talk.politics.misc

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote in message
news: @ ...
>
>
> Lamont Cranston wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote in message
>> news: @ ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> >> >> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> >> >> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> >> >> /p/
>> >> >>
>> >> >Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>> >> >control?
>> >>
>> >> The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
>> >> the Bushes.
>> >>
>> > If you make the assumption that the president spends the money. But the
>> > trouble with that assumption is that all funding must be initiated from
>> > the house, and must pass both the house and the senate. Furthermore,
>> > the
>> > spending that is directly driving the debt can be traced back to the
>> > FDR
>> > and LBJ administrations, and is social spending.
>>
>> The spending that is driving the debt is war spending.
>>
> I think it can be objectively shown that that claim isn't correct. Note
> that the total yearly budget for just the federal government is at least
> 2550 billion dollars.
>
>
>
>> >> Clinton's administration is the only time the
>> >> brakes were applied.
>> >>
>> > There is no evidence that any brakes were applied by Clinton other than
>> > to strip down the military, which we've paid for in a lack of readiness
>> > for this war, and the post office. Not much need be said about the post
>> > office.
>>
>> There is a plethora of evidence that the size of the federal government
>> decreased under Clinton. See / ?index=3521,
>> specifically Figure 1 and Table 1.
>>
> Not if you exclude cuts to the military and the post office.
>
>
>
>
>> Additionally, the only reductions in the military were those mandated by
>> legislation passed during the tenure of his predecessor.
>>
> So he didn't even reduce the military? What did Clinton cut?

Nada.