If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Bush proposes $2.4 trillion budget   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 415
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

10038 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2004 at 10:17 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



415 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2004-02-02 10:19:13 AM
Oh boy, here we go again!!!
 
2004-02-02 10:19:29 AM
Man alive. Every time I read the news, that budget gets bigger.

I'd better stop reading the news.
 
2004-02-02 10:20:14 AM
Who's going to start the flames on this one?

But honestly, who didn't see this one coming?
 
2004-02-02 10:20:50 AM
Most of it is earmarked for education and environmental protection, right?



/look out...
 
2004-02-02 10:21:01 AM
But its ok..... because he had Subway for lunch and saved money on his car insurance by switching to bikini snow volleyba....errrr um Geico.
 
2004-02-02 10:21:08 AM
That's a lot of pesos.
 
2004-02-02 10:21:12 AM
Why not infinity +1 dollars. This guy is way too liberal.
 
2004-02-02 10:21:34 AM
can't we just have the treasury print off a trillion dollar bill or two?
 
2004-02-02 10:21:49 AM
oh boy...more flame'n

these right/left wars get me through the work day!

thanks fark!

/back to lurking
 
2004-02-02 10:21:50 AM
He's working his way up to the bazillions...
 
2004-02-02 10:21:56 AM
I heard a $521 billion deficit is known as being "conservative."

Who's going to pay that all off?

Oh, wait. I am. And you are. If they spread it out equally over every American, that's about $2000 each of us will have to pay just for this year.
 
2004-02-02 10:22:24 AM
Sounds good to me. Just stick the bill to him and his oil cowboys..they can afford it.
 
2004-02-02 10:22:53 AM
Who's going to start the flames on this one?

What the heck...

"However, Democrats immediately attacked the spending proposal for what they viewed as harmful reductions in various government programs"

Bush proposes largest budget ever.

Democrats complain that he's not spending enough.
 
2004-02-02 10:23:00 AM
Thank god for Bush. That money is earmarked for job growth!!!
 
2004-02-02 10:23:09 AM
Good thing he's not one of those "tax and spend" democrats.
 
2004-02-02 10:23:17 AM
Bubbaprog

cBS wouldn't show a commercial that asked that same question you just did about Who was going to pay off the deficit.

They said it was "too political"

Funny that.
 
2004-02-02 10:23:33 AM
Son of Thunder: That doesn't work; Bush doesn't read the news, yet still it grows.
 
2004-02-02 10:23:41 AM
....and all of it is allocated for a huge diamond encrusted Texas pendant. The President was quoted as saying "Don't hate - I needs to shine, I needs my bling."
 
2004-02-02 10:24:18 AM
Republicans argue that the deficit is leverage for tighter price control on spending

Democrats argue that the deficit is is an example of the economy not being handled correctly

Each party leverages it for their own gain-- so who cares? :P Our GNP is just fine so who gives a shiate if we've got a rather pricey platinum card--
 
2004-02-02 10:25:18 AM
Who's going to pay that all off?

Oh, wait. I am. And you are. If they spread it out equally over every American, that's about $2000 each of us will have to pay just for this year.


Nah...let's just wait a few years until the baby boomers retire en masse and the tax burden falls squarely on young punks like me.

/still drunk...pay no attention here
 
fha
2004-02-02 10:25:26 AM
Ooh, you could have $400 for every human on earth with that sort of cash.
 
2004-02-02 10:25:27 AM
The Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency were targeted for the biggest reductions.

This man is butt raping our country.
~B~
 
2004-02-02 10:25:30 AM
That doesn't work; Bush doesn't read the news, yet still it grows.

Curses! Foiled again!
 
2004-02-02 10:25:55 AM
Ha, it doesn't even include Afghanistan or Iraq costs in it. That's hilarious.
 
2004-02-02 10:26:25 AM
"Our nation remains at war," Bush said in his budget message. "This nation has committed itself to the long war against terror. And we will see that war to its inevitable conclusion: the destruction of the terrorists."


GOP: the party of fiscal conservatives and small government.

Would you ditto heads like some mayo with your hypocrisy?
 
2004-02-02 10:26:39 AM
those silly tax and spend democrats.....
 
2004-02-02 10:26:53 AM
Yet some agencies are facing severe cutbacks. There will probably be some RIFs in DoC and other departments not tied to the military.

Maybe it's time to send the resume to Haliburton. At least I'd be assured a job for the next 4 years if (when?) Bush is re-elected...
 
2004-02-02 10:27:02 AM
The government should send each of us photos of the Iraqis we're adopting. Give us that warm 'n fuzzy feeling about it.
 
2004-02-02 10:27:28 AM
Oh boy, here we go again!!!

Here comes that certain kind of thread
That some folks love and some folks dread
Me? I'll sit on the side lines
Composing silly and snide rhymes.

As far as Bush's budget plan
There's little faith I've in the man
With all he's spent and all he's done
He's truly the prodigal son.
 
2004-02-02 10:27:33 AM
boring... more Janet tit shots!
 
2004-02-02 10:28:01 AM
Every time I read that figure, I imagine him putting his pinky to the corner of his lip.

/got nothin'
 
2004-02-02 10:28:28 AM
"To battle the soaring deficits, Bush proposed squeezing scores of government programs and sought outright spending cuts in seven of 16 Cabinet-level agencies. The Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency were targeted for the biggest reductions."

Sure, reduce the funding for the farmers of America who are having trouble enough as it is with the farked up weather. The enviorment? Hah! What has the enviorment ever done for us? We need to spend money on finding out who is using steroids and then sending them to the moon.

This president is the king of diversions. If the economy isn't going well, start a war, if the war isn't going well, declare war on space, if that freaks people out, give them tax cuts, and so on and so on and so on. 9 more months, nine more months.....nine more months.....
 
hlx
2004-02-02 10:28:32 AM
He's only doing it because he knows that he wont be around to clear up the mess...
 
2004-02-02 10:28:36 AM
Spend and untax Republicans. Brilliant economic strategy!

Oh Canada!
 
2004-02-02 10:29:01 AM
Where are the Rush fans? Where are the "self made men" like Mr. Bastardo? I want to hear what imaginary drivel comes out of them on this one.
 
2004-02-02 10:29:28 AM
I just want to point out that Bush is NOT from Texas. He's from Connecticut. Don't blame Texas.

Thanks!
 
2004-02-02 10:29:42 AM
cheyenne

Yet the reason for the budget is "we are still at war."

Ughs. There are a lot of republicans I like and admire.
Bush however, is not one of them.
 
2004-02-02 10:30:41 AM
Is it too late for Civil War 2.0?
 
2004-02-02 10:30:43 AM
Son of Thunder

Maybe it's not so much the overall spending as what he's spending it on (see: Iraq War, and various other stupid programs which will cost lots of money and still not work)
 
2004-02-02 10:30:44 AM
Bush would boost military spending by 7 percent in 2005, but that does not include the money needed to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Officials said a supplemental request for these funds will be sent to Congress but not until after the November elections.

Gee, I wonder why...
 
2004-02-02 10:30:52 AM
Cowboy Spencer

A bit of dixie chicks in ya?
 
2004-02-02 10:30:52 AM
Not a big fan of Bush's spending policy so far, but it seems like he's asking current organizations like the DA and EPA to tighten their spending habits and be better stewards of the people's money. More government agencies need to follow suit.
 
2004-02-02 10:31:29 AM
Bush schmush.
 
2004-02-02 10:31:34 AM
Dubya is my hero. Flame on.
Like Clinton was Christ. What a farking joke.
I voted for Kane myself.
 
2004-02-02 10:31:48 AM


Let's see, how much is that is 1960's dollars?
 
2004-02-02 10:32:02 AM
yabbut, Clinton got a bj!
 
2004-02-02 10:32:20 AM
 
2004-02-02 10:32:49 AM
"The Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency were targeted for the biggest reductions."

Well, yes of course. *sigh*
 
2004-02-02 10:33:27 AM
 
2004-02-02 10:33:31 AM
SanchezSucio

Just think just about any guy named Sanchez can live in the country thanks to dubya's amnesty. Bwahaha...

But don't listen to the armchair quarterbacks--
 
2004-02-02 10:33:48 AM
This isn't a surprise. Look at the way Shrub ran his oil companies into the ground.
 
2004-02-02 10:33:52 AM
spending like a democrat....
 
2004-02-02 10:33:54 AM
Wow, I get to vote Democrat this year for the first time ever. Thanks G. W.
 
2004-02-02 10:33:54 AM
and this is why my fellow canadians, you should not vote for a neo-conservative. ever.



/vote NDP
 
2004-02-02 10:34:13 AM
Bush would boost military spending by 7 percent in 2005, but that does not include the money needed to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Officials said a supplemental request for these funds will be sent to Congress but not until after the November elections.

Am I reading that right?
 
2004-02-02 10:35:05 AM
A bit of dixie chicks in ya?

Would that the inverse were true
And Natalie I got to do
I'd like to make her furry purr
and put a little me in her.
 
2004-02-02 10:35:32 AM
Clarification: by ever, I mean in a presidential election.
I don't just tab down the party line at the voter booth.
 
2004-02-02 10:35:47 AM
If you are reading that as "Don't tell the American people how much they are actually paying until we're reelected" then, yup, you are reading it right.
 
2004-02-02 10:35:50 AM
Khan that was hilarious in a very sick humor sort of way...

Anyways, I have been lied to. I was lead to believe that neo-conservatives could do moves like Neo in the Matrix.
 
2004-02-02 10:35:54 AM
Those damned borrow-and-spend Republicans!
 
2004-02-02 10:35:56 AM
In other news, the Bush Administration just ruled that mercury isn't a toxin. No, I'm not joking. They just reached that decision in the latest Federal Registrar. So much for sound science.
 
2004-02-02 10:36:01 AM
At the same time China is growing bigger by the minute, whats that sound? cccooooommmmuunnnnniiiisssstttttssss wwwwwwwwiiiiiinnnnnnnsssssss
bah thats just the wind talking
 
2004-02-02 10:36:10 AM
Agriculture and Environment getting hurt under this budget? What a shocker... I mean, I thought "compassionate conservativism" meant that he was supposed to give a shiat about things aside from big business.

