Advertisement

Scott Stantis for January 28, 2010

  1. Missing large
    Carolo1  almost 12 years ago

    AS DICK CHENNY SAID , RAGAN PROVED DEFICITS DON”T MATTER

     •  Reply
  2. Reagan ears
    d_legendary1  almost 12 years ago

    <========Yes. Because its money that comes out of the people, not me.

     •  Reply
  3. Image013
    believecommonsense  almost 12 years ago

    Reagan increased the deficit substantially. On the other hand, Clinton grew the economy, had a program of deficit reduction (which angered Dems on the most left of the spectrum), got rid of the deficit and left a surplus. Say what you will about his personal character (and that’s much not to like), his determination to reduce the deficit was successful.

    Cheney lied, deficits DO matter, just not in polls. They catch up to the economy eventually and other presidents have to find a way to reduce deficits. Thanks goodness Clinton did.

     •  Reply
  4. Image013
    believecommonsense  almost 12 years ago

    Howie, no that is not correct. Clinton spent his very first year trying to get a new economic plan passed that included deficit reduction. He gave up his pledge to enact a middle class tax cut. He expended a lot of political capital holding the Dems together in the process because his plan was mid-center in nature.

    In his second year, he said he would he would enact budget plans to eliminate the deficit by the time he left office. He did it and it wasn’t easy. The GOP hated him for his success and shut the government down twice in one year. Remember that? In fact, the GOPers in the Senate parted company with Newt and the House over newt’s outrageous tactics.

    Did you know in 1996 Gingrich said he was devoted to making Medicare “wither on the vine?”

     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    Redeemd  almost 12 years ago

    Good grief, everyone wants “their” party to get credit for the 90’s surplus.

    Truth is, it had everything to do with the tech boom and next to nothing to do with politics. So we had a surplus, the government still grew substantially during that time period. And when the bubble burst, did government shrink back down? Yeah, right!

     •  Reply
  6. Image013
    believecommonsense  almost 12 years ago

    ^ I disagree. It is a fact that Clinton came to office as a “new” “moderate” Democrat with the intent to reduce the deficit. Clinton was not the original choice of his party base because he was considered too conservative. His policies and budgets did help achieve deficit reduction. The economic boom helped too and left us with a surplus. The tech bubble burst and we entered a recession in early 2001.

     •  Reply
  7. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  almost 12 years ago

    The simple fact is that “discretionary” spending is such a small part of the budget, especially as BOTH parties insist “defense” is even more protected than “entitlement” programs, freezing or “managing” fiscal responsibility is a myth.

     •  Reply
  8. Image013
    believecommonsense  almost 12 years ago

    No, he didn’t pass one of the largest tax hikes in history. That’s not factual. And truth is, it will take some tax hikes eventually to ever have chance of paying down debt and deficit. Everytime a Rep president gives tax cuts (usually mostly for wealthy) the deficit goes up, as it did under Reagan and Bush 43. Bush 41 raised taxes specifically to reduce deficit. We can’t have it both ways as a country. Reagan reduced taxes and I agree with some of it. Taxes on the wealthiest were too high (around 70% I think, but not sure).

    There is no lack of agreement on who shut down the government. it was the Reps. When a budget wasn’t passed on time, congress passes a CO (continuing resolution) to keep govt functioning as budget negotiations continue. Newt Gingrich and the GOP in the House passed a CR that cut off funding for Medicare and Medicaid. (That’s when Gingrich made his statement about wanting medicare to “wither on the vine” when the GOP tried to privatize medicare.) Clinton vetoed that CR. The Senate GOP started letting Gingrich know they didn’t want to play the game anymore and the pressure from constituents made GOPers start peeling off and start negotiating in earnest.

    And don’t forget Gingrich saying he shutdown government because he didn’t get enough personal attention on Air Force One while en route to Rabin’s funeral.

    http://tinyurl.com/GingrichPique

     •  Reply
  9. Exploding human fat bombs hedge 060110
    Charles Brobst Premium Member almost 12 years ago

    The vast bulk of the deficit was created by Bush. Let him pay it. Take it out of the NRC.

     •  Reply
  10. Bar hopper
    my48pan2  almost 12 years ago

    Cabrobst, boy you sure have a hate on for “W”. Did he kick your bleeep in college or something. If you look at what has coused most of the problems we are deaking with right now it goes right back to the left leaning congress. Nancy and her buddies really know how to party.

     •  Reply
  11. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  almost 12 years ago

    Just read the simple numbers on the debt- Most of it accumulated under Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43- it’s just like math, or a checking account run by an idiot.

    Maximum fed tax rate under Eisenhower was 93%, under Bush 35% proposed 3% increase has the wealthy in a dither, absurd, as Warren Buffet, Gates Sr, and many others have pointed out. BTW maximum tax rate, given the number of exemptions allowed for wealth, or corporations, makes even that “maximum” WAY HIGHER than they actually PAY. As Buffett again points out repeatedly.

     •  Reply
  12. Wombat wideweb  470x276 0
    4uk4ata  almost 12 years ago

    “Sorry BCS–he passed one of the largest tax hikes”

    Howgozit, I imagine that’s one of the reasons that the deficit was reduced. In most cases, higher taxes lead to higher tax income.

    As for “largest tax hike,” how is that measured anyway? Clinton’s tax increase didn’t bring the top income taxes anywhere close to what they were pre-1981. The maximum went from 31 to 39% - is that really the largest tax hike in US history? I think the 1982 might be larger, actually, both in inflation-adjusted dollars and percentage of the GDP.

     •  Reply
  13. Image013
    believecommonsense  almost 12 years ago

    scott, no, I haven’t flagged you since you returned. When you first returned, your posts were reasonable and informative and I read them. I don’t now unless I spot my initials.

     •  Reply
  14. Marx lennon
    charliekane  almost 12 years ago

    Who’s fiscally conservative. I’ll draw ya’ a picture:

    http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

    Scottie talkin’ ‘bout war ‘n stuff?

    Think I found a clip of Scottie talkin’ ‘bout war. Waddaya think?:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7GBwO3_czc&feature=fvw

     •  Reply
  15. Reagan ears
    d_legendary1  almost 12 years ago

    ^I don’t know about that Bruce. She would still advocate for Nafta and Gaat, though I do agree that she would take names and kick butt.

     •  Reply
  16. Wombat wideweb  470x276 0
    4uk4ata  almost 12 years ago

    @ Bruce: Obama has iirc taken quite a few Clinton people in his administration. I doubt the difference would be that big once you get past what actually depends on the president himself.

     •  Reply
  17. Missing large
    Magnaut  almost 12 years ago

    REGARDLESS OF WHO STARTED THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL THE CURRENT CREW ARE DEFINITELY MAKING SURE IT CONTINUES

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Scott Stantis

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement