Intellectual Dishonesty...

[DKW 86 7,899]

Add any you may think of....

I'll start.

"Conservatives are all Racists..."

"Liberals all hate the US."

[Ranger12 53]

"Christians are homophobic"

[Tigermike 3,711]

All conservatives are anti environmentalists.

GOP divides us on race, especially in the south. (Nov 6) Howard Dean

By saying this Dean is appealing to stereotypes of the South.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

All Republicans are pro-life religious fanatics.

I can't think of any for liberals since it has to be false for it to be slander...

Okay, okay, in the spirit of fairness...

All liberal women are hairy arm-pitted man-haters.

[stoic-one 1,588]

All liberal women are hairy arm-pitted man-haters.

You mean this isn't true??????

[DKW 86 7,899]

NOW was founded for ugly women who cant get dates.

The only people who support NOW are Lesbians. While this isnt true on the face, it does appear that Lesbians are taking over NOW.

[Ranger12 53]

NOW was founded for ugly women who cant get dates.

The only people who support NOW are Lesbians. While this isnt true on the face, it does appear that Lesbians are taking over NOW.

Very true.

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

People who describe themselves as: "politically liberal but fiscally conservative."

By definition, liberals are fiscally irresponsible. Thus, there's not a chance in he## that a liberal can coexist in a fiscal conservative's body -- no matter what they say. This is a polar opposite if there ever was one: fire & ice, oil & water, atheist & believer, Aubies & bammies, etc.

[DKW 86 7,899]

People who describe themselves as:  "politically liberal but fiscally conservative." 

By definition, liberals are fiscally irresponsible.  Thus, there's not a chance in he## that a liberal can coexist in a fiscal conservative's body -- no matter what they say.  This is a polar opposite if there ever was one:  fire & ice, oil & water, atheist & believer, Aubies & bammies, etc.

Mega-Ditto!!

The Dems were in control of the HOR for decades and the budget never balanced. Reps take it over and the budget balances almost immediately.

BTW, in 1996 Pres Campaign, Clinton said "the Republican Promise to balance the budget by 2003 is ridiculous!!!!! There is no reason to tie us down to a balanced budget. That is just an arbitrary number...etc, etc, etc.

I doubt seriously that any Dem even knows why or how the budget ever balanced. They are correct in pointing out that we are not balanced right now but we are coming out of a recession and are at War. We need to spend even more money for the guys at war right now. What we need to do is cut the pork out of domestic spending for Dems and Reps too.

You will never hear a Dem say that tho. I am a Rep and I just called for it.

Find a fiscally conservative Dem that calls for spending cuts or waste, fraud and abuse cuts. It wont happen. Their version, even now, of balancing the budget is as it always has been........?

Raising Taxes!!!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

David, did you know that the 1997 Balanced Budget Act was sponsored by Pete Visclosky??? He might know how and why the budget was balanced, plus, he's a Democrat!!!

Also, if the Democrats are so terrible with budgets and the republicans are so great, then why do we have a nearly $400 billion deficit considering that the republicans control the house, senate and the president, who began his term with a $300 billion surplus??? It would seem that this economy should just be purring along without a care in the world, what with the absolute control the republicans wield over the entire legislative process. Or, maybe that's the problem.

[Donutboy 0]

People who describe themselves as:  "politically liberal but fiscally conservative." 

By definition, liberals are fiscally irresponsible.  Thus, there's not a chance in he## that a liberal can coexist in a fiscal conservative's body -- no matter what they say.  This is a polar opposite if there ever was one:  fire & ice, oil & water, atheist & believer, Aubies & bammies, etc.

Mega-Ditto!!

The Dems were in control of the HOR for decades and the budget never balanced. Reps take it over and the budget balances almost immediately.

Do what? Clinton took a budget that was bleeding red ink to the tune of over a 1/4 trillion$$ annually and turned it around to a budget surplus of around 1/4 trillion$$ in his final year in office. Let me remind you that the Clinton tax increase that was responsible for the budget turnaround was passed without a single Republican in Congress voting for it. Al Gore broke a 50-50 tie by voting for this tax increase and setting in motion the turnaround. Dubya and his tax cuts have turned that budget surplus into a projected 1/2 trillion$$ deficit in the next budget..... and your contention is that the Democrats are fiscally irresponsible!?!?!? No, the Democrats were good at keeping budgets. The last Democratic president before Reagan-Bush, Jimmy Carter, had an ending budget deficit of 73 billion$$. The knock on the Democrats was "tax and spend." The knock on the Republicans is "borrow and spend". Each of us has our own theory of which is the best/worst fiscal policy but at least with tax and spend, you didn't amass a large debt for future generations. The projected debt by the end od this decade is 10 trillion dollars!!! That's a debt of $33,333.33 for every man, woman and child in this nation!! That's our legacy to our children and grandchildren!!