I guess he does, though, because no conservative would've worked so hard to make the federal government even more bulbous, massive, and intrusive. Thanks a lot, Georgie. I'll keep this all in mind come November.
 
2004-02-02 10:36:41 AM
elypse

I thought I was reading that right. Thanks for the clarification.
 
2004-02-02 10:37:05 AM
yes, you are. The money for those operations comes from separate requests.
 
2004-02-02 10:37:32 AM
That's all fine and dandy, as long as he actually has that much money to spend.

Mother#@*&*@%
 
2004-02-02 10:38:02 AM
SherKhan

Man, I sure do enjoy those little gems.

~B~
 
2004-02-02 10:38:07 AM
"This nation has committed itself to the long war against terror...

Committed itself?! Check again, pal.
 
2004-02-02 10:38:08 AM
"For me, the bottom line is that only divided government can control spending excess. If you're a fiscal conservative, you've got to split the ticket if you want some restraint. The Republicans are no better and arguably worse than the Democrats at stiffing their own special interest groups. So in an era of Republican dominance in Congress, the case for a sane Democrat in the White House is getting stronger."

-Andrew Sullivan
 
2004-02-02 10:38:16 AM
Nah...let's just wait a few years until the baby boomers retire en masse and the tax burden falls squarely on young punks like me.

I can't wait for the Boomers to get sent to the same old-folks-homes that they sent their parents to.
 
2004-02-02 10:38:24 AM
caiteach

That does it. Whatever the hell that ol' Shrubby is toking up on, I want some.

So when he runs the country into the ground, I can just sit around and be high, ignoring it.
 
2004-02-02 10:39:26 AM
Cutting the EPA's budget is ridiculous. Cutting the Dept. of Agriculture's is not. The vast majority of farms today are corporate monstrosities anyway. Its just another form of corporate welfare. What? Bush cutting corporate welfare? Thats unpossible. Subsidies for programs like ethanol production are a complete waste of money, too.
 
2004-02-02 10:40:01 AM
Compy 386

Bush would boost military spending by 7 percent in 2005, but that does not include the money needed to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Officials said a supplemental request for these funds will be sent to Congress but not until after the November elections.

Am I reading that right?


Yes. George's budget for 2.4 TRILLION does not include the billions upon billions of dollars in costs that grow daily as US troops occupy Afghanistan and Iraq. He didn't throw it in the budget because it was sure to get shot down, because everyone's getting rather sick of it.

Instead, he'll petition congress at the very last second for money for the troops, so that the army and navy don't find themselves in hostile areas without supplies. Nobody'd vote against it then.
 
2004-02-02 10:40:42 AM
Gee CanadianCommie how do you promise that the NDP would not spend like drunken sailors? Not like they will ever get elected..
 
2004-02-02 10:40:46 AM
Ya, Mis parientes pueden venir aka. Van a vender chicle i sexo por las equinas.
Encienden adelante/flame on!
 
2004-02-02 10:41:04 AM
Just to give you an idea about the numbers you're looking at:
the deficit alone (521 bn $) is almost twice as big as the entire federal budget of the world's third largest economy (Germany-population of 80 million).
It's almost enough to give ev'ry person on earth $8 and a candy bar!

//My head just exploded !!
 
2004-02-02 10:41:11 AM
Nobody ever said being the worlds only Imperial Death Star was going to come cheap.
 
2004-02-02 10:41:18 AM
bubbaprog
If they spread it out equally over every American, that's about $2000 each of us will have to pay just for this year.

The American Aristocracy would love that. Use the government/capitalism to their enormous benefit, while crushing everyone else, and then make everyone pay equally......


waaa, waaaa, waaa. "I can't keep my kids in private school AND buy the new yacht AND pay membership dues at the country club!!!! I pay ten times the amount of one of my former business competitors who I extorted out of business! what gross inequality!"
 
2004-02-02 10:41:18 AM
The old philosophy:

Teach a man to fish, and he'll feed himself for life.

The new philosophy:

Teach a man to write a campaign contribution, and he'll feed off government pork for life.
 
2004-02-02 10:41:31 AM
Fark Bush. The guy is out of control. PERIOD.

Thats all that needs to be said.
 
2004-02-02 10:41:39 AM
SherKhan

Rap battle!

Your rhymes are outdone
By a man with a gun
Who sits on a throne
In a DC commode
Dubya's got yo' numba
And he's gonna rumba
with Iraq and 'Ghan'stan
Because that was rumsfeld's plan
.... yo
 
2004-02-02 10:41:42 AM
... Is that all
 
2004-02-02 10:41:45 AM
CanadianCommie:

I've been supporting NDP since I was a toddler, but in the upcoming election I might have to throw my vote to the liberals just to make sure the conservatives don't get a strong foothold. There's something about that billionaire chick that scares me, and if she wins the party leadership, the liberals might need help.

Then again with Martin now shelving gay-marriages, I might just say fark them all and stick with the NDP.
 
2004-02-02 10:42:55 AM
Not a big fan of Bush's spending policy so far, but it seems like he's asking current organizations like the DA and EPA to tighten their spending habits and be better stewards of the people's money. More government agencies need to follow suit.

Cute slogan. But that isn't the way it really works. What really happens is that basic law-enforcement functions that oversee corporations get cut, and so crooked companies continue to poison our air and get feces and BSE in our food. And, as a reward, they write big checks to Republicans.

Non-defense discretionary spending is a tiny fraction of the budget; it is simply impossible to counter Bush's spending (read: corporate welfare) with cuts in that area. Meanwhile, the fraction of the budget that goes to servicing the debt just gets bigger and bigger.

The real problem, as any economist can tell you, is revenue - which has been gutted since Bush cut the taxes on corporations and the ultra-rich. Not that this will stimulate growth - the country saw its longest sustained growth rate when tax rates on the rich were highest. Not that the supply-side cultists will ever mention this...
 
2004-02-02 10:43:33 AM
Fools and their money are soon parted!!!!!!
He unites ... ha ha ha ha ha
 
2004-02-02 10:43:51 AM
Could this conceivably be taxation without representation? What representation do I realistically have here? Be serious, I don't believe our farmers should be abandoned, our troops should be sorting out this madness in Iraq or that the EPA should be gutted yet the budget will probably make it through the Republican Congress.

I don't believe this will start Civil War part II, I am begining to think it will be more like Revolutionary War revisited.

If this idiot doesn't get voted out in November I think some of the actions that have been threatened here onFark will elevate Timothy McVeigh to the status of a day care worker.

God save us all ('cause if he don't nobody else will)
 
2004-02-02 10:44:16 AM
CanadianCommie

I didn't know there were commies in Alberta.
You learn something everyday, ever checkout www.rabble.ca ?
 
2004-02-02 10:44:21 AM
Cutting the ag department isn't a new idea. John Kerry had this same idea:

"I think we can reduce the size of Washington," Kerry said on January 6, 1996. "Get rid of the Energy Department. Get rid of the Agriculture Department, or at least render it three-quarters the size it is today; there are more agriculture bureaucrats than there are farmers in this country..."
 
2004-02-02 10:44:33 AM
sooooooo . . . the $500 billion is coming from where? reminds me of something my neighbor told me about his job. He was lucky he got to the bank first last week; his employers had been cutting checks their bank account couldn't cash. Sounds like Bush and Asscroft have heard of it, and enacted it as policy. He's saying that by spending over $500 billion more than he gets in taxes, he can cut the amount that he won't be getting in half? Maybe I'm confused? No, wait. I AM confused. He's speding $2.4 trillion, and hoping to get a little over $2.1 trillion back? Backwards economics, anyone? Shouldn't he be spending $2.1 trillion and getting back $2.4 trillion(or more)? If this is government spending, why not just put a monkey in the whitehouse and let him run rampant . . . oh, wait...

/real questions followed by flaim bait
//sorry, I can't take any pain meds with surgery coming up.
 
2004-02-02 10:45:03 AM
2004-02-02 10:27:33 AM Rhymhoont
boring... more Janet tit shots!




Substituting repulsion for boredom is no way to go through life.
 
2004-02-02 10:45:15 AM
People will get all riled up about this until they receive their next $400 check in the mail, and then all will be right with the world again for them. Just keep those checks coming and you'll get no resistence at all.
 
2004-02-02 10:46:58 AM
The president projects the 2005 deficit will be $364 billion, down from a projected record high deficit in dollar terms of $521 billion this year. He pledged to cut that in half over the next five years.

Ha ha - Like he's gonna be around for the next five years. After all - Fool us once - shame on you . . . .

Oh - wait a minute. We ARE that stupid, aren't we?
 
2004-02-02 10:48:04 AM
But it's not the President's fault, really! It's all because of Congress, controlled by the... oh, wait.

/voting not Bush
 
2004-02-02 10:48:05 AM
er . . . shame on us.
 
2004-02-02 10:48:24 AM
Acornman: Most people I know would have sent their three hundred f-ing dollars back had they known we were going to get in this much trouble.
 
2004-02-02 10:48:41 AM
Spaztictacular

Sure, reduce the funding for the farmers of America who are having trouble enough as it is with the farked up weather. The enviorment? Hah! What has the enviorment ever done for us? We need to spend money on finding out who is using steroids and then sending them to the moon.

Coming from the mouth of a liberal son of a liberal family farmer, My father has never seen a dime of this so called Agricultural Subsidization. It all goes to corporate farms who use the subsidies to crush the family farms.
 
2004-02-02 10:48:51 AM
I never thought I'd say this, but H. Ross Perot isn't looking so bad now.
 
2004-02-02 10:48:52 AM
Johnny_Canuck
Gee CanadianCommie how do you promise that the NDP would not spend like drunken sailors? Not like they will ever get elected..

I'm a 100% liberal but I see the pupose of the NDP, they may never get into power but there needed on the political landscape and the same goes for the old PC party, now the alliance, thats another story.
 
2004-02-02 10:49:21 AM
Hey, Let's put in perspective. That's only about a dollar a second for 70,000 years.
 
2004-02-02 10:49:27 AM
He did predict that Superbowl would be a very close game. And you people keep calling him dumb.
 
2004-02-02 10:49:32 AM
AcornMan

Funny you bring that up, I was looking over my W-2s today and was wondering if anyone *had* gotten those checks for 2003, or do they show up next year?

What's the point of that if we end up so far in debt our dollar falls to nothing against other countries?

Hell, we are going to be even with Canada's dollar we keep this up.

(Side note, I have nothing against Canada).
 
2004-02-02 10:49:45 AM
well after the binge late 90's - someone's got to pick up the tab.

the big bubble. yeah, it's gone. really. no kidding, and the profit taking was spectacular. no, no, no one knows. right. well, what's a million now days.

anyways, they will not understand it, and by the time they do the cash reserves will be 'spent,' on consultants hired to help us avoid spending the cash reserves. yeah. yeah.
dot com willie. let the music play. we will get away.
 
2004-02-02 10:49:58 AM
Dear Congress,

Do what you like. Stupid farkers that don't vote complain and whine like babies so they can appear witty on the Internet.

Don't bother defeating ridiculous spending measures because people aren't going to vote anyway.

Sincerely,

Common Sense
 
2004-02-02 10:50:26 AM
He needs all that money for his sharks with the friggin' "laser" beams attached to their FRIGGIN' foreheads so he can finish his world domination!!

 
2004-02-02 10:50:33 AM
aztex999,

The average American is going to pay more attention to the results from Survivor than this. I think the government will have to come crashing down around their ears before most people even give news like this more than a passing glance.
 
2004-02-02 10:50:44 AM
Friendly Canadian Neighbors: Does NDP stand for National Democratic Party?

/thanks
 
2004-02-02 10:51:07 AM
caiteach

In other news, the Bush Administration just ruled that mercury isn't a toxin. No, I'm not joking. They just reached that decision in the latest Federal Registrar. So much for sound science.

Linky linky? This I gotta see...
 
2004-02-02 10:51:19 AM
Seriously, are we kidding with this guy as our president?

Is their a worse combination in a politician than fiscally liberal (with a side of government expansion) and socially conservative?

Will America be fooled into thinking his huge budget is kinda-sorta affordable even though he didn't include two of our bigger expenses in its calculation?

Is it November yet?
 
2004-02-02 10:52:15 AM
Well, once again we have a posse of confused Farkers who haven't been paying attention and somehow believe radical right-wing republicans have your future and well-being in mind. Don't get how tax cuts for the rich and wild military spending can possibly make sense? Don't understand why anyone in his right mind would do something so fiscally and economically reckless? Wonder where it all leads?

Well, I'm gonna do y'all a favor and give you the shortcut to understanding.

Google Grover Norquist.

Google Grover Norquist and read about his philosophy and plans.

And kiss Social Security and Medicare and highway funding and everything else goodbye, Farkers. Into the bargain, look forward to drastically reduced compensation for your labor, competition with 3rd Worlders for every underpaid job in America, and the sale of all non-defense or police-state related federal assets to the very same people who are getting the tax cuts.

In short, welcome to the New Gilded Age, Farkers. I hope y'all will enjoy being indentured servants.
 
2004-02-02 10:53:16 AM
poorgirl: Candian and European protectionist subsidies[ie: Socialismorons] can't last as long as US deficits. Think Soviet Union and US spending machine.

BYE BYE euro-enlightenment emo-bots.
 
2004-02-02 10:53:31 AM
Where are the Bush supporters? How are you going to defend this?
 
2004-02-02 10:53:38 AM
My credit card people called and I told them I was running deficits right now in order to gaurentee that they will get their money in the future, I just need about 35 years. The guy hung up on me.
 
2004-02-02 10:54:15 AM
the_pgoat
Friendly Canadian Neighbors: Does NDP stand for National Democratic Party?

NDP = New Democratic Party

To put the party's platform in terms American farkers can understand, you might want to think of them as a real "socialist" party.
 
2004-02-02 10:55:04 AM
Link to the Federal Registrar

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

The coal electric mercury draft rule is at

69 FR 4652 (30 January 2004) featuring one hearing at an
unknown place and a 60 day comment period ending 30 March.
 
2004-02-02 10:55:30 AM
re: New Democratic Party

Lot's of good ideas, but big government/big spending ultra lefties. Red ink gushed and we had to kick them out quick before they bankrupted us.
 
2004-02-02 10:55:34 AM
2004-02-02 10:49:45 AM ocsnow

"the big bubble. yeah, it's gone. really. no kidding, and the profit taking was spectacular. no, no, no one knows. right. well, what's a million now days. "

really understand your post, no I don't, yes I do, no kidding, she's my daughter, my sister, my daughter, my sister
 
2004-02-02 10:56:50 AM

What bothers me is the amount of money earmarked for programs pushing what Bush thinks is moral. Programs like random drug testing for high school kids, abstanence programs rather then sex ed and encouraging marrage (but only the right kind, sorry gay folks).

I already had a mother who taught me right from wrong, I don't need another.

 
2004-02-02 10:57:05 AM
Sven Jolly
re: New Democratic Party
Lot's of good ideas, but big government/big spending ultra lefties. Red ink gushed and we had to kick them out quick before they bankrupted us.

Its almost worth voting NDP to see the look on Bush's face when they introduce him to Prime Minister Jack Layton.
 
2004-02-02 10:57:07 AM
george bush invented the deficit to get to linseed oil
out from old tables.

before bush, there was NO deficit.

the democrats do not use deficit spending,
vote for them.

____


http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
 
2004-02-02 10:57:42 AM
Well put Robobagpiper. I would love to be able to read exactly where the areas are most affected and how. It seems like too broad of a generalization to simply write the EPA and DA will be hardest hit.

From my own personal experience the defense spending initiated, military equipment acquisition and R&D specifically, are in dire need of both additional funding and better stewardship. Hate to throw stones but the Clinton era gutted the American military and sent its acquisition community into a r&d tailspin. So his proposal is filled with some fluff. Congress will likely gut it in the process of getting it passed. Checks and balances in action.
 
2004-02-02 10:57:47 AM
Right on, canyoneer. Here's a quick test:

Do you own multiple houses, and move based upon the weather?

Do you earn more on the market than you would actually getting up in the morning and going somewhere?

Are you concerned that the guys at the Club giggle at the size of your plane?

If you've answered "no" to all of these questions, then Bush is probably not looking out for your interests.
 
2004-02-02 10:59:07 AM
canyoneer: Medicare and Social Security and Highway funding goodbye? Holy shiat Please, please please, give us that, er, stop taking that rather.

"Tax Cuts for the rich"? More like INCOME tax cuts for people that PAY INCOME TAXES.

Google Jeff Rense.

Google Jeff Rense and Therapy.

I hope you like running, but I'm here to tell you that aliens move faster than progresslaves run.
 
ESH
2004-02-02 10:59:32 AM
I'd give a kidney for even the chance of having an honest to goodness statesman in office next year. GWB is bad, but none of the Dem noms are any better. They are all $$ whores.

It troubles me to live in a country that is basically run by the big corporations and monied special interests. Worse, it bugs me that our politicians keep a majority of the people occupied with what I consider nearly irrelevant platform issues (abortion, school vouchers, death penalty), all the while they are stealing and generally reducing the quality of life for a great majority of us.

I will be voting 3rd Party this year because I don't want to throw my vote away on either a Republican(R) or Republican-Lite(D) candidate.
 
2004-02-02 10:59:49 AM
Thank you, Dubya!

Apparently the deficit is only $521 billion because he's asking Congress not to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax this year.

In other words, taxes on the rich go down. Taxes on the middle class go up under this buffoon.

Is there anyone that still believes conservatives' mindless economic- and tax-slogans?
 
2004-02-02 10:59:53 AM
abbynormal,
"abstanence programs rather then sex ed and encouraging marrage "

I like the program, that helps people learn how to use a spell checker.
 
2004-02-02 11:00:10 AM
*ponders* Would it seem perhaps more logical to make it a 2 trillion dollar budget and fark off the physco debt levels?

/incredible genius.
 
2004-02-02 11:00:11 AM
Crap, Im gonna have to become awfully rich really fast if this BS keeps up.
At this rate we'll have "The Running Man" and island size prisons in no time.
Where's Snake Plisskin when you need him?
 
2004-02-02 11:01:45 AM
2004-02-02 10:57:47 AM Bladel:

Here is an even quiker test:

Do you make less than $250,000/year?

Then voting for a Republican at any level is masochism (derivation of pleasure from being dominated or mistreated).

Trust me, folks. Look up Grover Norquist to see your future.
 
2004-02-02 11:01:47 AM
No way in hell is he getting my vote. I'm deffinently not one of the Bush haters, he simply can't hold his position well. I'd rather have someone that can do a better job in Washington than the guy thats on my parties ticket.
 
2004-02-02 11:02:20 AM
setaanbomb

"Candian and European protectionist subsidies[ie: Socialismorons] can't last as long as US deficits. Think Soviet Union and US spending machine.

BYE BYE euro-enlightenment emo-bots."

... except Canada is currently running a budget surplus. Keep running your defecits, when nobody answers the phone ("Pssst, don't answer it. It's the US looking to borrow money again."), then you'll know it's big enough.

/... once again CANADA IS RUNNING A BUDGET SURPLUS. In case you missed it. Budget Surplus, Budget Surplus na ni na na naaaah.
 
2004-02-02 11:02:37 AM
Yes, yes, that's all fine and good, but what will this do to my extensive stock holdings? (Peels another shrimp, summons Philippino houseboy for more mimosas and cherries jubilee).

/smart white man
 
2004-02-02 11:02:45 AM
I'm so sick of this BS poor people don't pay taxes line. You've been fed a sound bite that doesn't reflect reality in any way shape or form. I have a friend who only made about $20,000 last year. She ended up owning the IRS $1,000 on her tax return. Does that sound liek she's not paying taxes.
 
2004-02-02 11:02:49 AM
What a stinking joke. Now if this doesn't get him out of office, I am moving to Canada. This is getting insane!!! A projected defecit of $521 BILLION dollars??????
 
2004-02-02 11:02:49 AM
ocsnow

Give it up already. Clinton hasnt been president for 4 years. The republicans control the budget in congress and the executive branch.

