Quote:

---

Enlil said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
No materials costs, huh?

---

Lol...where do you think materials come from?  If you need 2x4s, do you think they just put cash in the ground and 2x4's pop out?  2x4s are from trees cut down by people who get paychecks...then those trees are put on trucks driven by people with paychecks...to a mill..where people with paychecks run machines built by people with paychecks...electricity powers the machines...electricity comes through wires put up by people with paychecks...and made of copper which was mined by people with paychecks...and the electricity was generated in a power plant run by people with paychecks...who feed coal into the furnaces...guess where coal comes from...you guessed it..the ground...guess how it gets out of the ground...people with paychecks take it out...

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
I am mystified as to why you want to bring buggy whips back.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
You defend employing people for the sake of employing people and are utterly ignorant of the concept of creative economic destruction.  Either there is a reason to do the job or there is not.  If there is no reason, other than protecting a job, then useful work will be curtailed and other jobs that are more productive will be lost because of the improper allocation of human resources by a meddled market.  This is not that tough a concept.

---

Quote:

---

"I'm all for cutting military budget...but we have to be willing to accept that it will mean higher unemployment.  Every dollar that is cut is one less dollar available to pay someone.  Again..I'm okay with this.."

"I am more than happy to see 1.4 trillion dollars cut from many different things and let the unemployment rate skyrocket"

"...500 billion less will go to people's paychecks now and forever...And I'm okay with that"

"I am all for cutting defense spending....and I couldn't care less how many jobs are lost because of it..."

---

Quote:

---

Enlil said:
I don't care if jobs get lost...but voters often do...that's my point.  My point is that no administration will cut defense spending by a lot because elections are largely determined by the unemployment rate...

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Cede world security to those punks.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
That's what Clinton said.

---

Quote:

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
That's what Clinton said.

---

...and he gave us a surplus.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
That's what Clinton said.

---

Quote:

---

qman said:
Having a surplus for a few years during the Clinton Administration had very little to do with Clinton or his polices. Sometimes it's called being in the right place at the right time.


We had a speculative stock market bubble, and technology sector, capital gains were flowing in on speculative gains, it was short lived and crashed shortly after he left, taking credit for this situation is laughable.

---

Quote:

---

http://meetthefacts.com/tag/omnibus-budget-reconciliation-act-of-1993/
“The economy did do well under Clinton, but that was because of other policies he adopted and in spite of the ’93 tax increase,” Mitchell said, citing lower government spending as a share of gross domestic product, approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, welfare reform, farm-subsidy reform. “These are the
policies that boosted the economy. The tax increases in 1993 hurt, but were more than offset by other changes.”

---

The other important point to take into consideration is that, even if you consider that a major factor in the existence of the surplus, even if you don't want to admit that his policies played a good role in facilitating it's existence, was a speculative stock market bubble and the gains in tax revenue from the high-tech sector, and you consider that these things were short-lived, it's a simple fact that, if his policies continued, the federal government would have been much more capable of responding to the financial crisis and markets would have had much more faith in the stability of the country and it's ability to pay off it's debt.

He advocated to save the surplus for Social Security , because he vetoed tax-cut bills that would have given it away , and because he was actually interested in paying off the debt. I really like his response to the tax payer's in addressing Republicans who were clamoring to give the surplus back to them because it's their money: It'd be like getting a check for a million dollars in the mail from Publisher's Clearing House and going out and spending all of your money.

It's a damn shame that he couldn't have ran for eight more years. It's a damn shame that Al Gore didn't get just a few more votes to sink the deal.

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
That's what Clinton said.

---

And what do you base that on?

Quote:

---

qman said:
Having a surplus for a few years during the Clinton Administration had very little to do with Clinton or his polices. Sometimes it's called being in the right place at the right time.


We had a speculative stock market bubble, and technology sector, capital gains were flowing in on speculative gains, it was short lived and crashed shortly after he left, taking credit for this situation is laughable.

---

This kind of economic prosperity was short-lived due to Bush's economic policies, which completely sucked.

I think you don't realize what kind of economic situation the country was in when he was elected, nor the steps that he took at the beginning of his term to stabilize the economy.
It'd be ignorant to think that the federal administration doesn't set the tone and the framework for the economy, and often the same people who would dismiss Clinton's influence on the economy are quick to suggest that Obama's influence on the economy is exactly why he needs to go. The basic picture is that Clinton's handling of the situation sent clear signals to the markets that the federal government was going to become much more financially disciplined at a time when things were pretty sour economically.

