Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Was Bill Clinton A Tea Bagger?

HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:26:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?

No because Clinton was willing to raise taxes to help balance it. "Tea Baggers" are not simply for a balanced budget, they want it purely on the backs of tax cuts, mostly from social programs. As the tea party backed republicans have said in congress many times, they will vote against anything that raises taxes at all. And many of them even consider the closing of tax loopholes to be the same as tax increases.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:28:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?:

Well, ironically enough, Bill Clinton had the most balanced budget of any U.S. president in the last 70 years.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:29:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:26:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?

No because Clinton was willing to raise taxes to help balance it. "Tea Baggers" are not simply for a balanced budget, they want it purely on the backs of tax cuts, mostly from social programs. As the tea party backed republicans have said in congress many times, they will vote against anything that raises taxes at all. And many of them even consider the closing of tax loopholes to be the same as tax increases.

Ooops! Let me rephrase: If a plan were proposed cutting spending AND raising taxes back to the levels of the Clinton era it would be considered a far right of the Ryan plan. Please respond again.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:32:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?

Oh. That kind of Tea Bagger. Nevermind.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:32:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:28:37 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?:

Well, ironically enough, Bill Clinton had the most balanced budget of any U.S. president in the last 70 years.

Why is that ironic? Democrats weren't always known for irresponsible borrowing. Clinton was a fiscally responsible democrat who had real fiscally responsible conservatives in congress.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:35:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:29:23 PM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:26:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?

No because Clinton was willing to raise taxes to help balance it. "Tea Baggers" are not simply for a balanced budget, they want it purely on the backs of tax cuts, mostly from social programs. As the tea party backed republicans have said in congress many times, they will vote against anything that raises taxes at all. And many of them even consider the closing of tax loopholes to be the same as tax increases.

Ooops! Let me rephrase: If a plan were proposed cutting spending AND raising taxes back to the levels of the Clinton era it would be considered a far right of the Ryan plan. Please respond again.

No it wouldn't. The far left would call it a far right plan (because of spending cuts), and the far right would call it a far left plan (because of tax increases), that is because both sides a bias, when in reality, it is more of a right leaning centrist plan (I say right leaning, because the spending of 1994 is not adequate to 2011). Now if we cut spending to the 1994 % of GDP, I'd call that a dead middle centrist plan.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:35:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:32:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?

Oh. That kind of Tea Bagger. Nevermind.

That's right, tea baggers don't believe in any tax increases at all. How would you describe a plan cutting spending by over 50% while increasing taxes by around 5% to get it close to where the levels were during the Clinton's presidency?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:37:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:32:20 PM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:28:37 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?:

Well, ironically enough, Bill Clinton had the most balanced budget of any U.S. president in the last 70 years.


Why is that ironic? Democrats weren't always known for irresponsible borrowing. Clinton was a fiscally responsible democrat who had real fiscally responsible conservatives in congress.

What is needed is a congress (and government in general) that holds the ideas of "let's work together and meet in the middle," rather than "I have to hold my ground and beat you into submission."

That is something that Obama tried to do from the start, but the members of congress (both republicans and democrats) wanted nothing to do with comprimise.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:37:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No because Clinton was willing to raise taxes to help balance it. "Tea Baggers" are not simply for a balanced budget, they want it purely on the backs of tax cuts, mostly from social programs. As the tea party backed republicans have said in congress many times, they will vote against anything that raises taxes at all. And many of them even consider the closing of tax loopholes to be the same as tax increases.:

Because it's really simple. Cut the waste, fraud, and abuse of the COUNTLESS useless programs.

Take your pick... I'd get rid of 70% on this enormous list. Honestly, just look through this monstrosity for a few pages and you'll see why raising the taxes is not necessary when there are a plethora of functionally useless departments (money pits).

http://www.usa.gov...

As you can see, it's obviously a matter of vital national security to have the National Endowment of the Arts and the Commission on Fine Arts. Imagine what catastrophe would befall this nation without these indispensable agencies!?!?!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:37:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:35:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:29:23 PM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:26:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?

No because Clinton was willing to raise taxes to help balance it. "Tea Baggers" are not simply for a balanced budget, they want it purely on the backs of tax cuts, mostly from social programs. As the tea party backed republicans have said in congress many times, they will vote against anything that raises taxes at all. And many of them even consider the closing of tax loopholes to be the same as tax increases.

Ooops! Let me rephrase: If a plan were proposed cutting spending AND raising taxes back to the levels of the Clinton era it would be considered a far right of the Ryan plan. Please respond again.

No it wouldn't. The far left would call it a far right plan (because of spending cuts), and the far right would call it a far left plan (because of tax increases), that is because both sides a bias, when in reality, it is more of a right leaning centrist plan (I say right leaning, because the spending of 1994 is not adequate to 2011). Now if we cut spending to the 1994 % of GDP, I'd call that a dead middle centrist plan.

Why would an attempt to balance a budget tie spending to anything but revenues?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:38:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:35:50 PM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:32:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?

Oh. That kind of Tea Bagger. Nevermind.

That's right, tea baggers don't believe in any tax increases at all. How would you describe a plan cutting spending by over 50% while increasing taxes by around 5% to get it close to where the levels were during the Clinton's presidency?

I thought you were talking about the kind of Tea Bagger that...

... you know what. Nevermind. But I'd be willing to bet that Clinton was the kind of Tea bagger I'm thinking of.

Only Monica knows. (You know Hillary wouldn't put up with that!)
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:44:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
it is more of a right leaning centrist plan (I say right leaning, because the spending of 1994 is not adequate to 2011).