"Its all clintons fault" is not going to get Bush any votes outside the halls of the national review.
 
2004-02-02 11:03:50 AM
"the democrats do not use deficit spending,"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHHHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Comedy Arsenio Hall

Deficits only matterred to Democrats after Reagan's tax cuts grew the economy as record rates. Prior to Reagan the Democrats cared about deficits like Hitler cared about Jews.

Democrats didn't battle the deficit. Democrats were beaten down by Republicans in the Congress that USED to care about limiting the proposals of the President. Clinton didn't balance the budget, the Congress wouldn't let him increase the deficit. Clinton also never governed during a federal recession.
 
2004-02-02 11:04:03 AM

Fark has a spell checker?

/looking for the button

 
2004-02-02 11:04:17 AM
More like INCOME tax cuts for people that PAY INCOME TAXES.

Nice half-truth there.

Meanwhile, the payroll taxes of the rich are capped at a middle-class income level, completely offsetting their increase in marginal rate, not to mention the portion of non-payroll income which the non-rich don't have.

Oh, those poor babies. Now the rich pay less as a portion of their total income than the middle class, and yet do we see their sons going off to the wars that they're profiteering off?

Why do angry white men leap to defend the rich so quickly and routinely? These people are making out like bandits. They are not your friends, and you will never be one of them.
 
2004-02-02 11:04:33 AM
Like the post-babyboomers have any chance of ever having decent Social Security! Give up hope now. Get your IRAs/401Ks
 
2004-02-02 11:04:46 AM
Okay, economics isn't one of my strongest points... all these trillions of dollars that we're in debt, I'm curious, who exactly do we owe this money to? Who are we borrowing it from?
 
2004-02-02 11:06:16 AM
Abbynormal,

Yes, it does. Go to your preferences and click on the radio button.
 
2004-02-02 11:07:48 AM
It doesn't matter, he'll still get re-elected. He could've proposed burning the Consitution, invading Poland, and killed a kitten during the State of the Union address and he'd still get re-elected. Why? I don't want to speculate, but it's probably because this country is full of morons.
 
2004-02-02 11:09:26 AM
Do you have any idea how many thousands of sweatshop workers it takes just to keep Paris Hilton in shoes and clothes? The rich spend money and create jobs, they don't waste it on food and shelter the way the poor would.

That's trickle down. An-ti-ci-pation.
 
2004-02-02 11:10:07 AM
 
2004-02-02 11:10:20 AM
OlafTheBent: Budget Surplus doesn't mean shiat when 10% of your workforce is unemployed, the waiting period for a routine physical is 60 days and macro-economic growth is non-existent.

Oh and if you love it when people walk around squeezing one of your balls all the time then move to Canada.
 
2004-02-02 11:10:26 AM
2004-02-02 10:59:07 AM setaanbomb: I see you consider yourself one of the ones who will come out on top. Climbing the old ladder, are ya? Probably a business-school drone, a true believer in the benevolent Invisible Hand of the market. A drinker of the Free Market Kool-Aid.

For your information: The Invisible hand of the market is a fairy tale based on your misapprehension that a free market actually exists, or can exist among human beings anywhere at anytime.

Good luck, setaanbomb. Maybe you'll come out of the shark tank alive and well, and convince yourself that the ones who didn't make it are inferior beings who deserve their fate.

That would be just peachy and fine, eh setaanbomb?
 
2004-02-02 11:10:29 AM
caiteach - Yes, it does.
 
2004-02-02 11:10:47 AM
>>... once again CANADA IS RUNNING A BUDGET SURPLUS. In case you missed it. Budget Surplus, Budget Surplus na ni na na naaaah.Canada is mocking us.

How the mighty have fallen...
 
2004-02-02 11:11:30 AM
[steele]

Sad ain't it? There are definately morons aplenty.

In the large likelyhood this jackass gets re-elected, I think I'm moving to Candada.

~B~
 
2004-02-02 11:11:58 AM
scootah
*ponders* Would it seem perhaps more logical to make it a 2 trillion dollar budget and fark off the physco debt levels?

/incredible genius.


Because your budget has to work with your income.

That would be like me saying that I have a monthly budget of $1 million, having a monthly income of $3000.00, spending $10,000, then saying "Well, I may be $7000.00 in debt, but I'm still well within my budget".

3Horn
 
2004-02-02 11:11:58 AM
[steele]

Agreed.
 
2004-02-02 11:12:27 AM
Alexis
Okay, economics isn't one of my strongest points... all these trillions of dollars that we're in debt, I'm curious, who exactly do we owe this money to? Who are we borrowing it from?

It is my understanding that 66% of the National Debt is borrowed from US citizens in the forms of Bonds. The remaining 34% (or $1.46 trillion) is owned by foreign companies or goverments. Japan is currently the largest foreign holder, with Mainland China being the second largest holder. (TREASURY SECURITIES)
 
2004-02-02 11:12:49 AM
setaanbomb:Clinton also never governed during a federal recession.

According to Bush, it was only a very small recession during the first few months of his presidency. They are all saying the economy is strong and growing. So your point is shot down faster than an Iraqi jet over Baghdad.
 
2004-02-02 11:12:59 AM
I can just imagine the meetings held on this thing.

"OK, so it looks like the budget will be around $2.4 trillion"

"OK, and that includes the $400billion for Iraq?"

"Uh, no. We felt like that would best wait until after the election."

"Well, wont people get upset when they find out we'll really be spending over $3trillion?"

"Well, that's why we wont tell them until after you're in for another 4 years."

"Ok, sweet. Say, how *did* you cut the budget to under $3trillion?"

"Oh, we just took even more money away from agriculture and the environment, as usual. You know, things we dont need to care about since we'll be dead long before there's ever a problem."

"*gasp* But what about the planet we're leaving our children?"

"Hahahaha, good one George."

"Hahaha, Thanks. Pfft, children."
 
2004-02-02 11:13:44 AM


half out taxes go to this
 
2004-02-02 11:13:53 AM
zakarth, I am not competitive
As good as I get I can not give
And now to stay upon the topic:
Bush's outlook is myopic

At Kenneth Lay's feet did he study
How to cook books till they're muddy?
Unbalanced unchecked checks will bounce
As uncounted are off-shore accounts

By off-shore I imply Iraq
The monkey's monkey on our back
In a word it's irresponsible
Far more troublesome than tribbles.

/yo?
 
JPN
2004-02-02 11:14:04 AM
re: In the large likelyhood this jackass gets re-elected, I think I'm moving to Candada.

do us a favor and get the fark out now. one less turd in the US is a good thing.
 
2004-02-02 11:14:40 AM
[steele} - with news like this, how could you possibly think he will get re-elected? He's going to have to pull Osama out of a spider hole or something to make sheeple in America think about something other than the economy and gov't spending come November
 
2004-02-02 11:15:16 AM
budget surplus = dot com bliss

budget deficit = morning after dot com stupidity

don't take it from me, take it from none other than tom daschle:

Daschle: "I think these surplus projections are the fiscal equivalent of the Dot-com stock market. They will continue to be volatile."


http://www.marketplace.org/shows/2000/07/18_mpp.html
 
2004-02-02 11:15:29 AM
caiteach: Nearly everyone that makes 20,000 a year will pay income taxes. Some may not notice it because they establish their witholdings correctly. With tax credits and incentives the $20,000 income earner can pay near zero in INCOME taxes.

Robobagopiper: I see you're a moron, or blind, or maybe just illiterate. Here, I'll cover the spread for your self induced afflictions.

Q) Payroll Taxes are not

1) Income Taxes
2) Income Taxes
3) Income Taxes
4) Income Taxes
 
2004-02-02 11:16:19 AM
I've never been to Candada, but I hears it is really coldada. I like Supercat, he had an album "Don Dada". I think if Bush wins I'll move in with Supercat.
 
2004-02-02 11:17:05 AM
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, called on Congress to reject Bush's spending plan, charging it was the "most antifamily, anti-worker, anti-healthcare, anti-education budget in modern times."

Heh, this made me laugh. Note how good ol' Ted doesn't complain about the size of the budget. He just levels all sorts of bizarre charges.

I mean, how is this budget "anti-healthcare"? After that giant Medicare perscription drug bill, its probably the most "pro-healthcare" budget in years. What's his solution, spend even more? He probably wants to up spending on education also, as the Democrats are heavily influenced by the Teachers Unions.

And how the heck is the budget "antifamily"? Or even "anti-worker"? Is it anti-puppies too?

It's crap like this that worries me, and makes me think that John Kerry would be even worse on the budget. Maybe he'd balance it out with tax hikes... you never know with him. He seems to be all over the map.
 
2004-02-02 11:17:32 AM
Yes, but don't forget, United States is keeping us "safe" by sending their mighty military out on various expansionist misadventures. The Allied expeditionary force never really stopped going on expeditions after WW2 ended.

Just think, if we didn't live next to Big Brother some other country might invade us such as...

Well, no one really. No one in the world has the nads to invade Canada after seeing our Sea Kings in operation.
 
2004-02-02 11:18:16 AM
2004-02-02 11:12:49 AM WorldCitizen
According to Bush, it was only a very small recession during the first few months of his presidency. They are all saying the economy is strong and growing. So your point is shot down faster than an Iraqi jet over Baghdad.

worldcitizen's point is that the economy is strong and that bush actually did a good job of it. this is encouraging news.
 
2004-02-02 11:18:30 AM
Brandito: Like Alec Baldwin, you're lying. I created a website to commemorate this event.

http://www.branditoin30seconds.com
 
2004-02-02 11:19:33 AM
doesn't make mathematical sense to me:

"The president's plan for the 2005 budget year, which begins next Oct. 1, proposes spending $2.4 trillion for all government activities, up 3.5 percent from the current year. Revenues will total $2.04 trillion, a sizable 13.2 percent increase that the administration forecasts will occur from growing tax receipts powered by a stronger economy."

"President Bush sent Congress a $2.4 trillion election-year budget on Monday featuring ... a record $521 billion deficit."

If spending increased 3.5%, but revenues will increase 13.2%... how can the deficit be a record? It seems like if revenues increse more than spending, the deficit would be less... right?
 
2004-02-02 11:19:46 AM
Wow, those Republican patriots are certainly fiscally responsible, especially when they're playing fast and loose with your tax dollars.
I think in the future we should 'elect' more Harvard MBAs to the presidency. This clown's running the US budget into the ground far more efficiently than either Reagan or his daddy did.
 
2004-02-02 11:20:36 AM
2004-02-02 11:07:48 AM [steele]
It doesn't matter, he'll still get re-elected. He could've proposed burning the Consitution, invading Poland, and killed a kitten during the State of the Union address and he'd still get re-elected. Why? I don't want to speculate, but it's probably because this country is full of morons.


Sadly, I bet this is what a lot of our left-leaning FARKers will be writing after this election. If you have a better proposal for how a political system should be run, speak up.
 
2004-02-02 11:20:58 AM
The Republicans would NEVER allow a Democratic President/Congress to spend this kind of money.

I just don't understand how a party that runs on a platform of smaller government and reduced spending can justify this kind of behavior. This is a very liberal spending package. For all the bickering and cross party bad mouthing, they both seem to end up adopting the same policy once in office.

Meh. I'm voting Libertarian in 04.
 
2004-02-02 11:21:10 AM
JPN

Hey, you must be one of those morons [steele] was talking about. How neat for you!

Look, I love my country, I really do. I just can't sit by and watch the Bush administration take every thing that is good about this country and sodomize it.

How could you?

~B~
 
2004-02-02 11:21:29 AM
Rayonic:

Shut up. Education is good, unless you want a stupid population (republicans).

Go Bush. Way to take the EPA out of commission. Yeah, they're way less important than frickin marriage benefits, a 300 bil a year military and rich people.


Peace.
 
2004-02-02 11:23:04 AM
Ah, is there ever a shortage of morons with wrong ideas screaming "The rich pay too much tax!"

Your country is being raped with huge spending and your rights being curtailed.

I would stay and argue, but I'm so sick of hearing the same wrongheaded, shortsighted ideas day after day. You idiots will reap what you sow. You'll all see. Can't say idiots like setaanbomb won't deserve what they'll get.
 
2004-02-02 11:23:17 AM
Yeah, and I heard Ted Kennedy say the bill was anti-Farker too. Would anyone support GWB's spending plan then?

The simple fact is these numbers are not even the true cost of the whole proposed budget. What's left out is the cost of the war ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would the administration leave out those figures?

Hmmmm.....could it be they are lying again?
 
2004-02-02 11:24:35 AM
dingiswayo: haters only care about the size of the figure, not its proporation to the past.

"Holy crap, my credit bill is double. What will I do?"
"Holy crap, my salary doubled. What will I do?"

Common sense is the most expensive ideal ever.
 
2004-02-02 11:24:46 AM
BrotherMaynard

It is my understanding that 66% of the National Debt is borrowed from US citizens in the forms of Bonds. The remaining 34% (or $1.46 trillion) is owned by foreign companies or goverments. Japan is currently the largest foreign holder, with Mainland China being the second largest holder. (TREASURY SECURITIES)


So we owe the money to ourselves? That doesn't really make sense to me... I mean, we've got bonds, which is money the government owes us, and then we've got the national debt, which is money we have to pay. Isn't the money for the bonds coming out of our own pocket? Can't the government just say "hey, let's just declare the national debt null and void", and start everything over at zero?

As far as foreign countries that we owe money to, what if we just told them we weren't going to pay them? I'm sure they'd biatch and moan for a bit, but really, what are they gonna do? Besides, if America was suddenly out of debt, wouldn't that help the global economy? Can't Japan and the others suck it up and take one for the greater good?
 
2004-02-02 11:24:53 AM
various expansionist misadventures.

And the tag on his toe read: death by misadventure
Aint that some way to go? death by misadventure

From Death by Misadventure by John Hiatt.

Shower shave and defecate
This white rabbit's running late
I bid you all a fond ado
Except for you, yeah that means YOU!

;-)
 
2004-02-02 11:25:20 AM
Will a real President please stand up?

No, no, not you gomer, go back to Texas.
 
2004-02-02 11:25:40 AM
Why does everbody say they are moving to Canada if things get terrible in America? fark Canada, go to Belize or something. Try to get a tan while you are renouncing your citizenship.
 
2004-02-02 11:27:01 AM
a sizable 13.2 percent increase that the administration forecasts will occur from growing tax receipts powered by a stronger economy."

So basically they're saying that the economy will grow 13% this year???
 
2004-02-02 11:27:41 AM
Alexis, no we can't. Please take some economics classes at school next semester and get back to us. Null & void - that was a good one.
 
2004-02-02 11:28:07 AM
Brandito: What's bad about spending more on healthcare for seniors, education for our children and better weapons for our soldiers?

The rabid Bush hatred is entirely nonsensical. The Congress is to blame for the spending. As voters we need to STFU, stop crying, and support candidates that ARE FISCALLY conservative and not because they say they are.

Follow your congressman's voting record for spending proposals. If your guy was a spend crazy asshole they FIRE HIM with your vote. Cry all day about Bush, but he can only sign what the Congress sends to him.
 
2004-02-02 11:28:19 AM
setaanbomb

Dude?

I really hoped your link would have worked. I thought maybe it might have something to do with how quick I am in the ol'sack.

http://www.branditoin30seconds.com - more like in and out in 30 seconds.

"WHO TOLD YOU!?!"
 
2004-02-02 11:28:57 AM
worldcitizen's point is that the economy is strong and that bush actually did a good job of it. this is encouraging news.

No, that's not my point. That is the point of the Bush Administration. They say it every time they get the chance. So, they can in no way, shape, or form legitimately use a bad economy as an excuse for deficit spending. So the whole, "Clinton only had surpluses because he didn't have a recession" argument falls completely flat on its face if you buy the Bush line on the strength of the economy.

That was not my opinion of the economy but Bush's opinion.
 
2004-02-02 11:29:32 AM
PUFTAS said:
Rayonic:

Shut up. Education is good, unless you want a stupid population (republicans).

Ahem. I very much approve of publicly-funded education. I'd just rather see it reformed, so that all the huge sums of money we're throwing at it don't go to waste. We actually have one of the best-funded public education systems in the world, don'tchaknow.
 
2004-02-02 11:30:40 AM
ANY BUT BUSH IN 2004
 
2004-02-02 11:30:45 AM
Ok... I'll say it. Vote Dean. He is the only candidate who wants to repeal ALL of the Bush tax cuts. He is the only candidate who actually has balanced a budget. And he is the only candidate who will take the unpopular positions necessary to get the government's budget back under control. Kerry won't do shiat even if he can beat Bush.
 
2004-02-02 11:31:07 AM
Heh...whatever it takes to finally Christianize America.
 
2004-02-02 11:32:22 AM
sroth said:
Yeah, and I heard Ted Kennedy say the bill was anti-Farker too. Would anyone support GWB's spending plan then?

Furthermore, its anti-boobie and anti-kitten, at the same time!

...sigh, will anyone save our poor budget?
 
2004-02-02 11:32:31 AM
KyngNothing: No, that 13% is the forecasted increase in Tax Revenue.
 
2004-02-02 11:32:59 AM
setaanbomb
Budget Surplus doesn't mean shiat when 10% of your workforce is unemployed, the waiting period for a routine physical is 60 days and macro-economic growth is non-existent.

60 days, eh? I think you've been given a bum steer from your ministery of propaganda...

My wife just called our pediatrician and got a 12:30 appointment for our son.
You people never cease to amaze me.
 
2004-02-02 11:33:13 AM
Wow, those Republican patriots are certainly fiscally responsible, especially when they're playing fast and loose with your tax dollars.

Ever notice how the parts of the country that generate all the wealth happen to be the liberal leaning parts of the country? So why is it that the states most needing support from the fed are the ones who scream the most about state's rights and fiscal conservativism.
 
2004-02-02 11:33:15 AM
Yes, you have to love the lower class/working/middle class white guys who scream for the right of the wealthy to pay no more a percentage of taxes than they pay. You can almost hear the wealthy laughing their asses off at them. And the "Thanks, suckers" once they regain their breath. I know if I was wealthy I'd certainly be doing exactly that.
 
2004-02-02 11:34:21 AM
Aren't Republicans supposed to shrink government? They haven't in 75 years. As someone how beieves that small government made this country great; so basically my choice between Dems and Reps comes to who I think will expand the government to a lesser degree. Bush has just pushed me to the Liberatarian party.
 
2004-02-02 11:34:35 AM
"We actually have one of the best-funded public education systems in the world, don'tchaknow."

Understatement of the century. The nation as a whole spends about 700 billion on education annually.
 
2004-02-02 11:35:27 AM
HotWingConspiracy
Why does everbody say they are moving to Canada if things get terrible in America? fark Canada, go to Belize or something. Try to get a tan while you are renouncing your citizenship.

We're working on that!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/turksandcaicos.html
 
2004-02-02 11:35:59 AM
Go Bush! Dig that hole baby!
 
2004-02-02 11:36:28 AM
And that, WorldCitizen, is why you are not.
 
2004-02-02 11:37:43 AM
never odd or even: The race for the Executive as a third party is meaningless with a Congress made up of the same Democrats and Republicans. These seats don't often change hands, but if they were you may actually see some changes in Washington.

Third parties have to make headway in the Congress before they even remotely have a shot at the Executive.
 
2004-02-02 11:39:29 AM
setaanbomb

I personally don't think there's a thing wrong with helping our the elderly with their medical. I just want some of that pie too when I get to be that age. The way things are going, that might not happen.

I don't think spending a little money on our military is a bad thing either. But in all reality, should we go further in debt? There are things that our government could do to allocate dollars aplenty to our service men and women that wouldn't force the tax payers any more money. Here's an idea...Decriminalize drugs. The War on Drugs obviously isn't working. Think about all the money we could move from this program into our military, or healthcare. All I'm saying is that all it would take for us to get back on the right path is some creative governing by our elected officials. I don't want to pay for Bush's budget. Why can't we put some of that money we're wasting on other crap to some good use?

~B~
 
2004-02-02 11:39:29 AM
setaanbomb,

You obviously have no idea how this system works. The president proposes a budget to Congress. This $2.4 trillion budget was written by the Bush Administration, and Congress has been giving him whatever he wants. Albiet, Congress will probably make this budget even bigger once everyone throws in their district's pet project, but most of this irresponsible spending is Bush policy.
 
2004-02-02 11:40:02 AM
Pablo_Roo

Alexis, no we can't. Please take some economics classes at school next semester and get back to us. Null & void - that was a good one.


Yeah, you're right, I probably oughta do that. I'd probably understand the situation a little better. About the debt, though, I'm serious... what if whoever ran the treasury or whatever got a list of all the people we owe money to and sent them a letter saying, "Yeah, you know that money we owe you? Well, you're not getting it. Ever. --Best Regards, The Government"? I mean, there's nothing actually physically or logistically stopping us from doing that. What would the consequences be, and how would they compare to whatever positive results being out of debt would bring? After all, the entire money system is a totally artificial constuct and follows whatever rules we define for it.
 
2004-02-02 11:40:04 AM
Democrats = Tax & Spend
Republicans = Borrow & Spend
 
2004-02-02 11:40:53 AM
The spending is bad. I don't know anyone that supports it, republicans or democrats, except for those on the receiving end of that spending, which is like 2% of the whole country.

Changing out the top is worthless until you change the Congress. Am I the only person here that understood Politics 101?
 
2004-02-02 11:42:20 AM
Alexis

First, let me say I'm far from an expert. This is just how things have been explained to me.

So we owe the money to ourselves?

Yes. The Government borrows money from individuals. Well, and some other agencies. For instance, remember all that talk about a Social Security Lock box? You see, in 80's, it was decided to cut Social Security payments and then "loan" that money to fund other parts of the goverment. So various other agencies own money to Social Security. The Lock box idea was to stop using Social Security money to fund other agencies.

Isn't the money for the bonds coming out of our own pocket? Can't the government just say "hey, let's just declare the national debt null and void", and start everything over at zero?

Yes, however, this would lead to a destabilization of the US Dollar. Which, in turn, would force US interest rates up. Furthermore, this would also lead to a drop of foreign investment in the US..

Besides, if America was suddenly out of debt, wouldn't that help the global economy?

Not if it were done this way. Many foreign contries use the US dollar to stabilize their own currency. With a drop in the value of the Dollar, all other contries that rely on the dollar would also be hurt significantly. Which could lead to a grobal recession or worse a depression in many areas of the world.

Now, I may be completely wrong on this as well. I'm sure there are others who can explain it better.
 
2004-02-02 11:42:43 AM
scuse me Acornman, did you get a $400 x # of children tax rebate?
Just wanted to make it clear that not everyone got one of those checks! I did not, I am a single white working mother (and I have worked every day since my son was born! Oh except for the 9 month lay-off last year!) and I did not get a tax break and a $400 check! My son is too old (16 at the time) lord knows you don't pay out any $$ for a child at that age!!)
Yes a little fun fact that people did not know about the last round of checks.....if you're children were born before 1987, then you did not get a check...So I know people that made twice as much as me that got $1200 back because they had children born in 1987 or after.....So how does this work again...that's right tax breaks for the rich,,,,crap for the working class. Oh and by the way a $400 check COULD NEVER buy my vote for the asshat that currrently sits at the big desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave..........
 
2004-02-02 11:43:24 AM
setaanbomb
Am I the only person here that understood Politics 101?

I don't know if you understand political economy, but you lie an awful lot here.
 
2004-02-02 11:43:53 AM
Pablo: No, I'm not because I don't really care about money enough to do the things I would have to do to obtain that much of it. I have my share of wealthy relatives. Almost to a one they are assholes who have no life other than making money. More power to them as we need people like that to keep the economy going, but I prefer to contribute to education. It's rewarding and allows me to maintain a life, but it certainly won't make me wealthy. Nothing makes my skin crawl more than to imagine myself as a business person. It totally contradicts my non-competative, no pretenses personality.
 
2004-02-02 11:44:44 AM
 
2004-02-02 11:44:45 AM
whenever I see something on bush's budget, i think of queesryche.

I know, strange. but still I think about it. Not just because of the lyrics, but because of the cutbacks to services, me out of work back then, and me working on amps for cars and bands for money for food and rent, and huddling over mosfets while jamming to their tunes.

"In fiscal year 1986 to 87, local, state, and federal governments spent a combined total of 60.6 billion dollars on law enforcement. Federal law enforcement expenditures ranked last in absolute dollars and accounted for only a sixth percent of all federal spending. By way of comparison, the federal government spent 24 million more on
space exploration and 43 TIMES more on national defense and international relations than on law enforcement."


weird eh, how those lyrics would have to be adjusted over the years. sometimes i sit and do the math, and just wonder what that'd sound like today with current figures.
 
2004-02-02 11:45:25 AM
 
2004-02-02 11:46:02 AM
Alexis:

Can't Japan and the others suck it up and take one for the greater good?

Japan's economy is far worse than ours. Defaulting on our T-bills to them would be more damaging to their national foundation than Hiroshima.

That's not hyperbole.

(The same goes for our country, frankly.)
 
2004-02-02 11:46:55 AM
2004-02-02 11:40:53 AM setaanbomb

The spending is bad. I don't know anyone that supports it, republicans or democrats, except for those on the receiving end of that spending, which is like 2% of the whole country.

Changing out the top is worthless until you change the Congress. Am I the only person here that understood Politics 101?


Apparently, you didn't understand politics 101.

Congress usually follows the Presidents lead, with some friction from the opposing party, but for the most part, they let the Presiden't budget go through.

They do it for political reasons. If the President is popular, the congress follows suit. That's why Clinton won when Next Gingrich tried to shutdown congress to get his budget passed. Polls showed that Americans agreed with Clinton and not Gingrich. Gingrich backed down and the budget that passed was pretty close to Clintons original.

Politics 101.
 
2004-02-02 11:47:33 AM
setaanbomb - Maybe I'm just grasping to a last hope of optimism, but I believe politicians do still pander to what I they think the people want. I know a liberatarian would never win but maybe if Dems and Reps saw that Liberatarians were starting to grow and get more votes, they might try to pander to that by cutting off some of those federal government tentacles. Damn, I'm naive.
 
2004-02-02 11:47:38 AM
SherKhan

Your rhymes is weak
Your outlooks-- they bleak
Now that you're interest is piqued
Let me just speak

Off-shore funds pay for the guns
Even though we use bad puns
Search asunder we may blunder
For uranium we have to wonder
If it be true then we did right
We popped some missiles in their sight
Ghetto gangster he is not
But win the war we did-- we fought.
Yoda couldn't have said it any better
We will stabilize the middle-east unfettered
Anyone that breeds islamo-terrorists
shall be stamped by our own fists.

Argue you may about the right
To bomb them into democracy for lack of sight
But now that they're gone who gives a shiite
More cab drivers in the night...
 
2004-02-02 11:47:51 AM
Alexis,

US Treasury bonds are considered to be safe investments. The government would raise taxes or even print more money before defaulting on them. Many people, especially retirees, rely on the fixed income from these bonds to live. Defaulting on these bonds would likely cause much more economic turmoil then it would solve by erasing the national debt.
 
2004-02-02 11:48:11 AM
caiteach: Actually I understand the budget entirely. The President can only approve a budget that the Congress sends to him. If the Congress sends him a budget of 2 trillion then the President has to sign it, veto it or send it back to Congress. The Congress can flex its muscle if it wants to. The question the congress always has is will their supporters in their states stick up for them. The House runs for election every two years so they have the most pressure on them to succeed and if they can't, the second goal is to get the most money out of it.

fark the Presidential election. Pay more attention to your HoR elections.

Brandito: I agree that spending sucks. Nearly all federal spending is bad for the country. The federal government as the big giganto robot machine doesn't work for the individual, it works for the collective of organizations and their lobbyists. Changing the executive doesn't do anything to obstruct this process. Congress is the most powerful branch of the federal government, but not if they act like pussies and do whatever the President says or go whichever way the green wind blows.
 
2004-02-02 11:48:45 AM
Boy I love this fiscally Conservative Administration...

We need to tighten our belts kids.

--But your budget is blowed up like monster sized kiddie pool, Shrub.

Exactly. Our deficiets are out massive. Cuts have to be made.

--But you blowed up the budget, Shrub.

Yes, in order to fight terrorism, we all have to do our part.

--Like give out tax cuts to the most wealthy? That's not tightening our belts, is it?

Sacrifices need to be made, you Un-American baby terrorist.

--But when you started out, we actually had a surplus. Which you blew on tax cuts to the wealthy to start off. How does this align with responsible fiscal policy?

Security? We've got a terrorist over here.

--I just want to know when the most wealthy in this nation are going to...Hey! Ouch! Damn! You got to twist the cuffs like that...

See. Without the increased spending, pinkos like that would still be taxing Americans to death.

--So--hey, watch the pants--you'd rather my kids pick up the bill?

Sacrifices have to be made...


Umm...I can't wait for the Informed Response from the Right to defend deficit spending like this, coupled with the supposed rosy economy. Yup, the economy looks great. Profits are up, and new jobs aren't looming on the horizon. Yeah, Bob! This is fan-frippin'-tastic. Come on spin-meisters, let's get to work.
 
2004-02-02 11:48:47 AM
Personally, I think people should have to work for a living. Which is why I am in favor of increased estate taxes.
 
2004-02-02 11:50:08 AM
BrotherMaynard

Alexis

First, let me say I'm far from an expert.


Compared to me, it seems you are. =)

It just seems to me that taxing American citizens to pay off a debt owed to those very same citizens is like trying to raise the water level in a pool by filling a bucket of water from one end of the pool and pouring it into the other end. I guess I just need to take some economics classes. *shrug*
 
2004-02-02 11:50:25 AM
"I don't know if you understand political economy, but you lie an awful lot here."

Lucky for you I understand Marxism 101 as well. "an awful lot" sounds like an awful lot, but I could be lying.
 
