Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay, maybe not LBJ, I only put him in there because the budget was better under his adminstration than any other president between him and Clinton.
The late 90's had a great economic period because it was the late 90's. Meaning the boom in technology and so forth. (Although, that did eventually burst.)
Originally posted by lord xyz
Not heard, no.But lets talk about congress then.
From wikipedia
House majority -- Senate majority -- Pres:
79-81: Dem -- Dem -- Carter
81-83: Dem -- Rep -- Reagan
83-85: Dem -- Rep -- Reagan
85-87: Dem -- Rep -- Reagan
87-89: Dem -- Dem -- Reagan
89-91: Dem -- Dem -- Bush I
91-93: Dem -- Dem -- Bush I
93-95: Dem -- Dem -- Clinton
95-97: Rep -- Rep -- Clinton
97-99: Rep -- Rep -- Clinton
99-01: Rep -- Rep -- Clinton
01-03: Rep -- Dem -- Bush II
03-05: Rep -- Rep -- Bush II
05-07: Rep -- Rep -- Bush II
07-09: Dem -- Dem -- Bush IIMostly it's a case of one being Rep the other being Dem, and I doubt making a conclusion is very legit, but my opinion is the Dems should take the credit. The early 90s is when the economy increased greatly, Dems had control of both houses, the economy went down in the late 90s and 00s, Reps had control of both.
Lol, this isn't even a discussion. It's a lesson about the United States. You are clueless. Go read up on American law and economics. Just cause your English doesn't excuse you from knowing the basics.
This time your mistake is looking at the wrong requrcusions. You are basing government spending on how the economy is doing. The economy has a lot to do with the stock market and the federal reserve, but is almost independent of congressional spending. You can't attribute it to which party is in power.
And get rid of wikipedia too. Use .gov sites. They aren't that hard to find. Once you find hard evidence, you might actually prove me wrong but I'm not feeling too worried.
Originally posted by BigRed
He did balance the budget. But I think Republicans in Congress on his ass had a lot to do with that.
Um, I have to disagree there. I'm more conservative than anything else, but I have to hand it to Clinton. His success with the budget isn't exaggerated at all. Better then either any president from either party since before WWII, if I recall correctly. I mentioned earlier that Congress controls the budget, but that's only half true. The president has to sign Congress' plan, and usually Congress isn't united enough to override him. Clinton has refused to go along with Congress because their budget was too big at times. I don't remember whether it was a democrat Congress or a republican Congress, but whoever it was gave Clinton crap for a straight year before finally adjusting to his expectations.
Originally posted by Quark_666
Um, I have to disagree there. I'm more conservative than anything else, but I have to hand it to Clinton. His success with the budget isn't exaggerated at all. Better then either any president from either party since before WWII, if I recall correctly. I mentioned earlier that Congress controls the budget, but that's only half true. The president has to sign Congress' plan, and usually Congress isn't united enough to override him. Clinton has refused to go along with Congress because their budget was too big at times. I don't remember whether it was a democrat Congress or a republican Congress, but whoever it was gave Clinton crap for a straight year before finally adjusting to his expectations.
It was a great show of bipartisianship. Wish we could have that now.
Originally posted by BigRed
A new wave of Republicans took over Congress in 1994. They signed a Contract with America to lower spending and basically balance a budget. They worked and pushed Clinton to do it, Clinton worked with them and they balanced a budget.It was a great show of bipartisianship. Wish we could have that now.
I take it that means his argument was with the Democratic Congress. You still can't pretend he wasn't already on a low budget before the Republicans got into office.
Originally posted by Quark_666You made the claim it's the democrats fault, I showed you that when Clinton was in power the economy (especially the budget) was souring. You then claimed that it's congress that control the budget not the president. I complied and provided Wikipedia's record of congress to see which party was in power between each congress. My opinion that if one party was to blame which you said first, the Reps should be blamed, not the Dems.
Maybe I owe XYZ an apology. Lol, it isn't as if either party has been wonderful with the budget anyway.
Your aren't very consistant, are you?
Originally posted by lord xyz
You made the claim it's the democrats fault, I showed you that when Clinton was in power the economy (especially the budget) was souring. You then claimed that it's congress that control thebudgeteconomy not the president. I complied and provided Wikipedia's record of congress to see which party was in power between each congress. My opinion that if one party was to blame which you said first, the Reps should be blamed, not the Dems.Your aren't very consistant, are you?
Originally posted by lord xyz
You made the claim it's the democrats fault,
I used the term "liberal budget", and I had to explain to DK that I was using the term just because it's a pun. I make fun of conservatives as well. You jumped all over that statement of course because you think Democrats are God's gift to earth and you can't let a terminology tease them in any way (quite a surprise coming from someone who posts so many "jokes"😉.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I showed you that when Clinton was in power the economy (especially the budget) was souring. You then claimed that it's congress that control the budget not the president. I complied and provided Wikipedia's record of congress to see which party was in power between each congress.
Thank Alan Greenspan for the economic boom of the 90s. You were making Clinton responisible for the economy. Even worse, you were placing a direct correlation on the federal budget and the economy.
Originally posted by lord xyz
My opinion that if one party was to blame which you said first, the Reps should be blamed, not the Dems.
I'd give the democratic Congresses a high F, as opposed to a Republican F. I don't like either party.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Your aren't very consistant, are you?
I don't try to make the same point over and over when the course of the conversation changes. My argument about the budget was consistent. My argument about the economy was consistent. My argument about Clinton was consistent. They went together nicely.
If you didn't notice, our conversation has switched emphasis a few times so naturally my argument (unlike yours) also shifted. Yours was the same thing over and over again. "The Democrats are wonderful!" "The Democrats are wonderful"
Give me a break.
Originally posted by lord xyz
You made the claim it's the democrats fault, I showed you that when Clinton was in power the economy (especially the budget) was souring. You then claimed that it's congress that control the budget not the president. I complied and provided Wikipedia's record of congress to see which party was in power between each congress. My opinion that if one party was to blame which you said first, the Reps should be blamed, not the Dems.Your aren't very consistant, are you?
I will not credit Clinton (or any politician) though for the boom in the 90's economy. I will credit him and the Republican Congress on a bitpartisan effort to balance the budget and actually create surpluses the last three years of the Clinton Administration.
That being said, it is still the Democrats and the Republicans fault we are in debt. If I had to pick one over the other, I couldn't. FDR and Johnston combined are just as bad as George W. Bush now. Bush did tally up the quickest debt in history though. Nonetheless, it is has been a bitpartisan effort from both sides to **** us over. You can't just look at the past two administrations man. This stuff goes back to FDR.
Originally posted by BigRed
And liberty-lovers everywhere just got a swift kick in the balls.
I don't like McCain (not anymore at least), but I'm disgusted by people who act like they don't like certain candidates because they are "liberty lovers". That's political bullshit in its purest form. Liberty lovers can screw the nation up just as easily as anyone else.
Originally posted by Quark_666
I don't like McCain (not anymore at least), but I'm disgusted by people who act like they don't like certain candidates because they are "liberty lovers". That's political bullshit in its purest form. Liberty lovers can screw the nation up just as easily as anyone else.