The People

[repman]

How so, exactly? According to BLS stats, the public sector accounts for a grand total of about 8% of the jobs in the United States. That includes ALL public sector employees at the Federal, State, and Local levels, including all military personnel. Only about 4% of our population, in total, works for a government entity. So please explain to me how the public sector is "killing the private sector." The truth is it is just the opposite. The government dollars spur lots of private investment.

If it weren't for public sector jobs like Nasa and the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Army's Redstone Arsenal base, my hometown would be a ghost town. There are tons of high tech private companies here that are either government contractors, or that just feed off the extra dollars floating around because of all the government jobs. Exactly the opposite of what you say. No, sorry, but the sky is not falling and government jobs are not destroying the private sector.

More federal workers' pay tops $150,000


The fast-growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week's elections.






The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
The fast-growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week's elections. Already, some lawmakers are planning to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to challenge the president's plan to give a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers.


FEDERAL WORKERS: Earning double their private counterparts

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who will head the panel overseeing federal pay, says he wants a pay freeze and prefers a 10% pay cut. "It's stunning when you see what's happened to federal compensation," he says. "Every metric shows we're heading in the wrong direction."

National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley counters that the proposed raise "is a modest amount and should be implemented" to help make salaries more comparable with those in the private sector.

Federal salaries have grown robustly in recent years, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Office of Personnel Management data. Key findings:

•Government-wide raises. Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June.

•Long-time workers thrive. The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate.

•Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005.

Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce, up from 0.4% in 2005.

Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Members of Congress earn $174,000, up from $141,300 in 2000, an increase below the rate of inflation.

I think people should earn a good living while working foir the federal gov. but it should not be a better deal ( salary , Benefits, retirement) than the private sector in my opinion

 

[mapmustang]

I think he was saying that the public sector is growing faster than the private sector which is never good. In the last year, Texas has created more jobs than the other 49 states combined. Texas' business model consists of, little government regulations, low taxes, no unions running the place, limiting the effect of lawyers, and small reliance on the federal government. Texas didn't have to pass any bills to generate jobs and Texas barely got any of the bailout money compared to its size.

 

[mapmustang]

"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." - Thomas Jefferson

Estimated by a conservative anti-immigration group who went to great pains to avoid measuring any potential positive economic impact of immigrants. Not exactly a plausible number. Come back with a realistic, unbiased estimate and we can have a debate on this issue. I also think you vastly under-estimate the true costs of serious border enforcement.

What positive impact would they have? They send back more money to Mexico than they pay in taxes. Their cost to the education system is higher than anything.

No, we had low unemployment and low deficits before the Bush tax cuts. At the end of Clinton's term, unemployment was hovering at about 4% and the budget was balanced. I do agree, though, that the unnecessary wars, along with the unnecessary tax cuts, are what propelled us into the budget mess in which we now find ourselves.

Before the Bush tax cuts I might point out that we had a conservative controlled congress balancing the budget.

I'm sorry, I missed that part of the Constitution that says our economy must be based solely in capitalism and have no socialistic tendencies. Which Article was that in? Perhaps one of the Amendments that I missed?

Anyway, you are completely wrong and apparently have little knowledge of history:



from here: The Bailout: A Far Cry from Socialism

I understand separating the government from the big banks is the toughest thing to do. I know they bailed out AIG because it held a ton of insurance claims and also congress's pensions. Why did the government get involved in the auto industry, credit card companies, and small banks?

The purpose of Cap and Trade is to encourage companies to pollute less. Not force them to do so. Encourage them to do so through market incentives. I suppose you would prefer to just let them do what they want, regardless of the harm to our environment and our health. At least the private sector economy would be growing.

Encourage them to pollute less by fining them less? They already have the EPA for regulation, and the EPA continues to raise requirements all the time. How would cap and trade encourage the consumer? By making them spend thousands on upgrades to their homes to be compliant with a government standard?

