largest deficit EVER- yes, EVER!!! And you still back BUSH...hahaha

[reeds]

WASHINGTON - The White House projected Friday that this year’s deficit will hit a record $445 billion, further fueling a campaign-season dispute over President Bush’s handling of the economy.

The figure easily surpassed last year’s $375 billion, making it the largest-ever in dollar terms. That gave ammunition to Democrats who say Bush’s tax cuts and failure to prevent a loss of jobs during his term has worsened the outlook for the budget and the economy.

But in a political plus for Republicans, the new projection was also an improvement over forecasters’ expectations of earlier this year. In February, the administration projected a $521 billion shortfall for 2004, while the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated a month earlier that the deficit would be $477 billion.

The White House was attributing the improvement to the collection of $82 billion more in revenue than had been anticipated, which generally reflects more vigorous economic activity. That was partly offset by $6 billion more in spending than was expected, mostly for Medicaid and Medicare.

‘We are meeting our national priorities and by showing spending restraint elsewhere in the budget we are on track to meet the president’s commitment to cutting deficits in half.’


— Scott McClellan
White House spokesman

“We are meeting our national priorities and by showing spending restraint elsewhere in the budget we are on track to meet the president’s commitment to cutting deficits in half” over the next five years, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One as Bush flew to campaign stops in the Midwest.

Democrats argue the report underscores the decline of the government’s fiscal health under Bush, who has seen three straight years of worsening annual shortfalls following four consecutive surpluses under President Clinton.

“Anyway you slice it, a deficit exceeding $400 billion this year alone is bad news for the country,” said Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director for the House Budget Committee. “Republicans’ failed budget policies have converted record surpluses into the biggest deficits in American history.”

The White House was also boosting its estimate of Medicare spending by $67 billion over the next five years. Administration officials attributed the increase to added expenditures under last year’s bill expanding Medicare coverage and to changes in long-range technical estimates about the program.

Medicare, the government’s health insurance program for the elderly and disabled, spends about $300 billion a year. Extra Medicare spending could further heighten concerns about the program’s solvency, already in jeopardy over the next two decades with the impending retirement of the huge baby-boom generation.

Medicare’s anticipated rapid growth in coming years is expected to be a major engine keeping the budget in the red.

The federal budget year runs through Sept. 30. That means the final deficit figure will be available shortly before the Nov. 2 election, further shining a spotlight on the issue.

[Chiwas]

“Anyway you slice it, a deficit exceeding $400 billion this year alone is bad news for the country,”

Facts are facts.

[Mavdog]

These deficits sure are different than what Bush promised. Oh, I forget, Bush doesn't "flip flop"...

3/27/01
Tax cuts will be implemented without budget deficits, even in a recession
[Bush] "...we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative. They already assume an economic slowdown in the year 2001..."

3/3/01
Will not pass on our budget deficits (borrowings) to future generations; we owe this to our children and grandchildren
[Bush]: "...Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren..."
1/03
[Bush]: "...we will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to
other Congresses, other presidents, and other generations..."

2/27/01
Will retire $2 Trillion national debt in 10 years
[Bush] "...We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire..."
[Bush] "...It will retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time..."

10/18/00
Will not spend more than Gore would [have]
[Bush] "...If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like [Gore] is..."

Will enforce spending discipline on Congress
[Bush] "...The President will enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered..."

10/3/00
Increasing federal spending is a sure way to make the economy go bust
[Bush]: "...the surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and the size of the federal government..."

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
These deficits sure are different than what Bush promised. Oh, I forget, Bush doesn't "flip flop"...

3/27/01
Tax cuts will be implemented without budget deficits, even in a recession
[Bush] "...we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative. They already assume an economic slowdown in the year 2001..."

3/3/01
Will not pass on our budget deficits (borrowings) to future generations; we owe this to our children and grandchildren
[Bush]: "...Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren..."
1/03
[Bush]: "...we will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to
other Congresses, other presidents, and other generations..."

2/27/01
Will retire $2 Trillion national debt in 10 years
[Bush] "...We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire..."
[Bush] "...It will retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time..."

10/18/00
Will not spend more than Gore would [have]
[Bush] "...If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like [Gore] is..."

Will enforce spending discipline on Congress
[Bush] "...The President will enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered..."

10/3/00
Increasing federal spending is a sure way to make the economy go bust
[Bush]: "...the surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and the size of the federal government..."

What do all these quotes have in common? They were all befor 9/11/2001 when the world changed as we knew it. What kind of jackass president would refuse not change with it? Gore or Kerry maybe?

[reeds]

3/27/01
Tax cuts will be implemented without budget deficits, even in a recession
[Bush] "...we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative. They already assume an economic slowdown in the year 2001

WOW- How do those words taste Mr. Bush???..you certainly ate your words....

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
3/27/01
Tax cuts will be implemented without budget deficits, even in a recession
[Bush] "...we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative. They already assume an economic slowdown in the year 2001

WOW- How do those words taste Mr. Bush???..you certainly ate your words....

Reeds, how about you hop off the I hate Bush bandwagon for just a second and read what you posted. He gave everybody in the United States a tax break. Then 9/11 happened, and the United States economy suffered it's largest crisis in several decades. Airline industries got completely screwed, and the entire stock market turned to crap. How this is Bush's fault is beyond me.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: reeds
3/27/01
Tax cuts will be implemented without budget deficits, even in a recession
[Bush] "...we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative. They already assume an economic slowdown in the year 2001

WOW- How do those words taste Mr. Bush???..you certainly ate your words....

One of the stock Republican lines is that the democrats like to pretend that 9-11 never happened.

You can argue about the size of a deficit, but I am personally 100% certain that there would be a deficit in 2004 regardless of who was president. Frankly, if anybody tried to argue otherwise, I'd find it funny.

[LRB]

Dooby it's highly likely that a deficit would exist now no matter who was president. And it does seem to me that at least the resident democrat's here like to pretent 9/11 never happened at least when it's convienent to get a good jab in at Bush.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Dooby

One of the stock Republican lines is that the democrats like to pretend that 9-11 never happened.

You can argue about the size of a deficit, but I am personally 100% certain that there would be a deficit in 2004 regardless of who was president. Frankly, if anybody tried to argue otherwise, I'd find it funny.

I guess I'm going to tickle your funny bone...

The tax cuts have aided in softening the impact of the recession. They were not offset by a discipline in reigning in of federal spending and there was not an increase in the tax collections the budget writers (ie Bush Administration) had projected.

The additional spending on Iraq has increased the amount of federal spending by over $200 BILLION.

To lay the blame for the ballooning federal deficits on the 9/11 attacks is simply incorrect.

The cause of the deficits is quite simply a lack of fiscal leadership by the White House. Their budget sunmittals to Congress were filled with spending programs that should have been restrained in light of the economic downturn, and the additional costs of the Iraq invasion were not properly planned for.

They screwed up. The blame falls squarely on the Bush White House.

[mavsman55]

largest deficit EVER- yes, EVER!!! And you still back BUSH...hahaha

Oooh you got me, reeds!

The deficit should be the last thing on any of our minds right now.

[madape]

I guess is could be argued that we could have survived 9/11, the asset bubble-burst, and the financial accounting scandals without running a deficit.. but that would probably mean unemployment would be around 10%, we'd have children picking food out of garbage cans, we'd have the Taliban still in power, Saddam still hunting nukes, and Bin Laden basking in the sun ordering more planes to be crashed into American skyscrapers.

Instead we have one of the most robust economic expansions since Reagan's heyday. We have virtually no inflation, interest rates are at a near all-time low. Unemployment is dropping like a rock, jobs are being created at a historic pace. What is left to complain about? The enegmatic, misunderstood deficit of course! In truth, the effects of running a deficit are small. All it means is that the US increases it's debt levels. What is REALLY the harm in this? Again, the world views American T-bills as the most secure investment in the entire world. We will never, ever, ever default. We'll never even come close to WORRYING about defaulting. Our debt service level is tiny. We can afford to temporarilly take on a little more.

Running a deficit is like the government taking out a loan. Bush knows that by pumping money into the economy, he'll be able to grow America quickly. The return on his investment is more jobs, more production, and a safer and more secure America.. all of which will generate MORE tax revenue, eventually turning the deficit into a powerful surplus. In other words, the deficits will pay for themselves in time. You need to spend money to make money. Bush has taken out a loan to grow America, and his investment is paying off big time. Deficit hawks would prefer us to be poor forever.

The exploding American economy has left the Democrats with only the deficit to complain about. They can't critisize the president on the growth of this economy, so they try to scare your vote out of you with threats of economic armageddon. It's been a tactic the left has used several times to intimidate uninformed and gullible voters ( global warming anyone). But their threats are nothing but dog poop. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that defecits help end recessions. It has been the case since FDR. Don't be an idiot.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog


To lay the blame for the ballooning federal deficits on the 9/11 attacks is simply incorrect.

And to so casually dismiss the event of 9/11 and the resulting changes including the war on terrorism, is not only incorrect but to suggest that 9/11 had no serious economic consequences is disengenius.

Mavdog it utterly amazes me how so casually you pass 9/11 away as nothing more than a few plane accidents as to the impact to the economy and the federal budget.

[Dooby]

And what's the budget for homeland security again? Plus the increased budgets in the Justice and State Departments. Every single one of those airport screeners is a gov't employee now, ya know.

