Dubya's Lasting Legacy....

[JoseCuervo]

I don't exactly understand why we always run deficits under Republicans.... And Clinton was able to make them go away. Why do Conservatives leave us in bad fiscal shape, and Liberals actually improve our Balance Sheet? I would expect the opposite, but the last 20+ years doesn't seem to show me that....

The ballooning deficit
Yesterday, the members of the House Blue Dog Democrat Coalition, along with Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), announced their strong opposition to President Bush's reckless fiscal policies that are leaving an enormous burden of debt for the next generation.

As Rep. Hoyer stated:

President Bush's policies, including extending the tax cuts, fixing the middle class tax time bomb known as the amt, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will add $5.2 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years. The price of these deficits is staggering. Our nation will spend more than $150 billion this year on interest payments on our debt, and that figure will grow to nearly $374 billion by 2014.

These deficits will cost us the ability to deal with the retirement of the baby boomers, and will threaten Social Security and Medicare. These deficits will eat away the resources we need to invest adequately in education and health care for our people. And finally, these deficits will create a drag on an economy that is already struggling to create jobs for over 8 million out of work Americans.

 

[Nemont]

EG,
It is called coopting your opponents issues. For example: that is how we ended up with welfare reform under Clinton. Also there were tax cuts given, to just about everyone who pays taxes, while ramping up the military in Afganistan and Iraq.

I would add that this is not just Bush's legacy, as the president cannot spend one dollar without approval from congress. Whether democrat or republican it is shameful. This is one of the issues I have some bitter, bitter disappointment with the Republicans.

Still couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry because he of what he stands for or doesn't stand for or voted for before voting against or what ever. I just now learned to John Kerry without puking.

That was a joke for those who didn't understand it.

Nemont

P.S. See you moved from SI to the fireside to stir this place up also.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ooops.... I put it in the wrong forum....

Any Moderators out there? Please move to Sportman's Issues, or just delete the thread, as the image of Nemont puking has "soiled" this thread for me.....

Do you give Kerry any slack for his 20 year voting record, in light of the "politics" and the games played to get votes in the Senate and laws passed?

For example, sometimes he has to vote against a budget that contains $XXXX for the military, because it contains $2XXXX for some Pork project like the "Rain Forest" that is being built in Iowa. (True example).

With all the amendemnts/riders that get added on, dissenting votes for the original topic may not have been the reason for the actual vote. That is why I don't get too worried over the 'flip-flopping' charges by Karl Rove and Company.

Dubya is lucky, in that he does not have a record to examine. You just gave him a "hall pass" for every $$$ of the deficit, by saying it was the Congress' responsibilty for Spending, not the President's. And since Dubya has only been a Gov and a President, he actually has no record to run on.

Any of that make sense?

 

[Nut]

Moved per your request Gunner

 

[JoseCuervo]

Thanks Nut!

 

[pawclaws]

Two forces at play here Elkgunner; First the results of the policies take time to emerge, thus often the actions of one administration are not seen until the following administration as with the economic impacts created by PaPa Bush flowing into the Clinton administration six years later. This phenomenon is particularly true of economy fluctuations and the resulting creation of wealth, poverty, etc. With respect to deficits though there really is no secret. A deficit is merely a condition where more money was spent than gathered during a fiscal year. Kind of like you going to the bank to cover an unexpected water leak resulting in a short term need for more money than came in that month. On the other hand the debt or the money owed long term creating a potential "red pen" condition on the balance sheet, what we call debt, now that really is a big deal. That is the amount of money left oweing regardless of how much deficit exists or debt was paid during a fiscal year. That is equal to your mortgage, car loan, school loans, etcf. The reason this is a big deal is because the interest on this in the case of our nation is a sizeable figure; in fact as early as 1991 the interest paid on this debt was greater than the entire Department of Defense Budget for that year, and became the largest singleline item in the budget. Now, how did the Clinton administration manage to end up with a negative deficit?; they collected more money than was spent on for that particular fiscal year. How were they able to do this? Interest rates dropped to such lows that lots of folk were converting retirement accounts to stocks. This gave greater tax exposure to retirement dollars resulting in the collection of more taxes. Clinton collected more total tax dollars and a greater percentage of income tax dollars on the one side. On the other side since the interest rates had dropped so low, much less money was needed to retire the annual interest burden on the national debt. The two sides together, resulted in less money being spent than being collected for that or those given fiscal year(s). Simple!!

[ 03-20-2004, 08:15: Message edited by: pawclaws ]

 

[Nemont]

EG,
Let me clarify, I do hold the president responsible for this. I guess the point I was making, and the point of my disappointment, is that this spending has come at a time of the Republicans control the congress. SOOOOOOO they should have reigned in the spending if the president couldn't or wouldn't.

As for slack about Kerry's votes some of them were purely political votes but the majority of his record is just to liberal for me. I would consider giving some slack but would ask for equal consideration on your part for Bush. Particulary on the enviroment. I am talking non "political" facts that says Bush has raped the enviroment. To tell me that there are still dams up and welfare ranchers on "your" public land won't suffice. Those were there during the previous administrations watch as well.

One other thing that is a factor in this election, at least for me, is that I do not believe that Kerry has the back bone to fight terrorist. The thought of an avowed to the left of liberal president prosecuting the war on terror should frighten most people. Look at Spain they have emboldened every terrorist group in the world.
Nemont

 

[Michaelr]

Here is a pic of elkgunner

 

[Ithaca 37]

mike, you should thank EG for bringing your attention to the welfare rancher overgrazing problem. Without him you probably never would have noticed how overgrazing is ruining your hunting areas, as you admitted recently. I'm glad he helped to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Oak]

Michael, thanks for that great input. I thought you had better things to do than come here and read this. Just can't stay away, huh?

I would consider giving some slack but would ask for equal consideration on your part for Bush. Particulary on the enviroment. I am talking non "political" facts that says Bush has raped the enviroment. To tell me that there are still dams up and welfare ranchers on "your" public land won't suffice. Those were there during the previous administrations watch as well.

Nemont, surely you don't think that Bush's inaction on things like dams and welfare ranchers is the only thing he's done to rape the environment. I can give the guy some slack on a lot of things he's done ("terrorist" war in Iraq, immigration policy, increasing debt, etc.), but the environment is something I'm not going to budge on. It's the only issue that, once done, is irreversable. Destroy it and it's gone, or at least (in Elkchsr's words) will take decades to recover. Decades might be too long for some places that are under increasing pressure from our ever expanding population.

Oak

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ithica,

I am just grateful that Michael brought to my attention the 1/2 nekid chick doing handstands....

Perhaps the most value he has brought to SI in a longtime...

 

[Nemont]

Colorado,

I guess I am from Missouri: Show Me

Nemont, surely you don't think that Bush's inaction on things like dams and welfare ranchers is the only thing he's done to rape the environment. I can give the guy some slack on a lot of things he's done ("terrorist" war in Iraq, immigration policy, increasing debt, etc.), but the environment is something I'm not going to budge on. It's the only issue that, once done, is irreversable. Destroy it and it's gone, or at least (in Elkchsr's words) will take decades to recover. Decades might be too long for some places that are under increasing pressure from our ever expanding population.

Oak

How and Where is he raping the planet? What in action on Bush's part has result in the wholesale destruction of the enviroment? Last I checked the National Monuments that Clinton setup are still going forward, the EPA has not been disbanded, Wolves are headed for delisting. Oak all I am asking is to show me the raping and pillaging of the enviroment under Bush. I need some facts.

John Kerry's statements says the intends to drill for oil and gas, like never before all over the country including, I am assuming, public lands? (You may wish for ranchers vs. full scale CBM drilling and development) to get their endorsement he promised the Teamsters union he would do just that. Maybe the only good oil and gas developer is a democrat but it appears to me everyone has given Kerry a pass on the enviroment issue.

Nemont

 

[Oak]

C'mon Nemont. You've been around here a while, and I know you've read the stuff posted regarding Bush's environmental stance. I don't have the time it would take to list everything for you, with sources, but try doing a google search for "bush environment" and see what you find. Here, I'll do it for you:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Bush+environment&btnG=Google+Search

Meanwhile, here's some of the topics that have been posted here, in case you missed them.

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=001924

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=001872

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=000872

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=001944

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=002062

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=001911

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=001576

http://www.huntandlodge.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=002209#000030

http://www.huntandlodge.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=002229

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=002163

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=002066

http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=002048

Nemont, why do you, and every other Bush supporter, feel the need to bring Kerry into every discussion about Bush? I didn't say that Kerry would do any better, I just pointed out the fact that Bush is the environment's #1 enemy right now, for those who choose to bury their heads in the Iraqi sand.

Oak

 

[Michaelr]

Just wanted to lighten things up a little

 

[ELKCHSR]

I got a laugh out of it Mike, along with all the other ones you put up....LMAO!!!!Keeps things a little less stuffy in this place!!!

 

[Nemont]

Bury my head in the Iraqi Sand?

What is that supposed to mean?

Nemont

 

[Oak]

I didn't say that Kerry would do any better, I just pointed out the fact that Bush is the environment's #1 enemy right now, for those who choose to bury their heads in the Iraqi sand.

Nemont, as you can see, I was referring to what I said before you ever asked me the questions. It was not directed at you, rather the folks who, when confronted with Bush's environmental record, choose to respond with "Yeah, but..." You know, "yeah, but look at how he captured Saddam...", "yeah, but look at the other choice (Kerry)...", "yeah, but you use oil too, so don't complain..." When the issue of the environment is brought up, Bush supporters have a hard time staying on topic.

Oak