The bottom line with Clinton is that the deficit when down. You can try to credit the GOP controlled Congress but then, that's what we have now and spending is going up. Therefore, its pretty safe to deduce that the reduction in the deficit had more to do with Clinton than the GOP.
No it is not at all safe to assume that. GOP hardly equals lowering deficits there are a lot of free spenders in the GOP and apparently Bush is one of them, but the particular GOP congress at that time was strongly for lowering spending and deficits and they had a big effect, unfortunately the current GOP congress is not so set against increasing spending. Combine this with a president who makes no effort to contain spending and events that push spending higher like the recession we had and 9/11 and you set the stage for very large deficits. Would the deficits be lower if Clinton could and did get elected a third time, or if Gore became president? Maybe but they would still be large.
When Al complained about the wasteful spending, you went on this long winded [defensive] explanation trying to show that Bush's spending wasn't all that bad [in comparison to the spending during WW II
"You don't really seem to pay much attention to what I post. I wasn't talking about spending at all but rather government debt levels and how sustainable they where."
Debt levels are determined by the level of spending. Debt levels are determined by the level of spending.
Government debt levels are determined by spending, tax rates, and the level of economic activity that the taxes skim off of. But my main point at this time is that you misstated what I posted and what Al posted. Al said that the debt levels were less sustainable then at any time in American history. I shows how this was not so while agreeing that spending and the deficit where both too high. That has very little to do with what you claimed I posted when you said - "you went on this long winded [defensive] explanation trying to show that Bush's spending wasn't all that bad [in comparison to the spending during WW II]".
Bush apparently has learned from the Dems, which is not something that should make one feel proud of him. Social Security, Medicate ect. where all supposed to cost far less then they did even after just a few years.
Let me remind you that since WW II, debt went down under the Dems and has increased dramatically under Reagan and Bush.
Debt went up most of the time since WWII no matter who was president at least since Johnson. Most of the increase in spending during those years went to programs that where started by FDR or Johnson. Until recently Republican presidents hadn't push for such big new entitlements but Bush changed that. That's what I mean by "he learnt from the Democrats".
who claim the CIA mislead them re. Iraq when it turns out they bypassed the CIA completely?
You fail to adequately support the contention that the Bush administration bypassed the CIA entirely or the implied contention that the CIA said there where no WMD in Iraq.
As for partisanship, I see you as being partisan but not to the point where I would normally care to make a big deal about it, but when you attack others for their partisanship and thrust aside their arguments against it insisting that the are "partisan" unless they "start criticizing Bush for BS", then you are presenting a ridiculous standard. If people attack Bush they are non-partisan but if they don't they are partisan? That's an interesting redefinition of the word partisan. You think someone is a bad president and everyone who disagrees is a partisan? Nonsense.
Tim |