Actually, wrong again. Our Constitution has changed quite a bit over the last two hundred years. And with each change, there have been people like you screaming that the world was going to fall apart and our country would never be the same again if we let women vote, or blacks have freedoms, etc. etc. And yet, we somehow carry on.

Those changes you referenced were made in amendments. If the federal government wants to take control of something from the states, it needs to be put into a bill and ratified by congress instead of being swallowed up.

I think all presidents take their motorcade when they travel. Any reason you are picking on Obama specifically for something that has been common practice for decades? Any source for your statement that he uses Air Force One more than any previous president? I highly doubt it is factual.

Obama had more international travel his first year than any other president. Since then he has flown all over the country to endorse congressional candidates who didn't want to be seen with him. I don't think you will argue that his entourage i.e. chef, doctors, dog trainer, speech writers, teleprompter setup crews, etc is bigger than any other president's. He took a 500 person crew to the G20 summit in Europe.

 

[Kevin]

How so, exactly? According to BLS stats, the public sector accounts for a grand total of about 8% of the jobs in the United States. That includes ALL public sector employees at the Federal, State, and Local levels, including all military personnel. Only about 4% of our population, in total, works for a government entity. So please explain to me how the public sector is "killing the private sector." The truth is it is just the opposite. The government dollars spur lots of private investment.

If it weren't for public sector jobs like Nasa and the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Army's Redstone Arsenal base, my hometown would be a ghost town. There are tons of high tech private companies here that are either government contractors, or that just feed off the extra dollars floating around because of all the government jobs. Exactly the opposite of what you say. No, sorry, but the sky is not falling and government jobs are not destroying the private sector.

First is by just outright competition. The public sector once supplied job opportunities for those workers that wanted to perform a task for society. The pay was less than a similiar job they could take in the private sector. But the pay was balanced out by the much better benefits offered in the public sector. Now, salaries have become heavily tilted towards the public sector, while at the same time, the benefits have gotten only better for the public sector as well. So now some of the better minds coming out of college are looking for government jobs vs private sector. And who can blame them? There is much better job security, more money, average retirement age is lower, and the benefits can't be beat.

The public sector employee unions have made sure it's members are overcompensated for the work that is being done. So now you have state pensions that either are, or fast becoming, way underfunded. So where will the money come from to fill the coffers? The taxpayers, which includes private sector employees who have seen their own jobs and salaries decrease and/or taxes on private businesses, which only again serves to take out money which could be used to increase employment and growth opportunities.

Lastly, the private sector has lost jobs in recent years while the public sector has grown. Because the nation is in debt, this growth is being financed by more loans from China and private banks. This further hurts our economy which further stifles our chance of growth from the private sector. Even a good portion of the money for the so called jobs stimulus went to retain public sector jobs. The so called 'saved jobs' the adminstration makes such a big deal about.

So I would say the private sector is losing out to the public sector. Not a fast kill, more like a snake strangling its prey before consuming it.

 

[Rich]

First is by just outright competition. The public sector once supplied job opportunities for those workers that wanted to perform a task for society. The pay was less than a similiar job they could take in the private sector. But the pay was balanced out by the much better benefits offered in the public sector. Now, salaries have become heavily tilted towards the public sector, while at the same time, the benefits have gotten only better for the public sector as well.

That sounds like a great argument . . . except that it is based on a completely false set of assumptions:

Official numbers released by the government last week show salaries of federal workers falling slightly further behind their private-sector counterparts in the past year, by an average of 2.1 percent across the country.

Source: Federal salaries fall further behind public sector, new data show

And again, if only 8% of all jobs are public sector, including military, how much competition is that really for the private sector (92% of the rest of the jobs). That argument just doesn't make any logical sense.

The public sector employee unions have made sure it's members are overcompensated for the work that is being done. So now you have state pensions that either are, or fast becoming, way underfunded.

