Ralph Berg said:Well just keep taxing all those potential investors. You know, the ones who make more than 250,000 a year--the ones who actually produce the jobs. Yes, indeed. Tax away. Oh yes. And while you're at it, keep all those areas where the oil and gas industry experts say have the prime potential for oil and gas OFF LIMITS. Lock it ALL up in the name of protecting the environment or conserving wilderness or whatever lame excuse you choose to use. BUT having done that, quit your complaining about your lack of jobs and energy resources.
Here in the lower 48 we are not awash in natural gas and oil. We do not receive annual payments for several thousand dollars for every resident. WE need jobs here in the lower 48. WE need to produce more hard goods and not let less. Ralph
Ron Simpson said:Gee, Ron, you are so mean!Ralph Berg said:Well just keep taxing all those potential investors. You know, the ones who make more than 250,000 a year--the ones who actually produce the jobs. Yes, indeed. Tax away. Oh yes. And while you're at it, keep all those areas where the oil and gas industry experts say have the prime potential for oil and gas OFF LIMITS. Lock it ALL up in the name of protecting the environment or conserving wilderness or whatever lame excuse you choose to use. BUT having done that, quit your complaining about your lack of jobs and energy resources.
Here in the lower 48 we are not awash in natural gas and oil. We do not receive annual payments for several thousand dollars for every resident. WE need jobs here in the lower 48. WE need to produce more hard goods and not let less. Ralph
Ron Simpson said:When have I said any of this you are alluding too? Did I mention raising taxes? Did I say anything about curtailing oil or gas production? But, since you brought it up. I am in favor of increased oil and gas production. I am in favor of closing loopholes in the tax code, which would be by default a tax increase for the wealthy. I am in favor of adjusting the tax brackets. $250,000 a year is not wealthy. This figure hasn't been adjusted upward in decades. Close the tax loopholes and adjust the highest bracket up to $500,000 RalphRalph Berg said:Well just keep taxing all those potential investors. You know, the ones who make more than 250,000 a year--the ones who actually produce the jobs. Yes, indeed. Tax away. Oh yes. And while you're at it, keep all those areas where the oil and gas industry experts say have the prime potential for oil and gas OFF LIMITS. Lock it ALL up in the name of protecting the environment or conserving wilderness or whatever lame excuse you choose to use. BUT having done that, quit your complaining about your lack of jobs and energy resources.
Here in the lower 48 we are not awash in natural gas and oil. We do not receive annual payments for several thousand dollars for every resident. WE need jobs here in the lower 48. WE need to produce more hard goods and not let less. Ralph
Ron Simpson said:You forgot one word there...VETO. But no he did not veto it, he screamed and cried and threw a tantrum and insisted they vote again when it failed the first time. WHO had the power of the purse...BUSH. Nice try indeed.Ralph Berg said:Pardon me, but just WHO has the "power of the purse?" Is it the President? No. It's Congress. Who controls the Congress (BOTH houses)? Is it the Republicans? NO. It's the Democrats. Nice try. Your Dems did NOT have to accept the Bush proposal, but all I see is them trying to EXPAND upon it.
THE $700 BILLION WAS REQUESTED AND APPROPRIATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. If we do not lend the $25 million ton the automakers, it will be going to another bank.
Bush wanted the bailouts bad. The Democrats, often accused of obstructing, towed the Republican line.
McCain wanted to “force the banks” to renegotiate loans made in good faith on the current market value. Said so himself.
Where are the old Republican values? Time to give someone else a chance at the helm, now that we’re firmly beached.
Mark Verbrugge said:Ron Simpson said:You forgot one word there...VETO. But no he did not veto it, he screamed and cried and threw a tantrum and insisted they vote again when it failed the first time. WHO had the power of the purse...BUSH. Nice try indeed.Ralph Berg said:Pardon me, but just WHO has the "power of the purse?" Is it the President? No. It's Congress. Who controls the Congress (BOTH houses)? Is it the Republicans? NO. It's the Democrats. Nice try. Your Dems did NOT have to accept the Bush proposal, but all I see is them trying to EXPAND upon it.
THE $700 BILLION WAS REQUESTED AND APPROPRIATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. If we do not lend the $25 million ton the automakers, it will be going to another bank.Bush wanted the bailouts bad. The Democrats, often accused of obstructing, towed the Republican line.
McCain wanted to “force the banks” to renegotiate loans made in good faith on the current market value. Said so himself.
Where are the old Republican values? Time to give someone else a chance at the helm, now that we’re firmly beached.
You have a good point. The Republican party lost big-time in this latest election because it had moved too far from its Republican (conservative) values. The GOP is in for a major house cleaning. It has become the “me-too” (to the Democrats) party. That is a guaranteed formula for failure.
NEVERTHELESS, quit blaming George Bush when it was the DEMOCRATS who have proved to be by far the greatest advocates of UNLIMITED spending. But that has ALWAYS been the case, hasn’t it?
Ron Simpson said:Only in your distorted view of history. The massive Federal budget deficits started with Ronald Reagan and a Republican Congress. Under Reagan we borrowed more money than in the previous 200 years. Enormous Federal budget deficits have been the hallmark of the Republican administrations since 1980. During the majority of the terms of Reagan,Bush & Bush, Congress was dominated by Republicans. You may believe the propaganda put forth by the Republican Party. I know better. The Republican Party can not hide a history of borrowing and spending by calling themselves conservative. Ralph
NEVERTHELESS, quit blaming George Bush when it was the DEMOCRATS who have proved to be by far the greatest advocates of UNLIMITED spending. But that has ALWAYS been the case, hasn't it?
Ummm…Didnt President Bill leave office with a actuall surplus in the budget? 
Yeah, something in the 200 billion+ range. No problem for Shrub to “correct” that in a short time.
But since it wasn’t reported by one of the RightWingWacko outfits, that couldn’t be right, it had to be left.
And according to WIKI “Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.”
Would a Republican Congress let him get away with that? Scandalous! 
“Yeah, something in the 200 billion+ range. No problem for Shrub to “correct” that in a short time.”
Not to get into a war of words - but do you give any thought to September 11th having anything to do with the change in the budget or having to rebuild the military after “the pervert” tried his best to totally rape even it?
"And according to WIKI “Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.”
Clinton is on record as never even telling a fib, so I’m sure its true.
Ric Golding said:
"Yeah, something in the 200 billion+ range. No problem for Shrub to "correct" that in a short time."Not to get into a war of words - but do you give any thought to September 11th having anything to do with the change in the budget or having to rebuild the military after “the pervert” tried his best to totally rape even it?
"And according to WIKI “Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.”
Clinton is on record as never even telling a fib, so I’m sure its true.
Let me expand on that just a little:
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton’s record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard 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 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 budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of “only” $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero–let alone a positive 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.
Besides, this whole matter of trying to pin massive federal deficits on Republicans rings rather hollow when it is obvious that the Dems want to bail out their union friends in approved industries such as the Big Three American autos at OUR expense even though it is rather obvious that it will help nothing in the long run or probably not even in the short run EXCEPT the unions. The TRUE Big Spenders ARE the Dems and EVERYONE knows it.
Ron Simpson said:Ric Golding said:
"Yeah, something in the 200 billion+ range. No problem for Shrub to "correct" that in a short time."Not to get into a war of words - but do you give any thought to September 11th having anything to do with the change in the budget or having to rebuild the military after “the pervert” tried his best to totally rape even it?
"And according to WIKI “Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.”
Clinton is on record as never even telling a fib, so I’m sure its true.
Let me expand on that just a little:
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton’s record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard 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 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 billionAs can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of “only” $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero–let alone a positive 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.
Do you mean to tell us that the quoted Congressional accounting practices are as suspect as some of the “instruments” US bankers invented? Is that it?
Well DUH!!!
