Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt

Posted By: Heaven Help Us All on 2008-09-19
In Reply to: Yes....who's to blame....sm - ms

Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.

After 8 years of Bush...As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

and came in with a huge surplus!

I repeat....there was no surplus...
that was just clever use of word. It was a "projected" surplus, and it was contingent upon a cap on federal spending for 15 years, and no added federal programs. There was no real "surplus" sitting around.

Mea culpa on the borrowing. I have already said Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Spending needs to be curbed. Neither candidate is willing to say what I think needs to be done...no more new programs and stop the ones that are not working. When we get back in the "black" again, then we can look at increasing programs. Throwing more money at stuff is obviously not the answer.
The budget surplus from BC was a ...
PROJECTED surplus that would happen over 10 years IF no added spending, IF no added programs. Even if the war in Iraq had not happened, Congress could not go 10 years without adding spending and added programs. You act as if there was 559 billion dollars laying around. There wasn't.

I realize that you have bought into the whole socialist class warfare thing. Like O's hero Alinsky said...it doesn't matter if it is the truth or not...it just matters if you can make them believe it.

And they darned sure have made sure you believe it.


Clinton had a surplus because he had a...sm
Republican Congress. Left to his own devices, he would have put us belly up, have no fear.

Bush, has a Democratic Congress at the end of his term, who have really jacked up the national debt, all on their own (war not included, thank you very much).
Not that old surplus crud again....lol
do the research...there was no "surplus." It was a surplus that COULD be IF spending was not increased over like 10 years. Like Congress could go 10 years without increasing spending. Clinton did NOT leave a surplus.

Surplus-Are we forgetting 9-11
Are you all forgetting that 9 months after being elected we were attacked on our own soil, with thousands of people losing their lives and NY City a disaster?  What do you think that did to the surplus and the need to protect our country.  How short your memory is until the next time it happens and they you will be begging for a stronger president than we have now.
There was no surplus. That was debunked years ago.
And the Democrats are largely responsible for the shape we are in. John McCain tried to pass legislation in 2005 to regulate Fannie/Freddie. However, Chris Dodd (head of banking and commerce committee, and largest recipient of Fannie/Freddie contributions) and the Democrats blocked it. Fannie/Freddie started this freefall in the economy. Obama is #2 on the contributions list. John McCain is wayyyyy on down the list. Then the democrats (the ones sitting now) pushed by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in turn pushed fannie/freddie to give all those subprime loans to minorities and lower income folks, to people with either no credit or bad credit, knowing full well most of them didn't have a hope in heck of paying it back...it is THOSE mortgages we are going in hock to pick up.

Franklin Raines, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Timothy Howard...all Democrats, two of them Obama advisors...ALL walked away from Fannie with golden parachute of MILLIONS after cooking the books.

And WE are picking up the tab.

NOBAMA, NODEMOCRAT, NO WAY, NO HOW!!
The surplus also followed him out eh? We know because it's now in the bank accounts of the rich.
A lot of people made a lot of money during the Clinton years - that's real money, honey, and they're still rich, accounting for our current revenues. Without the Clinton boom years your president's buds (and your president himself, let us remind you) wouldn't have gotten their 100,000 tax break checks. Sure, the boom couldn't hold, but the point is that the favorable conditions created by a sounder Democratic fiscal policy allowed that boom to come about.

Now all we have is empty coffers, slashed public spending, and China owns us. Big improvement huh? Oops, but people like Frist are still getting over big time on their big time stock trades - all's clear in the upper 1% But since you likely aren't in it, it's hard to see what you find so appealing about being a credit slave one paycheck away from poverty. Is that working out good for you?
The myth of the Clinton surplus - been disproved -sm
A lot of democrats keep pushing this bogus claim that there was a surplus when in fact there never was. This has been discussed on this board, so by this message I'm assuming you never saw the message or went the the US Treasury website to check it out. Below is a link to it and explains what really happened.

The US National Debt proves there was never a surplus, and the article explains why people claim otherwise for political reasons. - good read. Even my most conservatives friends bought into this surplus craze, and said they were glad their eyes were opened.

I'll credit another poster for origianlly posting this (it's been so long I forget who now).

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Like all those years of prosperity, budget surplus
scorched earth administration?
Who put us in debt?

Who borrowed all that money from China? 42% of the bill is Republican proposed tax cuts. The last stimulus proved that tax cuts don't work (Under George's watch- helped his base, though). The money is either saved or used to pay off debt, neither of which help the economy. Maybe you ought to look over your shoulder and see where the real blame lies. Obama is doing the best he can and all you racists can do is trounce him at every turn. And don't even bother bleating that you're not racist as I see no other reason why you would hug the last administration so fiercely and hate Obama with so much venom. Obama hasn't been able to do ANYTHING yet. Both sides of the aisle wrote that stimulus package - so figure it out.


debt you can believe in
I can only hope our economists can somehow separate Obama's debt, which will kill us all in our sleep, from Bush's debt, which made us all rich and strong ("Reagan proved deficits don't matter," as VP Richard Cheney famously said--haha, I can't use his usual first name in the post; how stupid is that?).

No, wait. What I actually hope is that the difference between governing and politics keeps becoming more and more visible, so that people are forced to think outside their usual assumptions about what their political party stands for.
The Anti-Republican Republican Who is Really a Republican
The whole anti-Republican Republican ruse might have succeeded, were it not for the fact that McCain's rhetoric was at odds not merely with his own voting record - 90 percent with Bush - and his own Bush-on-steroids agenda.

    Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.


    He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.


    He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.


    He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.


    And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:


    "We will drill..."


    "We'll drill..."


    "More drilling..."


    McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.


    But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.


http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican


Bush inherited a 559 billion surplus nuff said? NM
x
Bush inherited a 559 billion surplus nuff said? NM
x
No. Remembering the debt we owe all of those
Camera angles, selective footage, media spin do not paint a true full picture. When the emphasis is put on the guys you describe and the rest of the event is never broadcast, it is not be accident. They strive to create the images and impressions which you now express. What is more pertinent here is the anger you see there, in these posts, between the parties and all over our country after 8 years under the regime. This is not blame. It is statement of fact. It's not pretty, granted. But to really undestand what you are looking at takes a little more than a sound byte or a drive-by post.
Considering our national debt is now......... sm
sitting at, what, $3 trillion dollars, I doubt government oversight would be of much benefit to the auto industry. In fact, I kind of feel like the government really has the audacity to ask a private industry to prove a solvent plan when the government can't even balance their own books. Either way, the auto industry is going under. It's just a matter of whether it is now or 6 months from now.
True. We are in debt already. Let's just
and now our country will go bankrupt. Depression, here we come.
True. We are in debt already. Let's just
and then our country will go bankrupt. Depression, here we come. Although some cities are already feeling depression. Cannot wait for our treasury guy who does not know how to do TurboTax is going to say how much more debt (money) we will need coming this week. I betcha the stocks will fall between 300-400.

Wow. New jobs coming. Cannot wait. Maybe a 5',2" and 110 pound woman can apply working on building bridges, paving roads, building a train track from CA to NV. Then the jobs will be finished for me and then what?
She ran our state into debt.
SHE is an extremist.
The myth of the Clinton surplus...I'm a libertarian but I am sick of hearing this..SM
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
If you are talking about the war debt, your congress did...
when they voted to go to Iraq. Would not have passed without Dems' support as well.
Our country was not in debt with Clinton but it was sm
when bill got in office and saw the mess bush senior made, it had to be dealt with.... just as this mess GW made will take years to clean up.... but Clinton did get us in the black. Barack is going to use that same tax formula and that is why he said you will pay no more than what you paid in taxes under Clinton. That goes for the rich too.

