or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › 2002: The Triumphant Return of the Democrats?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2002: The Triumphant Return of the Democrats?

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
I predict the Democrats shall regain the House come November and strengthen their lead in the Senate. With such selfish and dimwitted Republican economic policies as the massive tax cut for the rich, it is no wonder that Americans are beginning to realize to vote with their minds and not their wallets. With no federal surplus project until the year 2006 with proactive measures, the situation seems grim.

And such with mentality, the Republicans are sealing their doom with such foolish measures such as the ending of bipartisanship as outline in the article quoted below.

From the DNC,
[quote]Washington, DC -- The evidence is now crystal clear, after failing to jam billions of dollars in corporate welfare and special interests goodies through congressional Democrats, Republicans from the White House, the RNC and now Newt Gingrich's pollsters have ended all bipartisanship and returned to the politics of personal attacks.

"I am extremely disappointed in the Republicans' return to the politics of personal partisan attacks," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "Democrats have an economic recovery plan that focuses on economic growth, creates jobs and helps those 2.2 million Americans who have lost their jobs or health insurance this year. After failing to pass billions in corporate welfare for a few big companies, the GOP has launched a partisan campaign of name-calling and personal attacks. Congressional Democrats have stood up to this giveaway and stand ready to work with Republicans to pass a recovery plan that is targeted to people and businesses hurt by the recession and provide immediate relief.

"The Republican memo contained warnings of their political weaknesses in the upcoming 2002 elections. They called on Republicans to finger-point and name call to hide the weakness of their failed attempt to provide more raids on the Social Security Trust and other deficit spending for the special interests."

"It is obvious that Republicans are already running scared in 2002," said McAuliffe. "It is a shame that they have to resort to such desperate and transparent tactics as a way to try to influence the American people. At a time when Americans are counting on their political leaders to provide strength and support, the Republicans have again turned to finger-pointing and have let down the American people."
<hr></blockquote>

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
post #2 of 44
go **** yourself
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #3 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>go **** yourself</strong><hr></blockquote>

Shouldn't that be "go i**** yourself"?
post #4 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by glurx:
<strong>

Shouldn't that be "go i**** yourself"? </strong><hr></blockquote>

lol
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #5 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>go **** yourself</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ditto. Your a ****ing idiot, Nostradamus.

Listen to Mr. Daschle for awhile and tell me who is partisan. He blames the "Bush Tax Cut" for the surplus reduction and the slowdown.....and tax cut that hasn't even taken effect yet. He went on national television after Bush's first major address to congress and tried to say that Reganomics sank the economy into 12 years of doom.......this is called revising history.

The Democrats have somehow convinced America (well...until 9/11 anyway) that paying 60% of their income to a government agency (do the math) is the right thing to do. What a ****ing joke. At least the Republicans ADMIT to being rich fat cats.....at least they admit favoring business, which by the way, is generally good for the economy, not bad. Regan proved that. Without his revolution the country very well may have sunk into a full blown DEPRESSION.

Moron.

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #6 of 44
BTW, Terry M. is also a ****ing idiot. That article accuses the republicans of being "tax and spend". What a joke. Deficit spending????? WTF???? Whose fault is that.? The GOP??? BWWWHAHAHAHAHA

Also, the last time I checked we had a recovery package sitting in the Demo controlled senate that the GOP controlled house had already approved....hmmm.....who is holding up things now?

OMFG I hate liberal idiots.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 44
They Both Suck! I hate liberals and I hate conservatives, they're all just a bunch of ****ing no brained morons.
post #8 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>BTW, Terry M. is also a ****ing idiot. That article accuses the republicans of being "tax and spend". What a joke. Deficit spending????? WTF???? Whose fault is that.? The GOP??? BWWWHAHAHAHAHA

Also, the last time I checked we had a recovery package sitting in the Demo controlled senate that the GOP controlled house had already approved....hmmm.....who is holding up things now?

OMFG I hate liberal idiots.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can I get an "AMEN?" DAMN, you are so right! i'm sick of all those Demos. bitchin and whining all the time and blamin everything on us
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #9 of 44
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>go **** yourself</strong><hr></blockquote>

Such a typical Republican's personal attack. I guess resort to this when you people can't even make up facts.

Hillary for 2004!

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
post #10 of 44
Nostradamus, don't whine about being personally attacked when you post such idiotic tripe as you posted above. That mess is an affront to everyone with a brain.

The Republicans are quite guilty of deficit spending, just look at the Reagan era! That was the order of the day for God's sake!
I'm not here to say it was good or bad, but the fact is deficit spending is not foreign to the Republican.

I don't see Democrats returning to any kind of power by slinging mud, but what do I know?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #11 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by trick fall:
<strong>They Both Suck! I hate liberals and I hate conservatives, they're all just a bunch of ****ing no brained morons.</strong><hr></blockquote>I hate people that say "I hate both liberals and conservatives!"

You suck!
:cool:
post #12 of 44
There was a thread started a few days ago claiming that "Windows users are sheep." While I don't disagree with this sentiment on the whole, I think by now it should be obvious to anyone with even marginal cranial capacity that

"Anyone who blindly follows either the Republican or Democratic party - while claiming the other to be inferior - is also a sheep." Or more to the point ,"Anyone who blindly votes down party lines is a sheep."

Wake up folks. It may be our system and some people may feel like they're forced to choose, but both parties are indeed fu*ked. You can find a mixture of very competant and completely incompetant representatives in both parties. You can find people who are truly passionate and educated on various issues, and you can find people who want to know just enough to get on television every week - Orrin Hatchet-job comes to mind. In the end it always comes down to superficial mud-slinging about tax rates and either crime or education. You'd think people would've caught on by now...

...that people would realize despite all the lip service one way or another, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the average Republican and the Average Democrat. In the end, both will promise anything to their constituents to get re-elected, both are more concerned about their own trip up the Capital Hill ladder than they are about fixing the legal system, the educational system or the health care system, etc. etc.

Frankly I think they ought to do away with the party system and simply let everyone speak to the issues as they would if they were sitting at your dinner table. The labels do nothing but give a false sense of political identity to those who are either too politically uneducated or too blind to understand that a career politician is a career politician, no matter what side of the isle he sits on.

Further, why is it we have to call anyone who favors the death penalty (for example) conservative or anyone who doesn't like the proliferation of guns (for anothe) a liberal? It's the most assinine game we have and it doesn't help the political process in any way. All we get each year are two or three "push button" issues that THEY decide upon (not us) and then we have to decide between their no-grey-area stances.

We need more grey in American politics because most of the issues we have to deal with are by definition not black and white. There are logical arguments behind both sides of each issue. Why can't we demand the politicians treat it as such?

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #13 of 44
I generally don't post however...

This is the most rediculous post I have ever read.

Hillary for president? Did you watch Hillary when Bush addressed Congress? Anyone that shows a complete lack of respect at such a time is one of the following:

1. Only interested in themselves.
2. Very stupid to not put on a front for others to see.

Also, the idea that tax cuts only benefit the rich is utterly crazy. Do you work for a poor person? Who provides jobs for nealy everyone...rich people. Why are they rich...HARD work!!!!! Just because someone works hard and is successful at what they do doesn't mean they should be penalized for the sake of people who aren't.

I am soo tired of this Democrat/Republican BS. It's nouthing but destructive for America.
post #14 of 44
The Democrats did such a great job on the "economic stimulus package".

OT Did anyone notice what a failure Jeffords has been? He handed it over the Dems and got NOTHING for it. He wont be reelected and IMO should face a recall.
post #15 of 44
[quote] "Anyone who blindly votes down party lines is a sheep." <hr></blockquote>

Right on brotha! I'm a Republican and I stand up for what I believe in but if an election comes along and I don't feel like it is wise to vote for a Republican candidate I simply won't.

I have a democrat friend that would vote for Satan himself as long as he was a democratic nominee. It's sad.

If your voter registration says "Republican" or "Democrat" it is not a legally binding term of agreement that you must vote that line.

IMHO Bush is doing an excellent job. It scares me that algore was so close to being in the hotseat. He woulda run off like a scared pussycat on 9/11. Bush is a Texan... no one messes with our shit and lives to tell about it!

Mac Guru
"The young people of America need be taught that the only pride they may properly hold is in the content of their character, and the achievements they make. There is no legitimate pride or moral...
Reply
"The young people of America need be taught that the only pride they may properly hold is in the content of their character, and the achievements they make. There is no legitimate pride or moral...
Reply
post #16 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by Mike:
<strong>I generally don't post however...

This is the most rediculous post I have ever read.