[DKW 86 7,899]

Read it and weep

Until last year(1996), President Clinton refused to accept the need for a balanced budget

His own budgets projected final-year deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion, until finally trying to claim balance in last year's election.

1998-$241.4 billion,

1999-$201.2 billion,

2000-$194 billion,

2001-Clinton projects the first balance after he leaves office.

Also note that after the tax hike of 1993, we are still seeing budget deficits as far as eight years later. You guys lose again!

[DKW 86 7,899]

The Balanced Budget Deal as Enacted, Balance Budget in 2003! Just like I said.

Both versions claim to eliminate deficits by 2002 - which would be a first since 1969

That's right guys, the Dems never even agreed to the notion of balanced budgets unless it was so far away they were given all kinds of leeway to make sure they had time to increase spending again. Al and Donut, I like you guys, but the very idea of a fiscally conservative Democrat is the penultimate oxymoron.

[Donutboy 0]

Read it and weep

Until last year(1996), President Clinton refused to accept the need for a balanced budget

His own budgets projected final-year deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion, until finally trying to claim balance in last year's election.

1998-$241.4 billion,

1999-$201.2 billion,

2000-$194 billion,

2001-Clinton projects the first balance after he leaves office.

Also note that after the tax hike of 1993, we are still seeing budget deficits as far as eight years later. You guys lose again!

Notice how Clinton's budget kept shrinking? Notice how fast his budget surplus disappeared when Dubya passed his first tax cut. It's actually pretty simple. You either raise taxes to pay for your spending or you cut spending to pay for your tax cuts. You DON'T cut taxes without also cutting spending. Not only has Dubya not cut spending to pay for his tax cuts, his budget is the largest to date. THAT'S where your budget surplus bacame a budget deficit. I know you David. You're not dumb but the argument that you're presenting is. Even many of Dubya's own party are questioning his fiscal irresponsibility. I know you feel the need to defend everything he does but his runaway budget spending coupled with tax cuts is decimating our economy.

[DKW 86 7,899]

Many agree with me on this

There are three basic ways to balance a budget (meaning without borrowing, i.e., incurring deficits):

1) To cut spending so that it is the same as, or less than, the amount of revenue coming into the federal treasurey

2) To raise taxes to guarantee that more revenue is coming in than is needed.

3) For unexpectedly more revenue to come into the government via tax revenue than was planned for.

Guess which one was the reason for the balanced budgets from 1998-2001? (hint: it isn’t #1 or #2, that is to say, they weren’t pre-planned balanced budgets).

Truly brilliant! "They weren’t pre-planned balanced budgets" exactly as I said.

Even President Clinton (who, as any President would, took credit for the balanced budgets-and I am not slamming Clinton, I sincerely mean any President would have taken credit), early on noted that while he would like a balanced budget, it could take some time to achieve. Then, unplanned by anyone, we had a balanced budget. It happened because the economy grew at a fast rate, meaning more money was coming in than we had planned to spend.

The balanced budget would be destroyed if not for RESTRAINED SPENDING in the HOR, that is where all spending and taxing takes place according to the Constitution.

And this is all without a discussion of mandatory and discretionary spending, the role of entitlements, or the complexities of appropriates bills and the like.

In short, Presidents don’t have as much influence over balanced budgets as they (of either party) would like to think. Indeed, they have far less influence over the overall economy than they would like to think.

And no I didnt write it either. But it definitely backs up exactly what I have been saying here tho.

[Donutboy 0]

Many agree with me on this

There are three basic ways to balance a budget (meaning without borrowing, i.e., incurring deficits):

1) To cut spending so that it is the same as, or less than, the amount of revenue coming into the federal treasurey

2) To raise taxes to guarantee that more revenue is coming in than is needed.

3) For unexpectedly more revenue to come into the government via tax revenue than was planned for.

Guess which one was the reason for the balanced budgets from 1998-2001? (hint: it isn’t #1 or #2, that is to say, they weren’t pre-planned balanced budgets).

