I swear if people are you to bump a thread up to 100 they might as well add something useful in post 101.

Post 101 sucked in this thread.

I liked the Stewart o'reilly debate it was pretty impressive watching o'reilly get forced into reason.

B.O. i know i missed like pages 2-10 of this thread, but I thought I'd respond now (better late than never).

For starters, how can you assign blame for the budget deficits to Reagan and (G.W.) Bush? Seems kind of contradictory. Going by your logic (that the President is powerless beyond the extent of his veto ability and his influence over Congress), then it is Congress that is to blame for the problems that occurred during those two administrations. And if I'm not mistaken, both Reagan and Bush both had a divided government.

Going off of this, when was the last time that we experienced a budget surplus? The year was 1998, and President William Clinton resided in the White House. However, I know (since I've "taken a politics course") that spending actually starts in the House of Representatives (that's part of our bicameral legislature, if you were wondering), and which party was it that controlled the House? Oh yes, it was Newt Gingrich and the Republicans. Bill can get credit for not standing in the way (i.e. not using his veto power), but it was Newt that should take the credit.

As much as I cannot stand Veta's constant "LOL REPUBLICANS SUCK DEMOCRATS MUCH BETTER" (because they're both fucking horrible and don't represent your interests at all), he is 100% correct to blame huge deficits on Republican presidents and I actually have data instead of meaningless conjecture to back it up! Feel free to ignore it like you people always do!

http://i.imgur.com/uLQ48.gif

Marxism, I seriously hope that the graph you linked me to is a complete joke. You want a legitimate link with actual facts? Here it is:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

This article is interesting in that the author argues that we never had a budget surplus during the Clinton administration; according to him the closest we got to one was in 2000 when it reached ~$17 billion. Regardless of whether or not we did have a surplus during those years (I always thought we did, but now I'm starting to think otherwise), he is right in his description of what Clinton actually did. All Clinton's administration did was LOWER the PUBLIC DEBT through intergov'tal holdings (which by definition, INCREASED the NATIONAL DEBT).

All his numbers can easily be verified by checking the U.S. Treasury's website which updates the national debt daily and shows its history.

/pwned

Here's wikipedia, all verified by the US treasure as per citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

But that graph really isn't telling enough. Go to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

And look at the Start Debt/GDP (this is a percentage) and then look at End Debt/GDP. The difference shows the general impact that administration had on the debt. As you can see Reagan completely exploded our debt and the Bushes continued this trend.

Even if I didn't have access to these records you need only look at the OFFICIAL policy of neo conservatives from that time to prove this is the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

The official fiscal strategy of neo-cons was to run up the debt so that they could later cut spending where ever they wanted. They tried this in the 90s and failed so it looks like they're trying again now.

If you don't feel like doing the subtraction this website actually did it for you already and grouped it by president (I realize it's probably a liberal site, doesn't mean the numbers aren't right): http://www.openleft.com/tag/Debt-to-GDP%20ratio

It was the first that came up when I googled it so yah. Also Marx's graph is real and accurate I am almost positive it says that it cite the public records for its numbers. And anyway I remember seeing the same thing on a variety of academic sources.

Here's what would've happened if the republicans never cut taxes on the wealthy: http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html

BO: There you go again... siting sources that don't back up statements they are attached to.

Do I have to explain to you what a source actually is. Just because you put a link next to a statement; doesn't make it an actual source.

Take this for example and I quote:

"Even if I didn't have access to these records you need only look at the OFFICIAL policy of neo conservatives from that time to prove this is the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast";

Now go and read the article that you use as a source. No where does it mention Neo Conservatism; nor does it even mention a single Neo Conservative supporter. It names Reagan; who isn't a Neo Conservative.

Do you even know what the official policies of neo conservatism is? I suggest that you don't. I agree that neo conservatism is a error'd platform; but I'm unable to understand how you can pass judgment on something with little to no facts.

By the way; the real official (notice I don't need caps to sell the official part) can be found on their Wikipedia page. It involves spreading democracy through force.

BO: I suggest it might be time to take a rest of all these political threads and take some real time in your life to read up on these topics.

It is painfully obvious to everyone here that your arguments are not well thought out and are backed more by emotion then actual facts.