Do you even know how to read a chart? Bush Sr. cut it way more than clinton.Originally Posted by Partial
And, there is no correlation between a bunch of terrorists flying a plane into buildings a defense budget. That is FBI shit.
Do you even know how to read a chart? Bush Sr. cut it way more than clinton.
And, there is no correlation between a bunch of terrorists flying a plane into buildings a defense budget. That is FBI shit.
agreed.It has nothing to do with that Partial.
Our military spending went up a lot under Reagan, and it had gone up a lot in general even before that because of the Cold War. Once the Cold War was over, it was only logical to vastly reduce the decades of spending increases used because of the Cold War.
As I said...it was a bipartisan effort, and not a foolish one considering the circumstances. The problem was that our government as a whole down its guard when the Berlin Wall fell. We failed to recognize the growing threat terrorism was fostering...and how it would impact us as the remaining world superpower.
Not to mention how partial ignores the success we had fighting in the 'stan and Iraq. That military is the one that Clinton made...as Cheney even said.
Chart is always fun to use when repubs talk about runaway democratic spending.
Somehow spending for the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about doesn't constitute spending for repubs.
Here is another fun chart for my little republican friends.
That's a whole lotta downward trending for the Bush family. Someone please take their credit cards away.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
I'm sure, if we ask, that they'll be happy to get us a lucrative position with the Carlyle Group.
That's a whole lotta downward trending for the Bush family. Someone please take their credit cards away.
And I would not disagree. As I clearly pointed out in my first post, the spending cuts BEGAN under Bush Sr.
My point was that Clinton was responsible for significant defense cuts on his watch as well...and he was. I was referring to the following statement:
"Clinton didn't slash the defense budget."
The FACT is that he did...by roughly 3% a year during his tenure in office. In Washington, a 3% decrease in funding is a slash.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
Yes, Bush cut it more. Let's do the math together. Start with 100. Subtract 18% for Bush's cut. Now you're at 82. Subtract say 10% off of that. You're knocking off an additional 8.2, so you're at 73.8.Do you even know how to read a chart? Bush Sr. cut it way more than clinton.
And, there is no correlation between a bunch of terrorists flying a plane into buildings a defense budget. That is FBI shit.
73.8 < 82.
Therefore, Clinton slashed the hell out of the defense budget.
A more up to date chartHere is another fun chart for my little republican friends.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
Typical democrat post... You can really blame Bush for the banks crooked ways and the greedy idiot buying a bigger house than he needs. Yep, those two things are Bush's fault. I guess you should blame Bush for the fed reserve bailing those banks out as well and keeping American's employed.
Unless i''m reading it wrong, it increased from where it was under Bush sr.No, I'm not wrong...and your own chart proves my point. Defense spending DECREASED under Clinton. I also mentioned that it began under Bush Sr.
Go back to your smoking your pipe Ty.
How can you say it decreased? what are you comparing it to?
Pssst. You are reading it wrong.
Fuggin crackhead.
What scares me is that someone like Ty is going to be in charge of the US financial situation if Obama gets elected.
I know it might not seem like things could get worse...but they most certainly can.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
The total budget deficit/surplus also included stock option tax revenue from the dot.bomb bubble - an obscene windfall for the government. Thus it completely penalized Bush, and rewarded Clinton. Therefore I don't believe it to be a true barometer of financial performance.
I would agree with you.
Granted, Bush is a free-spending cowboy who doesn't have the sense to understand even the most simple economic principles...as his speech last week clearly points out. When I can sit on my couch and wonder if I am more intelligent than our president, we are f'd.
However, Clinton got the benefit of an economy running on nitrous oxide...which couldn't possibly be sustainable long term. How that impacts the graphs? I'm not sure...I'm sure it does, although I'm not sure exactly to what extent.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
Again, i ask, can you read the chart?Yes, Bush cut it more. Let's do the math together. Start with 100. Subtract 18% for Bush's cut. Now you're at 82. Subtract say 10% off of that. You're knocking off an additional 8.2, so you're at 73.8.Do you even know how to read a chart? Bush Sr. cut it way more than clinton.
And, there is no correlation between a bunch of terrorists flying a plane into buildings a defense budget. That is FBI shit.
73.8 < 82.
Therefore, Clinton slashed the hell out of the defense budget.
The chart isn't about slashing..it is about GROWTH. And, it certainly isn't comparing it like you are doing.
Partial, taking a page from lying with statistics.
A more up to date chart
I always though that you were supposed to make points supporting your POV?
Seems to me that a Democratic run office is better for lowmiddle-middle class and Republican run is better for uppermid and above.
Bring on the Democrats!
If Tyrone was in charge, you wouldn't have the problem to begin with. Tyrone doesn't start unfounded wars, doesn't have closed door energy policies, and his crackhead friends always keep strict control of their cash..as dealers dont' take CREDIT!What scares me is that someone like Ty is going to be in charge of the US financial situation if Obama gets elected.
I know it might not seem like things could get worse...but they most certainly can.
Perhaps we're both reading it wrong but the chart is measuring % change over time. Since there isn't a standard deviation or any thing like that, you need to look at the change as a net from term to term. Bush cut it down 18% from the previous year. Clinton's net change was cutting it down further. Bush's change was bringing it back up.Again, i ask, can you read the chart?Yes, Bush cut it more. Let's do the math together. Start with 100. Subtract 18% for Bush's cut. Now you're at 82. Subtract say 10% off of that. You're knocking off an additional 8.2, so you're at 73.8.Do you even know how to read a chart? Bush Sr. cut it way more than clinton.
And, there is no correlation between a bunch of terrorists flying a plane into buildings a defense budget. That is FBI shit.
73.8 < 82.
Therefore, Clinton slashed the hell out of the defense budget.
The chart isn't about slashing..it is about GROWTH. And, it certainly isn't comparing it like you are doing.
Partial, taking a page from lying with statistics.
I am quite confident I am reading it correctly.
I'll grant you the NO for Clinton,but then you have to grant the NO for the Bush economy running on military expeditures, inflated oil prices, and the mortgage industry/banking.I would agree with you.
Granted, Bush is a free-spending cowboy who doesn't have the sense to understand even the most simple economic principles...as his speech last week clearly points out. When I can sit on my couch and wonder if I am more intelligent than our president, we are f'd.
However, Clinton got the benefit of an economy running on nitrous oxide...which couldn't possibly be sustainable long term. How that impacts the graphs? I'm not sure...I'm sure it does, although I'm not sure exactly to what extent.
No, YOU are Ty.
See that little line on your graph that says "0"? Anything above that is GROWING, or is being FUNDED. Anything below it is NOT GROWING, or is being CUT.
Clinton's defense spending DECLINED at a rate of around 3% annually according to your graph. It did not grow whatsoever...but keep telling yourself that it did.
What you are pointing out is that Clinton's rate of CUTS were smaller in relation to the budget as a whole than they were for Bush Sr. However, that does not change the fact that Clinton's budget CUT defense spending.
If you honestly believe Clinton increased defense spending by looking at that graph, you are a dumbass.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote