I thought republicans were fiscally responsible

[psilocybe]

From the economist...

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372405

"Today’s America lives beyond its means more flagrantly than ever before. Its government will spend about $427 billion more than it raises in taxes this year. The nation as a whole is running a deficit of $571.9 billion on its current account with the rest of the world."

"America’s net overseas liabilities amounted to 23% of GDP at the end of last year, close to the record debts it amassed in 1894, according to Ken Rogoff and Maurice Obstfeld of the National Bureau of Economic Research."

Bush is running our ecomony into the ground. I wasn't a super fan of Clinton but a least when he left office we had a blanced federal budget.

[Moddy]

You hippy.

[psilocybe]

WT hill billy. ;)

You can't make an intelligent comment, so you resort to insults? Wow...how republican of you. ;)

[Moddy]

Originally posted by psilocybe
WT hill billy. ;)

You can't make an intelligent comment, so you resort to insults? Wow...how republican of you. ;)
I don't recall insulting you. I was using adjectives to accurately describe you. If you felt insulted by that, I apologize. God knows that the last thing I want to do is make a pinko commie feel bad. I'm not built like that.

[fishmonger]

Republican/Democrat - they're _all_ going to spend more than they bring in. You may as well like what they're going to spend our non-money on. The fundamental problem here is that gov't is too big, and until we deal with that problem, we're going to have this same bullshit.

And Clinton's "budget surplus" is a bunch of bullshit. It was an accounting trick. The supposed single-year surpluses never existed, but were merely an accounting trick based on stealing IOUs from the imaginary Social Security trust fund. That's NOT what I call a budget surplus. If I did that, Wells Fargo would foreclose on my house.

//edit: I realized that my last paragraph was poorly written, so I clarified it.

[Qwertys]

Originally posted by The Modfather
You pinko commie hippie.
*Fixed.

[termdec]

Originally posted by psilocybe
You can't make an intelligent comment, so you resort to insults? Wow...how republican of you. ;)

And just where have you been hiding? We could use another token liberal around here.

[Vandalous]

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/news/defend-bush.php

An excerpt from the 1st site:
"Most private-sector forecasters expect the U.S. economy will grow faster this year (on an average annual basis) than in any year since 1984.

For the third consecutive year, the U.S. economy is poised to grow faster than most other industrialized economies. France, Germany, and Japan, for instance, are not expected to grow even half as fast as the United States.

Since the Bush administration began, non-farm productivity has increased at a 4.1 percent annual rate — the fastest pace for the start of any presidency since Harry S. Truman occupied the White House.

The U.S. remains the world's largest exporter. In fact, during the first three years of the Bush administration, the U.S. exported more in real terms than it did during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford administrations combined.

More single-family homes were sold in 2003 than in any other year on record. And the homeownership rate is at a record-high of 68.5 percent — a full percentage point higher than during the fourth quarter of 2000.

At 5.6 percent, the national unemployment rate is now lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s."

[DeadLamb]

Originally posted by Vandalous
during the first three years of the Bush administration, the U.S. exported more in real terms than it did during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford administrations combined.

yeah I hate stats like that.. it the same BS the RIAA and MPAA does to spin everything as more more more.. A chimp could be in charge of the USA and we would still be pushing more stuff out then from the stone age of tech that was pretty much hand making stuff in the 1950 vs modern robo automation. Never mind the whole tech boom and world econ being all around bigger, way bigger now then 1950-1970

I just hate spin that is soooo over the top like that.. of course, we all expect that level of spin now, would almost be shocking if it did not happen.

[Vandalous]

That's what's fun about statistics: trying to find the flipside of every spin attempt.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
British politician (1804 - 1881)

[Qwertys]

I'm sure if you wager in increased production, lower wages, bigger population, more immigrants, less monkeys, more hippies, more feces, less hair, and more porn; you could balance out those statistics and realize that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the president, but has EVERYTHING to do with outside factors.
can the president control the outsourcing to asian tech companies? can he create more oil supplies? can he solve all global poverty? can he melt the ice caps? can he fly? can he turn water into wine? can he turn a puppet into a real boy? can he find me a girlfriend? can he go back into time and fix the .com craze?

no.

Theres only one thing he, and everyone else can do, and thats BLAME MYKUL.

[Vandalous]

Originally posted by Qwertys
Theres only one thing he, and everyone else can do, and thats BLAME MYKUL.

QFT! :D

[Bunnyslayer]

Originally posted by Qwertys
can he find me a girlfriend?

That is the sign of the apocalypse I think...

[GotNoRice]

Originally posted by psilocybe
Bush is running our ecomony into the ground. I wasn't a super fan of Clinton but a least when he left office we had a blanced federal budget.

Well I’m sure he could have balanced the budget all the way into a 1930’s style depression, but personally I would rather go into debt, and use the extra money to stimulate the economy, which is exactly what he did. Also, it’s not like any of the post 9/11 changes to the government (dept of homeland security, etc) or the war on terror costs any money or anything…

Keeping in mind that Bush was only in office 8 months before 9/11, how many of Clinton’s cutbacks (during the 8 years he was president) in order to “balance the budget” do you think contributed to the poor state of the intelligence community on 9/11?

[Gremlin]

Well for me Bush should have signed the Kyoto (sp?) treaty. So I guess people would like to have money and not breathe air I guess. I know it is off topic :P

[GotNoRice]

Originally posted by Gremlin
Well for me Bush should have signed the Kyoto (sp?) treaty. So I guess people would like to have money and not breathe air I guess. I know it is off topic :P

Kyoto is BS because it does not level the playing field among all of the countries. It places economy-crippling restrictions on countries like the U.S. while giving countries like China and India a free pass to pollute as much as they please (There is enough pollution coming from that area of the world that you can see the pollution cloud from space). Not to mention that this would spur the already increasing trend of outsourcing as companies figure out that all they have to do is build their factories outside of the U.S. to avoid all of the environmental restrictions. It’s estimated that the signing of the Kyoto treaty will cost the U.S. 5 Million jobs.

If you want to reduce pollution in the U.S., the first step is for everyone to pull their heads out of their asses and not freak out whenever someone says the word “Nuclear”. Nuclear power plants are safe, clean, and the only downside is the resulting nuclear waste, which is completely manageable unlike the tons and tons of smog pumped out of traditional power plants like coal power plants which not only pollute the air but directly contribute to the all-time high levels of Mercury in the water. Of course it wouldn’t hurt if people didn’t also freak out about wind power plants disturbing bird migration patterns and hydro power plants disturbing the local wildlife habitats. :rolleyes:

[honestplayer]

labor is in fact, in line with Bush, and opposed to the Kyoto Treaty, for many reasons, chiefly it is unfair to the US and most 1st world nations, and secondly, it will cost us millions in lost jobs.

[enervate]

Originally posted by honestplayer
labor is in fact, in line with Bush, and opposed to the Kyoto Treaty, for many reasons, chiefly it is unfair to the US and most 1st world nations, and secondly, it will cost us millions in lost jobs.

Holy damn.

/me claps for hp


Funny thing is that a lot of people who want to push the Kyoto Treaty are the same ones who would use the lost jobs as a talking point against the administration later on were it passed.

[Qwertys]

so true.
and my hat off to GNR, for the intelligable posts. but i'm still gonna eat your cat.

this term, we will truely see how bush stimulated the economy in his first. it usually takes that long, if not longer to see the full effects.

[Gremlin]

GNR I am not talking about nuclear. I am talking about the north pole, where degrees have gone up, Ice is melting which will will affect us down the road.

[fishmonger]

Originally posted by Gremlin
GNR I am not talking about nuclear. I am talking about the north pole, where degrees have gone up, Ice is melting which will will affect us down the road.

?

And what he's saying is that nuclear power would help alleviate a large portion of what's causing that.

[Bunnyslayer]

Originally posted by GotNoRice
...whenever someone says the word “Nuclear”.

Unfortunately our president can even say that word. :D

[psilocybe]

Originally posted by Vandalous
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/news/defend-bush.php

An excerpt from the 1st site:
"Most private-sector forecasters expect the U.S. economy will grow faster this year (on an average annual basis) than in any year since 1984.

For the third consecutive year, the U.S. economy is poised to grow faster than most other industrialized economies. France, Germany, and Japan, for instance, are not expected to grow even half as fast as the United States.

Since the Bush administration began, non-farm productivity has increased at a 4.1 percent annual rate — the fastest pace for the start of any presidency since Harry S. Truman occupied the White House.

The U.S. remains the world's largest exporter. In fact, during the first three years of the Bush administration, the U.S. exported more in real terms than it did during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford administrations combined.

More single-family homes were sold in 2003 than in any other year on record. And the homeownership rate is at a record-high of 68.5 percent — a full percentage point higher than during the fourth quarter of 2000.

At 5.6 percent, the national unemployment rate is now lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s."

That's all great and all but we were talking about national debt.

[fishmonger]

Originally posted by psilocybe
That's all great and all but we were talking about national debt.

I think we'll both agree that national insolvency is a bad thing. The thing that sucks is that both parties don't have any incentive to change it - the only that's going to change our current trajectory is a massive "OMG we're fucked" sort of economic problem. Like, say, the Chinese or Japanese decide they want to sell all of their US treasury bills. That would solve this on the double-quick.

[Stagger]

Okay, there are certain points to be made...Clinton didn't decrease the federal budget, he increased taxes...plus he did that riding a big wave of American prosperity during the E-Revolution (weeeeee). Whereas George W Bush has basically left spending the same over the last for years with increases for military and security.

It is my biggest hope that we'll see a real turn around in federal spending over the next four years from Bush, however it requires a great deal of precision in cutting because (and don't get butt-hurt) Liberals have made millions of Americans dependent on federal spending. That's the whole point of Liberalism...Create a class based constituency based on promising and giving money to people from the federal budget. So it's cool to decrease the cost of government, but you have to do it so as not to ruin the portions of the economy that are dependent on them.

This is to say that if you wanna cut one hundred thousand federal employees in order to cut waisteful beauracracy, one hundred thousand new private sector jobs of equal pay need to be created. It's very intracate but very do-able with the right people in the right places.

I really hope to see Bush cut waisteful spending as well as cut the beauracracy in the next four years while really increasing the Gross Domestic Product, it would be a Capitalist Conservative wet dream... my wet dreams....oh so wet FGHTR

[BreadMan]

*ahem*

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

And here's something I just love hearing: "Oh we shouldn't worry because all that spending was necessary for homeland security and killing terrorists etc." Because, yes, things like attacking Iraq and turning it into an angry anti-US hornets nest are really helping fight terrorism. Take a look at this:

http://students.cs.tamu.edu/blevinsa/kerry/cost_of_war.gif

I don't know about you all, but I think a lot of the things on that list sound like really good ideas! I seriously can't understand how anybody who actually understands these issues would vote to keep the guy responsible for all this crap in office. The only explanation I can see is people voted with their balls instead of their heads. They get a good feeling in their balls when they see all these tanks rolling around on the news and say, "oh yeah, look at that, we're totally kicking some terrorist ass!" But if they actually used their heads they might see that what we're doing really isn't doing all that much good.

[atsui]

Originally posted by BreadMan
I don't know about you all, but I think a lot of the things on that list sound like really good ideas! I seriously can't understand how anybody who actually understands these issues would vote to keep the guy responsible for all this crap in office. The only explanation I can see is people voted with their balls instead of their heads. They get a good feeling in their balls when they see all these tanks rolling around on the news and say, "oh yeah, look at that, we're totally kicking some terrorist ass!" But if they actually used their heads they might see that what we're doing really isn't doing all that much good.
I agree with you and Termdec. I just suck at saying so. it's nice to sit back and let people that can debate intelligently do it for me. cause i get all nervous and fumbly when i speak in public. :(

[Vandalous]

Originally posted by BreadMan
[BI don't know about you all, but I think a lot of the things on that list sound like really good ideas! [/B]

That's a great list! Where was it originally published?

[xwred1]

it’s not like any of the post 9/11 changes to the government (dept of homeland security, etc) or the war on terror costs any money or anything…

A mere $180 billion to keep Saddam from continuing to trample all over my freedoms sounds like a swell deal.