And there would be no economic stimulus package pushed through by the Gore administration that would have cost money?

And how much is Afghanistan costing? There are 20,000+ troops there, too, ya know. Or do you want to finally concede what I tell all my democratic friends that if Gore were president, we wouldn't have troops on the ground in Afghanistan in nearly the numbers that we do now? Or you could say that Iraq diverts attention from Afghanistan, in which case Afghanistan would cost even more than it is now.

There would be a deficit. There would be a deficit. There. Would. Be. A. Deficit.

[LRB]

There would be a deficit. There would be a deficit. There. Would. Be. A. Deficit.

Maybe, maybe not. Could be Gore would have sat back on his fat ass and done nothing. Sure we wouldn't have a deficit, but then Al Queda would have free run of the world as well. As for me and my house, I'll choose kicking the Sh!t out of the terrorists while running up some debt.

[dude1394]

We'd still have a deficit. We were moving into recession before clinton starting taking the silverware. The stock market was imploding and the corporate scandels were being done on his watch.

Even AT the deficit level announced today it's 100 BILLION dollars LESS than predicted. Hmmm...how can that be?? How can the amount of deficit be decreasing from the estimates?

It's called growth boys, a bush BOOM!!!

[PlanoJ]

Originally posted by: madape
I guess is could be argued that we could have survived 9/11, the asset bubble-burst, and the financial accounting scandals without running a deficit.. but that would probably mean unemployment would be around 10%, we'd have children picking food out of garbage cans, we'd have the Taliban still in power, Saddam still hunting nukes, and Bin Laden basking in the sun ordering more planes to be crashed into American skyscrapers.

Bin Laden hasn't been cought and the war in Taliban is still ongoing. Unemployment/underemployment is at like a 30 year high.

Instead we have one of the most robust economic expansions since Reagan's heyday. We have virtually no inflation, interest rates are at a near all-time low. Unemployment is dropping like a rock, jobs are being created at a historic pace. What is left to complain about? The enegmatic, misunderstood deficit of course! In truth, the effects of running a deficit are small. All it means is that the US increases it's debt levels. What is REALLY the harm in this? Again, the world views American T-bills as the most secure investment in the entire world. We will never, ever, ever default. We'll never even come close to WORRYING about defaulting. Our debt service level is tiny. We can afford to temporarilly take on a little more.

The like 3rd largest single expenditure behind the military and Social Security is to pay off the interest on the national debt. Also we are still at a net loss on jobs since Bush came in. Where exactly is that historic job pace. The cutting of interest rates was to stop a recession.

Running a deficit is like the government taking out a loan. Bush knows that by pumping money into the economy, he'll be able to grow America quickly. The return on his investment is more jobs, more production, and a safer and more secure America.. all of which will generate MORE tax revenue, eventually turning the deficit into a powerful surplus. In other words, the deficits will pay for themselves in time. You need to spend money to make money. Bush has taken out a loan to grow America, and his investment is paying off big time. Deficit hawks would prefer us to be poor forever.

This strategy never worked for Reagan, why should it work now? Reagan's deficits were the largest ever till Bush Sr. crushed them and then Bush Jr. blew those away.

[madape]

The strategy never worked for Reagan?!? Are you a moron? The Reagan defecits fueled perhaps the largest economic expansion in US history. Carter left this country looking like a used port-o-potty, Reagan turned it into the richest nation in the history of the world.

Bush didn't get his economic stimulus package into law until what? A year into his tenure? The recession ended almost immediately. We've seen nothing but historic growth since. First it was GDP, which soared on 20 year highs of quarterly growth in 2003. Then it was jobs, of which over 1.5 million have been added in less than a year. I don't know where you get your unemployment figures, but I think the US government is reporting them firmly around 5.5% - 5.6%. Sorry man, but that's nowhere near " like a 30 year high". I think Carter doubled those numbers, and had double digit inflation to boot! 5.5% is actually a very good number and is in fact lower than the average unemployment under Clinton. And the unemployement rate is actually dropping from THOSE great numbers! You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

As for terrorism, I don't think I need to remind you that there have been no attacks on US soil since 9-11. We've captured the mastermind behind 9/11. We have also captured or killed a good number of other high level Al-qaeda operatives. We've forced regime change in two terror sponsoring nations. We've pressured others like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Libya to join us in the war on terrorism. The Palestinean terror network is as flacid and limp as Arafat's crooked penis. There is still a threat of terrorism, sure. But the terrorists that we HAVEN'T catured, haven't killed, and haven't taken government support away from, are running scared like the cowardly bitches they are. They are ineffective. They are bafoonish. They are losers.

America is winning the war on terror. It has turned the corner of a terrible recession and is heading into a period of massive economic growth... All thanks in part to a president who's #1 concern isn't his poll numbers, it is his country.

[LRB]

lol. Thanks for the rant Madape. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Funny how the weinnie dimocrats are in such denial over Reagan's accomplishments.

And as you say, Bush didn't make any substantial changes to the economy until a year into his term, due in large part to delays by dimocrats BTW, it sounds like the loss of jobs happened with the procedures put in place by Clinton. Of course the dimocrats have their heads in the sand over that as well.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

And to so casually dismiss the event of 9/11 and the resulting changes including the war on terrorism, is not only incorrect but to suggest that 9/11 had no serious economic consequences is disengenius.

did someone say "9/11 had no serious economic consequences"? oh, only you did? are you making an argument with yourself? I bet you win...

Mavdog it utterly amazes me how so casually you pass 9/11 away as nothing more than a few plane accidents as to the impact to the economy and the federal budget.

it would amaze me too. that's why i don't do it.
The economic affects of 9/11 were large. 3 years ago. they do not explain the deficit the federal government is running.

remember, Iraq is not a part of 9/11...

[SaltwaterChaffy]

Originally posted by: LRB
lol. Thanks for the rant Madape. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Funny how the weinnie dimocrats are in such denial over Reagan's accomplishments.

And as you say, Bush didn't make any substantial changes to the economy until a year into his term, due in large part to delays by dimocrats BTW, it sounds like the loss of jobs happened with the procedures put in place by Clinton. Of course the dimocrats have their heads in the sand over that as well.

I don't see why politics can't be argued on this board without the numerous republicans on the board calling the dems weenies, stupid, or oblivious. There's no need for insults.

[Epitome22]

In the 80's and early 90's, Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. claimed that supply side economics would lead to a boost in the economy that would eliminate the record deficits "in two, maybe three years." They believed that by granting tax-cuts (Most of which went to corporations and the wealthy) the economy would drastically grow and expand, but even people withtin these administrations called these policies "Trojan Horse" scame to funnel more money to the rich.


By the time the "Reagan Revolution" was over, George Bush Sr. was running a record annual defecit of 290 billion per year. The United States was in a recession, and future generations ended up paying back the debt of these corrupt President's failed economic policies.

When Clinton took office in 1992, he intentionally reversed the Reagan and Bush Sr. formulas, raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing them for the lowest wage earners. Many republicans predicted the arrival of the apocalypse. Bob Dole said the stock market would collapse. Newt Gingrich said the country would fall into another Great Depression.

What actually happened during Clinton's terms was that between 1992-2000, the U.S economy produced the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. It created 18 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. At the end of the Clinton administration, the U.S. economy was booming with $236 Billion surplus.

When "Dubya" assumed the Presidency in 2001, he brought back the supply-side economic principles of his father, giving tax cut after tax cut to the rich. In just one term, ONE TERM, Bush managed to turn a $236 Billion dollar surplus into a $500 Billion defecit; the largest in the history of the United States. Even Reagan and Bush Sr. would have to nod their heads with envy at that.

Debt piles up (nice gift for our future generations), health care costs skyrocket, and social security funds are decimated. Meanwhile the wealthy prosper.


Republicans blame Dubya's incompetence on "The Clinton Recession", Al Qaeda, and the war in Iraq for his record high deficit. At the end of the Clinton administration it was estimated that the ten year budget projection would yield a 5.6 trillion dollar surplus. In his first days as President Bush skimmed 1.3 trillion off this surplus and gave it back "to the people", the rich people that is. Much like in the past, this did little to boost the economy.

In 2000, when Bush was running for president, He made a speech in Chicago in which he promised he would not touch the $2.5 Trillion Clinton had set aside to fix the Social Security problems looming in the future. Within the first year of his presidency, Bush had broken his promise. Within another, the entire Social Security "lock box" had been completely depleted with deficits running into the future.

Of course, Bush didn't intentionally raid the Social Security lock box, that would eventually lead to the privatization of Social Security. (wink, wink)


As for the excuse that all the money went into the wars that the U.S. is so fond of waging?

Bush supporters like to blame the deficit on national security spending and defending the country from terrorist threat (including those ever so elusive weapons of mass destruction), but according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, the cost of Dubya's tax cuts is nearly three times as great as the cost of war - including increased spending for homeland security and rebuilding after September 11th.

Economists believe that most of the growing deficits can simply be attributed to a slump in the economy and Dubya's ineffective way of dealing with this slump. That being throwing more money at rich people and enacting unhelpful tax cuts to achieve political gain.

Dubya's second round of tax cuts in 2003 ran up even more debt for our country. Most of the money went into the pockets of the rich, and even Bush's former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neil said the money could have been better spent and that this tax cut served as a means for political gain.

At the same time Dubya never failed to sign a single spending bill that he was approached with(including really impoortant things like missions to mars). While Republicans traditionally gripe over "Tax and Spend" Democrats, spending increased almost twice as much under Dubya than it did under Clinton.

The debt incurred to pay off rich people is picked up by the middle class. As a result, soaring healt care costs, depleted retirement funds, record unemployment levels, lower salaries and a very weak economy. Dubya's economic policies have left us with a future that carries 5.6 trillion of extra debt in the next ten years, a turnorund of nearly eleven trillion dollars.

Not bad for one term.

[dude1394]

Damn Madape...you kill me...

The Palestinean terror network is as flacid and limp as Arafat's crooked penis

Greatness, shear greatness!!

[Mavdog]

I guess is could be argued that we could have survived 9/11, the asset bubble-burst, and the financial accounting scandals without running a deficit.. but that would probably mean unemployment would be around 10%, we'd have children picking food out of garbage cans, we'd have the Taliban still in power, Saddam still hunting nukes, and Bin Laden basking in the sun ordering more planes to be crashed into American skyscrapers.

Are you a Keynesian these days ape? Abandoned supply side economics?
A lot of the deficit spending isn’t being spent in the USA …it is being spent in a certain mideast country.

Speaking of accounting scandals, the worst culprit was Enron, yes? And who aided Enron’s manipulation of the energy markets? Congress loosing the rules and FERC! Thanks Phil and Wendy Gramm…two fine republicans who thought the energy producing companies could just govern themselves.

BTW there’s still taliban running around, bin laden could be basking in the sun for all we know.

Instead we have one of the most robust economic expansions since Reagan's heyday. We have virtually no inflation, interest rates are at a near all-time low. Unemployment is dropping like a rock, jobs are being created at a historic pace. What is left to complain about? The enegmatic, misunderstood deficit of course! In truth, the effects of running a deficit are small. All it means is that the US increases it's debt levels. What is REALLY the harm in this? Again, the world views American T-bills as the most secure investment in the entire world. We will never, ever, ever default. We'll never even come close to WORRYING about defaulting. Our debt service level is tiny. We can afford to temporarilly take on a little more.

Not so quick there with the expansion pumping.
Inflation is at 3.3% over the last year. Incomes have actually not kept pace.
Labor force participation rate is lower than anytime in the last 10 years.
There are more unemployed today than in the last 10 years..
The unemployed are out of work on average longer today than anytime in the last 10 years.
There are more discouraged workers than anytime in the last 10 years.
Consumer spending and government expenditures account for almost all of the growth in GDP.

Running a deficit is like the government taking out a loan. Bush knows that by pumping money into the economy, he'll be able to grow America quickly. The return on his investment is more jobs, more production, and a safer and more secure America.. all of which will generate MORE tax revenue, eventually turning the deficit into a powerful surplus. In other words, the deficits will pay for themselves in time. You need to spend money to make money. Bush has taken out a loan to grow America, and his investment is paying off big time. Deficit hawks would prefer us to be poor forever.

Uh huh. Funny thing, these increased spending levels are not increasing tax receipts fast enough, and someday these debts will need to be paid back, so government spending will need to decrease, contributing to recessionary pressure.
See above on government expenditures as a part of GDP growth. It's priming the pump, and it can't be there forever.

The exploding American economy has left the Democrats with only the deficit to complain about. They can't critisize the president on the growth of this economy, so they try to scare your vote out of you with threats of economic armageddon. It's been a tactic the left has used several times to intimidate uninformed and gullible voters ( global warming anyone). But their threats are nothing but dog poop. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that defecits help end recessions. It has been the case since FDR. Don't be an idiot.

The economy is not exploding, as I pointed out before the two quarter bump has been followed with 2 quarters of receding growth numbers.

Deficit spending did not end the 91-92 recession ape…it’s not really the fact that here are deficits which concern me, it is the depth of the deficit spending we are seeing. It’s like a spendthrift who has been given an AMEX with no limit.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: SaltwaterChaffy

I don't see why politics can't be argued on this board without the numerous republicans on the board calling the dems weenies, stupid, or oblivious. There's no need for insults.

Not all dems are weenies, stupid, or oblivious. Just the ones who are wusses, morons, and/or are totally clueless. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

did someone say "9/11 had no serious economic consequences"? oh, only you did? are you making an argument with yourself? I bet you win...

it would amaze me too. that's why i don't do it.
The economic affects of 9/11 were large. 3 years ago. they do not explain the deficit the federal government is running.

remember, Iraq is not a part of 9/11...

Mavdog you insult everyone's intelligence by the way you casualy dismiss 9/11 and something that happend 3 years ago. 9/11 was every bit as devistating as Pearl Harbor, and Pearl Harbor was felt for years to come. Why because Pearl Harbor officially drew the US in to World War II. 9/11 officially drew the US into the war on terrorism. And as much as you democratic Koolaid drinking liberals would like to deny it, Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism. You may disagree with the actions taken, but only a total kook like Michael Moore would deny that Iraq wasn't linked to the war on terrorism.

The democrats are so damned upset because Bush is a decisive leader who didn't sit on his ass and screw interns while letting the terrorists have their ways. Of course Gore wouldn't have done that if he was president, screw interns that is. But he damn well would have set on his liberal ass and convened commissions and reports and pleas to the UN for permission to take a piss.

As for the great fornicator, aduluter, and prevaricator also know as Slick Willie Clinton, it was 1st the PC boom helped along by the release of Windows and later the internet boom that had more to do with economic success in the 90's than any misguided action by the HillBilly. Clinton only had the balls for screwing around on Hillary, not for fighting terrorists or taking any decisive action.

Bush has admirably delt with one of the greatest crisises and challenges of our this nations history. Dems just keep trying to deny that. I have one word for you, therapy.

[Mavdog]

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was one of the worst attcks in our history, yet to analogise the economic comsequences of that attack to 9/11 is uninformed. The mobilization that the Pearl Harbor attack prompted was the end of the depression.

The mere act of you saying that Iraq is a part of the War on Terror doesn't make it so. Afganistan clearly, Iraq however was a choice made by the White House, a choice that did not need to be made. There is no connection to the folks who attacked us on 9/11 and Iraq. The commission, the white house, everybody agrees that it wasn't.

You really need to get off your preoccupation with Clinton. Bush has been in office almost 4 years and yet you still want to blame everything on him. Clinton had budget surpluses, Bush has budget deficits.

BTW the PC was conceived in 1978, and windows came out in the mid 80's. The "internet boom" was in the late 90's. Clinton's economic expansion began in 94. Your simplistic causation doesn't fit.

The fact is the last 4 years our economy has regressed, and as much as it may pain you, one has to admit to the facts:the Clinton years were the best economic times this country has enjoyed in 50 years.

I don't blame you for wanting to avoid discussing Bush's record by bringing up the Clinton issues of Lewinsky and his failure to keep it in his pants, for the facts, the data of the Bush years are not very pretty. But interjecting the Clinton troubles sure keeps you away from having to acknowledge the failure of the Bush team, but a failure nonetheless they are.

[reeds]

GOD- i can read this forum like a book, before the responses even start pouring in...

I KNEW you would all cry about 9/11...9/11 was a tragedy, but it sure is a good crutch for you people...I just wonder what the freaking excuse would have been if there was no 9/11, because its obvious the deficit would still be HUGE- its the republican way.... then what would it have been? hmmm..someone else or something else obviously, the republicans cant take blame for anything


"The fact is the last 4 years our economy has regressed, and as much as it may pain you you have to admit the Clinton years were the best economic times this country has enjoyed in 50 years.

I don't blame you for wnting to avoid discussing Bush's record by bringing up the Clinton issues of Lewinsky and his failure to keep it in his pants, for the facts, the data of the Bush years are not very pretty. But interjecting the Clinton troubles sure keeps you away from having to acknowledge the failure of the Bush team, but a failure nonetheless they are. "

Perfect! We try to talk facts, they throw smokescreens...Flip Flop, Monica, etc...the facts hurt them, so they try to change the subject whenever they can....classic

[mavsman]

I still don't get how some people can compare WWII to "the war on terrorism" meaning the War in Iraq, only to justify the latter. Don't you get it that the World War was a fact, a thing that existed long before you joined, whereas the WoT is an idea that has been brought up by your government and/or your media? You could recognize the difference quite easily: In World WarII, the enemy was Hitler. You joined the war and took him to a point where he - the most evil man in history - had no other chance than to commit suicide. Nowadays, in the days of the WoT, the big enemy is Bin Laden. Where is he? Does anyone care? Why are most of the troops in Iraq, when modern-day-Hitler isn't there for sure? Still everything is looking like a cat's displacement activities. You won WWII, you cannot win the WoT in Iraq, because you don't get Numero Uno there.

[dude1394]

Again I have no issue with it. I expect with the continued growth of our economy the deficit will contiue to drop. Just like the only reason clinton was able to balance the budget was both because he used the "military surplus" and the increased tax revenue.

The dems would like to make it an issue, but it won't stick as because kerry is incoherent on the issue, unlike Perot. Kerry isn't out there talking about balancing the books, he's talking about free health care for everyone, free college for everyone and guaranteeing that social security will NEVER reduce benefits which is a complete crock. Prattle on.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was one of the worst attcks in our history, yet to analogise the economic comsequences of that attack to 9/11 is uninformed. The mobilization that the Pearl Harbor attack prompted was the end of the depression.

