Sarah Palin: A Maggie Thatcher for America

Slartibartfast wrote: IVNORD wrote: most of the problems we have today are a direct result of Clinton's presidency. Including 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention the never-ending financial bubbles. I see you're a loyal member of the ABC Club. Actually this is all Jimmy Carter's fault.  If he hadn't been defeated by Reagan, we wouldn't have had six years of Reagan-Bush, which Clinton couldn't undo all the damage from in a mere four.

Name one thing Clinton did/tried to do to undo the Reagan damage. Just one. Maybe I missed something. As far as I know he only added fuel to the fire, and not just fuel -- rocket fuel. Still burning.

Edited by IVNORD - September 09 2008 at 19:02

IVNORD wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: IVNORD wrote: most of the problems we have today are a direct result of Clinton's presidency. Including 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention the never-ending financial bubbles. I see you're a loyal member of the ABC Club. Actually this is all Jimmy Carter's fault.  If he hadn't been defeated by Reagan, we wouldn't have had six years of Reagan-Bush, which Clinton couldn't undo all the damage from in a mere four.  Name one thing Clinton did/tried to do to undo the Reagan damage. Just one. Maybe I missed something. As far as I know he only added fuel to the fire, and not just fuel -- rocket fuel. Still burning.

IVNORD wrote: Name one thing Clinton did/tried to do to undo the Reagan damage. Just one. Maybe I missed something. As far as I know he only added fuel to the fire, and not just fuel -- rocket fuel. Still burning.     BTW why do you post predominantly pro-Dem cartoons? In the spirit of fairness... I'm sure you come across some nice anti-Obama stuff. We would be thrilled.

Raised taxes on the rich.  Republicans were predicting doom and gloom at the time.  I seem to recall the deficit getting under control and a surplus when W took office.  But then nearly 8 years of the Bush administration and I can understand the amnesia.

You aren't seriously asking why I "post predominantly pro-Dem cartoons?"  I don't know, it just might happen to do with the fact that I am predominantly pro-Dem?  

And if there any cartoons I've been posting that aren't, please let me know so I can remove them.


Edited by Slartibartfast - September 09 2008 at 20:54

Slartibartfast wrote: IVNORD wrote: Name one thing Clinton did/tried to do to undo the Reagan damage. Just one. Maybe I missed something. As far as I know he only added fuel to the fire, and not just fuel -- rocket fuel. Still burning.     BTW why do you post predominantly pro-Dem cartoons? In the spirit of fairness... I'm sure you come across some nice anti-Obama stuff. We would be thrilled. Raised taxes on the rich.  Republicans were predicting doom and gloom at the time.

He did. What good did it do? Zilch. The first two years of his presidency were so unremarkable he was facing a Carter-style one term. Only after he began manipulating the interest rates he became the darling of the crowd. To undo the damage he should have reduced spending.

NaturalScience wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Raised taxes on the rich.  Republicans were predicting doom and gloom at the time.  I seem to recall the deficit getting under control and a surplus when W took office.  But then nearly 8 years of the Bush administration and I can understand the amnesia. Combined with what I keep hoping the next president will do - reduced spending!  When I look at all the programs Obama wants to put in place...sheesh. "The era of big government is over."  - Bill Clinton, State of the Union address, 1996.  BUDGET CHANGES Average annual budget change as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product during these administrations: Roosevelt 14.8% Truman -8.6% Eisenhower -1.3% Kennedy 0.2% Johnson 1% Nixon 1.6% Ford -1.4% Carter 1.8% Reagan -0.6% G. Bush 0.2% Clinton -1.8% G.W. Bush 2.4% Among W's many, many failures, for me this is pretty much right at the top.

This table is so misleading... "as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product" means that if your GDP grew faster than your budget, you would end up with a negative budget change. Reagan's deficits were legendary, yet he looks like a fiscal conservative here. The public debt increased almost every year since the Kennedy years. I have posted the numbers before, have no time to look for them right now. So a simple math problem: if you make $50k a year and at the end of the year you still have $10k on your credit cards doeas it mean you reduced your budget or rather spent it all and a little bit? And if you claim to have a surplus you'd better have a few bucks in the bank and all your debts paid off. 

Also I agree that shenanigans with Social Security make the numbers even more misleading.

NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote:   Of course, Bush beats everyone hands down, even Reagan That's the main point.  Republicans in the 1990s were interested in shrinking the federal budget and Clinton was able to work with them to accomplish that.  The Bush Administration and the GOP Congress this decade completely threw that philosophy out the window.

Accomplish what? The shrinking or the philosophy? There was no shrinking. There was a bloating. Huge tax revenues + a lower military bill squandered to the last penny and a few more billion borrowed then a surplus mirage mural painted thru creative accounting? How special is that

IVNORD wrote: NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote:   Of course, Bush beats everyone hands down, even Reagan That's the main point.  Republicans in the 1990s were interested in shrinking the federal budget and Clinton was able to work with them to accomplish that.  The Bush Administration and the GOP Congress this decade completely threw that philosophy out the window. Accomplish what? The shrinking or the philosophy? There was no shrinking. There was a bloating. Huge tax revenues + a lower military bill squandered to the last penny and a few more billion borrowed then a surplus mirage mural painted thru creative accounting? How special is that

"Lower military bill" doesn't count?  Defense is part of the budget.

Best way to hide a naff argument = make a cartoon about it.

NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote: NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote:   Of course, Bush beats everyone hands down, even Reagan That's the main point.  Republicans in the 1990s were interested in shrinking the federal budget and Clinton was able to work with them to accomplish that.  The Bush Administration and the GOP Congress this decade completely threw that philosophy out the window. Accomplish what? The shrinking or the philosophy? There was no shrinking. There was a bloating. Huge tax revenues + a lower military bill squandered to the last penny and a few more billion borrowed then a surplus mirage mural painted thru creative accounting? How special is that "Lower military bill" doesn't count?  Defense is part of the budget.

Of course it does. The defense budget is one of the biggest chunks of the whole. So if it goes down the entire budget should. Instead Clilnton managed to spend more overall even though he closed bases and reduced the personnel