Bill Clinton Says He Likes Paul Ryan's Budget When He Thinks He's in Private

So who was complaining about Ryan's budget? Apparently not former President Clinton, who will be speaking to the Democrat convention.

He had a nice conversation with Paul Ryan not long ago, all captured on tape.

http://www.reagancoalition.com/artic...l-clinton.html

Do you really think Clinton wants Obama to win? Really? Come on, really?

Clinton knows 4 more years of Obama will destroy any remaining legacy of the Clinton years, which included balanced budget, DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Welfare reform.

Clinton liked the fact that Ryan put a plan out there to start the debate. He did not say that he liked the plan. A subtle fact lost on you two morons.

I never thought I would look back, somewhat fondly, on Clinton's administration. By comparison to Obama, Clinton was not so bad. I honestly think Obama is trying to fundamentally transform the system by crashing it. We are watching Cloward-Piven being implemented.

Clinton liked the fact that Ryan put a plan out there to start the debate. He did not say that he liked the plan. A subtle fact lost on you two morons. Originally Posted by WTF

President Clinton also noted that something had to be done with Medicare, a topic you refuse to make any sense on. Clinton appreciated Ryan's effort, and wanted to discuss it. Others, like you, just want to criticize and flame.

And being called a moron by you somehow lacks the effect of being called a name by someone who has some maturity and credibility.

Instead of screaming "Ryan's destroying Medicare" why not recognize that Medicare is destroying itself, and will die if nothing is done? No, you'd rather talk shit than results.

Now, distort this, make something up I didn't say, call me a "homo" and go to work.

Romney and Ryan have had a meeting of the minds; their Medicare reforms will restore the $716 billion in cuts that Obama made......................

I never thought I would look back, somewhat fondly, on Clinton's administration. By comparison to Obama, Clinton was not so bad. I honestly think Obama is trying to fundamentally transform the system by crashing it. We are watching Cloward-Piven being implemented. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Welfare is not the problem you silly wonk...Defense spending and Medicare and SS are the three main drivers.

People are living longer which has messed up the actuaries on Medicare and SS, those need to be tweaked and Defense spending needs to be cut. Welfare spending is but a drop in the bucket. Of course to the ignorant, it is still a hot button trailer park issue.

Next time you get a stupid e-mail from Karl Rove tell him to shove it.

speaking of willie


Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the...under-clinton/

speaking of willie


Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the...under-clinton/ Originally Posted by CJ7

The truth is, the budget wasn't really balanced under Clinton. If you have to use the Social Security surplus to get a balance, you're not really balanced. At least we were close to being balanced for a while. If you have to have a perfect storm to get any where near a balance, you've got a problem. If you're a farmer who has a huge crop, because of freakishly good weather, you don't assume that every year will be that good.

We had a lot of positive factors coming together in the 90's that allowed us to at least get close to balancing. The pol's knew it couldn't last. They were projecting paying off the national debt, as if the good times would never end; a pox on both their houses.

Speaking of bugets; how many decades for your plan to balance out CJ......we are stil waiting to hear from you.....

Speaking of bugets; how many decades for your plan to balance out CJ......we are stil waiting to hear from you..... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I'll ask the cbo

The truth is, the budget wasn't really balanced under Clinton. If you have to use the Social Security surplus to get a balance, you're not really balanced. At least we were close to being balanced for a while. If you have to have a perfect storm to get any where near a balance, you've got a problem. If you're a farmer who has a huge crop, because of freakishly good weather, you don't assume that every year will be that good.

We had a lot of positive factors coming together in the 90's that allowed us to at least get close to balancing. The pol's knew it couldn't last. They were projecting paying off the national debt, as if the good times would never end; a pox on both their houses. Originally Posted by joe bloe

social security wasnt the sole factor, if you bother to read ...

We're probably not going to balance ever. We're going to have to crash and rebuild from the ashes. The Germans crashed after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles bankrupted them. They hyper inflated the currency and started over. We'll have to pay off the debt with worthless dollars. No one will lend to us at that point. We'll have to have a limited government that's strictly pay as you go, probably not a bad idea.

Plain and simply, spending needs to be cut. We can't continue spending money that is not there and raising the taxes on the "rich" won't even be a drop in the bucket.

We're probably not going to balance ever. We're going to have to crash and rebuild from the ashes. The Germans crashed after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles bankrupted them. They hyper inflated the currency and started over. We'll have to pay off the debt with worthless dollars. No one will lend to us at that point. We'll have to have a limited government that's strictly pay as you go, probably not a bad idea. Originally Posted by joe bloe

after the last 12 years I have a hard time seeing how ... I dont think it'll come down to the ashes, but I do see taxes being adjusted to levels necessary to keep from going to ashes ... at present we hve an option to adjust marginally, but hell no.. the pledge signers actually want to swim in ashes up to their asses.