Hillary for president? Did you watch Hillary when Bush addressed Congress? Anyone that shows a complete lack of respect at such a time is one of the following:

1. Only interested in themselves.
2. Very stupid to not put on a front for others to see.

Also, the idea that tax cuts only benefit the rich is utterly crazy. Do you work for a poor person? Who provides jobs for nealy everyone...rich people. Why are they rich...HARD work!!!!! Just because someone works hard and is successful at what they do doesn't mean they should be penalized for the sake of people who aren't.

I am soo tired of this Democrat/Republican BS. It's nouthing but destructive for America.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly! My dad owns a small business which employs 12 people. And he had to pay $100000's of taxes this last year. With the economy bad and all, he had to lay off 2 of them because of the high taxes, he couldn't pay them (he's re-hired them since). And the Democrats talking about getting rid of the tax cuts is rediculous. If you raise taxes then the business owners can't afford to pay all of their employees and the economy slips further into recession.
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #17 of 44
We don't know what Gore would have done. Although he sat behind a typewriter he was Army. He must have gone through OCS and basic training? He's got to have some "fight" in him.
post #18 of 44
Just making sure everyone notices that this "Nostradamus" guy is not me, "NORDstrOdamus."

My 4 cents-
1. two party system sucks
2. Bush's experience defending Texas against the Vietnamese is no more impressive a feat of heroism than Al Gore's typing.
3. Response to WTC attack would have been just the same with Gore except he might also be making some effort to get us of oil so we don't have to fight a war in the middle east every coming decade.
4. Impersonating someone's nick is lame.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #19 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>Just making sure everyone notices that this "Nostradamus" guy is not me, "NORDstrOdamus."

My 4 cents-
1. two party system sucks
2. Bush's experience defending Texas against the Vietnamese is no more impressive a feat of heroism than Al Gore's typing.
3. Response to WTC attack would have been just the same with Gore except he might also be making some effort to get us of oil so we don't have to fight a war in the middle east every coming decade.
4. Impersonating someone's nick is lame.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree re #1.

Re #3 I disagree. Due to Bush's heritage (father) I think there was more respect for him. With all due respect Gore is a dope. I didn't realize this until watching the Democratic debates. I do think it would be wise for us to become less dependant on oil but I don't think it will happen until the oil supply is GONE altogether.

Re #4 I agree
post #20 of 44
Thread Starter 
The Republicans knew the tax cut was too big. The tax cut is about 60% of the reason why we are projecting dificits as far as the eye can see from surpluses the eye could see.

Bush naturally will use this as an excuse to weasel out of his campaign promises such as prescription drugs, HMO reform and will drain the social security trust fund for tax cuts for the rich in hope to "stimulate" the economy.


post #21 of 44
[quote]I hate people that say "I hate both liberals and conservatives!"

You suck!
<hr></blockquote>

Good, I really don't care. Don't any of you realize that the system is just screwed as it is now? It's not about right or wrong, good or bad, it's about who is paying the bills. I used to cut checks for a PAC, you think the Republicans didn't do a 180 and support what we wanted as soon as those checks were made out to them? Same for Democrats.
post #22 of 44
let's certainly hope they don't regain control! God help us
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
post #23 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:
<strong>The Republicans knew the tax cut was too big. The tax cut is about 60% of the reason why we are projecting dificits as far as the eye can see from surpluses the eye could see.

Bush naturally will use this as an excuse to weasel out of his campaign promises such as prescription drugs, HMO reform and will drain the social security trust fund for tax cuts for the rich in hope to "stimulate" the economy.


</strong><hr></blockquote>


Once again, must say OMFG!!!!!

Too Big? It wasn't even close to big enough. WTFis the matter with people? By the time you pay ALL the taxes you do....you pay 50-60% of your income to a government agency of some kind. Federal income and SS taxes alone account for 40% of your income....HOLY ****ING SHIT!!!!

Now, let us mention the others:

Sales tax: In PA whre I am, 6% of almost everything you buy. Since most people in this country spend a minimum of 80% of their income that is a big deal.

Gas Tax: 50% of purchase price

State Income tax: PA=2.5% of AGI

Local Income Tax (1% for me), Property Tax (in my area up to 5% of your income depending on your home), luxury tax, liquor tax, cigarette tax...OMFG!!!!!

that doesn't count liceneses: Hunting , fishing, driving, shooting....they are all taxes.

