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.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.
agreed.Originally Posted by The Leaper
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.Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
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.Originally Posted by The Leaper
And I would not disagree. As I clearly pointed out in my first post, the spending cuts BEGAN under Bush Sr.Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
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.Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
73.8 < 82.
Therefore, Clinton slashed the hell out of the defense budget.
A more up to date chartOriginally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
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.
Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
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.Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
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.Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
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?Originally Posted by Partial
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.
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!Originally Posted by The Leaper
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.Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
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.Originally Posted by The Leaper
No, YOU are Ty.Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
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?