Truly brilliant! "They weren’t pre-planned balanced budgets" exactly as I said.

Even President Clinton (who, as any President would, took credit for the balanced budgets-and I am not slamming Clinton, I sincerely mean any President would have taken credit), early on noted that while he would like a balanced budget, it could take some time to achieve. Then, unplanned by anyone, we had a balanced budget. It happened because the economy grew at a fast rate, meaning more money was coming in than we had planned to spend.

The balanced budget would be destroyed if not for RESTRAINED SPENDING in the HOR, that is where all spending and taxing takes place according to the Constitution.

And this is all without a discussion of mandatory and discretionary spending, the role of entitlements, or the complexities of appropriates bills and the like.

In short, Presidents don’t have as much influence over balanced budgets as they (of either party) would like to think. Indeed, they have far less influence over the overall economy than they would like to think.

And no I didnt write it either. But it definitely backs up exactly what I have been saying here tho.

So, for a budget to balance, you either need more money coming in to pay for spending increases (tax and spend) or less spending to offset fewer taxes. I think that's kinda what I've been saying though. Wouldn't this also prove the other point that I made, that tax cuts without spending cuts would cause budget deficits? We've had three large tax cuts since Dubya took office and have also experienced an increase in spending in each year....... Hmmm, still think the current budget deficits are because of Clinton's 1993 tax increase?

[DKW 86 7,899]

No Donut, My point here is that:

1) Democrats were never for balancing the budget and they didnt ever really support it either. Read the articles supplied and you will see that Clinton repeatedly over spent his own budgets, year after year.

2) Bush inherited the Clinton-Gore Recession, with a failing economy. He cut taxes to stimulate the economy, just as JFK did and would do again.

2a) THEN, we had 9-11. Huge loss to the Economy and loss to the govt in emergency funds and grants to the airline industry, the financial industry, etc.

2b) At the same time we were finding out about the Clinton Adm not monitoring financial disclosures from Enron, Tyco, World Comm, etc. going back to 1998 and 1999 at least. Bush is having to clean up this mess. BTW, Bernie Ebbers, CEO at WorldComm, was a huge Democratic donor thru all this.

2c) We went to WAR! War is a very expensive, not normally funded endeavor and is sited as reason to go into deficit spending in theBIll sited by Al above.

Now that the WAR part is over, I would expect and demand that we get back to Balanced Budgets ASAP.

[Donutboy 0]

No Donut, My point here is that:

1) Democrats were never for balancing the budget and they didnt ever really support it either. Read the articles supplied and you will see that Clinton repeatedly over spent his own budgets, year after year.

2) Bush inherited the Clinton-Gore Recession, with a failing economy. He cut taxes to stimulate the economy, just as JFK did and would do again.

2a) THEN, we had 9-11. Huge loss to the Economy and loss to the govt in emergency funds and grants to the airline industry, the financial industry, etc.

2b) At the same time we were finding out about the Clinton Adm not monitoring financial disclosures from Enron, Tyco, World Comm, etc. going back to 1998 and 1999 at least. Bush is having to clean up this mess. BTW, Bernie Ebbers, CEO at WorldComm, was a huge Democratic donor thru all this.

2c) We went to WAR! War is a very expensive, not normally funded endeavor and is sited as reason to go into deficit spending in theBIll sited by Al above.

Now that the WAR part is over, I would expect and demand that we get back to Balanced Budgets ASAP.

1) Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president that didn't inherit a huge Republican "supply-side economic" budget deficit, had a final deficit of $73 billion. I guess you could honestly say that he didn't balance the budget. However, he DID keep it manageable. Clinton had to not only handle the huge deficits left him but also increasespending to help us recover from the first Bush recession.

2) No. The country was NOT in recession when Bush took office. The reasoning for his first tax cut was not to stimulate the economy but to reward the tax payers with a tax cut while still keeping the surplus. He was warned that his tax cuts were too great and would spiral us back into deficit spending but he wouldn't listen.

2a) And how, pray tell,would that have any bearing on NEXT year's projected budget deficit of a half trillion dollars?????

2b) It's funny that you want to pin Bush's cronies crimes on Clinton. The paperwork of Bush's buddies was full of lies and misrepresentations but I'm sure you expected Clinton to examine everyone. Puh-Leeze!! BTW, who do you think these corporations supported in the 2000 elections??? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the Democrats. Side note: Did you know that Ken Lay's pet name for Dubya was Georgie Boy?