The mere act of you saying that Iraq is a part of the War on Terror doesn't make it so. Afganistan clearly, Iraq however was a choice made by the White House, a choice that did not need to be made. There is no connection to the folks who attacked us on 9/11 and Iraq. The commission, the white house, everybody agrees that it wasn't.

You really need to get off your preoccupation with Clinton. Bush has been in office almost 4 years and yet you still want to blame everything on him. Clinton had budget surpluses, Bush has budget deficits.

BTW the PC was conceived in 1978, and windows came out in the mid 80's. The "internet boom" was in the late 90's. Clinton's economic ex[pansion began in 94. Your simplistic causation doesn't fit.

The fact is the last 4 years our economy has regressed, and as much as it may pain you you have to admit the Clinton years were the best economic times this country has enjoyed in 50 years.

I don't blame you for wnting to avoid discussing Bush's record by bringing up the Clinton issues of Lewinsky and his failure to keep it in his pants, for the facts, the data of the Bush years are not very pretty. But interjecting the Clinton troubles sure keeps you away from having to acknowledge the failure of the Bush team, but a failure nonetheless they are.

The analogy between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor was that each event let to war and that war caused important economic impacts for years to come. The effects of those impacts were different, sure. But you refer to 9/11 as something that happened and was of consequential impact for only an extremely short period of time. That simply isn't the case. It intered us into the war on terror. That same war, many of your democratic politician, including John Kerry, voted to include Iraq as part of. So I guess John Kerry is to blame according to you as well? [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

As for avoiding discussing Bush's record, I have no problem at all discussing it. However you can't discuss the economy without discussing where Bush started and to do that you need to include Clinton. Certainly overall the Clinton years were great economically overall. However the economy was on the way down before Clinton was out of office. And the great economy was more due to the increase in technology, unprecidented in human history.

The PC was around long before 1978. Gates and Allen produced there 1st product for the PC back in 1975. Arguably there were PC's around since the early 70's and possibly before. However the real takeoff for the PC was not until Microsoft released it's 1st version of Windows, Windows 3.1, that was relatively stable in the early 90's. Sure Windows had been out since the mid 80's, but quite frankly it was of so low reliability to not be of great use businesswise. Even Windows 3.0 was only marginly useful. Windows 3.1 was a major breakthrough in this area and made the PC more viable both comercially and in the home. The PC provided for an incredible increase in productivity by the average corporate worker. Also around this timeframe office automation tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, networking systems, and PC database systems made incredible strides of both functionality and acceptance. Hardware performance made incredible leaps. In 1984, the commodore 64, as in 64 kilobytes of memory was state the art. In the early 90's several megabytes of memory was standard. In 1991, I had a state of the art PC and ran as standard calculation for state taxes that took 10 days to complete. Bye 1993, I could run a more intense calculation with more data in less than 2 days. By 1995, I could run it in less than 8 hours. By 1997, in less than a couple of hours. Clinton benefited from this sort of productivity increases generated by technology. These increase has started to level off by the early 2000's. We still have productivity gains, but not by as dramatic increases.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: mavsman
I still don't get how some people can compare WWII to "the war on terrorism" meaning the War in Iraq, only to justify the latter. Don't you get it that the World War was a fact, a thing that existed long before you joined, whereas the WoT is an idea that has been brought up by your government and/or your media? You could recognize the difference quite easily: In World WarII, the enemy was Hitler. You joined the war and took him to a point where he - the most evil man in history - had no other chance than to commit suicide. Nowadays, in the days of the WoT, the big enemy is Bin Laden. Where is he? Does anyone care? Why are most of the troops in Iraq, when modern-day-Hitler isn't there for sure? Still everything is looking like a cat's displacement activities. You won WWII, you cannot win the WoT in Iraq, because you don't get Numero Uno there.

MM...Your statements would be what the 9/11 commission called a "lack of imagination". The enemy is much bigger than terrorism, it's islamic fundamentalism which uses terrorism as a tactic of that enemy. Kerry thinks he can go back to the way clinton fought it, ok, let's have the debate.

Bush does not, he feels that major structural changes have to be made in the middle east. He also feels that freedom is our best defense against the islamic radicalism. If you or your party can think of a better way..I'm all ears. But if it's going to the UN, excuse me if I'm not interested. The UN and the ICJC have just about passed a resolution stating that Israel cannot defend themselves unless it is against a "STATE". Tell me what "state" is Hamas, Hezbellah, Al Queada.

[dude1394]

"With a firm reliance on Divine Providence," to cite our forebears once again, Bush has publicly held that one cannot fight terrorism merely by killing terrorists. One must provide an alternative of liberty, prosperity, and opportunity — one must labor to build free societies where they do not now exist. Liberty works. I think Bush will win because these are the truths Americans hold.

