Are democrats generally negative?

[member 5645]

The most famous attack ad ever was President Johnson's "flower" ad portraying Goldwater, the challenger, as a nuclear warmonger.Njorl

That really was a well done ad

 

[schwarzchildradius]

RW, there's a big difference- before 1992 the budget was a big mess, hurting the economy & causing problems for people. Clinton fixed it, Bush broke it.

 

[russ_watters]

RW, there's a big difference- before 1992 the budget was a big mess, hurting the economy & causing problems for people. Clinton fixed it, Bush broke it.

What, exactly, did each of them do (actual changes in the economic structure made by each) and how did it manifest itself(economic data that shows a clear, non-cyclical, non-internet bubble related, non-9/11 related difference)?

The unfortunate thing for Clinton in his quest for a legacy, was that the internet bubble burst before he left office and the cycle re-asserted itself. When he left office, the stock market was a bear and the economy was in recession. As a result, he cannot claim that he made any cycle defying changes.

Just to get it out of the way, there is one important fact that is usually brought up for the purpose of this argument that I'll stipulate to right off the bat:

Fact: economic indicators on average were better during the Clinton admin than so far in the Bush admin.

This fact does not, however, have anything to say about actual policies or economic trends.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Trillion dollar deficit turned into trillion dollar surplus turned into trillion dollar deficit.

 

[hughes johnson]

Trillion dollar deficit turned into trillion dollar surplus turned into trillion dollar deficit.

Hocus-pocus. All of it. If you ever have the opportunity to get involved in a government budget projection you will never be the same again. It will scar you for life...LOL. First you see how much money you will need to balance the books, then you figure out if it is good for your party to have that much money coming in or not, then you call all your people and tell them how much money to "find" or how much money to "lose". Amazingly, when the numbers come back, they match what you have already written down weeks in advance. It's a joke. Don't buy it, no matter what party you're in, or what country you're in. Don't buy it now, or in the future. It is a crock, always was, always will be.

 

[Njorl]

Hocus-pocus. All of it. If you ever have the opportunity to get involved in a government budget projection you will never be the same again. It will scar you for life...LOL. First you see how much money you will need to balance the books, then you figure out if it is good for your party to have that much money coming in or not, then you call all your people and tell them how much money to "find" or how much money to "lose". Amazingly, when the numbers come back, they match what you have already written down weeks in advance. It's a joke. Don't buy it, no matter what party you're in, or what country you're in. Don't buy it now, or in the future. It is a crock, always was, always will be.

The budget projections of both the OMB (Clinton White house) and CBO (Republican Congress) showed deficits for the last years of the Clinton presidency. They were wrong. The revenues turned out to be in surplus. Do you think that they both intentionally low-balled the revenue estimates for political gain?

While the 10 year budget projections are just voodoo, the 5 year and shorter projections have some accuracy and use. They are subject to both political manipulation, and some genuine error, but they are not useless. It is in the interest of some people to make them seem useless. Those who advocate reckless budgetary policies with the intent of bankrupting the federal government wish to discredit the CBO and OMB. Unfortunately, our current president happens to be among them.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

The budget projections of both the OMB (Clinton White house) and CBO (Republican Congress) showed deficits for the last years of the Clinton presidency. They were wrong. The revenues turned out to be in surplus. Do you think that they both intentionally low-balled the revenue estimates for political gain?

While the 10 year budget projections are just voodoo, the 5 year and shorter projections have some accuracy and use. They are subject to both political manipulation, and some genuine error, but they are not useless. It is in the interest of some people to make them seem useless. Those who advocate reckless budgetary policies with the intent of bankrupting the federal government wish to discredit the CBO and OMB. Unfortunately, our current president happens to be among them.

Njorl

The only reason clinton had a surplus was including social security revenues in with the rest of the budget. This same tactic was used to cover the cost of the vietnam war. IT's bull****.
Clinton did a good job on keeping things a near level point, but the surplus we 'had' never existed.

 

[hughes johnson]

The budget projections of both the OMB (Clinton White house) and CBO (Republican Congress) showed deficits for the last years of the Clinton presidency. They were wrong.

Those who advocate reckless budgetary policies with the intent of bankrupting the federal government wish to discredit the CBO and OMB

I wouldn't want to discredit someone who was wrong. This is interesting reasoning. Do you work for the government?

You have proven my point better than I could.

 

[Concept]

Is there any way to criticize the president without it seeming partisan?

 

[hughes johnson]

If there is, I'm sure you'll find it.

 

[Njorl]

I wouldn't want to discredit someone who was wrong. This is interesting reasoning. Do you work for the government?

You have proven my point better than I could.

So you believe that budget predictions for a multitrillion dollar budget need to be correct to the penny to be worthwhile?

Yes, I do work for the government.

Are you in middle school?

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Trillion dollar deficit turned into trillion dollar surplus turned into trillion dollar deficit.

Trillion dollars, eh? Nice, round sounding - and meaningless - number. Clinton never even claimed that except in projections (and that's not his projection, you just pulled that number out of thin air), which aren't hocus pocus, they're just meaningless.

In any case, this isn't what I asked for. I asked for:

What, exactly, did each of them do (actual changes in the economic structure made by each) and how did it manifest itself(economic data that shows a clear, non-cyclical, non-internet bubble related, non-9/11 related difference)?

Clinton did make some policy decisions that had an impact here, schwarz. Some of which I agreed with, some I didn't. Some helped, some didn't. Some succeeded, some failed (to the vast benefit of the economy). But I'm not going to help you with your argument. If you have one, make it.

 

[Zero]

The only reason clinton had a surplus was including social security revenues in with the rest of the budget. This same tactic was used to cover the cost of the vietnam war. IT's bull****.
Clinton did a good job on keeping things a near level point, but the surplus we 'had' never existed.

So why did Bush give out a tax cut based on a surplus that wasn't even there? See how that works?

 

[hughes johnson]

Yes, I do work for the government.

Lucky guess. LOL

 

[member 5645]

So why did Bush give out a tax cut based on a surplus that wasn't even there? See how that works?

Why do I borrow money to start a business?

 

[Njorl]

Lucky guess. LOL

I answered your question. Why are you avoiding mine?