Posted by Dennis on October 15, 2008, 4:36 pm
> Now clearly, if George W Bush hadn't taken a 230 Billion surplus and
>left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
>easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
>economic policies?
The outrageious deficit spending under Bush is a scandal. In no way
do I defend it. But the myth of a Clinton surplus has been repeated
too often and only makes you look foolish. There was no surplus, only
accounting tricks. The national debt grew each year under Clinton
budgets:
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
Posted by Jeff on October 15, 2008, 7:27 pm
Dennis wrote:
>
>> Now clearly, if George W Bush hadn't taken a 230 Billion surplus and
>> left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
>> easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
>> economic policies?
>
> The outrageious deficit spending under Bush is a scandal. In no way
> do I defend it. But the myth of a Clinton surplus has been repeated
> too often and only makes you look foolish. There was no surplus, only
> accounting tricks. The national debt grew each year under Clinton
> budgets:
Well, I'll look into that further. But this a bit about symantics and
at no time did I mention national debt.
Even by those figures you'll see that under Clinton "National Debt"
increases were almost erased.
As bad as the debt is under Bush on the surface, it is much worse
under the covers. Much has been deferred and is off the books. One
example of which is the replacement cost for all the military machinery
worn out in Iraq.
Jeff
>
> http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
>
> Dennis (evil)
Posted by Dennis on October 15, 2008, 7:42 pm
>Dennis wrote:
>>
>>> Now clearly, if George W Bush hadn't taken a 230 Billion surplus and
>>> left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
>>> easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
>>> economic policies?
>>
>> The outrageious deficit spending under Bush is a scandal. In no way
>> do I defend it. But the myth of a Clinton surplus has been repeated
>> too often and only makes you look foolish. There was no surplus, only
>> accounting tricks. The national debt grew each year under Clinton
>> budgets:
> Well, I'll look into that further. But this a bit about symantics and
>at no time did I mention national debt.
The bottom line is: if the national debt didn't decrease, then there
was no surplus. If a private business tried to use the kind of
accounting tricks and misdirection that the government does, it would
be prosecuted. This is not a partisan criticism and is true of all
recent administrations.
> Even by those figures you'll see that under Clinton "National Debt"
>increases were almost erased.
Agreed. The deficit was small by recent standards. But no surplus.
> As bad as the debt is under Bush on the surface, it is much worse
>under the covers. Much has been deferred and is off the books. One
>example of which is the replacement cost for all the military machinery
>worn out in Iraq.
Agreed. We (and our descendents) are in deep shit.
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
Posted by jdoe on October 16, 2008, 9:24 am
>George Grapman wrote:
>> Why do Americans keep going to Canada and Mexico for their
>> prescriptions? Do you have a cite showing large number of Canadians
>> come here for health care?
>I can't say there were "large" numbers, but over the last 18 years, our
>open-heart surgery practice has seen quite a few Canadians who were
>either turned down for surgery or put on a very long waiting list. They
>were expected to put up with painful angina daily and an extremely
>limiting lifestyle. Our orthopedic practice also had many Canadians who
>were waiting for hip or knee procedures.
>Marsha/Ohio
long waits in canuckistan is part of the socialized medical plan, it
called rationing care, and stories like you've related are not
uncommon. canucks who have the means to pay for their care come to the
US to avoid the all too common wait lists for procedures that are
rationed in canuckistan
__________________________________________
Never argue with an idiot.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Posted by TruthTeller on October 16, 2008, 10:08 am
Stop telling urban tales goober. people in a lot of rural US areas travel
to larger hospitals for certain treatments too. It has nothing to do with
rationing. That is a right wing greed lie.
>>George Grapman wrote:
>>> Why do Americans keep going to Canada and Mexico for their
>>> prescriptions? Do you have a cite showing large number of Canadians
>>> come here for health care?
>>
>>I can't say there were "large" numbers, but over the last 18 years, our
>>open-heart surgery practice has seen quite a few Canadians who were
>>either turned down for surgery or put on a very long waiting list. They
>>were expected to put up with painful angina daily and an extremely
>>limiting lifestyle. Our orthopedic practice also had many Canadians who
>>were waiting for hip or knee procedures.
>>
>>Marsha/Ohio
>long waits in canuckistan is part of the socialized medical plan, it
>called rationing care, and stories like you've related are not uncommon.
>canucks who have the means to pay for their care come to the US to avoid
>the all too common wait lists for procedures that are rationed in
>canuckistan
>__________________________________________
>Never argue with an idiot.
>They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
XML site map
>left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
>easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
>economic policies?