• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bush sacrifices the future to keep his job

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,316
1,353
126
he overspends next years budget by $1/2 trillion.

w/that amount of $, there should be jobs galore next year.

bush knows that the avg voter has a 6month memory. with people now happily employed near election day 2004, he hopes they re-elect him.

the problem is that the future of the country, our kids, will be paying the price for Bush's vain/transparent attempt to buy the election.

with a heavier debt load, more $ will be paid in interest, thus less $ for other things. so the future has the burden to pay off the debt.

damn..where are those pretzels when u need them? :disgust:
 

BD231

Lifer
Feb 26, 2001
10,568
136
106
It's a trend man, from statesmen to presidents, people are f*cking up the financial status of this country left and right.
 

sbp

Member
Oct 29, 1999
107
0
71
Yep, time for budget cuts. Certainly for anything non-national security related. :)
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: sbp
Yep, time for budget cuts. Certainly for anything non-national security related. :)
Thanks to Bush there is a record half-trillion dollar deficit this year. Next year's deficit is higher still, $525 billion.

So there really is no budget to cut.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
3
81
This is every pol.. I mean lying is less common than this.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
I just wonder when Bush is going to have to tell the rich their taxes are going back up. God that's gonna hurt.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I just wonder when Bush is going to have to tell the rich their taxes are going back up. God that's gonna hurt.
It will be a war sur tax of 10% for one year or they won't raise the tax because of the economy.. supply side trickle down... and all..

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
3
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I just wonder when Bush is going to have to tell the rich their taxes are going back up. God that's gonna hurt.

Can't we just print more money?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: sbp
Yep, time for budget cuts. Certainly for anything non-national security related. :)
Thanks to Bush there is a record half-trillion dollar deficit this year. Next year's deficit is higher still, $525 billion.

So there really is no budget to cut.
SS ;):D

What happened to your "caring" BOBDN. Do you really want old people to choose between food and Prescription Drugs?;) Are YOU for adding the 40+ Billion that is going to add to the Budget every year(and will increase if Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy gets his way)? Here I thought you were all for a balanced budget...how does adding 40+BILLION (that will never get removed from the budget) help to reduce that deficit?

CkG
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,520
3,621
126
The funny thing(funny strange, not funny haha) is that Bush could have made his Dad's promise of "No new taxes" and still had a surplus, if he hadn't cut taxes.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: sbp
Yep, time for budget cuts. Certainly for anything non-national security related. :)
Thanks to Bush there is a record half-trillion dollar deficit this year. Next year's deficit is higher still, $525 billion.

So there really is no budget to cut.
SS ;):D

What happened to your "caring" BOBDN. Do you really want old people to choose between food and Prescription Drugs?;) Are YOU for adding the 40+ Billion that is going to add to the Budget every year(and will increase if Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy gets his way)? Here I thought you were all for a balanced budget...how does adding 40+BILLION (that will never get removed from the budget) help to reduce that deficit?

CkG
Speaking of "caring"... we know conservatives don't care about the little people. ;)

I thought you were against "welfare" as a conservative CkG... ;) but you clearly support a 80 billion a year that we spend on welfare for the Iraqi people. Why not support it for the American people?
 

amok

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,342
0
0
Speaking of government waste, I have a good link for you all. The waste problem is bipartisan apparently ;). Even a nice conservative publication like the NRO is frustrated by both sides.

For example, Medicare overpayments top $12 billion annually. Medicare also pays up to eight times the price that other agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies (which also raises co-payments for Medicare beneficiaries). The earned-income tax credit loses $9 billion to payment errors per year. Gas-tax fraud costs taxpayers $1 billion per year.

If Congress expanded the search to include discretionary programs, they would find that the federal government simply cannot locate $17 billion it spent in 2002. They would learn that the Justice Department has lost 400 laptop computers and 775 weapons as a result of poor inventory controls. They would discover how the Department of Education recently gave $55,000 in student aid to a fictitious college.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
At least, even only 2 years after 9/11, no one asks why Bin Laden is still showing up in videos, rather than sitting on death row in a US prison. So Bush managed to distract people well enough.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: sbp
Yep, time for budget cuts. Certainly for anything non-national security related. :)
Thanks to Bush there is a record half-trillion dollar deficit this year. Next year's deficit is higher still, $525 billion.

So there really is no budget to cut.
SS ;):D

What happened to your "caring" BOBDN. Do you really want old people to choose between food and Prescription Drugs?;) Are YOU for adding the 40+ Billion that is going to add to the Budget every year(and will increase if Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy gets his way)? Here I thought you were all for a balanced budget...how does adding 40+BILLION (that will never get removed from the budget) help to reduce that deficit?

CkG
Speaking of "caring"... we know conservatives don't care about the little people. ;)

I thought you were against "welfare" as a conservative CkG... ;) but you clearly support a 80 billion a year that we spend on welfare for the Iraqi people. Why not support it for the American people?
I am against goverment entitlements as a whole - Here - Iraq - Anywhere. Comparing spending 80 Billion for a few years to spending 40+ Billion EVERY YEAR until the gov't is bankrupt is asinine. The Iraqis are going to be self sufficient - economically, socially, and govermentaly in short order if their people have the will to do so and we have the resolve to stay the course.

Amok - There are lots of us "conservatives" that abhor government waste. I wish there was a truly conservative candidate running for President - he'd(she'd;)) get my vote. Bush has allowed the left to get their fingers on his social/economic agenda and has thus alienated quite a few of us on a few issues. Letting Ted Kennedy write bills for him? What was he thinking? I think I know what he is trying to do but I don't think it's neccessary to compromise your base principles just to gain support. Hopefully in his second term he will become a Conservative again;)

CkG
 

amok

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,342
0
0
Amok - There are lots of us "conservatives" that abhor government waste. I wish there was a truly conservative candidate running for President - he'd(she'd) get my vote. Bush has allowed the left to get their fingers on his social/economic agenda and has thus alienated quite a few of us on a few issues. Letting Ted Kennedy write bills for him? What was he thinking? I think I know what he is trying to do but I don't think it's neccessary to compromise your base principles just to gain support. Hopefully in his second term he will become a Conservative again.
Lol, not all libs are fiscally incompetent Cad ;). But, to get to the meat of what I was trying to point out I'll give you a different quote from the article:
The contempt both parties displayed toward this request exemplifies the institutional bias in Congress against saving taxpayer dollars.

The Democrats? approach has been to deny the existence of government waste. A high-ranking appropriations official recently claimed that cutting waste is impossible because every entitlement dollar goes to a legitimate recipient. In other words, not a dollar is lost to administrative waste or efficiencies, and no one is cheating federal programs. Such nonsense is the product of political spin: Deny the existence of government waste, then tell seniors and veterans that mean-spirited budget cutters are gunning for their Medicare and veteran?s benefits. That message is as powerful as it is misleading.

Yet Republicans deserve even more blame. As the majority party, they chair every congressional committee. Republican committee chairmen could have directed their staffs to identify instances of waste, fraud, and abuse for the committee?s Republican majority to approve.
Its obviously a systemic problem. One that should be looked into more thoroughly.
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
1
71
Originally posted by: sbp
Yep, time for budget cuts. Certainly for anything non-national security related. :)

With a Republican controlled government???

Never happen....unless it's for something that benefits the average person...tnen they'll keep trying to get rid of it.

Too many people still fall for campaign slogans.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: amok
Amok - There are lots of us "conservatives" that abhor government waste. I wish there was a truly conservative candidate running for President - he'd(she'd) get my vote. Bush has allowed the left to get their fingers on his social/economic agenda and has thus alienated quite a few of us on a few issues. Letting Ted Kennedy write bills for him? What was he thinking? I think I know what he is trying to do but I don't think it's neccessary to compromise your base principles just to gain support. Hopefully in his second term he will become a Conservative again.
Lol, not all libs are fiscally incompetent Cad ;). But, to get to the meat of what I was trying to point out I'll give you a different quote from the article:
The contempt both parties displayed toward this request exemplifies the institutional bias in Congress against saving taxpayer dollars.

The Democrats? approach has been to deny the existence of government waste. A high-ranking appropriations official recently claimed that cutting waste is impossible because every entitlement dollar goes to a legitimate recipient. In other words, not a dollar is lost to administrative waste or efficiencies, and no one is cheating federal programs. Such nonsense is the product of political spin: Deny the existence of government waste, then tell seniors and veterans that mean-spirited budget cutters are gunning for their Medicare and veteran?s benefits. That message is as powerful as it is misleading.

Yet Republicans deserve even more blame. As the majority party, they chair every congressional committee. Republican committee chairmen could have directed their staffs to identify instances of waste, fraud, and abuse for the committee?s Republican majority to approve.
Its obviously a systemic problem. One that should be looked into more thoroughly.
I don't "defend" the Republicans against their current lax stance on cleaning up the budget. I support any call for cleaning up gov't spending - no matter where it comes from. Waste is waste - period and I see ALOT of it...I get reminded of such waste in black and white every paycheck;)

I guess it's like this - I'd rather support those that don't wish to add entitlements that will never go away and will only get bigger. Republicans have tended to do that(until Bush and his "I'll appease the left" prescription drug crap) and that is mainly why I support them over the Democrats. If they (Democrats and liberals) weren't for FORCING me to pay for everyone else with their entitlements and "feel good" programs - they might have a shot at getting my vote. I will not apologize for that stance, because I feel that we should all willingly help those who can't help themselves - NOT let the gov't FORCE us to do so. Could you imagine what could be done for people if there wasn't a bureaucratic mess filtering the money and aid?

CkG
 

Rubicante

Senior member
Sep 11, 2003
273
0
0
yeah, but none of this matters since the world is going to run out of fossil fuels in not too terribly long.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
So on one hand the government is subsidizing the Big Medicine of their contributors lobby Pharmacutical, certain HMO type corporate organizations -
so they can overcharge the out-of-pocket under-insured to further proffit even after having de-frauded government for taxpayers money,

On the other hand we have a huge amount of our countries finacial resources and future prosperity into an occupation of a foriegn country.
The claim of the original 79 billion cost and then the additional 87 billion requested brings the present financial investment to 166 billion.
1) A high amount of that cost is what would have been expended on the Militarys cost anyway, wages, equipment, ect.
2) A high amount is beeing spent to replenish our arsnal which was severly depleted during our initial softening of the target.
3) the rest goes to contractor support - the Root & Browns, and Haliburtons of the world (One and the same)

What financial resources we haven't had taken by fradulent Bio-Med Industries, or given as Tax Breaks to the most wealthy chosen 1,000 or so,
is being directed into businesses and corporations under some level of close associate insider control - Energy, Petro-Chem, Blah blah.

Look at Halibutron - Cheney WAS thier CEO, because HE had the right inside government contracts.
Bush picks him to find a Vice President candidate, he picks himself.
He places his 'Investment' in Haliburton into a 'Blind Trust' - so he gets to keep evrything that goes in until he completes his tenure.
It's in his own personal best intrest that Haliburton gets all it can while he's the Veep, he gets the %%%.

Follow the money - How much of the "IRAQ" money goes to Iraq ? Not much after we pay off our "Coalition of the Willing", and
the "Contractors" take their cut. There nothing left for Lil' Joe Public, no healthcare, no education, no employment, no retirement.

What's that old saying ? - "All for me, and all for me !"
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Look at Halibutron - Cheney WAS thier CEO, because HE had the right inside government contracts.
Bush picks him to find a Vice President candidate, he picks himself.
He places his 'Investment' in Haliburton into a 'Blind Trust' - so he gets to keep evrything that goes in until he completes his tenure.
It's in his own personal best intrest that Haliburton gets all it can while he's the Veep, he gets the %%%.
Cheney is receiving deferred compensation from Haliburton. That money is insured by a third party insurer. He will receive the same amount no matter what happens to Haliburton.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: amok
Amok - There are lots of us "conservatives" that abhor government waste. I wish there was a truly conservative candidate running for President - he'd(she'd) get my vote. Bush has allowed the left to get their fingers on his social/economic agenda and has thus alienated quite a few of us on a few issues. Letting Ted Kennedy write bills for him? What was he thinking? I think I know what he is trying to do but I don't think it's neccessary to compromise your base principles just to gain support. Hopefully in his second term he will become a Conservative again.
Lol, not all libs are fiscally incompetent Cad ;). But, to get to the meat of what I was trying to point out I'll give you a different quote from the article:
The contempt both parties displayed toward this request exemplifies the institutional bias in Congress against saving taxpayer dollars.

The Democrats? approach has been to deny the existence of government waste. A high-ranking appropriations official recently claimed that cutting waste is impossible because every entitlement dollar goes to a legitimate recipient. In other words, not a dollar is lost to administrative waste or efficiencies, and no one is cheating federal programs. Such nonsense is the product of political spin: Deny the existence of government waste, then tell seniors and veterans that mean-spirited budget cutters are gunning for their Medicare and veteran?s benefits. That message is as powerful as it is misleading.

Yet Republicans deserve even more blame. As the majority party, they chair every congressional committee. Republican committee chairmen could have directed their staffs to identify instances of waste, fraud, and abuse for the committee?s Republican majority to approve.
Its obviously a systemic problem. One that should be looked into more thoroughly.
I don't "defend" the Republicans against their current lax stance on cleaning up the budget. I support any call for cleaning up gov't spending - no matter where it comes from. Waste is waste - period and I see ALOT of it...I get reminded of such waste in black and white every paycheck;)

I guess it's like this - I'd rather support those that don't wish to add entitlements that will never go away and will only get bigger. Republicans have tended to do that(until Bush and his "I'll appease the left" prescription drug crap) and that is mainly why I support them over the Democrats. If they (Democrats and liberals) weren't for FORCING me to pay for everyone else with their entitlements and "feel good" programs - they might have a shot at getting my vote. I will not apologize for that stance, because I feel that we should all willingly help those who can't help themselves - NOT let the gov't FORCE us to do so. Could you imagine what could be done for people if there wasn't a bureaucratic mess filtering the money and aid?

CkG
Oh, but I suppose corporate entitlements are OK, Cad? Would you defend your main-main Iacocca who had to be bailed out by the U.S. gov't to the tune of $1.5 Billion in the 80s? What about the airlines post-9/11? How many billions did they get? $5 Billion? Up to $18 Billion? Where's the personal responsbility for corporate America?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Look at Halibutron - Cheney WAS thier CEO, because HE had the right inside government contracts.
Bush picks him to find a Vice President candidate, he picks himself.
He places his 'Investment' in Haliburton into a 'Blind Trust' - so he gets to keep evrything that goes in until he completes his tenure.
It's in his own personal best intrest that Haliburton gets all it can while he's the Veep, he gets the %%%.
Cheney is receiving deferred compensation from Haliburton. That money is insured by a third party insurer. He will receive the same amount no matter what happens to Haliburton.
Everyone knows what's expected. You get with the understanding and full expectation that you will give. That's how old boys work. Group loyalty and all that rot, mate, right o?

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Cheney is receiving deferred compensation from Haliburton. That money is insured by a third party insurer. He will receive the same amount no matter what happens to Haliburton.
Right, so he's got that whole "plausible deniability" thing covered nicely. Good. Excellent. Now, if we can just keep the players in the secret energy task force an actual secret, there's no way anyone can prove quid-pro-quo.
 

amok

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,342
0
0
I don't "defend" the Republicans against their current lax stance on cleaning up the budget. I support any call for cleaning up gov't spending - no matter where it comes from. Waste is waste - period and I see ALOT of it...I get reminded of such waste in black and white every paycheck

I guess it's like this - I'd rather support those that don't wish to add entitlements that will never go away and will only get bigger. Republicans have tended to do that(until Bush and his "I'll appease the left" prescription drug crap) and that is mainly why I support them over the Democrats. If they (Democrats and liberals) weren't for FORCING me to pay for everyone else with their entitlements and "feel good" programs - they might have a shot at getting my vote. I will not apologize for that stance, because I feel that we should all willingly help those who can't help themselves - NOT let the gov't FORCE us to do so. Could you imagine what could be done for people if there wasn't a bureaucratic mess filtering the money and aid?
I think I've said a few times before that not all of us liberals are for big entitlement programs. I have no problem with valid safety nets, but entitlement programs are pushing in the wrong direction. That being said, I'm also all for repealing the very large tax cuts on the top 1% of the tax brackets and getting our budget under control, as well as making real progress toward paying off some of our debt, and rebuilding some of our utility infrastructure.

And yes, I know personally what one person can do for people if they don't go through all the bureaucratic procedures of getting it done through the government. However, I think that should wait until we clean up some of the mess we're currently leaving for future Americans. Part of that mess is SS reform, and part of it is fiscal reform in general.

Oh, but I suppose corporate entitlements are OK, Cad? Would you defend your main-main Iacocca who had to be bailed out by the U.S. gov't to the tune of $1.5 Billion in the 80s? What about the airlines post-9/11? How many billions did they get? $5 Billion? Up to $18 Billion? Where's the personal responsbility for corporate America?
Corporate entitlements, no. Corporate incentives, yes. I think I'll leave it at that. I was about to start saying how important incentives for R&D are, but that coming from me would probably elicit a few rollie eyes ;).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY