quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

And I sinply don't buy the ballance the budget cries from the Democrats who had 50 years controling the house and never wanted to do it until now.

Yeah.  Those bastards Clinton and Gore equalized the budget deficit, and were well on their way to balancing the budget.  (Then please explain why the actual deficit went up 1.1 trillion during Clintons reign?) All this while building a military that could be used by a criminally incompetent commander in chief to invade sovereign nations overseas with a minimum of muss and fuss and death on our side.  Balancing the budget becomes a problem when an entity has borrowed money that has to be paid back.  (See above).

In order to fund his war and his tax cuts, Bush simply borrows money from the Chinese and prints more to pay it back.  The down side of this for you and I is the money we earn working for a living is now worth less.  The word for that is "inflation."  In fact, not only is inflation lower than during Clinton, but wages are, in real (as in "inflation adjusted") dollars, up 1.7%.

What is odd about the rest of the post is the fact that the Reagan
and Monkeyboy eras showed the most rampant deficit spending
in our countries history (actually, that's not even remotely true.  During both Roosevelt, but more specifically, Trumans tenure, the deficit was in excess of 200% of our gross national product {i.e., a measure of everything we produce} while the deficit currently is less than 7% of same).  Now I would listen to the nonsense spewed by some people about the Democrats being profligate
spenders, but with a Republican president and both houses
controlled by Republicans, our government has succeeded in doubling the national debt and are well on their way to tripling it. (True).

I have to agree with the poster who stated that some people
will believe anything regardless of the empirical evidence to the
contrary. Indeed, hence my notes above.

Just me, etc.  (Equally true...caveat emptor as they say).

Sinergy

A "Sovereign Nation?"
Well, Saddam was "Elected" by 100% to 0% now, wasn't he?

If I recall...Hitler had something approximating 100% of the vote as well.  And your point?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

Also.... Lou Dobbs mentioned the other day, that over the time frame of the next eighteen months, over two trillion dollars worth of balloon payments on adjustable and interest only loans are going to come due - Man.... that's going to be intersting, huh?

quote:

The joy of a strong union job in an industry which cannot possibly be offshored.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring
One was tax cuts...I wish he didn't spend like a Democrat...

Your pointless partisan crack aside, you don't think those two very things form a contradiction?

A. Where will this precious tax cut money go? To the wealthiest paid for by the middle class.

B. Who will get saddled with it? Future generations and certainly the next few presidents.

So I guess economics is not your strong suit. May I ask what is? Your area of competence has managed to elude me.

I don't need to be an expert on economics. I just need to listen to what most economists say about tax cuts. It usually has a positive impact on the economy. In case you haven't noticed, the economy is doing quite well.
And unlike you, I don't blindly repeat the mantra that only the wealthy benefit from tax cuts. Everyone who pays taxes benefits. Now it seems logical to me that the more taxes you pay, the more you benefit from a tax cut. Do you know the percentage of taxes the wealthiest pay compared to everyone else? For your homework, look that fact up, genius. You may find that when you avoid mindlessly spouting rhetoric that belongs on a bumpersticker, and check what the facts really are, you may learn something.
And one more thing, this President is actually spending more than a Democrat. Look that up too.