user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Research it. This isn't even close to as large a problem as some say, unless there are drastic changes in America's economic power in the world.
The responsibility for the budget deficit lies with all of us. So long as we fail to insist on a national balanced budget and go along with the pet programs and pork barrel spending, we are going to be out of control. Has anyone noticed that it doesn't seem to matter who's elected to office: it's always business as usual.
Don't we need a truly free election, with everyone who wants to be able to run?
Cletus, I respectfully disagree.
1. We borrowed money to finance the war (not to mention cutting taxes which means the wealthy sacrificed nothing for the war--another topic). This dropped the value of the dollar.
2.Look at our trade deficit, from $77 billion in 1991 to almost $650 billion by the end of 2004.
3. We've gone from a budget surplus at the end of the 1990s to a deficit of over $412 billion.
4. Several months ago New York Times columnist Paul Krugman stated that, "if this country were named Argentina or Indonesia, it would be a clear candidate for financial crisis any day now.
5.Claiming the United States to be fiscally sound reminds me of the boxer who claimed he used his face to beat the hell out of the other guy's fists.
If a balanced budget isnt important, see how long you could survive id your personal finances arnt in order. The US debt has been adding up for years as has most 1st world countries, the debt goes back for 30 years, none of those names are any less responcible.
by ABC on Tue Apr 12, 05 6:16pm
[+]
Every administration we've ever had. The best any president has done has been to grow the deficit at a slower rate.
Wrong, Hers. We were heading into budget surplus territory when the great Bill Clinton was in office. Didn't take Bushy and his big spenders long to send the US toward the largest defictis in American history. With budget-busters like Bushy, who needs tax-and-spend Democrats?
Depends on how you look at it, Hers. Overall, America's balance sheet was headed in the right direction toward the end of the Clinton Administration. If a competent president had followed him, our liabilities could have decreased significantly. Unfortunately, we had Bushy, so are now in historic deficit territory.
Now you're trying to change your argument. For 8 years under clinton the deficit grew. It grew slower than at other times largely due to devastating military cuts and a booming economy (which clinton had nothing to do with).
My mistake. I see now that I wrote the ballot incorrectly. In the heading I referred to the deficit--which turned to a surplus during Clinton's last term--and in the description I switched to the national debt, about which you are correct. However, I would argue that there weren't "devastating" cuts to the bloated military, the institution that may very well help to bankrupt this country, and I would maintain that Bubba's solid, intelligent, and postive leadership did much to maintain and support the boom. Bubba talked it up, as did Reagan. And we had substantial growth periods in both administrations. And the national debt leveled off and was almost flat between 1999 and 2000. A year after Little Sourball took over, the deficit began to soar, as did the national debt.
|
|
