00-04, 4 years of OUTRAGEOUS spending and Bush

Discussion in 'Economics' started by bxptone, Oct 10, 2008.

  1. bxptone


    never veteoing a dam thing. Oh but wait its BOTH parties fault. Yeah someone tell me how that's possible when our SURPLUS, that was built during the 90's was DRAINED in a matter of years under Bush and a REPUBLICAN lead Congress from 2000-2006.

    Under Bush AND a Republican Congress we managed to piss away our surplus. Spent money like no tomorrow, so much for CONSERVATIVES, while cutting taxes!!!! HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SPEND MORE WHILE TAKING IN LESS MONEY!?!!? HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. And on top of that fight a TRILLION DOLLAR WAR, while your country is in a deficit. This country has never gone to war with such deficits. Sorry democrats maybe dumb, but how you can say this was the fault of both parties I will never know.

    Look at the charts, democratic party surplus, republican party, deficits. Dems try to take care of you (at least spend tax dollars on americans) Republicans sell you out to the highest bidder.


    Now the inablity to resolve the situation most definitely falls on both parties. But sorry the deficits and spendingt that went on during those years, was of historic proportions, and now we are going to pay in MONUMENTAL proportions.
  2. Mecro


    There was never a Suplus, even an operational one. Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security obligations were tucked away in the footnotes. They were not part of the budget, and these are the monster component of the deficit.
    The year-over-year was massaged by creating income from intergovermental debt transfers. Other than that, tax revenue was record during the late 1990s, but still not even to create even an operational surplus.

    Your Democrat vs Republican point is void. If you want theatre, I suggest Broadway plays.
  3. yes, the spending, not tax policies, was idiotic (tax revenue actually increased to a new record each year).

    obama however, wants to grow government even MORE.

    I don't like either, but it will be obama, who will spend so much it will make Bush look like a penny pincher.

    enclosed link shows annual tax receipts. We have an excellent tax system just as it is.

  4. mss


    As I understand it, the 1999 and 2000 operating budgets generated a surplus without the taking into account the then current surplus in social security.

  5. clacy


    You will be in for a shock when Obama adds a net $1 trillion/yr in spending with the stroke of pen with his "healthcare plan".

    I think he claims it will cost around $400 billion/yr for healthcare.

    I would bet my entire net worth that it's going to be at leat doube that within 2 years and probably much more.
  6. I don't do political discussions, and this is tending towards such, especially when comments like these blindly ignore recognized facts that did exist, just to shape an arguement that suits their aims.

    From the ECONOMIC perspective, there was a huge surplus, and the 30yr Bond was retired from service and all paid off completely, as well as other significant fiscal achievements. Now that's a Broadway Play that I would pay to see, and see again in the future.


    No discussion ever included recognition of the Medicare / Medicaid / Healthcare issues, Social Security issues or otherwise. To include them to obscure those recognized achievements that both the Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals, Conservatives, Neutrals and Others achieved as AMERICAN peoples is pointless and does a huge disservice to the intelligence of us all as both traders, investors and degreed peoples.

    We have brought back the 30yr Bond, and if we could invent some other debt vehicle, we would be selling those too in the last 8 years.

    We just went through and still enduring the unwinding of these most fiscally unsound conduct of any administration this country has ever known, including Herbert Hoover and others like him. FACT!

    We are being saddled with the most debt way beyond outrageous with these bailout and rescue programs and it doesn't matter which party wins in the election or what their programs are or how we pick and choose to misrepresent their preachings and boastful programs. FACT

    If we chose to trade with our hundreds of millions using conveniently crafted arguements like these half baked statements that are on this and just about every other biased thread where one has a serious political preference then we would be trading with a serious handicap.

    It is beneficial to read, hear and discuss economic issues from a neutral, fact based fair and reasonable perspective instead of these

    inconvenient lies (uh, truths (from one's own perspective, but not necessarily anyone else) )
  7. A surplus, give me a break. The military was starved and the upcoming unfunded liabilities were not even taken into account. I could create a surplus in my house by borrowing on my credit cards and never making payments for awhile too....
  8. mss


    An operating surplus means tax revenues (exclusive of borrowing) exceeded expenditures. That was apparently the case in 1999 and 200. An operating surplus permits you to pay down outstanding liabilities.
  9. Mecro


    What's your point? Besides the fact that my "threatre" comment went way over your head.
  10. So... I guess that leaves just you, me, Jayford, clacy, Libertad and a few others...
    #10     Oct 13, 2008