Deficit seen at $500 billion next year

[Tripleshot]

This is the reason Bush will not be re elected. All you people who think his tax givaway is going to by your vote, all those who think SS should be abandonded, all those who think Bush is the savior of the United States sent to vanquish our foes to freedom and democracy, Kiss my rusty dusty.

This loser from Texas is the worst thing that ever was "appointed" to the highest office in the land. In 2004, if you think you're safer and your life is better than 4 years ago, shout how proud of Bush you are while standing in line at the voting booths. See if you don't get the same whoopin that lovely human priest got. You are a rare minority in the real world. All the last minute shennangins Bush and Rove are cooking up for next summer to sway the voters, willl not cover their sorry arses this time. From a healthy surplus to a 500 billion deficit in 3 years, and no economic policy what-so-ever ( Don't even tell me tax cuts worked. Look at the freakin deficit!) there is no way the marketplace is going be salvedged.

I will be so happy when November 2004 comes around. You Bush babies might get your diapers changed then, by new, democratic leadership.😉


Pessimistic analysis from CBO expected Tuesday

 

[rickn]

You Bush babies might get your diapers changed then, by new, democratic leadership.

so that's where all those weapons of mass destruction ended up.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
This is the reason Bush will not be re elected. All you people who think his tax givaway is going to by your vote, all those who think SS should be abandonded, all those who think Bush is the savior of the United States sent to vanquish our foes to freedom and democracy, Kiss my rusty dusty.

This loser from Texas is the worst thing that ever was "appointed" to the highest office in the land. In 2004, if you think you're safer and your life is better than 4 years ago, shout how proud of Bush you are while standing in line at the voting booths. See if you don't get the same whoopin that lovely human priest got. You are a rare minority in the real world. All the last minute shennangins Bush and Rove are cooking up for next summer to sway the voters, willl not cover their sorry arses this time. From a healthy surplus to a 500 billion deficit in 3 years, and no economic policy what-so-ever ( Don't even tell me tax cuts worked. Look at the freakin deficit!) there is no way the marketplace is going be salvedged.

I will be so happy when November 2004 comes around. You Bush babies might get your diapers changed then, by new, democratic leadership.😉


Pessimistic analysis from CBO expected Tuesday

I am still waiting for the democratic plan to balance the budget.

 

[LunarRay]

500b$/150m workers is about a few dinners a piece. Not as much as that when you add in the corporations.. We need getting the economy going so folks can get to work and eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt (slowly).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
500b$/150m workers is about a few dinners a piece. Not as much as that when you add in the corporations.. We need getting the economy going so folks can get to work and eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt (slowly).

When the economy picks up, the defecit should shrink a great deal.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
500b$/150m workers is about a few dinners a piece. Not as much as that when you add in the corporations.. We need getting the economy going so folks can get to work and eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt (slowly).

How much debt has been paid off under GOP presidents?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: LunarRay
500b$/150m workers is about a few dinners a piece. Not as much as that when you add in the corporations.. We need getting the economy going so folks can get to work and eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt (slowly).

How much debt has been paid off under GOP presidents?

The national debt has not contracted in the past 40 years. ANd the year it did contract it was for one year.....

An overspending congress is the problem.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: LunarRay
500b$/150m workers is about a few dinners a piece. Not as much as that when you add in the corporations.. We need getting the economy going so folks can get to work and eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt (slowly).

How much debt has been paid off under GOP presidents?

The national debt has not contracted in the past 40 years. ANd the year it did contract it was for one year.....

An overspending congress is the problem.

Borrowing is the problem. Who is doing the most borrowing?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: LunarRay
500b$/150m workers is about a few dinners a piece. Not as much as that when you add in the corporations.. We need getting the economy going so folks can get to work and eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt (slowly).

How much debt has been paid off under GOP presidents?

The national debt has not contracted in the past 40 years. ANd the year it did contract it was for one year.....

An overspending congress is the problem.

Borrowing is the problem. Who is doing the most borrowing?

There is plenty of blame for both parties here.

 

[Tripleshot]

An overspending congress is the problem.


A republican led congress, with a republican leader in the whitehouse and republican picked cabinet members and judges.

The buck stops in the oval office. (or in this case, it goes to rich supporters wanting handouts and tax favors.)

 

[dmcowen674]

500 Billion, I thought I heard on Rush's show it would be 900 Billion.

 

[DealMonkey]

It seems like a double standard exists - at least for California. At the federal level, deficit spending is seen as OK during an economic downturn. However, when the same scenario exists at the state level, everyone's freaking out and blaming the governor leading to his potential recall. Why is it OK at the federal level, but not in the CA-specific case?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
An overspending congress is the problem.


A republican led congress, with a republican leader in the whitehouse and republican picked cabinet members and judges.

The buck stops in the oval office. (or in this case, it goes to rich supporters wanting handouts and tax favors.)

Of course you realize the tax cut would have only increased this years debt about $100Billion.
But of course the dems did not have an economic stimulus plan.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: LunarRay
500b$/150m workers is about a few dinners a piece. Not as much as that when you add in the corporations.. We need getting the economy going so folks can get to work and eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt (slowly).

How much debt has been paid off under GOP presidents?

The national debt has not contracted in the past 40 years. ANd the year it did contract it was for one year.....

An overspending congress is the problem.

Borrowing is the problem. Who is doing the most borrowing?

There is plenty of blame for both parties here.

Who is doing the most borrowing?

 

[TheBDB]

Wow check out that graph! Deficits bouncing around through the Reagan and Bush I years, 8 straight years of improvement under Clinton, and then a nosedive when Bush II came around. I have no idea why it was like that, but it sure is interesting.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It seems like a double standard exists - at least for California. At the federal level, deficit spending is seen as OK during an economic downturn. However, when the same scenario exists at the state level, everyone's freaking out and blaming the governor leading to his potential recall. Why is it OK at the federal level, but not in the CA-specific case?

I think the difference is that California has to balance the budget. Also people have more control of state reps than federal reps. I hold my state and local reps to the same standards.

There are too many people on the goverment teat to make spending cuts possible at the federal level and this will take decades to undo.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
An overspending congress is the problem.


A republican led congress, with a republican leader in the whitehouse and republican picked cabinet members and judges.

The buck stops in the oval office. (or in this case, it goes to rich supporters wanting handouts and tax favors.)

Of course you realize the tax cut would have only increased this years debt about $100Billion.
But of course the dems did not have an economic stimulus plan.

Shhhh 😉 That's supposed to be a secret😉

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
Wow check out that graph! Deficits bouncing around through the Reagan and Bush I years, 8 straight years of improvement under Clinton, and then a nosedive when Bush II came around. I have no idea why it was like that, but it sure is interesting.

Good thing there was a republican congress at the time, as they rejected the first few budgets clinton tried to put pass.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It seems like a double standard exists - at least for California. At the federal level, deficit spending is seen as OK during an economic downturn. However, when the same scenario exists at the state level, everyone's freaking out and blaming the governor leading to his potential recall. Why is it OK at the federal level, but not in the CA-specific case?

I think the difference is that California has to balance the budget. Also people have more control of state reps than federal reps. I hold my state and local reps to the same standards.

There are too many people on the goverment teat to make spending cuts possible at the federal level and this will take decades to undo.

The difference is that Bush is a Republican and Davis is a Democrat.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: LunarRay
500b$/150m workers is about a few dinners a piece. Not as much as that when you add in the corporations.. We need getting the economy going so folks can get to work and eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt (slowly).

How much debt has been paid off under GOP presidents?

The national debt has not contracted in the past 40 years. ANd the year it did contract it was for one year.....

An overspending congress is the problem.

Borrowing is the problem. Who is doing the most borrowing?

There is plenty of blame for both parties here.

Who is doing the most borrowing?

From a non partison point of view

Current admin, all republican( but enough dems in the senate to cause problems with a filibuster)
Spending is going up

Clinton admin - republican congress reject clintons higher spending bills(where are these guys now)
Debt still rose every year under his admin
Enron learning accounting from the goverment.

Reagan - democratic congress

Debt rose


If seems to me there is more than enough blame to go around. If you think otherwise, you are just a partisan hack.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It seems like a double standard exists - at least for California. At the federal level, deficit spending is seen as OK during an economic downturn. However, when the same scenario exists at the state level, everyone's freaking out and blaming the governor leading to his potential recall. Why is it OK at the federal level, but not in the CA-specific case?

I think the difference is that California has to balance the budget. Also people have more control of state reps than federal reps. I hold my state and local reps to the same standards.

There are too many people on the goverment teat to make spending cuts possible at the federal level and this will take decades to undo.

The difference is that Bush is a Republican and Davis is a Democrat.

ANd davis has a 20% approval rating in california, but that has nothing to do with it.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TheBDB
Wow check out that graph! Deficits bouncing around through the Reagan and Bush I years, 8 straight years of improvement under Clinton, and then a nosedive when Bush II came around. I have no idea why it was like that, but it sure is interesting.

Good thing there was a republican congress at the time, as they rejected the first few budgets clinton tried to put pass.

That would fly, except we still have a GOP congress, and an entirely different fiscal situation. The difference is who is in the White House.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It seems like a double standard exists - at least for California. At the federal level, deficit spending is seen as OK during an economic downturn. However, when the same scenario exists at the state level, everyone's freaking out and blaming the governor leading to his potential recall. Why is it OK at the federal level, but not in the CA-specific case?

I think the difference is that California has to balance the budget. Also people have more control of state reps than federal reps. I hold my state and local reps to the same standards.

There are too many people on the goverment teat to make spending cuts possible at the federal level and this will take decades to undo.

The difference is that Bush is a Republican and Davis is a Democrat.

ANd davis has a 20% approval rating in california, but that has nothing to do with it.

I guess Davis should have declared War on Iraq.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TheBDB
Wow check out that graph! Deficits bouncing around through the Reagan and Bush I years, 8 straight years of improvement under Clinton, and then a nosedive when Bush II came around. I have no idea why it was like that, but it sure is interesting.

Good thing there was a republican congress at the time, as they rejected the first few budgets clinton tried to put pass.

That would fly, except we still have a GOP congress, and an entirely different fiscal situation. The difference is who is in the White House.

Except the senate could easily filibuster this, as they have proven they have the power to filibuster judges. I drop blame on both parties for allowing these spending bills to pass.

Can you fault your party as well. I know I can see the faults in my party.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It seems like a double standard exists - at least for California. At the federal level, deficit spending is seen as OK during an economic downturn. However, when the same scenario exists at the state level, everyone's freaking out and blaming the governor leading to his potential recall. Why is it OK at the federal level, but not in the CA-specific case?

I think the difference is that California has to balance the budget. Also people have more control of state reps than federal reps. I hold my state and local reps to the same standards.

There are too many people on the goverment teat to make spending cuts possible at the federal level and this will take decades to undo.

The difference is that Bush is a Republican and Davis is a Democrat.

ANd davis has a 20% approval rating in california, but that has nothing to do with it.

I guess Davis should have declared War on Iraq.

Maybe he should have declared war on the invasion from the south that is eating up the states budget. Or maybe declared war on the bussiness that are leaving california to more friendly states.