Also: Medicare tax, inheritance tax (state and federal depending on amount of the estate), federal phone taxes (called fees...approx. 3% of each phone call)

I'm not going to sit here and do the math. But, it is plain that if we used actual $ figures these taxes might even be MORE than 60%. The only solution at the federal level is a massive tax cut in payroll and income taxes....like reducing everything by ONE HALF.

Oh, and the by the way you revisionist history mother ****ers.....REAGAN and the republicans WERE NOT entirely responsible for deficit spending. The congress was democratically controlled for EIGHT YEARS!!!! Who do you think appropriates spending???

Tax revenue went UP DURING THESE YEARS...NOT DOWN!!!!!! The problem was unrestrained spending. And for those of you who were not even a gleam in your parent's eyes yet in, say, 1984 or so: If we didn't have the kind of military spending we did then, we may have been the ones who lost the cold war.

I do have to agree with the fact that both parties are SCREWED. We need MASSIVE tax cuts at all levels. MASSIVE. The government should provide for the national defense, infastructure and provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times....not run our lives with ridicluous spending programs and entitlements.

Reward failure. Punish success. WTF ever.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #24 of 44
I hate the Republicrats.

They need to lose their overpowering grip on the reigns of power in this country before things can get any better.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: DoctorGonzo ]</p>
post #25 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>Your a ****ing idiot, Nostradamus.
...
What a ****ing joke. At least the Republicans ADMIT to being rich fat cats.....at least they admit favoring business, which by the way, is generally good for the economy, not bad. Regan proved that. Without his revolution the country very well may have sunk into a full blown DEPRESSION.

Moron.</strong><hr></blockquote>Wow. The sheer emotionality of your posts is revealing. People just don't get that emotional about basic facts - they only get that worked up about beliefs that are irrational.

If you do look at facts rather than emotions, the "Clinton economy" was better in virtually every way than the "Reagan economy." The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.

And one more little thing. After Reagan/Bush, we had the largest deficit/debt in history. After Clinton, there was an almost historically unheard-of surplus. In short, Reagan's plan didn't work (i.e., tax-cut our way out of debt), but Clinton's plan did (i.e., be fiscally responsible and let the economy keep humming).

Oh, and before you say the Dems spent the money that Reagan wanted to save, Congress every single year spent less than Reagan's budget plans called for. He believed you could spend spend spend, and it would be OK because tax cuts would make everything fine.

Now we know who was right and who was wrong. Despite that, Bush II is doing the exact same thing. If you guys would just admit that you WANT debt because it reduces spending on social programs, rather than saying that you want to be fiscally responsible, you'd have more credibility.
post #26 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:
<strong>Hillary for 2004</strong><hr></blockquote>

Such a typical Democrat's perverted wet dream.
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #27 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Wow. The sheer emotionality of your posts is revealing. People just don't get that emotional about basic facts - they only get that worked up about beliefs that are irrational.

If you do look at facts rather than emotions, the "Clinton economy" was better in virtually every way than the "Reagan economy." The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.

And one more little thing. After Reagan/Bush, we had the largest deficit/debt in history. After Clinton, there was an almost historically unheard-of surplus. In short, Reagan's plan didn't work (i.e., tax-cut our way out of debt), but Clinton's plan did (i.e., be fiscally responsible and let the economy keep humming).

Oh, and before you say the Dems spent the money that Reagan wanted to save, Congress every single year spent less than Reagan's budget plans called for. He believed you could spend spend spend, and it would be OK because tax cuts would make everything fine.

Now we know who was right and who was wrong. Despite that, Bush II is doing the exact same thing. If you guys would just admit that you WANT debt because it reduces spending on social programs, rather than saying that you want to be fiscally responsible, you'd have more credibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>

First of all, the "Clinton economy" was good because of the rise of the internet. That was all. Just plain luck. The economy started to go bad while Clinton was still in office. But wait, how could this be? Simple, he just got lucky for 7 years and knew that whatever happened would be blamed on the new president. And could somebody explain to me in a non-emotional way, what is so bad about having debt?
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #28 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>And could somebody explain to me in a non-emotional way, what is so bad about having debt?</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, I know you don't want an answer from me, because I'm a *****ing moron ******* liberal, but here's one reason debt is bad.