HC's campaign debt would suggest that
dontchathink?
This plan is not going to affect this debt
growth rate at all, it will continue to grow on a daily basis. This stimulus package will just be added to the total debt. And, actually we do NOT KNOW THAT THIS MONEY WILL BENEFIT people. At this point, we can only pray that it will, we have no other choice. Time will tell.
Will never last. Obama is putting us in debt we may
nm
So, you don't care if we are in debt to the tune

of $9T over the next 10 years?????  You really want your children, grandchildren and probably your great-grandchildren to pay for mistakes that did not have to take place in the first place?


You're not wasting tea, you're wasting the little tag on the tea bag. How hard is it to let the government know you are furious with their antics?  I just don't agree it's a waste of time.


Some of us (not me yet) are in the less fortunate boat and not getting any help at all while those in power pocket our money. It's time to stop the nonsense and hold those accountable for their actions. It's time to let the government know we don't want to be told how to live anymore. Freedom is not free anymore. It costs a lot of money and our freedoms are slowly being whittled away one by one. I want to see my grandchildren enough those freedoms, not wind up being told how to live, what to eat, where and when to work, etc.


Whew! Sorry. Am venting.  I'll get off my soapbox now.



Bush sunk himself and our country......DEBT
v
Has anyone watched "Money as Debt" video?
It's a 47 minute animated video you can find on line (I believe it's on You Tube as well as other places.) I watched most of it once and it's just unbelievable what the banks have been doing for YEARS and it explains a lot of why (at least around where I live) there are new banks with names I've never heard of popping up on every corner and in every new strip mall.

It also goes a long way in explaining how these banks are in such trouble and how they're pulling everyone down with them.

Obama will make sure our children pay for this debt
nm
Any ideas on how paying down too much debt could be a terrorist threat?nm
 
And what about the debt he inheriteed from George W. Bush, take off the blinders......sm
and they say WE have been drinking Kool-Aid? WE had a president who could hardly color inside the lines, was an inarticulate moron, catered to special interests, led us into an unjustfied war with Iraq (HELLO, IT WAS THE TALIBAN/OSAMA IN AFGHANISTAN ON 9/11), we lost all respect around the globe, and he took a balanced budget from President Clinton and got us into trillions of dollars worth of debt, all the while allowing all bhe banking deregulation, feeding the GREED machine in this country. The past administration was a TRAGEDY perpetrated on the American people, so you folks can keep drinking your Republican Red Kool-Aid, keep prematurely judging this president as you lick your lips praying for his failure, which by the way means RUIN for you, me, and the rest of the nation. The man is willing to TRY, to compromise, and he has only been in office barely three weeks. All the harshness against Obama is misdirected anger and pique that the Republicans were ousted. IMHO. Saying stuff over and over DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!!!
Yeah, lets spend billions, go into more debt while
nm
What a snooty post, no,we have PAID OFF all debt, own our home,,,,sm
outright, thank you, own both our cars, but when you are caring for three kids, taking care of their needs, paying about $300.00 a week on food, I have several serious illnesses with lots of meds, we have high costs here in the North East, AND we are putting money into 401K and retirement, sometimes we DO have to wait a day or two to buy something, it is called A BUDGET, it is called self-restraint in spending, and you, my friend, need some serious counseling in compassion, communication, ....do you even have friends with that kind of attitude??? what is your problem exactly?
Dont talk to me about Debt. Dems wanted loans for
nm
Who is your top democratic candidate?
Barack Obama is who I am rooting for, but I'd like to know what democrats are thinking about the other candidates.
Who do you think will get the Democratic nomination

And, what do you think the Super Delegates will do?


voting democratic



CI'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe everything the main stream media tells me about the Presidential candidates.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because English has no place being the official language in America.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq , I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar icecaps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because it's alright to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profits. Businesses should just break even and give the rest to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute the money the way they think it should be redistributed.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe guns, and not the people misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because when someone with a weapon threatens my family or me, I know the government can respond faster through a call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.

I'm thinking abou t voting Democratic because oil companies 5% profit on a gallon of gas are obscene, but government taxes of 18% (federal and state) on the same gallon of gas are just fine.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I believe three or four elitist liberals should rewrite the Constitution every few months to suit some fringe element that could never get their agenda past voters.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because illegal aliens are not criminals, are not sucking up resources through government aid, hospital services, education, or social services, but are just people trying to make a better life by coming to America illegally. We can't blame them for that, can we?

