On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:26:11 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:01:02 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:10:05 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
That fact does not negate that a great majority of final marriages
last.


Who said anything about "final" marriages? I didn't. Bad spin, Dave.

The end result is all that matters.


Oh, NOW I get it..... you refuse to accept this simple statistical
fact because -you- have been divorced! You, like so many others,
couldn't keep the vows you made before God, and now you have to
justify your failure! LOL!


snip
You mean things like the right to vote?

Name me a state, anywhere in this country, where the right to vote is
lawfully denied to anyone.


There -is- no right to vote that can be denied, Dave. That's the
point.

No, the point is that there is no institution anywhere in this country
that denies anyone the "ability" to vote. Despite your insinuation
that this happens and championing this as your main excuse for why
your side lost the last election.


Quit using the last election as the scapegoat for your dysfunctional
understanding of the Constitution, Dave -- the fact is that the right
to vote is NOT protected. Any state can -indeed- prevent people from
voting for any reason -EXCEPT- for reasons based on race or sex.


snip
A few years without war?

With the exception of the current war, and the Gulf War, who was
president when the last several wars broke out, and which party where
they a part of?


No exceptions allowed, Dave.

There were still more wars headed by democratic presidents than
republican ones.

And maybe you forgot about Panama and
Grenada.

Or the flubbed rescues attempt in Iran?

The Balkans? Kosovo?

None of which were "wars" in the truest sense.


None of those military actions were intended to overthrow a standing
government. But I didn't forget them, nor did I forget the many
countries that were overthrown (or that we attempted to overthrow)
through indirect support and/or covert (CIA) operations. But then you
have to factor out those wars where the US was attacked first since
they were started by someone else. Add it all together and -then- tell
me which way the scales tip, Dave.


If you count military expeditions then you have a whole
different ball of ear wax.

But we're not.


But you just did.


snip
In case you didn't notice, Newt was the lone Republican proponent of a
balanced budget amendment, which is why he was publically trounced and
bounced from Congress.

You need to get your history in order. Newt was "bounced" from
congress after a democratic led smear campaign over an alleged ethics
issue. In fact, it's pretty much common speculation that this event is
what prompted a retaliation against Clinton, with the Monica Lewinsky
scandal.


The Lewinsky scandal and resulting impeachment was the culmination of
several years (and millions of dollars) of 'investigation' into the
Whitewater mess by the Republican attack-dog Ken Starr.

But many of your loonie left conspiracy buddies believe that the
Lewinsky scandal was a republican "payback" for what happened to
Newt.


I guess that makes -you- one of my "loonie left conspiracy buddies".


If you go back and look at the votes, most of
the Republicans voted -against- the balanced budget during the Clinton
years.

Yea, Clinton's budget. But they backed their own version, which
included better cuts.


Gee, I never saw a copy of that bill. Is it online somewhere?

Sure, if you look for it.


Ok, then quote it.


snip
It's a fact that the democratically controlled congress raised taxes.
Bush Sr. was coerced into signing it, under threat on not having any
of his bills passed through.


Coerced? LOL! Contrary to your warped spin, the president pretty much
controls the budget -regardless- of who has a majority in Congress
unless that majority can override a presidential veto, which hasn't
happened in decades.

No, it's not that easy or clear cut. The president can propose all
sorts of bills, but if the congress shoots them down, they never see
the light of day. Similarly, the congress can approve a bill and the
president can veto it, and it normally dies there. The point is that
in order to move past this partisan deadlock, it requires some
compromise. And that is exactly what George H.W. Bush was forced to
do, when he allowed democratically sponsored tax increases to pass
through along with measures that he wanted. It was all part of the
deal.


First, the president doesn't propose bills.

Second, a bill doesn't die just because it gets a presidential veto;
usually it gets sent back to Congress for more negotiations. If those
negotiations fail then either the bill gets shelved or they move for a
continuing resolution (depending on the issue).

Third, Daddy Bush was "forced" to increase taxes because he refused to
scale back spending in a no-growth economy (for example, pork-barrel
spending DOUBLED from 1989 to 1991). And while he was being "forced"
to increase -individual- income taxes, he threatened to veto any
increase of -corporate- income taxes. In fact, revenue from corporate
income taxes -dropped- during the Bush I administration. But if your
crystal ball says that those tax increases were "forced" by the
Democratic Congress then it must be true.

Also, revenue from corporate income taxes dropped to a near all-time
low of 1.2% of GDP in 2003, the average being 2.5% and the lowest
being 1.1% (Reagan, 1983). This reduction was 68% -greater- than the
reduction of individual income taxes during the same time period.
These tax cuts were made during wartime by a Republican administration
-and- a Republican Congress. It's clearly the Republican's fault, but
I'm sure you'll find someone else to blame.....


The historical trends of the budget follow the
leadership in the White House, not the Congress. Your insinuation that
Congress has more control over the budget than the president is
nothing but a slick way for Republicans to take credit for Democrat
achievements and blame the Democrats for Republican failures.

Which is exactly what happened. Democrats are known (By everyone
except you apparently) as the ones who tax and spend. Republicans
normally slash and cut.


You have things a little mixed up here, as usual: BOTH Democrats AND
Republicans spend like crazy. The differences are where that money
comes from and where it's spent. The Democrats prefer to get their
revenue from taxes while the Republicans like to max out the Federal
credit card. The Democrats use the money to pay the bills and meet the
government's obligation to all those retired citizens who payed into
the Social Security system for most of their lives. The Republicans
like to spend our -future- income on warmongering.


The president can "propose" anything he wants,
but if he doesn't have congressional buy-in, it goes nowhere. That's
the wonderful thing about our government's checks and balances.

Clinton was a master spokesman, and a skilled negotiator. Once
republicans gained control of congress, he knew he was in for a fight.
Consequently, his policies moved from the left (Gays in the military,
universal healthcare) in the beginning of his term, to much more
centrist (Balanced budget, tax cuts, welfare reform) and closer
aligned with those points which republicans also champion.


You've got bats in the bellfry, Dave -- Congress doesn't control
Executive policy decisions. It's called "seperation of powers",
another little tidbit that's defined in the Constitution. Oh, but
that's right, you know the Constitution front to back......LOL!


Clinton
took something like a balanced budget and welfare reform away from the
republicans when he claimed them as his own.


.......oh brother


Republicans were not
about to shoot down bills which were ideologically appealing to them,
so they passed. Clinton won a psychological and tactical victory by
being able to claim victory, even though the groundwork had lamented
for years with republicans in congress.


On what planet? Zeta Reticuli?


He took an idea that
republicans could never get passed (Since they didn't have control of
congress until Clinton was in office), called it his own, and managed
to take credit for it. That bought him some political capital, and
allowed him to leverage that capital to successfully oppose congress
when it shut down over a budget impasse, and successfully managed to
blame republicans in the eyes of the people for his refusal to budge.


Holy conspiracy theories, Batman!


When you have such a stalemate, perception is everything. If the
people perceive that the president is at fault (Especially when he's
looking at re-election), then his support dies. The same is true if
the congress is perceived to be at fault.

Clinton, with his smooth talking demeanor managed to do just that. But
it was the hard work of republicans that brought these issues to
light.


Earth to Dave..... Earth to Dave..... check your oxygen supply!


snip
Daddy Bush lost re-election because he got stuck
with the bill.

Yes, plus the involvement of Ross Perot, syphoned away many would-be
republican votes.


It's always someone else's fault, isn't it Dave?

No, it's not. But in this case it's true.


Thus sayeth the Crystal Ball.


snip
Is that enough proof for you?

What proof? I saw no reference source given.


What? You mean that after all the time you spend on the internet
looking for the "facts" you don't know where or how to find Federal
budget information?

Sure. But many sites spin the numbers to suit their agenda.


It stands to reason that you might think the Congressional Budget
Office would spin the numbers -- after all, you still think Kerry's
honorable discharge is a Pentagon hoax.


Do you still think the Republicans are
cutting the budget like they claim? Or are you going to wallow in your
ignorance and try to spin the cold, hard facts?

Right now no. There's a war to fight and that typically costs a lot of
money. But they are cutting funding to other programs.


During the Vietnam years the Federal debt increased by only $42.2B and
the deficit never exceeded $27.7B.

And I paid $.27 a gallon for gasoline in 1970 too. The house I sold
for $110,000 in 1999 was only worth about $28,000 in 1970. The numbers
don't tell the whole story, unless all the conditions are also known.


Alright, we'll do this as a percentage of GDP, year by year:

Year Deficit(-) Debt
----------------------
Johnson:
1965 -0.2 37.9
1966 -0.5 34.9
1967 -1.1 32.9
1968 -2.9 33.3

Nixon:
1969 0.3 29.3
1970 -0.3 28.0
1971 -2.1 28.1
1972 -2.0 27.4
1973 -1.1 26.0
1974 -0.4 23.9

Ford:
1975 -3.4 25.3
1976 -4.2 27.5

Carter:
1977 -2.7 27.8
1978 -2.7 27.4
1979 -1.6 25.6
1980 -2.7 26.1

Reagan:
1981 -2.6 25.8
1982 -4.0 28.7
1983 -6.0 33.0
1984 -4.8 34.0
1985 -5.1 36.3
1986 -5.0 39.5
1987 -3.2 40.6
1988 -3.1 40.9

Daddy Bush:
1989 -2.8 40.6
1990 -3.9 42.0
1991 -4.5 45.3
1992 -4.7 48.1

Clinton:
1993 -3.9 49.4
1994 -2.9 49.3
1995 -2.2 49.2
1996 -1.4 48.5
1997 -0.3 46.1
1998 0.8 43.1
1999 1.4 39.8
2000 2.4 35.1

Baby Bush:
2001 1.3 33.0
2002 -1.5 34.1
2003 -3.5 36.1
2004 -3.6 37.2

It should now be painfully obvious that the budget trends follow the
executive administration, -not- the congressional majority, and -not-
because of any war. It's also obvious that Clinton did a =monumental=
job of trying to un**** Reagan's mess, and that Baby Bush is ****ing
it up all over again -- with a -Republican- majority in Congress.


I await your next batch of excuses......







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----