2c) We also went to war in Clinton's final year but still lowered the deficit. Also, see 2a.

You can expect or demand until you're blue in the face but Bush's spending spree isn't over. On top of a projected 1/2 trillion dollar deficit in fiscal year 2004, add on additional pork when Congress finally passes Dubya's energy bill with tax giveaways to the oil, gas and coal industries.

[DKW 86 7,899]

And this is all without a discussion of mandatory and discretionary spending, the role of entitlements, or the complexities of appropriates bills and the like.

In short, Presidents don’t have as much influence over balanced budgets as they (of either party) would like to think. Indeed, they have far less influence over the overall economy than they would like to think.

Requoted from above. "In short, Presidents don’t have as much influence over balanced budgets as they (of either party) would like to think."

Constitutionally speaking here. All Bills having to do with Revenue, taxing and spending, originate in the HOR.

Yes, Boys and Girls, that means that $$$ directed by the Fed Govt is CONTROLLED by the HOR. Deficits and Surpluses both are controlled by the HOR.

In the Bill Passed in 1997, Deficit Spending is authorized in two instances:

1) Recession-To pay for increased Spending or TAX CUTS to stimulate the economy.

2) In times of War-To pay for expenses that are not covered in a Peace time economy. During wartime expenses go way up to pay for sending troops and supplies overseas. It costs more money to steam ships around rather than have most of them in port. War is hell and it is expensive hell. We wage war better than it has ever been waged but those high tech toys cost Big Bucks! But they also keep our troops safe-at a distance. Thats right, cruise missiles are not cheap. Neither are bunker busters, Daisy Cutters, anti-tank shells. M-1 Abrams are powered by jet engines, turbine motors. Thats how 55-100 ton tanks go 60 mph.

[DKW 86 7,899]

1) Clinton had to not only handle the huge deficits left him but also increase spending to help us recover from the first Bush recession.

Out of Recession by 1992, Three quarters positive in Dec 1991, 1992 out of Recession

2) No. The country was NOT in recession when Bush took office. The reasoning for his first tax cut was not to stimulate the economy but to reward the tax payers with a tax cut while still keeping the surplus. He was warned that his tax cuts were too great and would spiral us back into deficit spending but he wouldn't listen.

Recession starts in Jan 2000, defined by Dec 2000

2a) And how, pray tell,would that have any bearing on NEXT year's projected budget deficit of a half trillion dollars?????

It is only a projection, not written in stone.

2b) It's funny that you want to pin Bush's cronies crimes on Clinton. The paperwork of Bush's buddies was full of lies and misrepresentations but I'm sure you expected Clinton to examine everyone. Puh-Leeze!! BTW, who do you think these corporations supported in the 2000 elections??? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the Democrats. Side note: Did you know that Ken Lay's pet name for Dubya was Georgie Boy?

No, I am pinning the "crimes" on politicians. The Clinton Adm was a cash generating machine with US business. Bernie Ebbers was on almost every stage Clinton took in 1996. The responsibility for examining financials is an every year thing. Yes I do expect Clinton Adm to examine them all, as they are charged to do.

2c) We also went to war in Clinton's final year but still lowered the deficit. Also, see 2a.

Well the war in Kosovo was nowhere near the scale used in Afghanistan and Iraq. Totally different in scale. An aerial war versus two large ground campaigns.

You can expect or demand until you're blue in the face but Bush's spending spree isn't over. On top of a projected 1/2 trillion dollar deficit in fiscal year 2004, add on additional pork when Congress finally passes Dubya's energy bill with tax giveaways to the oil, gas and coal industries.

Well letys just wait and see. I am banking on the difference here being this. Under Reagan and Bush1, the GOP didnt have control of HOR, the spending arm of the Fed Govt. Under Bush2, the gop will have a choke hold on HOR and be out of combat ops from now on. The troops come home soon I bet. Iraqis get control back in July. We could be home by Christmas? Maybe, hope so.

[Tiger Al 0]

David, just a small point of contention here, but, you keep repeating this notion that the House unilaterally appropriates how and where money is spent and that is incorrect.

Appropriations bills simply ORIGINATE in the House but once the House is done with it it then goes to the Senate where amendments are added and then members of both chambers work out the differences in a conference comittee before it goes to POTUS. If he signs it, it becomes law. If he vetoes it, a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate is needed to override the veto.