About one-fifth of your federal taxes are devoted to the debt (it may be a bit lower now, but that's what I remember from a few years ago).

If there was no debt, either your federal tax could be lowered by one-fifth, or you could have an automatic one-fourth increase in military and social spending.
post #29 of 44
The worst thing about this country is the stupid partisanship in the government. Democraps and Republican'ts both should grow up and get rid of this stupid party system we hold on to. Come on! It's the 21st century not the 19th!
post #30 of 44
Oh yeah, man of the year... Rebublican.

man who should have been president.... an independent.
post #31 of 44
Thread Starter 
It's the economy stupid!
post #32 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Wow. The sheer emotionality of your posts is revealing. People just don't get that emotional about basic facts - they only get that worked up about beliefs that are irrational.

If you do look at facts rather than emotions, the "Clinton economy" was better in virtually every way than the "Reagan economy." The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.

And one more little thing. After Reagan/Bush, we had the largest deficit/debt in history. After Clinton, there was an almost historically unheard-of surplus. In short, Reagan's plan didn't work (i.e., tax-cut our way out of debt), but Clinton's plan did (i.e., be fiscally responsible and let the economy keep humming).

Oh, and before you say the Dems spent the money that Reagan wanted to save, Congress every single year spent less than Reagan's budget plans called for. He believed you could spend spend spend, and it would be OK because tax cuts would make everything fine.

Now we know who was right and who was wrong. Despite that, Bush II is doing the exact same thing. If you guys would just admit that you WANT debt because it reduces spending on social programs, rather than saying that you want to be fiscally responsible, you'd have more credibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>


And your sheer stupidity is revealing. The good economy was caused by the rise of the NEW economy, not Clinton. His polices were to tax and spend. There is no arguing that he raised taxes by the largest margin in history. The top bracket used to be around 29%...it is now 39.9%. Middle class taxes went WAY up too...and this was after he promised tax CUTS in the election.

Regan was also not the same as Bush 41. Bush 41, IMO, was not a great President. He wasn't bad, but his policies were not in-line with Regan. Also, we had deficits due to over spending by the liberals....period. The economy in the eighties was MUCH better....lower taxes, more liquidity, etc.

[quote]The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.
<hr></blockquote>

Umm...no. Crime was better because the economy was better. The economy was better because of the New Economy. Clinton had NOTHING to do with interest rates....the Federal reserve did. The expansion also lasted approx the same amount of time....perhaps less. I don't understand people lumping the 90's together as a great time. We were in recession until fall 92....then experienced only anemic and then decent growth until 1995/1996. The raging economy didn't really begin until late 1996 and 1997....and peaked around the Holidays of 1999.

You simply believe what the talking heads tell you. "everything was better under Clinton....BWWHAHAHAHA!!!

We are lucky we are still here as a nation after him. He was corrupt as a man and a leader....he sold us out to China, cut military spending by 30%, raised taxes, proposed a ridiculous health system, wouldn't do anything unless a poll told him to, and IMO he will go down in history as one of the most corrupt Presidents in history.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #33 of 44
*sigh* Christ....

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #34 of 44
Truth is that the Democrats are not on very sure footing on this one. Also this idea of calling this a "Bush Recession" (or trying to imply that) may back fire as we still look at smoldering piles in NYC and remember the ".bombs" of the tech industry.

Tax cut? What like 12 Democratic Senators voted for it? That number may be to high but as Daschle attacks the tax cut you have him also attacking Diane Feinstein who is still supporting it. At the very least the party is not united on this issue.

Fact is people are not fed up with what the government is doing right now. So no one really cares and as such there will be no vote the bums out attitude. What you will see though is some seats going back to the Democrats after the anti-incumbent take over that Gingrich engineered.
post #35 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

There is no arguing that he raised taxes by the largest margin in history. The top bracket used to be around 29%...it is now 39.9%. Middle class taxes went WAY up too...and this was after he promised tax CUTS in the election... <hr></blockquote>

Funny how easily people forget that.

[quote]...Crime was better because the economy was better. <hr></blockquote>

Other periods of economic expansion (the 60's, the 80's) didn't cause a drop in crime. Crime was better because of demographics and Guiliani. It's amazing how large an impact the drop in crime in NYC had on the statistics for the entire nation. And then there was the ancillary effect of other police department adopting what worked in NYC...

