupid.
I'm not going to debate with people who for 8 years defended bush and never fucking once too responsibility for the mess they fucking caused. Eat a dick.
Also, if you believe in fairytales like Jesus then I guess facts don't phase you.
