Democrats versus Republicans

[Freesail99]

The bottom line is what counts. Doesn't matter who raised or lowered taxes.
Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year

Look it up.

[SailKing1]

The economy grew under Clinton because of the technology boom. It was the cause of increase jobs, businesses, revenues and taxes. And Al Gore had nothing to do with it.

[Freesail99]

And Al Gore had nothing to do with it.

Your 100% right, Al Gore wasn't president, you knew that right ?

[PBzeer]

Sure, and most of that was for defense spending, which Carter and Clinton let go to pot. But then if freeing Eastern Europe and fighting the War on Terror are unimportant and have no bearing on national security, I guess the increases were not worth it.

Without even looking, I would bet, if you didn't include defense spending, those numbers would look much different.

[Freesail99]

John, how about this.

Clinton wants biggest boost in defense spending since Reagan
January 24, 2000
Web posted at: 10:18 p.m. EST (0318 GMT)

From Military Affairs Correspondent Jamie McIntyre

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A proposed hike in defense spending by President Bill Clinton is not presidential politics but rather the first step in fulfilling last year's pledge to add $112 billion to the defense budget over six years, Pentagon officials tell CNN.

When Clinton unveils the federal budget next month, Pentagon sources tell CNN, he will propose spending $291 billion on defense, a hike of more than $18 billion and nearly double last year's increase.

The nearly 7 percent increase in defense spending next year that the Clinton administration will propose is the biggest increase in the Pentagon's budget since the Reagan-era military buildup of the 1980s.

[PBzeer]

That's a headline about a proposal, not about something that was done. Of course, all of this gets us nicely off the whole point of how Obama plans to pay for increased government spending with tax policies that depress tax revenue. A formula that has been tried in the past, and always has come up short.

So, once again, I remain waiting on someone to explain the disconnect between raising taxes and spending.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by Freesail99

John, how about this.

Clinton wants biggest boost in defense spending since Reagan
January 24, 2000
Web posted at: 10:18 p.m. EST (0318 GMT)

From Military Affairs Correspondent Jamie McIntyre

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A proposed hike in defense spending by President Bill Clinton is not presidential politics but rather the first step in fulfilling last year's pledge to add $112 billion to the defense budget over six years, Pentagon officials tell CNN.

When Clinton unveils the federal budget next month, Pentagon sources tell CNN, he will propose spending $291 billion on defense, a hike of more than $18 billion and nearly double last year's increase.

The nearly 7 percent increase in defense spending next year that the Clinton administration will propose is the biggest increase in the Pentagon's budget since the Reagan-era military buildup of the 1980s.

That article talks about proposed military spending, not about dollars that were actually appropriated and spent.

How does that article square with the data in the following hyperlink? Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

Oops! Defense spending declined.

[Freesail99]

That article talks about proposed military spending, not about dollars that were actually appropriated and spent.

I guess you missed that John said the same thing in the post before you.

[SailKing1]

Originally Posted by Freesail99

Your 100% right, Al Gore wasn't president, you knew that right ?

Free, that was in relation to his creating the INTERNET.

[Freesail99]

Free, that was in relation to his creating the INTERNET.

My bad, places tongue back in cheek