An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America

Sheriff Joe said:
Oh, you mean the budget.
I know for a fact you didn't pay attention to any deficit, national and local for the last 8 years.
What gives? Governor moonbeam doesn't get much of your ire and the Kenyan didn't either.
So what you are saying is you are just a partisan fuck?
Got it.
Click to expand...
What happens when you have Dems in office is you get sensible spending and, in the case of Clinton and Gov. Moonbeam, budget surpluses and, in the case of your idol Peesident O, intelligent spending to grease a failed economy and get things back humming again. When you have a W or a Trump, you take a solid economy and you overspend on the unproductive military and you cut taxes and the economy slows. We need a Democrat back in the White House.
 
xav10 said:
What happens when you have Dems in office is you get sensible spending and, in the case of Clinton and Gov. Moonbeam, budget surpluses and, in the case of your idol Peesident O, intelligent spending to grease a failed economy and get things back humming again. When you have a W or a Trump, you take a solid economy and you overspend on the unproductive military and you cut taxes and the economy slows. We need a Democrat back in the White House.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? We just got rid of the smell of the last one and the pecker tracks out of the oral office carpet from the one before him.
We're good with an adult businessman for now.
 
xav10 said:
What happens when you have Dems in office is you get sensible spending and, in the case of Clinton and Gov. Moonbeam, budget surpluses and, in the case of your idol Peesident O, intelligent spending to grease a failed economy and get things back humming again. When you have a W or a Trump, you take a solid economy and you overspend on the unproductive military and you cut taxes and the economy slows. We need a Democrat back in the White House.
Click to expand...
California has the worst quality of life in the 50 US states, and some conservatives are celebrating
The Independent - 1 day ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQqOcBCC8wAQ&usg=AOvVaw24c3m9TrAHjgq2JyYRHSyc
 
espola said:
My original serial number, before they changed over to using SSNs, was B197857. I think I still have a dixie cup hat with that printed in it.
Click to expand...


You're kidding.....you are going to post some " Number "......I'm sure you were in the service.
Yes you deserve a Thank You. But that DOES NOT change the reputation YOU have developed
on this and two previous forums......You KNOW What you've posted...there's NO denying that.
You sleep with your reputation...

That's just like these Liberal Jackwads who tout " Robert Mueller " was a Vietnam Vet, he was a Marine...
He had a reputation...He's a Republican ...Yes...Had, now he's trashed everything in his past with what
he's done over just the last eighteen years.
And over the last year he's proved he's disgusting.
And over the last three months he's proved he's an asshole.
And over the last thirty days or less he's proved he's despicable.
He will be up for charges for what he's done...and the Crimes he's associated with.
Uranium One is going to be his first Albatross .......
 
xav10 said:
What happens when you have Dems in office is you get sensible spending and, in the case of Clinton and Gov. Moonbeam, budget surpluses and, in the case of your idol Peesident O, intelligent spending to grease a failed economy and get things back humming again. When you have a W or a Trump, you take a solid economy and you overspend on the unproductive military and you cut taxes and the economy slows. We need a Democrat back in the White House.
Click to expand...
You need to get your facts straight counselor...

No, Bill Clinton Didn’t Balance the Budget
By Stephen Moore
October 8, 1998
Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution.

Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, “Clinton balances the budget.” Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of “the real heroes” for his willingness to raise taxes — and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George’s last year in office.

And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.

The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton’s budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending — proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It’s funny, but back in January the White House didn’t seem too concerned about saving the surplus for “shoring up Social Security.”

entire article:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget
 
espola said:
Sucker.
Click to expand...
Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?
By KERRY JACKSON
JAN 14, 2018

Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. That's according to the Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income. ...

....
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some states — principally Wisconsin, Michigan, and Virginia — initiated welfare reform, as did the federal government under President Clinton and a Republican Congress. Tied together by a common thread of strong work requirements, these overhauls were a big success: Welfare rolls plummeted and millions of former aid recipients entered the labor force.

The state and local bureaucracies that implement California's antipoverty programs, however, resisted pro-work reforms. In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It's as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.

Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its "customer" base. With 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014, California has an enormous bureaucracy. Many work in social services, and many would lose their jobs if the typical welfare client were to move off the welfare rolls.

Further contributing to the poverty problem is California's housing crisis. More than four in 10 households spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2015. A shortage of available units has driven prices ever higher, far above income increases. And that shortage is a direct outgrowth of misguided policies. ...

entire article:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html
 
Lion Eyes said:
You need to get your facts straight counselor...

No, Bill Clinton Didn’t Balance the Budget
By Stephen Moore
October 8, 1998
Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution.

Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, “Clinton balances the budget.” Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of “the real heroes” for his willingness to raise taxes — and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George’s last year in office.

And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.

The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton’s budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending — proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It’s funny, but back in January the White House didn’t seem too concerned about saving the surplus for “shoring up Social Security.”

entire article:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget
Click to expand...

Cato? Sucker.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Magoo!!!!
Why not tell us all where the article is factually wrong... blaming the source is weak, ignorant and lazy.
Take your time...sober up first and then tear it up cabin boy.
Click to expand...

e4f1a96b99272fab079a9e3f48fc11e7.jpg
 
Lion Eyes said:
You need to get your facts straight counselor...

No, Bill Clinton Didn’t Balance the Budget
By Stephen Moore
October 8, 1998
Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution.

Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, “Clinton balances the budget.” Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of “the real heroes” for his willingness to raise taxes — and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George’s last year in office.

And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.

The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton’s budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending — proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It’s funny, but back in January the White House didn’t seem too concerned about saving the surplus for “shoring up Social Security.”

entire article:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget
Click to expand...

i see. deficits were removed and the budgets were at surpluses while he was president, as i stated. but i had my facts wrong, is that it?
you sound like stupid iz, who when i pointed out that obama's stock market performed better (much better) than trump's in the same period of his presidency, tried to explain why it wasn't obama.
 
xav10 said:
i see. deficits were removed and the budgets were at surpluses while he was president, as i stated. but i had my facts wrong, is that it?
you sound like stupid iz, who when i pointed out that obama's stock market performed better (much better) than trump's in the same period of his presidency, tried to explain why it wasn't obama.
Click to expand...
QE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top