[quote]The economy was better because of the New Economy...<hr></blockquote>

I'm always skeptical about that term. I read an interesting article in Wired recently about the 19th century "new economy" of the clipper ships.

[quote]Clinton had NOTHING to do with interest rates....the Federal reserve did. The expansion also lasted approx the same amount of time....perhaps less. I don't understand people lumping the 90's together as a great time. We were in recession until fall 92....<hr></blockquote>

No we weren't. The economy was already in recovery by that summer. Problem was unemployment, which is a lagging indicator, was still up.

[quote]...then experienced only anemic and then decent growth until 1995/1996.<hr></blockquote>

Right. GDP growth was retarded by Clinton's tax increase. He didn't tip us into recession but his tax increase did slow the economy to a point where people were talking about a "growth recesssion" in the spring of '94.

[quote]The raging economy didn't really begin until late 1996 and 1997....and peaked around the Holidays of 1999.<hr></blockquote>

Close. The Nasdaq peaked in March of 2000. Our current doldrums pretty much began with the tech sell-off that began shortly thereafter. That sell-off almost directly conincided with the Clinton Justice Department's Microsoft litigation but the Nasdaq was overvalued anyway. Microsoft litigation or no (of course, the suit didn't help matters) that was a bubble bound to burst.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #36 of 44
I hope they do return. I like the way Bush is handling 9/11. But frankly Republicans couldnt run a decent economy if their life depended on it.

Tax Cuts my ass!
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
post #37 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by Falcon:
<strong>I hope they do return. I like the way Bush is handling 9/11. But frankly Republicans couldnt run a decent economy if their life depended on it.

Tax Cuts my ass!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Who Balanced the budget? Here's a hint. It wasn't the Democrats. Also who run the economy? Here's a hint. It's not the Congress.
post #38 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Who Balanced the budget? Here's a hint. It wasn't the Democrats.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm curious who you think balanced the budget.

Here's my take:

Was it the roaring economy?
If so, why wasn't it balanced in the 80s?

Was it the Congressional Republicans?
But Clinton & Newt didn't reach an agreement until after Clinton was re-elected in '96, so how could that be it? And there wasn't any reduced social spending after 1994 - it continued to increase.

How about:
1. tons of revenue from the long expansion and great stock market,
2. no tax cuts, and
3. lower military spending.
post #39 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

I'm curious who you think balanced the budget.

Here's my take:

Was it the roaring economy?
If so, why wasn't it balanced in the 80s?<hr></blockquote>

I could be flip and suggest you ask the Dems who were in charge of Congress back then but the fact is the Cold War was still a part of the picture. At least some of the deficit financed the increased military spending of the Reagan years which in turn made possible the lower military spending once the Cold War was over.

Clinton's budgets benefited from the geopolitical legacy Reagan and Bush left. Dubya's budgets will pay for the geopolitical legacy Clinton left.

[quote]Was it the Congressional Republicans?
But Clinton & Newt didn't reach an agreement until after Clinton was re-elected in '96, so how could that be it? <hr></blockquote>

So? Clinton never submitted a balanced budget until Congress forced his hand. It wasn't a coincidence that the first balanced budget since 1969 didn't occur until Republicans took over Congress.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #40 of 44
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Dubya's budgets will pay for the geopolitical legacy Clinton left.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you be more specific here? Are you blaming 9/11 on Clinton?

If so, two points:
1. Conservatives blow a gasket if liberals imply American policy is in any way responsible for 9/11.
2. When Clinton finally did try to do something, conservatives said he was wagging the dog and just trying to get our minds off Monica.
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>It wasn't a coincidence that the first balanced budget since 1969 didn't occur until Republicans took over Congress.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's exactly what it was. Newt and Clinton didn't agree on a budget until it was already well into Clinton's second term. And that budget didn't reduce the deficit, it prolonged the deficit because of more spending and tax cuts that were thrown in so they could all get agreement. And that was only possible because the budget picture was already looking so good. Everything had been basically on autopilot since the original 1993 budget that not a single Republican voted for.

Clinton rolled the Congressional Republicans every single time. He almost always got everything he wanted during those budget battles. The only way you can say the Republicans had an effect on balancing the budget is through some indirect pressure they put on Clinton because they won the mid-terms in '94. There's probably some truth to that, but it was indirect pressure rather than some specific law that the Republicans passed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › 2002: The Triumphant Return of the Democrats?