What do State Pension plans have to do with the federal budget deficit? You are confusing your issues here. But as I said earlier, I agree with you that unions are pretty useless these days.

So where will the money come from to fill the coffers? The taxpayers, which includes private sector employees who have seen their own jobs and salaries decrease and/or taxes on private businesses, which only again serves to take out money which could be used to increase employment and growth opportunities.

Businesses are currently sitting on billions of dollars in cash. They have not accelerated hiring, nor have they invested much in infrastructure. They are sitting on the cash, and in some cases are buying back shares of their own stock. This fact kind of defeats your argument that all that excess profit goes to increasing employment.

Lastly, the private sector has lost jobs in recent years while the public sector has grown.

Yes, the private sector has lost jobs over the last few years. But it lost no more jobs per month during the first year of Obama's presidency than during the last year of Bush's. And it has experienced job growth in every month of this year so far. So again, I ask, why is everyone railing on Obama for doing nothing? He inherited an awful economic catastrophe and has handled it as well as anyone could have. No one yet in this thread has offered any reasonable, rational, fact-based solutions to the economic problems that Obama inherited from Bush. He gets railed on for doing nothing, but no one has a clue what he should do. Meanwhile, jobs are coming back and the economy is improving because of what he did do. It just takes time, and people are waaaayyy too impatient.

The truth is that this stuff goes in cycles. During the 90's we had rapid economic expansion and a similar rapid expansion in private sector jobs while we actually had a decline federal employees. During the past decade, we have had the opposite: economic collapse and a resulting collapse of private sector jobs, while public sector jobs have increased. This is not the end of the world or of our economy. It is simply part of a long-term cycle of economics.

Because the nation is in debt, this growth is being financed by more loans from China and private banks. This further hurts our economy which further stifles our chance of growth from the private sector.

How does debt financing during economic hard times hurt our economy exactly? Really. How does it hurt it? The economy will recover, and once it does, so will the treasury balance sheet. It wasn't that long ago we had a balanced budget. But it was balanced because tax receipts were good due to a chugging economy, higher tax rates, and no wars. Once the economy recovers from this meltdown, the Bush tax cuts expire, and we end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the debt will be paid down. Simply having the debt does nothing to hurt our economy, though, as you imply.

So I would say the private sector is losing out to the public sector.

And I would say that you still have failed to make that case.

 

[Rich]

What positive impact would they have? They send back more money to Mexico than they pay in taxes. Their cost to the education system is higher than anything.

They work, they earn money, they pay taxes, they buy goods and services, they pay for housing. All of this increases economic activity in our country. And because they work cheap, they help increase the cost/productivity ratio for all kinds of American businesses, particularly in the farming and building trades. That is extra profit for American business because of a cheaper labor force that isn't too picky about what kind of work you ask it to do.

Before the Bush tax cuts I might point out that we had a conservative controlled congress balancing the budget.

That same "conservative" Congress was in control for the four years after the Bush tax cuts, as the deficit began to soar. Kind of dulls your point there, doesn't it?

Encourage them to pollute less by fining them less? They already have the EPA for regulation, and the EPA continues to raise requirements all the time. How would cap and trade encourage the consumer? By making them spend thousands on upgrades to their homes to be compliant with a government standard?

What does Cap and Trade have to do with the consumer and home upgrades? (Answer: Nothing!) Do some research on what Cap and Trade really means and then we can have a discussion. Because your comment shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic concept. (Hint: It is a market-based scheme by which corporations can trade emissions credits, so that those who pollute less can benefit economically from that by selling the credits they don't need, and those that pollute more will pay for that privilege by having to purchase extra credits. The total market cap is lowered over time, encouraging the entire aggregate of Industry to reduce emissions over the long term). Seems pretty silly to completely disparage a concept that you don't even seem to have taken the time or effort to understand.

Those changes you referenced were made in amendments. If the federal government wants to take control of something from the states, it needs to be put into a bill and ratified by congress instead of being swallowed up.

