Cartoon from 1934

[Guest]

Cartoon from 1934

This cartoon was in the Chicago Tribune in 1934. Look carefully at the

plan of action in the lower left corner.

"Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it."

[lazarus]

Well......it shows that nothing has changed in the Conservative playbook. Same old narrative.

[Woody]

Wow. This is eye opening Richard. Very instructive. Thank you for posting this. It just goes to show what the Dims are all about.

[Guest]

I wish it was bigger so you could see it better.

[phkrause]

Exactly, spending has not changed every year since I can remember, no matter who has been in office. The only president that actually balanced the budget was Clinton! And yet he spent also? Pretty interesting if you ask me!

pk

[Guest]

Don't kid yourself pk. The only reason that got done on Clinton's watch, was because the republicans ruled the house and the senate. Clinton moved to the center after they took over, and cooperated with them somewhat. And that's the ONLY reason it got done.

[lazarus]

Don't kid yourself pk. The only reason that got done on Clinton's watch, was because the republicans ruled the house and the senate. Clinton moved to the center after they took over, and cooperated with them somewhat. And that's the ONLY reason it got done.

Please......when the economy went bad under Bush conservatives blamed the Democrats. When some things improved under Reagan they gave Reagan the credit. LOL. If the GOP regain the house in 2010 and things go bad they'll blame Obama. It's a neat trick. If the GOP lose in 2012 they'll blame the Tea baggers!

[lazarus]

"Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it."

We have definitely repeated the first part of the depression. Bush was definitely a Hoover. Let's see if Obama is an FDR. One year into his presidency FDR was certainly not considered to be an "FDR".

[Dr. Shane]

Well FDR was a failure. Let's hope it doesn't take a world war to pull us out of this bad economy.

The budget was balance under Presidents Nixon and Clinton. The reason the budget was balanced was because more revenues came in than expected. That has to be understood. If the politicians had expected the level of revenues to be what they were, they would have spent them before they came in. Does everyone understand that? If not, please ask for clarification. We cannot discuss that portion of history without that being fully understood. The dot-com bubble peak is what caused revenues to spike and result in a balanced budget. As soon as it happened politicians were talking about what to do with the surplus. President Bush gave it back as rebates. No one was talking about debt reduction. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans were talking about debt reduction.

Now consider this. If you were in debt up to your eyeballs and suddenly received a bunch of money unexpectedly (like an inheritance), would you go on a shopping spree or pay off your debt? The government would go on the shopping spree.

[phkrause]

Don't kid yourself pk. The only reason that got done on Clinton's watch, was because the republicans ruled the house and the senate. Clinton moved to the center after they took over, and cooperated with them somewhat. And that's the ONLY reason it got done.

I'm not kidding myself. I know exactly who was in the senate and house. This is how it should be. I don't believe for one minute that Clinton gave in and neither did the other side, they conprimised. But since than things have gotten out of hand on both sides of the isle. Very discouraging.

pk

[Gerr]

Don't kid yourself pk. The only reason that got done on Clinton's watch, was because the republicans ruled the house and the senate. Clinton moved to the center after they took over, and cooperated with them somewhat. And that's the ONLY reason it got done.

Well, then, how come when GWB became president, he promptly put the gov't back in the red? He increased gov't spending by a greater percentage than Clinton did!

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Don't kid yourself pk. The only reason that got done on Clinton's watch, was because the republicans ruled the house and the senate. Clinton moved to the center after they took over, and cooperated with them somewhat. And that's the ONLY reason it got done.

Well, then, how come when GWB became president, he promptly put the gov't back in the red? He increased gov't spending by a greater percentage than Clinton did!

That's easy. The dems took over the house and the senate. But that being said, I still thing GW grew the government way waay to much.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Well, then, how come when GWB became president, he promptly put the gov't back in the red? He increased gov't spending by a greater percentage than Clinton did!

Bush was not a fiscal conservative. He was on the spend bandwagon. The few times he made noises as a conservative he was promptly shot down.

Obama does not have a leg to stand on with his continual whine about Bush.Obama never saw a penny Bush was spending where he didn't want 20. Look at his voting record. He was solidly in Bush's camp for every big entitlement and bailouts.

You look a little silly when you are on a continual whine about what you inherited and in part was made possible by the whiner himself. Now he is onto bigger and better spending trying to do something any one that has balanced a checkbook knows is impossible.

But he makes people feel good as they are getting fleeced

[Dr. Shane]

how come when GWB became president, he promptly put the gov't back in the red? He increased gov't spending by a greater percentage than Clinton did!

Good question. I think a quick history lesson will reveal it had nothing to do with either political party.

1. The surplus was caused by an unexpected spike in tax revenues. (Not by Congressional Republicans or President Clinton)

2. Once everyone realized there was a surplus, both Democrats and Republicans talked about how to spend it. This was even a topic discussed in the 2000 Presidential debates.

3. The country fell into a recession starting the first quarter of 2001. This led to a dramatic decrease in revenues (there goes the surplus)

4. President Bush sent out tax rebates to Americans (there starts the red ink.)

5. Terrorists attack on September 11, 2001. Recession deepens (less tax revenue).

6. President Bush creates Department of Homeland Security and goes to war in Asia. (More red ink)

So the government went back in the red because the high-tech bubble burst sending the economy into a recession combined with the terrorist attacks and America's defensive reaction to them.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

how come when GWB became president, he promptly put the gov't back in the red? He increased gov't spending by a greater percentage than Clinton did!

Good question. I think a quick history lesson will reveal it had nothing to do with either political party.

1. The surplus was caused by an unexpected spike in tax revenues. (Not by Congressional Republicans or President Clinton)

2. Once everyone realized there was a surplus, both Democrats and Republicans talked about how to spend it. This was even a topic discussed in the 2000 Presidential debates.

3. The country fell into a recession starting the first quarter of 2001. This led to a dramatic decrease in revenues (there goes the surplus)

4. President Bush sent out tax rebates to Americans (there starts the red ink.)

5. Terrorists attack on September 11, 2001. Recession deepens (less tax revenue).

6. President Bush creates Department of Homeland Security and goes to war in Asia. (More red ink)

So the government went back in the red because the high-tech bubble burst sending the economy into a recession combined with the terrorist attacks and America's defensive reaction to them.

Very good points Shane, I had not thought of these at all, but it makes a lot of sense.

pk