Presidential Vote

[Gen. Volkov]

Apropos, Truman's radical policy in all areas was a real break with FDR and the wartime spending, and pissed off some European allies. For instance, the whole debacle with the nuclear research and Britain, and pulling the plug on lend-lease, which plunged the UK into chaos for a while. But you have to hand it to him, the US's economy boomed like nobody's business.

Yup, benefits and downsides to the thing, like with most human endeavors. We eventually did share our nuclear secrets with the Brits though, I believe.

[The Beatles]

Yes, there was an agreement later on. Of coruse, it was both your nuclear secrets to begin with, and especially considering all the technology of the Tizard mission. But anyway yes, boom days.

[Kraken]

ignoring my posts now Beatles?

[Arthus]

Republicans are like Jehovah's Witnesses, no matter what you say to them, they shall never falter in there devotion. There is no point debating with them.

[windhound]

^ Mr Pot? Come over here, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.

I've met some rather rabid Democrats who had a lovely deflector shield. Nothing penetrated.

[The Beatles]

No, I just didn't notice yours as I flipped to the last page. Not that it wouldn't be tit for tat if I ignored your post. I'll respond later.

[Freenhult]

^ Mr Pot? Come over here, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.

I've met some rather rabid Democrats who had a lovely deflector shield. Nothing penetrated.

Yeah, I know. It is like religion. People refuse to accept the other side.

[bjornredtail]

This guy on slashdot makes the same argument that I've been over the past few pages. He puts it better, so I'll quote him.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si ... d=25029873

The only presidents since 1963 to have ever submitted balanced budgets to Congress are Johnson and Clinton. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in charge of both Congress and the White House have they ever reduced spending.

The vast majority of the national debt to date was accrued during the Presidencies of three men: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, all Republicans. In Reagan's case, he was working with a Republican Senate for his first 6 years in office, and Bush had Republicans controlling both houses for 6 years as well.

The Bush II years have seen tax cut after tax cut that were, in theory, supposed to result in increased growth and therefore reduced deficit. Instead, he has posted record deficits year after year. And still, the fiction that large tax cuts will somehow reduce the deficit persists.

The idea that Democrats are the big spending party and Republicans are fiscally responsible is pure fiction, and it boggles the mind why people continue to believe it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even the "big spending" LBJ was more fiscally responsible than the Republicans of the past 28 years.

If people would treat politics less like religion maybe they would make decisions based on actual historical data rather than what their party keeps telling them is the truth.

Perhaps the economic growth that the US experienced during the Clinton administration was a result of Regan and Bush's tax cuts and other policies?

Yeah, I know. It is like religion. People refuse to accept the other side.

Just like with global warming...

He was for Nuclear Engergy, but has said that he is agianst it.

Actually, he said he's for it again. See his acceptance speech.

Obama pledged To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would "Refine" His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground

I think this is fair... The situation on the ground is changing, thus the commander-in-chief's response should change. It does show a lack of judgment and foresight to want to set a policy of defeat though...

The tax revenues took 5 years to catch up with his spending habits. That's 5 years of high growth on the national debt. He only had a balanced budget and surpluses at the end of his presidency. A truly fiscally responsible president would have turned it around much quicker. Heck, Truman did it in a matter of months. We went from way overspending due to the war as 1945 drew to a close, to nearly balanced budget and falling national debt in 1946, as the civilian economy picked back up from the rigors of wartime. It really was quite abrupt. The US government stopped spending, and tax revenues picked up as the peacetime economy got back on it's feat, and the debt fell dramatically. Clinton didn't have a wartime economy to dismantle of course, but he could have at least kept spending stable while the economy grew around him. He would have had results in a much shorter time frame. Probably not as fast as Truman, but much shorter than 5 years.

Clinton did have something of a sartime economy. Perhaps not nearly to the same extent as WWII, but our military buildup towards the end of the cold war took some doing.

[Kraken]

Republicans are like Jehovah's Witnesses, no matter what you say to them, they shall never falter in there devotion. There is no point debating with them.

Democrats are like Jehovah's Witnesses, no matter what you say to them, they shall never falter in there devotion. There is no point debating with them.



i have not skipped over any of your posts bEatLEs!

Bjork.
so you concede the flippity floppity.
of course its fair and the nuke thing, he switched again after his speech.

[Gen. Volkov]

Yes, there was an agreement later on. Of coruse, it was both your nuclear secrets to begin with, and especially considering all the technology of the Tizard mission. But anyway yes, boom days.

Right, right.

Perhaps the economic growth that the US experienced during the Clinton administration was a result of Regan and Bush's tax cuts and other policies?

It was probably part of it, but on average, it takes the economy about 2 years to respond to any particular presidents economic policy. The economic growth during Clinton wasn't really a result of any president though, it was a result of the tech market boom and the internet company boom.

Just like with global warming...

I'm still waiting for proof here. As far as I can tell, global warming is solid science.

Clinton did have something of a sartime economy. Perhaps not nearly to the same extent as WWII, but our military buildup towards the end of the cold war took some doing.

Actually, it was Reagan and Bush who responsible for that military buildup, during Clinton's presidency, the size of our military was cut in half. That's why we could send 500,000 men to Iraq in 1991, but sending 145,000 men to Iraq and 25,000 to Afghanistan is a strain on our military now. Clinton had a peacetime economy. If anyone had anything close to a wartime economy, it was Reagan.

[The Beatles]

He probably meant 'to begin with', as it was in comparison to Truman.

[Kraken]

Damnit Beatles.
when are you going to respond to my comments!

you spin off my thread into some ridiculous voting thread in which 98% of those mentioned wont even be put on a ballad because of lack of voters and dont even let people respond!

and then ignore me?

i guess its because you are afriad of where i was leading you.

[Gen. Volkov]

He probably meant 'to begin with', as it was in comparison to Truman.

Oh, well, even assuming that, I don't think it really changes anything in my arguments, does it?

[Kraken]

seeing how Beatles wont respond to my comments only proves that he has no ground to base his arguments on.

[windhound]

The hell?