And your point is? What has the federal government taken "control of" from the States that you find so detestable?

Obama had more international travel his first year than any other president. Since then he has flown all over the country to endorse congressional candidates who didn't want to be seen with him. I don't think you will argue that his entourage i.e. chef, doctors, dog trainer, speech writers, teleprompter setup crews, etc is bigger than any other president's. He took a 500 person crew to the G20 summit in Europe.

Lots more innuendo without sources. Post some links to your sources that prove any of this and then I will be happy to discuss it with you. As it is, it just sounds like another rant against a President who you think doesn't know his proper place in society.

Here, let me show you how it works. Bush actually carried an entourage of 700 to APEC in 2007. Source:

A 700-strong entourage including US Administration officials, Secret Service agents, bodyguards, close friends and media will join Mr Bush in Sydney.

So Obama has a full 200 less people in his entourage than the president that preceeded him. And you are wrong, once again.

 

[repman]

Here are the Top-10 time bombs now faithfully ticking away:

1. Federal Budget Deficit Bomb. The government is spending over $1.5 trillion more than it takes in each year.

2. US Foreign Trade Bomb. The US imports more than $400 billion than it exports. We've shipped our industrial manufacturing overseas and won't allow our natural energy companies to tap into our own mainland fuel sources.

3. Destruction of the US Dollar as the World's Foreign Reserve. Once the US dollar is no longer kept as reserve by foreign nations, GDP will fall by 1%. This will cost us over $150 billion a year.

4. Cheap Money Bomb. By pushing down the interest rates to near-zero to "stimulate" the economy, the FED lowered the cost of government borrowing to 1%. As interest rates rise, this cost shoots up. When rates reach the normal range of 4-6%, 25% of the federal budget will be sucked up. Washington will have to borrow even more just to keep even. Meanwhile the treadmill is speeding up.

5. Global Real Estate Bomb. US commercial real estate is in trouble. It makes problems in the housing market look tiny. $1.7 trillion in IOU's are held by the banks, and defaults are now beginning. As real estate prices fall, people sink "under water" in equity. They can hold their breath for only so long. Then the banks take back unwanted property which they can't easily sell. Over 30% of houses in default are not even being put up for sale by the bank. They are being left empty to decay.

6. Consumer Debt Bomb. Americans owe $16.7 trillion, mostly for home loans and credit cards. But people are now saving more and that debt is falling. That's good, right? Wrong. Start saving more and spending drops. That's bad. Washington has encouraged multinational firms to move manufacturing overseas; US plants are closing left and right. But 70% of our economy is driven by the consumer. The solution is simple: make more stuff here. Including energy. Until then, Bush and Obama both recommend that you spend, spend, spend.

7. State & Local Government Budget Bomb. In 2010 the states are running budget deficits of over $110 billion. By law, state budgets must be balanced. The national government has a monopoly on the dollar. States don't have the "luxury" of printing money to pay their bills. State budget deficits could hit $200 billion next year. Then add their unfunded pension funds of $500 billion. Where does this money come from? Either raise taxes, which is political suicide, or borrow more. But bond rating agencies have already slashed many states' credit ratings, raising the interest rates they have to pay. The alternative, cutting the bloated state union payrolls and entitlements, appears unthinkable.

8. Unfunded Corporate Pension Bomb. In 2007, corporate pension funds had a $55+ billion surplus. Now they're short over $400 billion. Who will make that up? When the airlines went bankrupt, the Federal Government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation bailed them out. Ditto GM. Who backs up PBGC? The US Government and more taxpayers' money. Add another trillion.

9. Social Security, Medicare & Obama Health Care programs. Nuclear bombs with hair triggers. Social Security & Medicare, are already sucking the lifeblood out of the economy. The latest idea from the Democratic Congress is to cover those medically uninsured by forcing their bills on existing workers and the taxpayer. There ain't enough money to go around, folks. Warns Paul Farrell at MarketWatch : "a new meltdown is coming. The Great Depression II" You're right, Paul, the countdown has started and we're approaching zero-hour.

10. Government Political Bomb(s). We have a Dysfunctional 2-Party System which has been infiltrated by progressives on both sides. There hasn't been a socialist born who understands real-world economics. They continue to believe that money grows on trees in their fantasyland utopias. Then add the insatiable Washington Lobbyist Machine of special interests/unions/big banks, the Homeland Insecurity Bomb including military spending (Iraq & Afghanistan at $3 trillion), and the Coming Populist Tax Revolt Bomb

But the godzilla bomb is lurking: The Plutonium Shadow Banking Derivative Bomb.

In 2008, the Fed freaked out over a paltry $100 billion in debts that were sloshing around the Wall Street "investment banking" gambling houses. Lehman Brothers popped first, followed by a dozen more. Then AIG went poof trying to pay off a little bitty $150 billion in banking derivative "guarantees". The Treasury quickly poured in money to seal the leaking dam, slowing the flow to a trickle.

But now global banking derivatives have expanded to over $670 trillion. Since the entire world's GDP is only $50 trillion, when this bubble pops, it will consume 13 years of the all money everywhere..

It isn't going to happen. We'll reboot the entire system before that. There will be winners (people who owe money and own gold) and losers (people who keep their assets in the bank and stock market). Instant millionaires will be made overnight; old millionaires will be made penniless. Which group will you be in?

 

[Rich]

Doom and gloom! The sky is falling! The socialists are coming! Repent, for the end of the world is near!

And yet, we still seem to be the richest country in the world, with the highest standard of living in the world, the highest GDP in the world, a walmart in every town, fast food on every corner, and most everybody that really makes an honest effort has a home, a job, and food to eat. And that's AFTER the economic meltdown!

Your diatribe contains a lot of isolated facts with little context or understanding of how market economies, financial systems, or governments really work. It is just a lot of hype and fear-mongering with little evidentiary support. Doomsayers have been predicting the "end of the world as we know it" for a long time, and they always seem to be wrong.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Oh Rich, please don't confuse me with facts.

Yes the $200M / day presidential visit. Seems it started with some blogger in India, noticed by someone here and all of a sudden, it's a bonafide fact.

At least that was what Rush, Fox News, and other folks said who didn't even take the time to verify and wanted to use the unsubstantiated claim to further their own beliefs and / or (dare I say) prejudices.

I heard two interesting interviews on NPR before the election.

One gentlemen, from the south, really liked his Democratic Rep's voting record but stated he was going to vote against this person because he belonged to the wrong party.

Another person, female, stated that she usually does her "due diligence" regarding candidates but stated that she was not going to do it this election. She was going to vote a Republican straight ticket.

Don't know what this all says but by any reasonable measure, it's certainly not good.

GG

 

[GaryG]

I heard two interesting interviews on NPR before the election.

One gentlemen, from the south, really liked his Democratic Rep's voting record but stated he was going to vote against this person because he belonged to the wrong party.

Another person, female, stated that she usually does her "due diligence" regarding candidates but stated that she was not going to do it this election. She was going to vote a Republican straight ticket.

Don't know what this all says but by any reasonable measure, it's certainly not good.

GG

Both of these interviewee's seem quite reasonable. In both cases they were actually voting against Nancy Pelosi. The Dem's had such a strong majority that they could get a bill passed with 38 votes to spare. So 30 some odd Dem's from conservative districts were "allowed" to vote in a manner that would be in tune with their constituants. If the Dem's had a smaller majority then a smaller number of Blue Dog Dems would have been "allowed" to vote in the conservative mode. True independent congressman in either party seem to be rare anymore. If these two voters were unhappy about the direction of congress over the last few years then their vote would maximize the probabity for change.

 

[repman]

Doom and gloom! The sky is falling! The socialists are coming! Repent, for the end of the world is near!

And yet, we still seem to be the richest country in the world, with the highest standard of living in the world, the highest GDP in the world, a walmart in every town, fast food on every corner, and most everybody that really makes an honest effort has a home, a job, and food to eat. And that's AFTER the economic meltdown!

Your diatribe contains a lot of isolated facts with little context or understanding of how market economies, financial systems, or governments really work. It is just a lot of hype and fear-mongering with little evidentiary support. Doomsayers have been predicting the "end of the world as we know it" for a long time, and they always seem to be wrong.

The United States is by far the greatest civilization ever created in the history of mankind, and yet, one has to wonder if all the previous greatest civilizations were so great, where are they today?

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back into bondage.

This is a great country we live in and I am not predicting its doom but I am concerned about the path we are headed down. The greatest civilizations of the world all had the best that the world of their time had to offer too and were at the top of their game.

Where we are now compared to the rest of the world is no indication that we will be there in 20 years if we aren't diligent and prudent now.

 

[Len44]

This is a great country we live in and I am not predicting its doom but I am concerned about the path we are headed down.

Given the results of the recent election, so am I. It is disappointing that so many voters seemed to have such short memories regarding those who put their Country in such dire straits and were so easily duped by the massive propaganda campaign funded by special interests.

President Bill Clinton turned over a Nation in terrific shape, only to have Bush, Cheney, Rove, Delay, and their minions all but destroy it. Yeah, many of us are worried about the future of our great Country, and that is why will never vote to put those who did such great harm to these United States back in charge.

And shame on anyone who does...

 

[Len44]

I heard two interesting interviews on NPR before the election.

One gentlemen, from the south, really liked his Democratic Rep's voting record but stated he was going to vote against this person because he belonged to the wrong party.

Another person, female, stated that she usually does her "due diligence" regarding candidates but stated that she was not going to do it this election. She was going to vote a Republican straight ticket.

Don't know what this all says but by any reasonable measure, it's certainly not good.

GG

Reminds me of one of my Dad's favorite jokes from long ago (political parties
are now reversed, but the basic premise is the same. Think 1950's).

So these two friends are talking about the upcoming election, one from the the deep South, and another from somewhere North of The Line (Mason-Dixon). The fellow from the South says, "Ya know, I've voted a straight Democratic ticket all my life. My Daddy has voted a straight Democratic all of his life. And my Granddaddy also voted a straight Democratic all of his life.

But if you damn yankees up North don't quit it you're going to get the Country in a hell of a shape!"

 

[repman]

Given the results of the recent election, so am I. It is disappointing that so many voters seemed to have such short memories regarding those who put their Country in such dire straits and were so easily duped by the massive propaganda campaign funded by special interests.

President Bill Clinton turned over a Nation in terrific shape, only to have Bush, Cheney, Rove, Delay, and their minions all but destroy it. Yeah, many of us are worried about the future of our great Country, and that is why will never vote to put those who did such great harm to these United States back in charge.

And shame on anyone who does...

George Washington is the only president who didn't blame the previous administration for his troubles. ~Author Unknown

 

[Rich]

The United States is by far the greatest civilization ever created in the history of mankind

That is a highly debatable, ego-driven statement.

and yet, one has to wonder if all the previous greatest civilizations were so great, where are they today?

Each ended for a different reason, sometimes due to climactic changes, sometimes due to being conquered by an outside force, sometimes due to greed and avarice and warring factions from within the civilization itself.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Where do you get this crap? Really? Do you just make up whatever sounds good to suit your argument? Gee, let's see . . . Roman Republic - 500 years, Roman Empire - 300 years, Greece - 1000 years, Egyptians - over 3000 years, Babylonians - 800 years, Olmecs - 1200 years, Phrygians and Lydians - 1100 years, Carthage - 650 years, Indus Valley - 1000 years, Sumerian - 1200 years. Need I go on? Have I left out any of the world's greatest civilizations? Here's a handy chart to help you out with your history of civilization.

This is a great country we live in and I am not predicting its doom

Really? Go back and read your last post. Looks like you are predicting doom to me. I mean, "ticking time bombs" sounds pretty doom and gloomish.

Where we are now compared to the rest of the world is no indication that we will be there in 20 years if we aren't diligent and prudent now.

That's true. But I think we have a lot bigger problems to worry about than how many people Obama takes with him when he travels. You are so focused on demonizing Obama that you seem to lose track of the bigger picture. The threats our nation really faces have nothing to do with capitalism vs. socialism. That is just a red herring conjured up by the right to stir up their political base. And it seems to have worked.

 

[Rich]

George Washington is the only president who didn't blame the previous administration for his troubles. ~Author Unknown

Actually, I don't think Bush ever blamed Clinton for any troubles. In fact, what he said was: "It was amazing I won. I was running against peace and prosperity and incumbency." When he left office, only one of those three things remained the same.

 

[GaryG]

Given the results of the recent election, so am I. It is disappointing that so many voters seemed to have such short memories regarding those who put their Country in such dire straits and were so easily duped by the massive propaganda campaign funded by special interests.

President Bill Clinton turned over a Nation in terrific shape, only to have Bush, Cheney, Rove, Delay, and their minions all but destroy it. Yeah, many of us are worried about the future of our great Country, and that is why will never vote to put those who did such great harm to these United States back in charge.

And shame on anyone who does...

When I looked at my voting ballot I did not see Bush or Cheney or Rove or Delay. But I did see a way to stop 2000 page bills passing through congress unread. I did see a way to remove a Speaker of the house whose "style" was similar to Tom Delay. I saw an election with winners like Marco Rubio, Allen West and Tim Scott. Three conservatives. One Hispanic and Two African Americans entering the Repulican ranks. My mother is a Democrat. My father was a Repulican. In our family we took pride in studying the ballot and the candidates and choosing what we perceived to be the best one. This election for the first time I pulled the lever for a straight Republican ticket. As was stated earlier in this thread, true consevatives were not proud of Bush. But Bush or Cheney or Rove or Delay were not on my ballot.

Regards,
Gary

 

[Len44]

But I did see a way to stop 2000 page bills passing through congress unread.

Whew! Thank goodness we will never see anything like that again! If only... First off, this was a massive change -- taking on health care was something no one ever had the courage to do before. And, contrary to the Boogity-Boogity shameless scare tactics, it was conceived in large part because the path we were on was unsustainable budget-wise. But, if there is ANY way to oppose Obama, McConnell and his nut-jobs will do so, even if they were previously for the proposal.

I did see a way to remove a Speaker of the house whose "style" was similar to Tom Delay.

Really? I don't see where Nancy Pelosi has been charged with criminal activity -- like Tom Delay. The Republicans did do a grand job of picking who to run against, though. And BTW, She was only only on one ballot, but all the Republicans sure seemed to run against her.

Now we see that John Boehner is choosing vindictiveness by targeting dedicated federal employees, trading on untrue myths. So typical, so sad.

 

[Rich]

As was stated earlier in this thread, true consevatives were not proud of Bush.

Funny, I hear that a lot now, but I never heard any of that from the "true conservatives" when Bush was in office. All I heard was them defending him. And when McCain was running against Obama as a virtual Bush clone, all I heard was them praising him and sister Sarah (though it was obvious that deep inside they detested him for his former moderate stances). Scary to think how bad off our country could be by now with those two in charge.

 

[repman]

Actually, I don't think Bush ever blamed Clinton for any troubles. In fact, what he said was: "It was amazing I won. I was running against peace and prosperity and incumbency." When he left office, only one of those three things remained the same.

Not so fast I recall him calling out the Clinton administration for

the North Korea Nuclear program and bad policy concerning it

National Security lapses

Stem cell research

ect.ect.ect. they all do it every one

Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:


Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion



As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.