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:You're joking, right? The figures used to make it appear that Clinton had created budget surpluses while in office are a sleight of hand accounting trick--nothing more. I don't know what you are referring to as far as US bankers figures, however. Maybe you could be a little more explicit.
Do you mean to tell us that the quoted Congressional accounting practices are as suspect as some of the "instruments" US bankers invented? Is that it? :/
Myself,
I never mentioned Clinton’s budget.
You did leave out the numbers for the Reagan, Bush and Bush years.
We have had 28 years of deficit spending.
20 of those years we had a Republican President. We had a Republican Congress a similar number of years.
It is a myth that Democrats spend more. They all spend.
Ralph
BTW- Your figures show Clinton’s budget deficits decline, for the most part.
Ron Simpson said:"Instruments", Ron, "Instruments"! i.e. junk bonds, derivatives, hedge funds, sub-prime mortgages, that kind of thing. All the "nifty kind of gizmos" that keep the wheels spinning instead of providing traction, but oh my did they ever make those books and bonuses look good. Variations on shell games and Ponzi schemes!Hans-Joerg Mueller said:You're joking, right? The figures used to make it appear that Clinton had created budget surpluses while in office are a sleight of hand accounting trick--nothing more. I don't know what you are referring to as far as US bankers figures, however. Maybe you could be a little more explicit.
Do you mean to tell us that the quoted Congressional accounting practices are as suspect as some of the "instruments" US bankers invented? Is that it? :/
Soooooo, tell me, who came up with that slight of hand? The guys who decided what Congressional accounting practices should be? Would that mean if they apply the same principles your Federal deficit and National debt would disappear over night, if only you could get the right guys to apply those practices? In that case: the Shrub administration should get cracking, time is winding down.
And if the Department of Defense is clever they devise an equivalent which then means there are no troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Black is white, the sun rises in the West and water flows uphill. To top it all Sarah Palin will be VP come Jan 20th 2009.
Now that’s what I call true vision!
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
"Instruments", Ron, "Instruments"! i.e. junk bonds, derivatives, hedge funds, sub-prime mortgages, that kind of thing. All the "nifty kind of gizmos" that keep the wheels spinning instead of providing traction, but oh my did they ever make those books and bonuses look good. Variations on shell games and Ponzi schemes!Soooooo, tell me, who came up with that slight of hand? The guys who decided what Congressional accounting practices should be? Would that mean if they apply the same principles your Federal deficit and National debt would disappear over night, if only you could get the right guys to apply those practices? In that case: the Shrub administration should get cracking, time is winding down.
And if the Department of Defense is clever they devise an equivalent which then means there are no troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Black is white, the sun rises in the West and water flows uphill. To top it all Sarah Palin will be VP come Jan 20th 2009.
Now that’s what I call true vision!
Could you boil all that down to something that actually makes sense? All I can see is that you want to divert the blame for this mess AWAY from the federal government, specifically Congress–the ones who started all this by pressuring the banks to make all those extremely risky loans.
I mean, I see that you despise the Department of Defense, bankers and other financiers and Sarah Palin and someone named “Shrub,” but how about dealing with some reality here?
Ron Simpson said:Ron,
I mean, I see that you despise the Department of Defense, bankers and other financiers and Sarah Palin and someone named "Shrub," but how about dealing with some reality here?
It boils down to the following: I read the Newspapers every day, I listen to the radio every day, I read books every day and I shake my head every day because I can’t understand how supposedly smart people can make the same stupid mistakes again and again and again. It just boggles my mind … but it is possible that I’m just not smart enough to see the finer schemes of all these supposedly smart people.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Ron Simpson said:Ron,
I mean, I see that you despise the Department of Defense, bankers and other financiers and Sarah Palin and someone named "Shrub," but how about dealing with some reality here?It boils down to the following: I read the Newspapers every day, I listen to the radio every day, I read books every day and I shake my head every day because I can’t understand how supposedly smart people can make the same stupid mistakes again and again and again. It just boggles my mind … but it is possible that I’m just not smart enough to see the finer schemes of all these supposedly smart people.
As stated above, I couldn’t agree more.