-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
We're paying for Bush's mismangement
- Thread starter tec699
- Start date
Sysbuilder05
Senior member
Huh...not just WE,were up to our children's,children paying off this latest example of "tinkle down" economics.
Gonna run the same "feel good" scam like they did last year?? That's where you anounce to the media the deficit much higher than you know what it will come in at,and then claim to be economic wizards when its lower than expected. Hey...works for the FOX TV crowd.
Sysbuilder05
Senior member
Eh...say what??
ReiAyanami
Diamond Member
YOU TRAITOROUS UNPATRIOTIC LIAR!!!
you should be reported to the committee
the deficit is a mere $100 billion less than the HALF TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT predicted, so in reality* we are ahead +20%
Here are some more accurate headlines the liberal media won't report:
144,000 Undead American soldiers in Iraq
US trades cotton for $55.5b worth of goods in Oct
Income Tax reduced by 100% for unemployed Americans
*NeoCon reality
you should be reported to the committee
the deficit is a mere $100 billion less than the HALF TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT predicted, so in reality* we are ahead +20%
Here are some more accurate headlines the liberal media won't report:
144,000 Undead American soldiers in Iraq
US trades cotton for $55.5b worth of goods in Oct
Income Tax reduced by 100% for unemployed Americans
*NeoCon reality
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
Total Gross Federal Debt of the United States Government
Gradually increasing annually with inflation playing an obvious role. Not really that soaring, but certainly not moving in a positive direction.
Sysbuilder05
Senior member
Considering the goverment has not run a surplus in about 40 years, I dont know why this surprises anyone.[/quote]
Eh...say what??
[/quote]
linkage
1960 was the last year we ended owing less than the year before.[/quote]
Umm yeah,as far as the National debt goes but the fact remains that in 1997 the defict was wiped out and the Government actually took in more than it paid out leaving a surplus to pay down the National debt. Also the fact that Clinton was stuck with interest payments on trillions in debt that Reagan and Bush ran up making the task that much harder.
But...one interesting note is that between 1/3/2000 and 1/2/2001 we actually ended owing less than the year before by about 23 billion $$. Of course thats not the fiscal year for the Government but it shows what Clinton left Bush with when he took office 18 days later--a balanced budget and a little whittled off of the National debt. Of course Bush squandered it all on ridiculous tax cuts and the economy that went south just like it did when Reagan took office.
Everyone should use that link and look at the MASSIVE debt that Reagan/Bush racked up YEAR after YEAR and then compare it to the Clinton years. Look how many years under Clinton it took to raise the ND a trillion and then look how Reagan was blowing through a trillion per year OR MORE.
Eh...say what??
[/quote]
linkage
1960 was the last year we ended owing less than the year before.[/quote]
Umm yeah,as far as the National debt goes but the fact remains that in 1997 the defict was wiped out and the Government actually took in more than it paid out leaving a surplus to pay down the National debt. Also the fact that Clinton was stuck with interest payments on trillions in debt that Reagan and Bush ran up making the task that much harder.
But...one interesting note is that between 1/3/2000 and 1/2/2001 we actually ended owing less than the year before by about 23 billion $$. Of course thats not the fiscal year for the Government but it shows what Clinton left Bush with when he took office 18 days later--a balanced budget and a little whittled off of the National debt. Of course Bush squandered it all on ridiculous tax cuts and the economy that went south just like it did when Reagan took office.
Everyone should use that link and look at the MASSIVE debt that Reagan/Bush racked up YEAR after YEAR and then compare it to the Clinton years. Look how many years under Clinton it took to raise the ND a trillion and then look how Reagan was blowing through a trillion per year OR MORE.
Engineer
Elite Member
The national debt is a myth.
Can you say...."The Matrix"?
You think that's air you're breathing? Or money you're spending?
Can you say...."The Matrix"?
You think that's air you're breathing? Or money you're spending?
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
Key Points on Making the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent:
Making the 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax cuts permanent would reduce revenues by $1.7 trillion through 2014. Including the added interest payments on the debt, the total increase in budget deficits would be $2.0 trillion.
The 10-year estimate implicitly understates the long-term cost, since repealing the sunsets is a back-loaded tax cut. For example, in 2014 alone, the revenue loss from repealing the expirations would be $330 billion, or about 1.8 percent of GDP.
Depends on what you consider a ridiculous tax cut, I suppose. Of course these statements are not indictments on their own because any tax cut means a revenue loss. If you put faith in the government's own numbers, the deficit as a percent of GDP declines steadily even as the total federal debt steadily works its way up to $10 trillion+.
Debt levels grew continuously no matter who was in office - including the Clinton era. Moreover the budget is a response to the needs of the times. Reagan/Bush Sr = Cold War concerns. Clinton = Chance to downsize the military and reduce spending. Bush Jr = Terrorism concerns. It's not as if Gore or Kerry could have gone a much different route.
Sysbuilder05
Senior member
[/quote]Debt levels grew continuously no matter who was in office - including the Clinton era. Moreover the budget is a response to the needs of the times. Reagan/Bush Sr = Cold War concerns. Clinton = Chance to downsize the military and reduce spending. Bush Jr = Terrorism concerns.
Of course they grow continuously,the next in line pays interest even on a balanced budget. Clinton wasn't contributing to the ND by 1997 but it was increasing because of the massive debt before him. The ND went up as much in the Bush 89-92 years as it did in 8 years of Clinton,so small targeted tax cuts for middle class and a strong economy can slowly bring down the ND. There were no "cold war concerns" by 1989 so what did Bush blow all the money on?
[/quote]It's not as if Gore or Kerry could have gone a much different route.[/quote]
BS....Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq without proof postive of their involment in 9/11. Simply looking carefully at the intellegence and trusting inspectors would have told anyone but Bush that SH had no WMD nor the capability to manufacture. But then again Gore wouldn't have had a VP with an "ex" company who needed to make a quick 10 BILLION to pay off asbestos lawsuits. We've already blown through $150 billion (200 billion budgeted) tax $$$ in that disaster with no end in sight. Meanwhile OBL cuts videos over in Pakistan and Al Quida is regrouping in Saudia Arabia.
Bush is like the guy who loses a dollar at night on the street corner but looks for it over on the next block because the street light works on that corner......
Of course they grow continuously,the next in line pays interest even on a balanced budget. Clinton wasn't contributing to the ND by 1997 but it was increasing because of the massive debt before him. The ND went up as much in the Bush 89-92 years as it did in 8 years of Clinton,so small targeted tax cuts for middle class and a strong economy can slowly bring down the ND. There were no "cold war concerns" by 1989 so what did Bush blow all the money on?
[/quote]It's not as if Gore or Kerry could have gone a much different route.[/quote]
BS....Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq without proof postive of their involment in 9/11. Simply looking carefully at the intellegence and trusting inspectors would have told anyone but Bush that SH had no WMD nor the capability to manufacture. But then again Gore wouldn't have had a VP with an "ex" company who needed to make a quick 10 BILLION to pay off asbestos lawsuits. We've already blown through $150 billion (200 billion budgeted) tax $$$ in that disaster with no end in sight. Meanwhile OBL cuts videos over in Pakistan and Al Quida is regrouping in Saudia Arabia.
Bush is like the guy who loses a dollar at night on the street corner but looks for it over on the next block because the street light works on that corner......
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
