Democrats have become the republicans they despised who supported everything Bush did.

[jtssrx]

with everything that's gone on over the last eight years and the truth that's been posted about Clinton on Wikileaks's how can democrats turn a blind eye?? Well they have, and remember these are the same people that called for Bush to be jailed just eight years ago and turn a blind eye to the same behavior by Obama and Clinton 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Gotta admit there are some startling similarities. The moral high ground can be claimed by no one. That is sad for all voters. 

[Kivalo]

And yet Congress has an 11% approval rating and a 90%ish re-election rate.

 

 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

13 minutes ago, Kivalo said:

And yet Congress has an 11% approval rating and a 90%ish re-election rate.

 

 

When you first posted that... I said no fucking way. Googled it. We are fucked. 

[Edmo]

1 hour ago, Kivalo said:

And yet Congress has an 11% approval rating and a 90%ish re-election rate.

 

 

And soon we're going to be stuck with the most corrupt leader ever. We've lost our freaking marbles.

[spin_dry]

1 hour ago, Edmo said:

And soon we're going to be stuck with the most corrupt leader ever. We've lost our freaking marbles.

umm, reagan is dead. 

[Ez ryder]

1 hour ago, spin_dry said:

umm, reagan is dead. 

nice try but the dems fucked him and backed out of the deal with immigration reform and tax relief . that is why no one will ever wash 1 hand with out getting there's washed first.

Reagan was one of the few great leaders of our time . none alive now will ever be considered great leaders in history none of them 

 

[Mileage Psycho]

9 hours ago, jtssrx said:

with everything that's gone on over the last eight years and the truth that's been posted about Clinton on Wikileaks's how can democrats turn a blind eye?? Well they have, and remember these are the same people that called for Bush to be jailed just eight years ago and turn a blind eye to the same behavior by Obama and Clinton 

 

Bush made a few mistakes early on that haunted and defined his presidency, he allowed Dick Cheney to run his admin early on, he ordered the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, he didn't ask Congress for a war tax to pay for our romp into Iraq.

If you're a fiscal conservative it's easy to see that Bill Clinton's admin finished with a surplus, it's easy to see that Obama signed a 1.5 trillion dollar cut in discretionary spending over a 10 year time frame.

Recent history shows if you want a fiscal conservative vote Dem for POTUS.

[Cold War]

10 hours ago, Kivalo said:

And yet Congress has an 11% approval rating and a 90%ish re-election rate.

 

 

Weird, maybe the problem isn't the corrupt politicians, but the morally bankrupt , uneducated, electorate. Who refuses to take responsibility for anything. ....... nah. 

[Mileage Psycho]

19 minutes ago, Cold War said:

Weird, maybe the problem isn't the corrupt politicians, but the morally bankrupt , uneducated, electorate. Who refuses to take responsibility for anything. ....... nah. 

The problem is gerrymandered Congressional districts along with no term limits.

[SnowRider]

1 minute ago, Mileage Psycho said:

The problem is gerrymandered Congressional districts along with no term limits.

 The D's cumulative total of votes in the House is substantially more than the R's....yet they are in the minority.  It's important and that's why Obama and Holder are spearheading the gerrymandering issue after this election cycle. 

[Cold War]

1 minute ago, Mileage Psycho said:

The problem is gerrymandered Congressional districts along with no term limits.

Who do you think is benefiting from gerrymandered districts?  There are term limits .....every election cycle. Let's keep in the same old because we don't want to risk losing to the other team. Amiright.

[Mileage Psycho]

3 minutes ago, Cold War said:

Who do you think is benefiting from gerrymandered districts?  There are term limits .....every election cycle. Let's keep in the same old because we don't want to risk losing to the other team. Amiright.

Congressmen from both parties.

[1jkw]

7 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

nice try but the dems fucked him and backed out of the deal with immigration reform and tax relief . that is why no one will ever wash 1 hand with out getting there's washed first.

Reagan was one of the few great leaders of our time . none alive now will ever be considered great leaders in history none of them 

 

 

Reagan would never make it in todays climate, imagine trading arms for hostages and lying about, cutting Veteran's benefits, getting 241 American Servicemen killed in an undefended area in a war zone.

 

Not saying he wasn't a good leader, but the generation he led was extremely different and much more respectful and trusting of the  presidency and the government in general.

[f7ben]

I love how Vince claims Obama had any hand in the sequester .....Obama cried and threatened and tried every rotten scare tactic in the book to avoid the sequester and now idiots like Vince credit him for the reduction in spending

[Edmo]

3 minutes ago, f7ben said:

I love how Vince claims Obama had any hand in the sequester .....Obama cried and threatened and tried every rotten scare tactic in the book to avoid the sequester and now idiots like Vince credit him for the reduction in spending

Funny thing is he said he wanted a balanced approach. Raise some taxes and cut spending. The only time he cut anything was when the govt was shut down and he had a gun to his head. 

[f7ben]

12 minutes ago, Edmo said:

Funny thing is he said he wanted a balanced approach. Raise some taxes and cut spending. The only time he cut anything was when the govt was shut down and he had a gun to his head. 

yup

 

[racer254]

25 minutes ago, f7ben said:

I love how Vince claims Obama had any hand in the sequester .....Obama cried and threatened and tried every rotten scare tactic in the book to avoid the sequester and now idiots like Vince credit him for the reduction in spending

I said this would happen from day one.  Obama was 100% against it, but they will give him credit.  It's pathetic.

 

[sear]

Democrats have become the republicans they despised who supported everything Bush did.

 

"Choose your enemy well, for he is who you will become."  old Hebrew adage

[Mileage Psycho]

1 hour ago, f7ben said:

I love how Vince claims Obama had any hand in the sequester .....Obama cried and threatened and tried every rotten scare tactic in the book to avoid the sequester and now idiots like Vince credit him for the reduction in spending

You are a true un-read know nothing who always just blathers nonsense. 

Start listening at the 5 minute mark and pay attention to what thee Grover Norquist says, and then apologize for calling me an idiot 

 

 

[f7ben]

How fucking dumb do you have to forget how Obama cried about sequester 

[racer254]

1 hour ago, Cold War said:

Who do you think is benefiting from gerrymandered districts?  There are term limits .....every election cycle. Let's keep in the same old because we don't want to risk losing to the other team. Amiright.

You also realize that politicians are also using their ability to control public housing locations to put those housing projects in areas to help change the voter demographic as well.

[f7ben]

obama wont even claim it

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiZh-nB0u7PAhVD7CYKHaBRCtgQFggtMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politifact.com%2Ftruth-o-meter%2Fstatements%2F2012%2Foct%2F24%2Fbarack-obama%2Fobama-says-congress-owns-sequestration-cuts%2F&usg=AFQjCNE_XfHEYs6yGLBb8rOQh9GLhH_v7g

[Mainecat]

23 billion

[Sleepr2]

2 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:

 

Bush made a few mistakes early on that haunted and defined his presidency, he allowed Dick Cheney to run his admin early on, he ordered the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, he didn't ask Congress for a war tax to pay for our romp into Iraq.

If you're a fiscal conservative it's easy to see that Bill Clinton's admin finished with a surplus, it's easy to see that Obama signed a 1.5 trillion dollar cut in discretionary spending over a 10 year time frame.

Recent history shows if you want a fiscal conservative vote Dem for POTUS.

BS!

 

Quote

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury

 

CARTOONS |  CLOSE TO HOME

VIEW CARTOON 

 (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:    

Fiscal Year	Year Ending	National Debt	Deficit
FY1993	09/30/1993	$4.411488 trillion
FY1994	09/30/1994	$4.692749 trillion	$281.26 billion
FY1995	09/29/1995	$4.973982 trillion	$281.23 billion
FY1996	09/30/1996	$5.224810 trillion	$250.83 billion
FY1997	09/30/1997	$5.413146 trillion	$188.34 billion
FY1998	09/30/1998	$5.526193 trillion	$113.05 billion
FY1999	09/30/1999	$5.656270 trillion	$130.08 billion
FY2000	09/29/2000	$5.674178 trillion	$17.91 billion
FY2001	09/28/2001	$5.807463 trillion	$133.29 billio

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almosteliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion 

 

. So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors. 

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.    

Fiscal Year	End Date	Claimed Surplus	Public Debt	Intra-gov Holdings	Total National Debt
FY1997	09/30/1997		$3.789667T	$1.623478T	$5.413146T
FY1998	09/30/1998	$69.2B	$3.733864T  $55.8B	$1.792328T  $168.9B	$5.526193T  $113B
FY1999	09/30/1999	$122.7B	$3.636104T  $97.8B	$2.020166T  $227.8B	$5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000	09/29/2000	$230.0B	$3.405303T  $230.8B	$2.268874T  $248.7B	$5.674178T  $17.9B
FY2001	09/28/2001		$3.339310T  $66.0B	$2.468153T  $199.3B	$5.807463T  $133.3B

Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the publicdebt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

 http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth