So Anyway, As I was Saying.
If Clinton was so great and he balanced the budget and even had budget surpluses, why is it that the National Debt continued to climb while he was in office? Not just one year, but all eight years he was in office.
Don’t get me wrong, my intention is not to bash former President Clinton, nor is it to try to defend President Bush. My point is that anything can be spun to make you believe that something is better/worse than it really is. While Clinton did have a “Budget” surplus during his administration, the countries financial position did not improve. In fact, our country as a whole was 1.6 Trillion dollars further in debt when Clinton left office. I will give him credit, the rate at which we were going into debt did slow down, but we were still spending more money than we made.
The National Debt is a tricky thing, man. As best as I know, we’re constantly re-financing it as the old loans expire—yeah, new loans to pay off old ones. One thing that was not cheap during the Clinton Years was interest.
It is indeed possible that the Feds weren’t outspending their means but still not paying enough down on the debt to be going further in the hole.
Of course, governmental debt and deficit isn’t inherently dangerous. The only thing that makes it bad is that the Feds are competing with you and me for a finite money supply in the creditors market. Deficit spending can indeed be a good thing—when your economy’s in the shitter, increased government spending can prop up the economy.
Comment by Geof — 9/16/2004 @ 8:39 am
Oh, I totally understand that, but you can’t call it even a budget surplus when you’re not paying atleast ALL of the INTEREST on the national Debt. If we were paying all the interest and not borrowing anymore then the Debt wouldn’t grow, correct?
Comment by Todder — 9/16/2004 @ 8:44 am
I think the point is that under Bush it’s climbed at a higher rate, not that it’s climbed.
Comment by Sarah — 9/16/2004 @ 4:34 pm
Todd: Politicians can call the sky green if they want if no one calls bullshit. You’re right that the ND generally wouldn’t grow if there wasn’t a spending overage and there was coverage for interest/principal payments.
Sarah: One has to look at all the reasons, though, that it would have climbed, controllable by the Bush Administration and not.
Comment by Geof — 9/17/2004 @ 7:40 am
Exactly! It may be climbing at a higher rate with Bush, but you can’t put all the blame at his doorstep. 9/11 happened very early in the Bush presidency and has cost the country monetarily in ways that aren’t even publicized. The Clinton years were ones where the stock market hit 10000, there was a lot of money in the economy that can’t be attributed to him. I’m not taking away from him, but heard of trickle down economics?
I watched Hillary yesterday pound on Bush about the National debt. She was proud to say her husband had the largest budget surplus, and Bush has the largest debt. As Todd has pointed out, they are two different things.
Then I watched Kerry pound on Bush for making our reservists a non-voluntary army. Hello, Clinton is the one who did away with half of our military because Russia and East Germany were not a threat. Real global thinker! We don’t have the army we need anymore, whether Iraq was right or wrong, Clinton made us very vulnerable.
Comment by Amy — 9/17/2004 @ 10:15 am
I guess that’s what I’m getting at. I’m growing more and more tired of politicians and spin doctors. I think we would get a lot further with everything if we would just let things be what they are and not what someone spins them up to be. It’s not fair to the voters to have to sort the bullshit out and track down on their own what is really going on.
Comment by Todder — 9/17/2004 @ 10:27 am
Yes, the most frustrating part of politics and has been for a long time. That’s why I’m so cautionary when someone takes a hard stance one way or the other. You can definitely find the truth, but it would have to practically be your only job. The best we can all do is have discussions like this, and be aware of the writer’s bias when we read things. As a journalism student, I’m extremely discouraged at the realization that few people, if any, write without bias.
And you can’t blame politicians completely either. There have been many an honest man or woman that have travelled to Washington, only to find that to get things done, you have to compromise. Sometimes heart wrenching compromise. And that’s not going to change unless there is an overwhelming influx of new blood into politics. One or two can’t change today’s political negotiations.
Comment by Amy — 9/17/2004 @ 11:01 am
Amy, yes, Clinton got rid of a good chunk of our army, but it wasn’t just because he didn’t think we would need it anymore. We can’t afford the army we have, much less the army we had in Clinton’s era. He got rid of the, partially, to make the army more affordable.
I’m not saying that either of them are good guys because I completely agree that politics is a game of the lesser of two evils, but for every bad that some politicians do, there’s usually a good reason why they did it.
Comment by kat — 9/21/2004 @ 11:46 am
Budget decisions do have to be made, yes. The point is maybe they should have been made elsewhere. Having grown up an “army brat,” and still being around military families, I’m very aware of what we spent/spend on our military. Many military families live(d) at the poverty line actually, and our armies don’t have some necessary equipment. The military during Clinton’s era was not bankrupting the country. But, of course I wasn’t implying that he downsized the military because he didn’t think we needed it anymore. I believe Clinton to be a very intelligent man.
Comment by Amy — 9/21/2004 @ 7:06 pm
a) I never put all the blame at Bush’s doorstep. I just think it’s obvious that he hasn’t done anything to help it. Therefore, he’s no better. Also, based on the size of his budget deficits, I’m not so sure he’s interested in helping the debt. You’d think the government would at least attempt to maintain at least a balanced budget.
b) $119 billion (according to the OMB) is nothing to sneeze at. I can think of several other efforts on which $119 billion could have been better spent than a (contrived) war in Iraq.
c) The military is still getting screwed because we still can’t afford them. Not that anyone cared when we tossed them into Iraq without the proper equipment. After all, we had our tax cuts to keep us happy.
Comment by slyflame — 9/22/2004 @ 9:25 am
Since we all seem to agree that neither of the candidates are perfect, for arguments sake, in what ways do you guys envision Kerry doing a better job? With the struggles and hurdles that the presidency has at this point, I don’t see that much will be different whether Bush or Kerry lives in the big white house for the next few years, except that we may leave Iraq sooner with one than the other. And even that may not be the case based on what Kerry said yesterday (which was, yes he did vote for the war, but he would have been nicer to the U.N. and gotten more world support before entering). By the way, everyone is aware that the world (even our “allies”) hated us before Bush even thought about the presidency, and that the world will continue to hate us no matter what amount of good or bad we do?
All snide comments aside, I really do want to know the pointed details of how 2006 will look different with Kerry in office than Bush.
Comment by Amy — 9/22/2004 @ 12:39 pm
The world might already hate us, but does that justify giving them a good reason after the fact? Not really.
That aside, the only big difference I can see coming from Kerry is better policies on the environment (which is probably more important than the rest combined in the long run, but I’m an admitted cancer-hater). At the moment, both candidates are so busy pandering to the extremes that neither one has bothered to outline an actual legitimate PLAN. Both continue to offer oodles of promises, but with no specifics.
That being so, it appears that who you chose is going to come down to a matter of principle. On one hand you’ve got a Democrat (who was once Republican) without any clear plan. On other, you have an administration that has been proven wrong on, well, everything going into Iraq, which appears more reality-blind every day, and which stands accused of deliberately lying to the world in order to begin an unprovoked, preemptive war on another sovereign nation. And which, incidentally, doesn’t have a clear plan. Given that, it seems to me that allowing an administration that has been so consistently wrong (and so stubborn about admitting it) to “have another shot” is a pretty big gamble. Not to mention morally questionable, assuming they really did lie.
Comment by slyflame — 9/22/2004 @ 1:47 pm
The point about the world hating us is that they don’t need a good reason. They’re going to hate us no matter what. Invading Iraq did not give them a reason to hate us, nor did it make them hate us more. They hate us, period. The point is not about justification.
I agree about the environment being a big difference. I’ve been surprised at how blatantly Bush disregards this area. Be it Bush or Kerry come November, somebody needs to pay attention to this in a global realm considering recently we’ve learned that China is the biggest contributor to the mercury problem that has practically made all fish dangerous to eat. Or so we’ve been made to believe.
I’m very shocked that the environment is really the only difference you see between the candidates. There’s been so much debate on this website, and such vehemence against Bush, I was prepared for an onslaught of reasons to vote for Kerry. Maybe you were holding back
About the “lieing” administration. I’m assuming you’re referring to the WMD. This is just a question. Do you think Bush had information that said Iraq did not have WMD and he invaded anyway? Intelligence pre-invasion said that Iraq appeared to have WMD parts so to speak that were movable on a railway system that moved throughout the country. The feeling was that, the parts were moved in time for U.N. weapons inspections. Is is not feasible, or even remotely possible, that we just haven’t found what we’re looking for? Don’t get me wrong, I of course don’t know whether they’re there or not. We also have to look at the definition of WMD and wonder. When Bush throws that phrase around, I don’t know what he’s specifying (a giant bomb, a bit of plutonium). But, as an example, I think anthrax could produce mass destruction. Do we know if Iraq was working with anthrax? Yes. And consider how long it took us to find Saddam. He wasn’t very far away. We still haven’t found Osama and he’s not very far away either. And he most certainly exists.
I don’t think this can come down to the environment and principle. We all know that every politician lies.
Bush is not the first U.S. president to attack a country “unprovoked.” Kennedy, Bay of Pigs and Vietnam. Truman in Korea. Clinton in Bosnia. None of these countries had attacked us. I’m not saying these were good choices or bad ones. Just something to chew on.
Comment by Amy — 9/22/2004 @ 7:53 pm
That’s one of the things that bothers me most. People look back and say, “Well, this has happened before,” or “Well, all candidates lie.” I like to think that the people have enough power to hold future leaders to a higher standard, with the understanding that past mistakes should stay in the past, as opposed to being repeated.
Which doesn’t mean re-electing the greater evil.
As of April 2001, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan were all on record as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. According to the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, the Iraq regime had not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since it failed to assassinate former President Bush in 1993. Iran does have proven WMDs and their missile technology has been largely supplied by Russia, China, and North Korea.
So why did one George W. Bush decide in 2002 to go after Iraq? No weapons had been found. Tales of automated bioweapon-dispensing drones and deals for yellowcake were false (as he was told before he incorporated them into his fear-mongering). There was no proven link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. We had plenty of other legitimate targets if we were really interested in fighting against terrorism or weapons.
We went to war because Bush wanted to go to war and he and his cronies manufactured evidence to get us there. They deliberately exaggerated, ignored evidence, and lied.
August 26, 2002: Dick Cheney: “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
January 9, 2003: Ari Fleischer: “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”
March 16, 2003: Bush: “He possesses the weapons of mass murder.”
March 18, 2003: Bush: “Intelligence…leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
March 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: “We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.”
May 29, 2003: Bush: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”
Comment by slyflame — 9/23/2004 @ 9:50 am
I brought up the point about lieing not to say they everyone does it so it’s ok, or to say that we shouldn’t hold everyone to a higher standard. Just to say that Bush isn’t the first or last to do it. Maybe I misread the way you state things sometimes. It feels as if you think Bush is the only one to have fouled.
Kerry by the way, made excellent statements today in Ohio after the Allawi address. He appeared to legitimately believe what he was saying, and what he was saying was the truth. In contrast to Bush who I think does truly believe what he says, erroneous or not.
Have to address the rest of what you said later.
Comment by Amy — 9/23/2004 @ 11:04 am
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“We know that he (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept 23, 2002
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, February 17, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy Sept. 27, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the
progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton Oct 10, 2002
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Point: WMD and Iraq, al Qaeda and Iraq, were not original to Bush. The irony that all of these statements were made by democrats is not lost on me either.
Comment by Amy — 9/23/2004 @ 7:38 pm
I noticed that the recent quotes come from September and October of 2002. In fact, they all come after Dick Cheney’s war-mongering speech on August 26, afterthis article was published by the White House, after reports of the purchases of yellowcake and aluminum tubes, after warnings about mushroom clouds, and, all but one, after Colin Powell’s admittedly convincing speech before the UN.
As far as the other quotes, I don’t know that they help the case for Bush much, since they were part of the buildup to the bombings that took place from December until May 1999 as part of Desert Fox. The situation to which they pertained no longer existed by 2002, assuming there ever was a real and immediate threat. It’s worth noting that Clinton faced many of the same accusations now leveled against Bush. But the quotes are interesting when you consider that a good portion of the intelligence for the 2002 war was in large part pre-Desert Fox.
The point is that by October 2002 not only had we destroyed our targets only four years earlier, but the weapons inspectors had been allowed back in and they were reporting that there were no weapons. Iraq had not made any move to make itself a threat and it did not appear to be a threat. Given that we KNEW at least two other “axis of evil” countries had WMD, why would we go back into Iraq?
I never said Iraq wasn’t a threat at all. But they were not a “mortal threat” or an “immediate threat” or even a “threat of unique urgency.” The question is, why did Bush et al take such pains to make us believe they were?
Comment by slyflame — 9/24/2004 @ 1:29 pm
Like I said, the point of the quotes was to say that declaring Iraq had WMD, or was a threat to the U.S. was not something made up by Bush, as you’ve said. However, I competely agree with your last points. There are certainly other countries that seem more threatening. And as the Iraq situation has gone on, I haven’t seen anything surface that says the next 9/11 was going to happen because Iraq was ruled by Saddam.
When the whole thing started, we weren’t getting all the information. We were told “intelligence” this, “intelligence” that. At that time, I thought, they must know something we don’t or they wouldn’t be so determined to invade. I heard one theory (about why Iraq over someone else)thrown out, by Bush himself I think, that part of the reason was to destabilize this terrorist region of the world. Creating a hole in the regional consistency so to speak. Maybe, maybe not. As Kat said, for every bad some politicians do, there’s usually a good reason. But, With the information we have currently (can’t stress that enough)I agree with Kerry that Bush rushed us into this, and could have done a lot of things a lot better.
Comment by Amy — 9/24/2004 @ 2:38 pm