Thread: Palin's Choice for VP

I would very much appreciate if points are made based on facts, not based on spin. Let me be specific:

If you are arguing that candidate A will be spending less than candidate B and you derive this from the spending records of candidate B, you should include the records for candidate A as well. Then everybody can compare the numbers for themselves. Attempts to pass half truth as the complete story are insulting to many - even if you make your decisions based on spin you should consider that many people are fully capable of critical thinking.

Originally Posted by gugi

Originally Posted by Hutch

At the start of George W. Bush's term the deficit was $5,674,178,209,886.86 as of the last full numbers in 2007 it was $9,007,653,372,262.48. George Bush on his own has raised the deficit greater than the total defict of all other Presidents combined. The US is paying over $300 000 000 000 just to service the debt and spending $10 000 000 000/month on Iraq.

So yea lets make light of it and worry that Bill Clinton, who actually reduced the deficit, got a hummer from a consenting adult.

For completeness could you quote the deficit when Clinton took office, as well as the source. I would rather see the numbers myself.

Since I never got answer on the national debt let me post the numbers that are available at the website of the US treasury Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

01/04/1993 4,167,872,986,583.67 <- start of Clinton 1st
12/31/1996 5,323,171,750,783.19 <- start of Clinton 2nd
12/29/2000 5,662,216,013,697.37 <- end of Clinton 2nd, start of Bush 1st
12/31/2004 7,596,142,802,424.14 <- start of Bush 2nd
9/4/2008 9,668,194,123,052.30 <- latest data

For complete picture don't forget that the ligislature is the one who controls the spending, the executive can only request funding and can veto it.

Originally Posted by Hutch

As usual when proven wrong we just change the subject

But don't you see?
War is glorious and patriotic.
Curing people is socialist evil.

But seriously: why would it be a problem to spend a million on a hospital? I don't see the relevance here. First of all it's only a million, which is peanuts compared to both the annual budget, and the money wasted in pork projects. But secondly, providing medical facilities is a good thing, no? And since it is paid for with tax money, and built for the public good, I really don't see what is wrong with that?

Obama has been a senator for about 6 mo. What does he have as far as experience goes?

Originally Posted by lvbarber

Obama has been a senator for about 6 mo. What does he have as far as experience goes?

This is the wrong thread for Senator Obama's resume. If you want, start a new thread and I'm sure many members would be happy to oblige you.

j

Originally Posted by gugi

I would very much appreciate if points are made based on facts, not based on spin. Let me be specific:

If you are arguing that candidate A will be spending less than candidate B and you derive this from the spending records of candidate B, you should include the records for candidate A as well. Then everybody can compare the numbers for themselves. Attempts to pass half truth as the complete story are insulting to many - even if you make your decisions based on spin you should consider that many people are fully capable of critical thinking.




Since I never got answer on the national debt let me post the numbers that are available at the website of the US treasury Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

01/04/1993 4,167,872,986,583.67 <- start of Clinton 1st
12/31/1996 5,323,171,750,783.19 <- start of Clinton 2nd
12/29/2000 5,662,216,013,697.37 <- end of Clinton 2nd, start of Bush 1st
12/31/2004 7,596,142,802,424.14 <- start of Bush 2nd
9/4/2008 9,668,194,123,052.30 <- latest data

For complete picture don't forget that the ligislature is the one who controls the spending, the executive can only request funding and can veto it.

Sorry I didn't respond fast enough for you, but I'm glad your google works too.

That is only the partial picture too.

During the eight years Clinton was in office, the budget was balanced and the debt was starting to be paid down. Thats why they switched off the Debt Clock. The total only rose $1,494,343,027,113.70 which was basically due to debt servicing (interest on the loan)

Now during the seven plus years of George W. Bush and the six of the eight years that both houses were controlled by the Republican Party the debt has gone from $5,662,216,013,697.37 to $9,668,194,123,052.30 and increase of $4,005,978,109,354.93. Thats is almost equal to the amount of national debt that was accumulated by all the administrations combined prior to the George W. Bush administration. I just have a hard time understanding how the Republicans can be view as being fiscally conservative because it doesn't look like it too me.

I'm not sure if your comments with regards to spin and truth were directed at me but as a moderator if thats what you want to enforce maybe you should chime in when comments such as Barrack Obama requesting $1 000 000 in earmarks is how his wife got her job, where is the proof in that?

As gugi says,

Let's keep this civil.

I am saying this as a mod, not a contributor to this thread.

Thanks.

-Rob

Originally Posted by Hutch

I'm not sure if your comments with regards to spin and truth were directed at me but as a moderator if thats what you want to enforce maybe you should chime in when comments such as Barrack Obama requesting $1 000 000 in earmarks is how his wife got her job, where is the proof in that?

Without making any judgment here, I think what Gugi is trying to say is that if you make arguments, do not cut out just those facts that support one theory or another.

I think the obama comments were meant to indicate that complaining about Palin's lack of experience could be applied to other candidates as well.

Anyway, if Obama is an interesting discussion topic, please start a new thread on him and discuss him there so that we can keep these threads semi on topic. I realize that in these types of threads, there will be overlap but lets try to keep the main arguments about the different people involved on topic.

In my most civil tone, I was just asking a question. Why as a moderator was I being singled out, if I was being singled out (which I'm unsure if I was even now). As for my information my initial info came from a sight that basically stopped at 2000. If someone wants more data they are free to go find it, I really don't need to be order to find it, as everyone has google too.

Here is the web site where I got my initial data, so that you can see that I wasn't cherry picking. Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2007

I missed the other link on the left, it too only goes to 1993, which I wish it went back further.

So please don't read into this post, I am not mad just clarifying my question.

Originally Posted by Bruno

why would it be a problem to spend a million on a hospital?

Because there isn't a million to spend.

$10 billion a month on a war in Iraq or $1 million on a hospital I think I'd take the hospital, but that's just me.