comp.lang.ruby

Gregg Luze

8/3/2007 9:21:00 PM

<<SNIP>>

>> Well, let's see here. We had drops in the deficit and actually some
>> surpluses when a Democrat was President. The previous time we had
>> drops in the deficit were when another Democrat was President. The
>> GOP in Congress tried their best to spend every penny of that surplus
>> money and it was a Democrat who insisted on using it to pay debt
>> instead. And just as soon as the GOP chased the last Dem out of town
>> in 2001 the deficit began to balloon.
>>
>> So, you tell me, after six years of a Republican lock on the Federal
>> government, where are the low deficits and surpluses we had before
>> they swept the Capitol?
>>
>> Since LBJ there have been exactly two Presidents who actually did
>> something about deficits Both were Democrats and one governed with a
>> Democratic Congress. The other governed his first two years with a
>> Democratic Congress.
>>
>> AAC, no to be offensive or anything, but haven't you figured out yet
>> that it's the REPUBLICANS who are the Spenders?
>>
>> All that party line stuff about smaller government, less spending,
>> lowered debt, it's all bullshit and has been since Reagan started
>> running in 1979. Before the 80 election, many pundits tried to point
>> out how badly Reagan had ballooned California's debt. Remember
>> Proposition 13? The public tax revolt it represented? That was a
>> response to the irresponsible fiscal policies of eight years of
>> Reagan's governance in that State.
>>
>> Swill
>> --
>> Picture of the day
>> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ast...
>
> You forgot that 50 consecutive years of Congress controlled by Democrats
> led to a $4+Trillion dollar debt.

He probably forgot about that 50 consecutive years because it didn't happen.

> During Bill Clinton's first two years in office with Democrats still in
> control of Congress, Bill himself declared he couldn't accomplish anything
> because he couldn't get Republican support.

Didn't happen.

> Fact is, with the Republicans taking control of Congress in 1994, all of a
> sudden, deficits get under control?
>

If by "all of a sudden" you mean that it started in the years before the
Republicans took control of congress while President Clinton and the
Democratic congress were cutting spending, then yes.

> Contrary to what you claim, it's far more likely it was because of
> Republican demands, not Democrat ones.
>

And yet, the largest increases in debt, spending, and deficits have come
with Republicans in control of both branches of government.


> As to turn of the century, too rapid economic growth based upon a weak
> economic foundation yielded a major recession.

Yes, that was what was first stated by the Bush administration, then it was
shown that the recession started after Bush took office. Bush's policies
were in place when the recession started 10 months (almost a full year) into
his presidency.


> Add a war, and we get a temporary reversal.

I have no idea what this sentence (thought fragment?) is supposed to mean.

> Still, you'd have to be blind not to realize the economic success we had
> as regards deficit spending in the latter 1990's was because of the
> efforts of Republicans, not the Democrats.

Well, either blind or educated.


Wayne, two things, pulling numbers, and facts, out of your ass doesn't do
your side of the argument any good and wishing something to be true does not
make it so.

G