So you believe that Clinton would be seen as a right-leaning centrist compared to today's democrats? Do you think he'd beat Obama in an election if he were able to run again?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:46:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:37:38 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
No because Clinton was willing to raise taxes to help balance it. "Tea Baggers" are not simply for a balanced budget, they want it purely on the backs of tax cuts, mostly from social programs. As the tea party backed republicans have said in congress many times, they will vote against anything that raises taxes at all. And many of them even consider the closing of tax loopholes to be the same as tax increases.:

Because it's really simple. Cut the waste, fraud, and abuse of the COUNTLESS useless programs.

Take your pick... I'd get rid of 70% on this enormous list. Honestly, just look through this monstrosity for a few pages and you'll see why raising the taxes is not necessary when there are a plethora of functionally useless departments (money pits).

http://www.usa.gov...

As you can see, it's obviously a matter of vital national security to have the National Endowment of the Arts and the Commission on Fine Arts. Imagine what catastrophe would befall this nation without these indispensable agencies!?!?!

The National Commission of the Fine Arts has an annual budget of $2.4 million in 2012. Cutting that is not going to save the budget. Of course, the concept of "what is needed" varries from person to person. You could cut 100,000 NCFAs and not balance the budget, so yes, looking at taxes is needed, there is no reason to put those off the table.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:50:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:44:56 PM, HandsOff wrote:
it is more of a right leaning centrist plan (I say right leaning, because the spending of 1994 is not adequate to 2011).

So you believe that Clinton would be seen as a right-leaning centrist compared to today's democrats? Do you think he'd beat Obama in an election if he were able to run again?

No, becuase if he was in office right now, he would not cut spending to 1994 dollar amounts, but to 1994 % of GDP. He'd also raise taxes from where they are now. This should all be qualified as "he'd try to do these things."

If the 1992-2000 Clinton were to run today (not the current old man that we see), the far right would still call him a far left liberal scumbag, and the far left would probably call him a spinless moderate that won't stand firm and fight for liberal ideals.

Would he win in a 1 on 1 agaisnt Obama? Probably, but it wouldn't matter. While congress remains deadlocked in partisan bickering, there is nothing the president can do. Bush was right when he said "this would be a whole lot easier if I were a dictator" (or something like that).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:52:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:37:54 PM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:35:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:29:23 PM, HandsOff wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:26:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:22:46 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich to balance the federal budget. Although Clinton is a beloved Democrat, if anyone were to propose a plan to cut government and spending back to the days of the his presidency (adjusted for inflation and other uncontrollable cost increases), the plan would likely be considered far right of the Ryan plan. Was Clinton an evil Tea Bagger?

No because Clinton was willing to raise taxes to help balance it. "Tea Baggers" are not simply for a balanced budget, they want it purely on the backs of tax cuts, mostly from social programs. As the tea party backed republicans have said in congress many times, they will vote against anything that raises taxes at all. And many of them even consider the closing of tax loopholes to be the same as tax increases.

Ooops! Let me rephrase: If a plan were proposed cutting spending AND raising taxes back to the levels of the Clinton era it would be considered a far right of the Ryan plan. Please respond again.

No it wouldn't. The far left would call it a far right plan (because of spending cuts), and the far right would call it a far left plan (because of tax increases), that is because both sides a bias, when in reality, it is more of a right leaning centrist plan (I say right leaning, because the spending of 1994 is not adequate to 2011). Now if we cut spending to the 1994 % of GDP, I'd call that a dead middle centrist plan.


Why would an attempt to balance a budget tie spending to anything but revenues?

It wouldn't, but you can set spending to a given level and move revenue to match spending, rather than set revenue to a given level and move spending to match (assuming you're on the left side of the Laffer curve).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:57:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The National Commission of the Fine Arts has an annual budget of $2.4 million in 2012. Cutting that is not going to save the budget.:

No sh*t, thanks. It was simply an example to illustrate the colossal uselessness. The point is, extrapolate that by cutting other functionally useless programs and you can save upward of a trillion dollars in one year.

Of course, the concept of "what is needed" varries from person to person. You could cut 100,000 NCFAs and not balance the budget, so yes, looking at taxes is needed, there is no reason to put those off the table.:

Yes, taxes are necessary. Stupid government programs that throw away those revenues are not.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:58:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:50:55 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:44:56 PM, HandsOff wrote:
it is more of a right leaning centrist plan (I say right leaning, because the spending of 1994 is not adequate to 2011).

So you believe that Clinton would be seen as a right-leaning centrist compared to today's democrats? Do you think he'd beat Obama in an election if he were able to run again?

No, becuase if he was in office right now, he would not cut spending to 1994 dollar amounts, but to 1994 % of GDP. He'd also raise taxes from where they are now. This should all be qualified as "he'd try to do these things."

If the 1992-2000 Clinton were to run today (not the current old man that we see), the far right would still call him a far left liberal scumbag, and the far left would probably call him a spinless moderate that won't stand firm and fight for liberal ideals.

Would he win in a 1 on 1 agaisnt Obama? Probably, but it wouldn't matter. While congress remains deadlocked in partisan bickering, there is nothing the president can do. Bush was right when he said "this would be a whole lot easier if I were a dictator" (or something like that).

Agreed. If we want a balanced budget fiscal conservatives must take congressional seats. The only way any president can balance the budget it with a conservative congress like the one Clinton had.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 1:12:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think it is sad that many Democrat candidates shy away from being fiscally conservative as an unpopular trait much like a black man is labeled an Uncle Tom just for speaking white man's English.