Originally Posted By basas <<If any thing it has the conservitve party looking like a bunch of problem children, and the feeling here has been more of one rallying to back the libs , rather than over throw them. But thats only in the land of liberals (Vancouver) The rest of BC is pro con.>> Well, from everything i've seen, the Conservatives are off to a great start and gaining support fast..first, bringing up same-sex marraige again (to possibly overturn it), plans to decrease the GST, plans to fix health care...even CBC agreed the Conservative message was getting out. The Liberals however have had a rough start. Their campaign focuses on national unity when they themselves are the ones who have rallied up Quebecers to want separation! Not only that, they have been clueless on how to respond to issues such as the GST decrease…considering they got in 12 years ago promising to cut it out (hasn’t happened yet…), and the PM hasn’t impressed folks (in Cornwall yesterday), during speeches, and even got booed at the Grey Cup! This isn’t the type of start Liberals want especially when 50% agree change in Ottawa is needed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Clinton had already brought the deficit down before the GOP takeover, and underestimated how good his economy was going to be.> "A review of Administration statements on the 1993 tax increase proposal shows very clearly how its proponents expected it to affect the economy. The cornerstone of the argument was that the Clinton budget plan would "grow" the economy by lowering interest rates. Lower interest rates were the key link defining exactly how Clinton policy would boost the economy. However, soon after enactment of the Clinton program in August of 1993, the Administration revised its economic growth assumptions downward for 1993 and 1994, and shortly thereafter long term interest rates began rising, not falling." "Moreover, the pace of GDP growth slowed from the 3.7 percent annual growth rate set in 1992 (measured 4th quarter to 4th quarter) to 2.2 percent in 1993, 3.5 percent in 1994, and 1.3 percent in 1995. The rate of economic growth did not accelerate relative to its 1992 pace under the 1993 budget policies." "Furthermore, all of the 1993 tax increase has been used to finance additional domestic and entitlement federal spending increases. Since 1995, the more recent progress in fiscal 1996 is due to faster than expected revenue growth and slower outlay growth, especially the savings due to Congressional actions to restrain spending." <a href="http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/whither3/whither3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.house.gov/jec/fisca l/budget/whither3/whither3.htm</a> "In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see." "It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities." "the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics." <a href="http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html" target="_blank">http://www.cato.org/dailys/10- 08-98.html</a> <Argued how, and with whom?> "Even before the House vote, Clinton threatened to veto the measure, saying the GOP majority was demanding "a level of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, in education, in the environment and a tax increase on working people, all of which I find objectionable." <a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-15/wrap/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/deb t_limit/11-15/wrap/</a> <Again, show me where the budget HE proposed was altered more than a small amount by the Congress. You can't.> See above.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Again, show me where the budget HE proposed was altered more than a small amount by the Congress. You can't.>> <See above.> I didn't think you could show me numbers for a clinton proposal, and compare them to the actual numbers approved. And you didn't. For example: "Even before the House vote, Clinton threatened to veto the measure, saying the GOP majority was demanding "a level of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, in education, in the environment and a tax increase on working people, all of which I find objectionable." All that means is the congress wanted to cut Medicare and Medicaid, etc., more than Clinton did. But you didn't show me proposed numbers from each party. If you did, you'd see that the totals for each were quite close. The rest of your post was opinion from house republicans, spinning things their way (big surprise!) and Cato doing the same. And none of it contradicts what I said originally: that Clinton reduced the deficit before the GOP took over Congress.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I didn't think you could show me numbers for a clinton proposal, and compare them to the actual numbers approved. And you didn't.> I guess you missed the paragraph I excerpted, that said, "the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline." It also included a year by year chart. <If you did, you'd see that the totals for each were quite close.> Except that the Republicans' proposals caused the budget to go from deficit to surplus in 4 years, and Clinton's didn't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I didn't think you could show me numbers for a clinton proposal, and compare them to the actual numbers approved. And you didn't.>> <I guess you missed the paragraph I excerpted, that said, "the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline." It also included a year by year chart.> I guess you're so blinded by ideology that you don't understand that that Cato article, and its chart, are based on speculation, NOT what actually happened. They are not based on the budgets Clinton proposed vs. what was approved. They are based on forecasts from one year transposed to other years as if a new budget was not proposed every year. It is a fundamentally dishonest way of fudging the figures, which Cato often does in order to "prove" its tax mantras, but I'm not surprised you fell for it. <<If you did, you'd see that the totals for each were quite close.>> <Except that the Republicans' proposals caused the budget to go from deficit to surplus in 4 years, and Clinton's didn't.> Only if you accept the bogus way of figuring above, as opposed to, you know, what was actually proposed and then accepted.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I guess you're so blinded by ideology that you don't understand that that Cato article, and its chart, are based on speculation, NOT what actually happened.> They are based on the Clinton administration's projections before the Republicans began trying to cut spending. <They are based on forecasts from one year transposed to other years as if a new budget was not proposed every year.> Doing it any other way ignore the cumulative effect of slight decreases on baseline budgeting. If you want to ignore the reality that President Clinton constantly proposed spending more than the Republicans approved, and constantly fought to take longer to balance the budget than the Republicans did, than go ahead. I'm not going to spend hours searching for numbers to prove you wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I guess you're so blinded by ideology that you don't understand that that Cato article, and its chart, are based on speculation, NOT what actually happened.>> <They are based on the Clinton administration's projections before the Republicans began trying to cut spending.> Projections several years out are not what actually happened. Thank you for saying what I said another way. <<They are based on forecasts from one year transposed to other years as if a new budget was not proposed every year.>> <Doing it any other way ignore the cumulative effect of slight decreases on baseline budgeting.> No, doing it that way ignores how the budget process actually works, and is a dishonest way of trying to "prove" an ideology based on speculation rather than reality. <If you want to ignore the reality that President Clinton constantly proposed spending more than the Republicans approved, and constantly fought to take longer to balance the budget than the Republicans did, than go ahead. I'm not going to spend hours searching for numbers to prove you wrong.> Because you can't. The numbers Clinton proposed in any given year and the numbers Congress approved never differed by much. Period.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The numbers Clinton proposed in any given year and the numbers Congress approved never differed by much.> Then show me the numbers.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The numbers Clinton proposed in any given year and the numbers Congress approved never differed by much.>> <Then show me the numbers.> You were the one trying to imply they were wildly different, bucko. You did this months ago and I challenged you then to put up or shut up and you couldn't. I did see them compared years ago, and it was remarkable how little they differed. But if you're going to imply that the numbers were so different, which you did, it's your responsibility to google it up and show that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You've presented bogus speculation based on Cato's non-real-world projections, which is not how the budget process actually works. So you've presented no evidence whatsoever.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Cato's non-real-world projections, which is not how the budget process actually works. So you've presented no evidence whatsoever.> They're not Cato's projections, they were the projections of the Clinton administration. Why can't you just admit that the last time we had a liberal government we didn't have a balanced budget.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Cato's non-real-world projections, which is not how the budget process actually works. So you've presented no evidence whatsoever.>> <They're not Cato's projections, they were the projections of the Clinton administration.> As filtered through Cato's lense. And they're not the real world. They took one year and projected from there, rather than recognizing that budgets will change EVERY year based on new realities, new priorities, new political considerations and favors and pork, new realizations of what's going on with the economy, etc. In other words, their projections bear no resemblance to the way the budget process actually works, so they're nothing more than an academic exercise. <Why can't you just admit that the last time we had a liberal government we didn't have a balanced budget.> The last time we had a balanced budget we had a Democrat (I don't consider him a liberal, really) president proposing the budgets. When's the last time we had a balanced budget with a Republican in charge?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As filtered through Cato's lense.> No. The baseline is from the 1995 budget projections. <They took one year and projected from there, rather than recognizing that budgets will change EVERY year based on new realities, new priorities, new political considerations and favors and pork, new realizations of what's going on with the economy, etc.> Just as you're not taking into account the cumulative effect on Clinton's budget proposals of the Republicans refusing to spend as much as he wanted. <The last time we had a balanced budget we had a Democrat (I don't consider him a liberal, really) president proposing the budgets.> And we had those budgets being cut by a Republican congress. Once again, your statement was untrue.
Originally Posted By basas So..um..yeah, that Liberal government. LOL. Well, not having the best start to the campaign, are they? Conservatives seem to be setting the agenda, and NDP, and Libs attempting to come up with excuses why the Conservatives plans are bad, as opposed to actually having platforms of their own!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hey basas, keep us updated on the campaign up there would ya? Canadian politics are not exactly headmine news down here, especially when the liberal media sees their fellow lefties going down in flames and scandal.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>So..um..yeah, that Liberal government. LOL. Well, not having the best start to the campaign, are they? Conservatives seem to be setting the agenda, and NDP, and Libs attempting to come up with excuses why the Conservatives plans are bad, as opposed to actually having platforms of their own!<< When the Liberals got reduced to minority status, Martin acknowledge that "we have to do better". And yet, not a lot of new ideas coming forth. They're running on their track record, which is admittedly quite good, but voters want more. The Conservatives have brought forth a lot of issues & promises, but nothing exceptional that really makes them the better choice. They've also insisted on bringing up Gay Marriage again, a decisive issue that the vast majority consider dealt with.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>Canadian politics are not exactly headmine news down here, especially when the liberal media sees their fellow lefties going down in flames and scandal.<< "Better to have people think you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Originally Posted By Beaumandy shooba, I don't see how your last post changes the fact that the liberals got booted from power because of massive scandal and corruption. Has gay marriage ever been voted on by the people of Canada or was it put in place by the moonbats in the governement?
Originally Posted By Shooba The Liberals were not booted from power, they just lost their majority status. Massive Scandal & Corruption is also an exagerration, and really only applicable to a tiny portion of the party, a portion that is no longer involved. The current Prime Minister was exonerated of any involvement. Gay Marriage was put to a vote in Parliament only after the courts declared the existing marriage laws discriminatory. Not every member of the Liberal party voted for it either. I don't even have a problem with the Conservatives stance on Gay marriage - grandfather existing marriages, change the definition back to one man & one woman, while still providing ALL couples with the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage via civil unions, regardless of gender composition. What's really repugnant and evil is what Conservatives in the USA want. They're tripping over themselves to ensure that gay couples get NO benefits. They go to court to ensure companies can't provide partner benefits, because they voted to ban all unions. They're taking every step possible to ensure gay couples are denied medical coverage, and a whole list of other benefits, all in the name of "morality". They're disgusting and an affront to the human race.