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because now I can now marry whatever I want, so I've decided to marry my horse.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because they know best how to run a mortgage company like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. They will guarantee I get a low interest loan even if I don't have a job and can't pay it back.

I'm thinking about voting Democratic because I agree that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac executives should get 10's of million dollars in bonuses, then leave and join a Democratic presidential candidate's campaign as his advisors.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would ever vote Republican, doesn't it?




You cant thank the democratic congress too.
nm
way to go democratic congress
nm
Can the Democratic Party Survive
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/shore/2005/shore022805.htm
But you don't do that. You only discuss the democratic past.

In order to smear it.


No talk about the 12 prior years of Reagan and Bush.


Democratic talking points 101. nm

Republicans and democratic are worlds apart
One party represents BUSINESS. the other PEOPLE. That is the bottom line.

You americans need to get your two parties together without the politicians around and figure out how to come to terms with your disagreements cuz you folks are on the same ship and it is sinking and only the rich have a paddle.

Want us Canadians to provide a neutral ground? We are very concerned about the runaway train that has become America. It is like a bad movie.
Exactly, that is the common thread in Democratic...
party these days. And the only way to end that stalemate in Waashington is for that, for lack of a better word...crap to stop. McCain and Palin are reaching across the aisle, saying they are willing to work with democrats to stop the stalemate...country first. McCain says he wants Democrats and Independents in his cabinet. Country first. This election is a no-brainer for this Independent. McCain/Palin.
'scuse me...have you read the democratic...
posts on this board?? lol.
My Lord, what do you expect from the Democratic rag, the
Washington Post? Give me a break and the rest of us here. Why don't you read some real new for a change?

Did you know that just a tiny bit of arsenic can make you deathly ill?
Impeached by a democratic majority?
What YOU smokin?? lol.
Tell that to the democratic congress - they are responsible
And while people are getting laid off left and write the democratic congress who gave the bail outs are not giving back any of the money. And the people who ran FM/FM are not giving back any of the money. And the money that was given for the bail outs but instead the people used it to take lavish vacations and put more money in their pockets are not giving it back, and the DEMOCRATIC congress is not enforcing that they should give it back.
58 +/- 2 democratic leaning indies =
jangled nerves over this one undecided seat. Cornyn is hedging no bets and preparing for the worst case scenario, rather than simply letting the state satisfy itself that it is sending the duly elected representative to Washington based on the most accurate vote count possible. Why is that such as scarey proposition? How much traction do you really think the obstructionists are going to have in the Senate anyway. Not all the pubs are onboard with administration sabotage. Some of them actually remember that their constituents expect them to get something accomplished and to wait until at 16 to 18 months before starting to campaign for their next race.
Democratic Hawk Now Sees War as a Mistake

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM


Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.


src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645096.jpg


Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.


src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645169.jpg

JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003


U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.





Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake


By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau


WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.


Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and peaceniks who protested the Vietnam War and did terrible things to troop morale.


The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.


Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.


During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.


There was a lot of anger back there, Dicks said in an interview this week. It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here.


Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.


And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.


Voted to back Bush


In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.


Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.


After visiting Iraq early in the war, Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops, Murtha said in an interview this week.


Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.


While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further.


The insurgency has gotten worse and worse, he said. That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.


Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.


Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would absolutely not have voted for the war.


The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.


But Dicks says the intelligence was doctored. And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.


A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs, he said.


He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.


Norm ... has agonized


All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized, Murtha said this week.


Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.


In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.


Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon, Dicks said at the time.


By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.


We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed, he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined.


By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened, he said at the time.


That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.


Growing doubts


On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.


Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.


That Joe Wilson article was very troubling, Dicks said.


Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.


Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me, McDermott said recently. This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe about prewar intelligence.


The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.


Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.


The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.


Dicks said he told the White House that their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard.


The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.


Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole, he said.


But he added, We can't take forever.


Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.


I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't.


Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com