Bush believes these truths. At this moment, the Democrats (who used to believe them, nobly so) do not even see their relevance. Kerry spoke well about patriotism, the international leadership of America, and liberty — but he seems willfully blind to the relevance of these beautiful ideals to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. For such ideals and purposes some 900 young Americans of this generation have laid down their lives. They will be thanked by generations yet unborn.

So will their commander-in-chief.

[Chiwas]

The enemy is much bigger than terrorism, it's islamic fundamentalism which uses terrorism as a tactic of that enemy. Kerry thinks he can go back to the way clinton fought it, ok, let's have the debate.

Bush does not, he feels that major structural changes have to be made in the middle east. He also feels that freedom is our best defense against the islamic radicalism.

I like your point Dude, regarding the real "enemy". I would wish that Bush really would think about it as it is pointed. However, an open confrontation on their own land is the worst, and maybe impossible, way to face it.

[dude1394]

Who's land? That's really the point, they don't have a "land" that you can overthrow. HOWEVER there are regimes out there that give them safe haven, that provide them the ability to train, operate, move.

There are also the rest of the decrepit islamic countries, palestine, egypt, syria, iran, etc. That do not provide their people LIBERTY. They are an oppressed people, stuck in the middle ages by their religious/political beliefs. They MUST change. We can continue the policies of the last 50 years which has brought this upon the world or we can (just like we did in the soviet union) attempt to bring democracy and freedom to the regime.

I'm not sure if it can be done, but the old way is no way, we have turned a corner and will not go back.

The way I think of it is as long-term proxies and investments. Afghanistan obviously had to be confronted as that was al queida's base and a large source of the "legend" of the muhahadden. Middle eastern democracy could NOT be done without either iran/iraq being de-radicalized. Iraq was much easier and sadaam was an active menace to the region who was not repentent. If Iran could have been done then so be it, but possibly iran "may" be able to be finessed. It will depend on how close they are to a nuke, nukes change the game quite a bit.

One way Bush is doing this is by what this article calls the Caspian guard that is consisting of the US, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. If you look at a map you see that Iran is becoming surrounded much like Bush is also trying to do with N. Korea (see article for some details).

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
What actually happened during Clinton's terms was that between 1992-2000, the U.S economy produced the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. It created 18 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. At the end of the Clinton administration, the U.S. economy was booming with $236 Billion surplus.

Clinton's administration benifited from the eBoom where internet stocks went crazy for no apparant reason. There was a lot more money being pumped into the economy to folks wanting to get rich quick on internet stocks and all that money got taxed - leading to tax surpluses. Bush inherited the "bust" part of the boom-bust cycle.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: mavsman
I still don't get how some people can compare WWII to "the war on terrorism" meaning the War in Iraq, only to justify the latter. Don't you get it that the World War was a fact, a thing that existed long before you joined, whereas the WoT is an idea that has been brought up by your government and/or your media? You could recognize the difference quite easily: In World WarII, the enemy was Hitler. You joined the war and took him to a point where he - the most evil man in history - had no other chance than to commit suicide. Nowadays, in the days of the WoT, the big enemy is Bin Laden. Where is he? Does anyone care? Why are most of the troops in Iraq, when modern-day-Hitler isn't there for sure? Still everything is looking like a cat's displacement activities. You won WWII, you cannot win the WoT in Iraq, because you don't get Numero Uno there.

Don't get me mixed up with him ^ [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]

And second of all, we had two MAJOR enemies in the war on terror, one who is currently rotting in a filthy Iraqi prison. Don't blow that success off as trivial.

[sike]

I may be proving my lack of knowledge here....but just who do we owe all this money to?

[dude1394]

Whoever owns a treasury bond I imagine. Probably ourselves, the world, etc.

[Mavdog]

The federal government is actual its own largest creditor. Most of that is what it "borrows" from social security.
The privately held debt is in form of T Bills, notes and bonds.
Here's the breakdown,

Dec 2003 total debt $6.998 Trillion
$3.620 T in Gov reserve and accounts

$3.378 T privately held, broken down as:
$155 B by banks
$203 B in savings bonds
$120 B by private pension funds
$208 B by gov. pension funds
$151 B by insurance cos.
$283 B by mutual funds
$343 B by state/local governments
$1.539 T by foreign entities
$375 B by “others”

[reeds]

Dude- you better rethink what you said- that you dont have an issue with the deficit...Greenspan disagrees, and he is one very smart man...
Greenspan has warned in the past that a rising budget deficit can cause interest rates to go up and could jeopardize the nation's long-term economic health.

By the time all Baby Boomers retire in 2030, the United States will have twice as many elderly folk as it does now. Meanwhile, the number of workers paying for their benefits will increase by just 18 percent.
If things continue as they're going, the Social Security trust fund will be completely exhausted by 2042-or there abouts..if this doesnt worry you, what the hell does????

I guess the Democrats will have to fix it as usual...