National debt

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Yeah then how do you purpose that the Hairbrained scheme that the current administration is going to acomplish getting rid of the current budget shortfall. I read the last article you posted on the subject and sorry but it doesn't make sence. Not even from an economic standpoint.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Talk about Bait and switch, There is no denying that Clinton got rid of the national debt (an acomplisment that no other president before was able to do) Jesus Vi Give credit where credit is do.
Or is it that your hatred for Clinton is so deep seated that you can't see the truth when it is staring you in the face.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Talk about Bait and switch, There is no denying that Clinton got rid of the national debt (an acomplisment that no other president before was able to do) Jesus Vi Give credit where credit is do.
Or is it that your hatred for Clinton is so deep seated that you can't see the truth when it is staring you in the face.
Sorry Dank ... the national debt was still alive and well when Clintoon left office. There's a difference between the national debt and the year-to-year budget deficit. Two different animals entirely. Believe me, if Clintoon got rid of the national debt, he'd be an international hero. The Spinmeister may be smooth ... but he ain't THAT smooth. *lol*

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Sorry Dank ... the national debt was still alive and well when Clintoon left office. There's a difference between the national debt and the year-to-year budget deficit. Two different animals entirely. Believe me, if Clintoon got rid of the national debt, he'd be an international hero. The Spinmeister may be smooth ... but he ain't THAT smooth. *lol*

Vi
And how bout that Bush, It 230+ years to amass the 4.6 trillion national debt, and in 6 years, Bush doubled it. God I'm glad he's only got 2 more years or he could more than triple it! Who's the spinmeister here?
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Sorry Bro, You are wrong, you ignore the facts vi. Go back and read up on history. Clinton is the first president in history to put the nation in the black.

Well The way I see it you want things only short term. You could care less what the People want for this country. As long as it doesn't take any money out of your wallet you could care less if the country go's to hell in a handbasket. 46% (Correct figures) of the people in this nation are uninsured, that is nearly half the nation. And if we were to eliminate the Illegals in this country we could sustain universal health care when we have a population of 300,000,000.
Talk about spinmeister, Clinton has nothing on Carl Rove, shit he insults the intelligence on a daily basis.
 

ViRedd

New Member
No spin on my part ... I'm on record here in previous posts stating that I don't support Bush's failure to use the veto pen. Same with his immigration policies ... I don't support him there either.

Here's an interesting chart showing the increase in the national debt, who's responsible and what it is today. Notice that Clintoon doesn't get a free pass here as you guys would like to pretend.

United Stated National Debt


Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
No spin on my part ... I'm on record here in previous posts stating that I don't support Bush's failure to use the veto pen. Same with his immigration policies ... I don't support them either.

Here's an interesting chart showing the increase in the national debt, who's responsible and what it is today. Notice that Clintoon doesn't get a free pass here as you guys would like to pretend.

United Stated National Debt


Vi
What clinton did was to put the budget deficit in the black, in other words, he was paying down the National debt instead of adding to it. Bush doubled the national debt in 6 years, a debt that took 230+ years to amass! 8.5 trillion as opposed to 4.6 trillion. Refute this you knarly old reprobate!
 

medicineman

New Member
"Refute this you knarly old reprobate!"

Go back to the chart: United Stated National Debt

Show me where Clintoon started to pay down the national debt. This link is hardly complimentary to Bush. The facts are the facts.

Vi
I looked at "your" chart and if you take another look, you'll see that in '2000' the curve had leveled off, the first time in its inception. Then in '2001' the chart took off like a rocket and headed for the sky. Viva your Bush!!! I didn't say he payed it off, I said he started paying it down, which would explain the leveling, although on that chart you really can't see how much! Look at the curves of the two presidents on the chart, Clinton and Bush and really tell me which one did better on the debt!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Well, again ... I'm not supporting Bush's mania for losing the veto pen. Nor am I excusing the Republicans in both houses either. The fact that I don't support the Democrats and their communistic ways is not support for the Republicans.

By the way ... we could pay off the national debt if we just taxed the citizens 100% of their production for a few years. Would you guys be up for that?

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Well, again ... I'm not supporting Bush's mania for losing the veto pen. Nor am I excusing the Republicans in both houses either. The fact that I don't support the Democrats and their communistic ways is not support for the Republicans.

By the way ... we could pay off the national debt if we just taxed the citizens 100% of their production for a few years. Would you guys be up for that?

Vi
Tax 100% of everything over $100,000 for 5 years and you'd have a surplus that would last for centuries! BTW who do you support, you're always smakin down Dems. and backing Repubs., you sound like a lost Republican that can't find his way home. I choose the lessor of the two evils as I see it, the Dems.
 

ViRedd

New Member
"Tax 100% of everything over $100,000 for 5 years and you'd have a surplus that would last for centuries!"

What, in your view, would the ramifications of this be? And ... do you think it would be a good idea?

"BTW who do you support"

I support a few Republicans. Haven't voted for a Democrat since JFK. Mostly, I vote for principled people irregardless of party. Let's say that Zell Miller was running for Governor against Ahhhnold here in California. I'd vote for Zell Miller in a nano-second.


Vi
 

ViRedd

New Member
Zell Miller is a principled person ... even though he is a Democrat.

Republican National Convention

Transcript of Zell Miller's speech

Text of speech by Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia as prepared for delivery Wednesday at the Republican National Convention:

By Associated Press
Published September 2, 2004


Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.
Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.
And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.
Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.
And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?
The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.
There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.
In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.
President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."
In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.
And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.
And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.
Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.
Where are such statesmen today?
Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?
Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.
What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?
I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.
It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.
Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.
And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.
Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.
But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.
They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.
They were wrong.
They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.
They were wrong.
And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.
Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.
The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.
The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.
I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.
This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?
Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.
Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.
Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.
Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.
I want Bush to decide.
John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.
That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.
Free for how long?
For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.
As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.
As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.
George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.
John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.
No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.
George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.
From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.
I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.
I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.
He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.
I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.
The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.
This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.
The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.
Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.
In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.
Thank you.
God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Please explain how Democrats have communistic ways?

Your bucket holds no water, they ain't even in office yet and have been out for 12 years, how in the hell do you know what they are going to do?
Please, I want what ever crystal ball you have so I can see into the future too. :rolleyes:
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
You can see that Zell Miller is out of office as well. Damn Vi that speech in retrospect is weak.
 

medicineman

New Member
I feel like Zell miller missed the point. In the first place I see him as a traitor to his party, to switch alliegences, and I wonder if now he'd have the same view after seeing all the shit the BC regime has pulled. Do you feel safer, I sure as hell dont. What B-C have done in Iraq is opened Pandoras Box, If making all the radical Islamists madder than a nest of hornets makes you feel safer, then I guess you just don't get it. I realize that they weren't too happy with the US foriegn policy before the war, but now they just flat hate all Americans! Would you want to vacation anywhere in the middle east besides Isreal right now, I think not. Zell miller comes off as a republican, He was democrat in name only. The only reason you liked him is he dissed his own party and gave some rhetorical bullshit speech about patriotism. Zell miller was a traitor to his party period, and all the speeches he'll ever make won't change that!
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
 

medicineman

New Member
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
I believe that! Fear is the great motivator for war, and it's a fact that the Bush-Cheney regime has played that one to the fullest! I'll Be so glad when this election is over and the Republicans have to eat shit, because they've shoved shit in our faces for 10 years, and said, "eat up"!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Please explain how Democrats have communistic ways?

Your bucket holds no water, they ain't even in office yet and have been out for 12 years, how in the hell do you know what they are going to do?
Please, I want what ever crystal ball you have so I can see into the future too. :rolleyes:
I believe that I've directed you to the U.S. Communist Party website before and asked you to compare their platform with that of the Democrats.

I only know what they say they are going to do. Read their program.

Vi
 
Top