I like this quote, from a senior fellow from the Cato Institute:

Quote:

---

http://meetthefacts.com/tag/omnibus-budget-reconciliation-act-of-1993/
“The economy did do well under Clinton, but that was because of other policies he adopted and in spite of the ’93 tax increase,” Mitchell said, citing lower government spending as a share of gross domestic product, approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, welfare reform, farm-subsidy reform. “These are the
policies that boosted the economy. The tax increases in 1993 hurt, but were more than offset by other changes.”

---

The other important point to take into consideration is that, even if you consider that a major factor in the existence of the surplus, even if you don't want to admit that his policies played a good role in facilitating it's existence, was a speculative stock market bubble and the gains in tax revenue from the high-tech sector, and you consider that these things were short-lived, it's a simple fact that, if his policies continued, the federal government would have been much more capable of responding to the financial crisis and markets would have had much more faith in the stability of the country and it's ability to pay off it's debt.

He advocated to save the surplus for Social Security , because he vetoed tax-cut bills that would have given it away , and because he was actually interested in paying off the debt. I really like his response to the tax payer's in addressing Republicans who were clamoring to give the surplus back to them because it's their money: It'd be like getting a check for a million dollars in the mail from Publisher's Clearing House and going out and spending all of your money.

It's a damn shame that he couldn't have ran for eight more years. It's a damn shame that Al Gore didn't get just a few more votes to sink the deal.

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
It's a damn shame that he couldn't have ran for eight more years. It's a damn shame that Al Gore didn't get just a few more votes to sink the deal.

---

Quote:

---

Enlil said:
Whatever he may have done right, I think the fact that he was the only president in the 20th century to be impeached made him unelectable even if he had been able to run a third term.

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
A good majority of the country didn't want him to be impeached in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
That's what Clinton said.

---

And what do you base that on?

Quote:

---

qman said:
Having a surplus for a few years during the Clinton Administration had very little to do with Clinton or his polices. Sometimes it's called being in the right place at the right time.


We had a speculative stock market bubble, and technology sector, capital gains were flowing in on speculative gains, it was short lived and crashed shortly after he left, taking credit for this situation is laughable.

---

This kind of economic prosperity was short-lived due to Bush's economic policies, which completely sucked.

I think you don't realize what kind of economic situation the country was in when he was elected, nor the steps that he took at the beginning of his term to stabilize the economy.
It'd be ignorant to think that the federal administration doesn't set the tone and the framework for the economy, and often the same people who would dismiss Clinton's influence on the economy are quick to suggest that Obama's influence on the economy is exactly why he needs to go. The basic picture is that Clinton's handling of the situation sent clear signals to the markets that the federal government was going to become much more financially disciplined at a time when things were pretty sour economically.

I like this quote, from a senior fellow from the Cato Institute:

Quote:

---

http://meetthefacts.com/tag/omnibus-budget-reconciliation-act-of-1993/
“The economy did do well under Clinton, but that was because of other policies he adopted and in spite of the ’93 tax increase,” Mitchell said, citing lower government spending as a share of gross domestic product, approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, welfare reform, farm-subsidy reform. “These are the
policies that boosted the economy. The tax increases in 1993 hurt, but were more than offset by other changes.”

---

The other important point to take into consideration is that, even if you consider that a major factor in the existence of the surplus, even if you don't want to admit that his policies played a good role in facilitating it's existence, was a speculative stock market bubble and the gains in tax revenue from the high-tech sector, and you consider that these things were short-lived, it's a simple fact that, if his policies continued, the federal government would have been much more capable of responding to the financial crisis and markets would have had much more faith in the stability of the country and it's ability to pay off it's debt.

He advocated to save the surplus for Social Security , because he vetoed tax-cut bills that would have given it away , and because he was actually interested in paying off the debt. I really like his response to the tax payer's in addressing Republicans who were clamoring to give the surplus back to them because it's their money: It'd be like getting a check for a million dollars in the mail from Publisher's Clearing House and going out and spending all of your money.

It's a damn shame that he couldn't have ran for eight more years. It's a damn shame that Al Gore didn't get just a few more votes to sink the deal.

---