2004-02-02 11:52:46 AM
2004-02-02 11:29:32 AM Rayonic: "Ahem. I very much approve of publicly-funded education. I'd just rather see it reformed, so that all the huge sums of money we're throwing at it don't go to waste. We actually have one of the best-funded public education systems in the world, don'tchaknow."

Yes, Rayonic. Increasing amounts of money have been thrown down that rathole for twenty years, and the kids just keep getting dumber. Given the trends, it is arguable that throwing money at our education system is actually making the kiddies more stupid. Why hasn't it worked? It isn't lack of money, and it isn't any need for "reform." The reason the kiddies are getting dumber is because of their parents. The parents are letting them be stupid. No kid ever succeeds in school without the active participation of its parents.

Usually, these calls for "reform" are nothing but veiled references to the idea that the kiddies should be thumping on bibles all day at school. It is religious indoctrination masquerading as "education."

But back to the subject at hand: Doesn't everybody see that the country is corrupt and decadent? The democrats have no answer, and both parties just eat through tax money, right? Of course they do. We live in a failing civilization, and the pattern repeats down the halls of history. Some people actually entertain the silly notion that America succeeded because of some elegant economic theory. Haha. America succeeded for many reasons and due to many factors, but not because of an elegant economic theory. It had the right mix of people in the right place at the right time. That golden moment has passed, and it is all downhill from here.

What we see now are factions scrapping over the booty, that's all. Democrats maintain power by dishing out the loot to poor folks. Republicans maintain power by dishing out the loot to rich folks. That is the ONLY difference between the parties.

In light of this, why would anyone in their right mind support the republicans if they aren't rich? There is nothing to be done to stop the rot in America. So, if you are poor, why NOT vote "liberal" and enjoy a slice of the pie before you die?

It is as simple as that when you boil all the fluff down, Rayonic.
 
2004-02-02 11:53:06 AM
For my two bits,

George Dubya is bad! He is bad for this reason alone. The government has drastically increased spending every year that he has been in office. And with increased spending you have to have one of two things, more taxes, or bigger deficits. Pay it now or pay it later.

Taxes hurt everybody, rich and poor, and anybody that biatches about the rich not paying enough or the poor not getting enough should really take a look at the percentages of income taken from the "rich", then tell me what is fair. Then think about this, wouldn't you be less poor if you didn't have to spend so much money on all the products you need to live. You're not just buying that loaf of bread, or pair of shoes after all, you're buying that product and it's share of taxes collected at every level of it's production.

Business don't pay taxes! Consumers do!

These days in Washington compassion has somehow been translated to mean spending. The more compassionate you are the more willing you are to take other peoples hard earned money and give it away to people who they think need it. It doesn't seem to matter if you think you could use your money, they know best after all. It doesn't seem to matter that this compassion makes it even harder for people to move out of poverty. It doesnt matter that this compassion is the leach that is draining the life out of the U.S. economy.

Oh, you didn't know people move out of poverty?

Yep, turns out that happens all the time. Poverty is still a transitory state in this country if you want to work. If you are willing to get up off of your arse learn a skill and take that to work for only 40 farking hours a week, you can still do fine in this country. Until some worthless a-hole who only feels guilt for never knowing poverty in his life decides to run for office and help you out.

God damn it. I started writing about Dubyas suckage and all I have is this minor little rant on taxes.

Ah well, Dubyas a pragmatic little farkhead who shouldnt be allowed to tie his own shoes let alone run the most powerful nation on this earth. Get of your farking arses and vote. There are more that 100 people running for President and Id say about 20 of them could do a better job (and no, none of them are Democrats). Find one you like.

Flame on!!!
 
2004-02-02 11:55:14 AM
Alexis - Ok, here is my short answer to all of your questions. Our financial debt markets (both corporate borrowing and our governments borrowing) are strong enough to allow trillions in debt ~ kind of like having a huge limit on your credit card. The reason the debt markets are strong enough is the faith lenders have in getting paid back. It is the #1 reason for our financial strength. Basically what you recommended - letters to debt holders saying too bad, so sad is what happened in Latin American markets. When this happens, you would go to your ATM and find that you now have $0.00. Scary indeed. Hope this helps.

WorldCitizen - good for you, seriously. But the way you sound, if you were rich, you would not gloat over middle/lower class whitemen supporting ideas congruent with your interests. You might still be humble, just with a yacht in the back yard.
 
2004-02-02 11:55:46 AM
setaanbomb
Lucky for you I understand Marxism 101 as well. "an awful lot" sounds like an awful lot, but I could be lying.

Don't flatter yourself, 60 days for a routine medical exam in Canada?
I you said 60 hours that might have been believable in certian circles.
 
2004-02-02 11:57:34 AM
setaanbomb said:
"We actually have one of the best-funded public education systems in the world, don'tchaknow."

Understatement of the century. The nation as a whole spends about 700 billion on education annually.

Gah! $700,000,000,000, divided by, what, 100,000,000 (fair guess) students... $7000 per kid.

Thus a smaller school of 500 students would get a $3,500,000. Where does all that money go, and why did I have to sell so many damned candy bars?
 
2004-02-02 12:03:15 PM
Umm...isn't the RNC pulling away from their own Moderate candidates, those poor bastards who aren't locking in step with the President and his boys? Part of the overwhelming response that Shrub gets from Congress lately--play, or we don't pay.

Heck, I'm waiting for them to start jumping on Olympia Snowe for her voting record. One of our best Republican Senators, and I was glad to vote her into the Senate. She's proof that there are responsible and principled Republicans out there. Just got to wade through the jackboots to get to them...
 
2004-02-02 12:04:26 PM
if everyone had to pay the same amount of federal taxes (assuming there is no class divisions in the U.S.) the tax an average person would have to pay JUST IN FEDERAL TAXES would be 9 grand a year. thank goodness for bill gates and steve jobs and sports superstars and musicians making millions. i paid 3 grand last year in federal taxes. that makes me a sad panda.
 
2004-02-02 12:05:29 PM
canyoneer -- With you 100% on your comments on education and parental responsibility. However, you lose all credibility when you made the "bible thumping" reference. What evidence could you possibly point to that gives any credence to that statement?

To your "vote liberal and get a slice of the pie" comment: go talk to your local fire department that just got a federal fire grant to purchase new respirators. Go talk to the local community college teacher who will be teaching very soon in a new computer lab funded by a federal appropriation. Go talk to the local center for mentally challenged children who received full funding for a new program to expand their curriculum and take in more children.

Ask them if they are "rich."

Its easy to miss a lot of what actually goes on in the federal government, so I dont necessary blame you for not truly knowing how this all works. But benefit yourself by scraping below the surface on an issue like this before taking the easy way out and defining it as rich versus poor, Christian right versus everyone else.
 
2004-02-02 12:06:55 PM
canyoneer:

What, no poor "Roman empire" analogy?
 
2004-02-02 12:08:53 PM
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave. Somebody dig the poor guy up and give him an AK-47.
 
2004-02-02 12:09:43 PM
ProgrammerCat: Haven't seen you in a while. How goes it? (:
 
2004-02-02 12:11:47 PM
Wow what a big surprise! The most cuts coming from the EPA! Way to keep going on that environmental record.

Roark...the truth is that community colleges are increasing tuition by about 30% because of CUT federal funding. Didn't you read the thread about that?
 
2004-02-02 12:12:05 PM
the_pgoat

ProgrammerCat: Haven't seen you in a while. How goes it? (:

I'm still a long-haired Peter Gibbons by day and a shiatty writer by night. Oh, and I still get taxed into the ground because nobody bothered to kill that farking cripple FDR before he rammed the New Deal through Congress.
 
2004-02-02 12:12:17 PM
Wow, I am so happy to be a Canuck right now. You boys are farked.

Then again, we're pretty screwed too. Our options are
a) NDP - the socialist party. Has a snowball's chance in hell as they ran Ontario into the ground once. Personally I think they take too much of the blame for that - it was a nasty recession. Still, they fscked up.

b) The newly remade Conservative party. Remade in a modern, Neocon image. They used to have an awesome old-fashioned fiscal conservative named Joe Clark, but he left in disgust.

c) The Liberal Party. Pretty much the center-line for Canada, they've passed the buck over to the new leader, Paul Martin. Martin is Canada's Al Gore - pretends to be leftist but is really a money man, has absolutely zero personality, is the encumbent after a very popular leader, and does not stand a chance of winning against someone with actual personality and charisma.

There are other, smaller parties but none of them have ever one anything so they don't matter (except the PQ, but they don't count).
 
2004-02-02 12:15:57 PM
Don't fret you hand wringing frightened liberals. The tax revenue from Bush's economy (the strongest we've seen in 20 years) will easily bring this down.
 
2004-02-02 12:16:13 PM
I'd jump in on this and point out how ridiculous Bush and his supporters are, but it would be like reasoning with a retarded child. Pointless.
 
2004-02-02 12:17:30 PM
Alexis

First, let me say I'm far from an expert.
Compared to me, it seems you are. =)


I'm just some guy who has no social life. So I fill my time by reading news papers, etc..

It just seems to me that taxing American citizens to pay off a debt owed to those very same citizens is like trying to raise the water level in a pool by filling a bucket of water from one end of the pool and pouring it into the other end. I guess I just need to take some economics classes. *shrug*

It's kind of like that. Except everyone owes the money to a small group.

I like to think that the economy is based on assumptions. People buy bonds on the assumption that the Goverment will honor the bonds. The Dollar's value is based on the assumption that the Goverment will back it up. If you remove one of those assumptions, all the others fail. When that happens, there's no one who can be trusted.
 
2004-02-02 12:17:49 PM
If W wins the next one I am going to poop in a box and send it to him...
 
2004-02-02 12:19:19 PM
BrotherMaynard

I like to think that the economy is based on assumptions. People buy bonds on the assumption that the Goverment will honor the bonds. The Dollar's value is based on the assumption that the Goverment will back it up. If you remove one of those assumptions, all the others fail. When that happens, there's no one who can be trusted.

What makes you think Uncle Sam can be trusted?
 
2004-02-02 12:20:19 PM
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/political-science/US-Budget-1995/historica l-budget/bud95h01.txt

Wow did you know that every year the US budged is done that its the biggest in history?

Remember back in 1909 when the budget was the biggest it had ever been?
Then there was that time in 1910 when it was the biggest.
Remember 1911?
And who could have forgot 1912?
Then there was that time in 1913.

see a pattern?
 
2004-02-02 12:20:47 PM
ramblinwreck
Roark...the truth is that community colleges are increasing tuition by about 30% because of CUT federal funding. Didn't you read the thread about that?

Unfortunately, you're wrong. The Federal government did not cut funding for education...in fact, it increased it by many billions of dollars. You're right that there is a serious problem with the rising cost of a college education, but to purport that it's because of cuts in education (again, the accuracy of that statement is itself suspect) without looking at a macroeconomic analysis of the cause, you've done yourself a disservice.
 
2004-02-02 12:22:45 PM
Don't fret you hand wringing frightened liberals. The tax revenue from Bush's economy (the strongest we've seen in 20 years) will easily bring this down.


I've got some magic beans to sell you if you believe that. You don't need to be an economist to understand that spending beyond your means is a recipe for disaster. That's like saying I might as well buy this plasma screen TV on my credit card today because I anticipate a 6% raise next year which will offset the $2500 plasma TV. That's just stupid. You could just as well end up on the unemployment line, or in our government's case, with a WORSE economy.

 
2004-02-02 12:22:55 PM
Jake Steed--Are we looking at the same economy?

I don't think that word means what you think it means...
 
2004-02-02 12:23:20 PM
Frankly, what concerns me about this story isn't that Bush is proposing a 2.4 trillion dollar budget that is going to get completely rewritten by Congress.

What concerns me is that we have somewhere around an $11 trillion GDP, and the farkin' government is taking in TWO TRILLION FARKING DOLLARS in revenues out of it, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Thinking how many jobs that money could create if it were left in the hands of the people doing the hiring makes me physically ill.

BTW, remember that Dean and Kerry don't want to submit a $2 trillion budget; they want to steal that extra $400 billion back out of your wallet and still submit a $2.4 trillion budget.
 
2004-02-02 12:23:51 PM
Leonard_Cohen
Don't flatter yourself, 60 days for a routine medical exam in Canada?
I you said 60 hours that might have been believable in certian circles.


Actually, he said 60 days to get a physical exam.

Small difference, but meaningful. I could see pushing off physicals if you had to prioritize.

Btw, it reeks of a statistic that is used to make something sound tragically ridiculous.
Were it 60 days for treating a broken bone or having emergency heart surgury, that would be meaningful.
 
2004-02-02 12:24:05 PM
ProgrammerCat

What makes you think Uncle Sam can be trusted?

When it comes to monetary policy, they have as much to lose as everyone else.
 
2004-02-02 12:24:40 PM
2004-02-02 12:05:29 PM Roark: Just look at the groups who have most vociferously championed "reform" in public schools and you'll hear the word "voucher." "Vouchers" are nothing more than a clever mechanism for coopting public funds to subsidize religious education.

My "vote liberal" comment was exactly aimed toward the sort of thing you describe. Why in hell should I vote for a clown who will spend billions in Iraq when I can vote for a clown who will spend billions making my community safer and cleaner and more prosperous?

The shorthand version is: "liberals" are more likely to spread the moolah more evenly among people, and "conservatives" are more likely to invent wild schemes to concentrate the moolah in the pockets of their cronies.

Case In Point: Iraq.

You will notice (if you are following the action carefully) that the billions being spent in Iraq are not really going to the Iraqis; they are being swallowed up by American contractors and the Pentagon, which amounts more-or-less to another clever mechanism by which our tax money is transferred to officers and share-holders of huge military-industrial corporations. You doubt that? Of the supplemental $87 billion approved last Fall, only $20 billion went to "reconstruction." Where is the rest going? Into the accounts of Halliburton and Bechtel and Dyncorp and Boeing and Etcetera (Global Tetrahedron Incorporated).

The Iraqis are the excuse, not the recipients. They were never a threat to us, but now we see vast sums (the supplementals for which will not be disclosed until AFTER the election, conveniently enough) being poured into an ill-advised and totally unnecessary "war" on the other side of the planet. This is simply a massive transfer of federal tax dollars to favored cronies, not sound national policy.

The supporters of this scheme are either:

a) Direct benficiaries thereof, or...

b) Stupid suckers who don't even know they're being fleeced.
 
2004-02-02 12:26:45 PM
Can you really call it a "budget" if it's so far out of balance?

Thomas L. Friedman on Bush's "Budgets of Mass Destruction"
 
2004-02-02 12:27:24 PM
Pablo_Roo

Alexis - Ok, here is my short answer to all of your questions. Our financial debt markets (both corporate borrowing and our governments borrowing) are strong enough to allow trillions in debt ~ kind of like having a huge limit on your credit card. The reason the debt markets are strong enough is the faith lenders have in getting paid back. It is the #1 reason for our financial strength. Basically what you recommended - letters to debt holders saying too bad, so sad is what happened in Latin American markets. When this happens, you would go to your ATM and find that you now have $0.00. Scary indeed. Hope this helps.


Okay, that does make sense to me, but I still don't totally get it. Here's a scenario similar to yours:

I stop on my way home from work at the ATM for my little government-sponsored checking account, which I'm supposed to have $10,000 in. I check my balance, and, oh crap, it reads $0. Suckage. So, I go home, and find two letters to me, both from the government. I open the first one, and it says something like "Sorry about your account, but you're not getting your money back. Better luck next time." Okay, all this money I had has been taken away. I'm pretty bummed. Then I open the second letter. It says "Good news. We've decided to cancel the national debt, so that $10,000 you were supposed to pay us over the next however many years, just forget about it, it's taken care of."

So, while my checking account (analagous to real-life bonds) was wiped out, I, and the entire country, no longer have to worry about paying off that pesky national debt. Besides, I read that a large portion of our taxes goes to paying off just the interest on the debt, so getting it down would help in that way, too.

Of course, I freely admit that there's a great deal about this global finance I don't fully grasp, so it's entirely likely that there's some other aspect of economics that makes the sorta thing I suggested implausible.
 
2004-02-02 12:27:25 PM
"Revenues will total $2.04 trillion, a sizable 13.2 percent increase that the administration forecasts will occur from growing tax receipts powered by a stronger economy."

Revenues will grow by 13 percent??? Isn't that just a little a high?? I get tax cuts stimulating the economy and all, by this seems to be a little high.

Usually, these estimates are done based on the rate of inflation (around 6 percent). If you have a good year, you may see 7-8 percent. If you have a great year, it may be closer to 9-11 percent.

How did they write / present this budget with a straight face?
 
2004-02-02 12:28:35 PM
drsoran -- Just wanted to express my compliments on the excellent analogy you made in your last post. I don't necessarily agree with your statement, but you portrayed the argument with much more understanding than most who occupy these spaces.
 
2004-02-02 12:30:04 PM
This just in: American Politics has surpassed prime time TV for the pure entertainment factor.

That is one hilarious budget.
 
2004-02-02 12:31:42 PM
2004-02-02 12:06:55 PM Rayonic: No, Rayonic. I don't want to upset you. You see, I know you're a jut-jawed optimist about the Glorious United States of America and you probably got all maudlin last night during the Stupid Bowl and seeped a few tears onto your shirt collar when you saw the Apache Helicopters and heard the National Anthem and saw Old Glory waving majestically in the ventilation fan-blown breeze of Enron Field...er, whatever the name of the place is now.

So, I don't want to make you fret and dash your touching idealism and violate your charming naivete.

Sweet dreams, Rayonic! Don't let the bedbugs bite!
 
2004-02-02 12:46:38 PM
canyoneer -- Touche on the voucher argument. While it's definitely one for another thread, if you're on the side that you obviously are, it does give credence to your original claim. My only comment on that is, with your reasoning, you'll have to also take issue with Medicare, Pell Grants, community development block grants, and the GI Bill just to name a few, in which all participants may use federal funds to support religious organizations.

Back to the "vote liberal" issue. Without getting too technical, what I described to you (the community college, for example) was something that did actually receive funding through the FY04 Labor/HHS appropriations bill. Democrats who voted against the bill did not receive funding for projects like this in their districts. So the clowns who spent billions making your community safer and cleaner are those who voted for the bill. In this case, 215 Republicans and 0 Democrats.

All I'm really trying to get across is that sure, when you read a story like the one at the top of this thread, it makes the Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress look like fiscal nutjobs. But when you dig deeper, you can find that in reality, it is a far from being only the rich who benefit from federal spending.
 
2004-02-02 12:48:59 PM
Actually, I think anyone making over $500,000 a yr shouldn't pay any taxes at all.

They should also be exempt from Sales Tax at the register.

Each one should also get their very own slave, to solve the unemployment problem, we'll pick from the roles of the recently unemployed. After a brief training class on collar-wearing and whip-making, they'll be fit for their new role in society.

And where will these slaves live? They'll dig their own pit near the residence of the rich person to whom they've been assigned. The rich person will dump their filth into the pit, and the slave will live there.
 
2004-02-02 12:49:07 PM
It's a shame he's going to win another 4 years, no contest. Even more of a shame is that he's actually doing more to cut spending than any of the dem candidates would.

Solution: I've resigned myself to 4 more years of Bush. Could be worse. I'm just gonna go to the polls and vote libertarian everywhere I possibly can. If enough people do that, we could actually maybe get a lib candidate with a chance to win within the next few decades.

/cut spending, cut taxes, not one or the other. both.
 
2004-02-02 12:54:20 PM
Just cause I still feel that the righties deserve some equity for their whole "crying baby" thing and the article is political....



now, lets resume our intelligent discourse.
 
2004-02-02 12:54:58 PM
2004-02-02 12:46:38 PM Roark: I object to tax money being spent on religious hogwash, in whatever guise.

It might surprise you, but I am not a "liberal." I am a believer in effects-based government. Right now, I see a bad future in practical terms if some balance isn't brought back into the government. Certainly, the democrats have almost no solutions to the problems facing us. For example, when Bush recently made his absolutely dreadful immigration proposal, the democrats could only complain that it didn't go far enough! Wow.

But I can only hope they'll resist the republicans out of pure reflex.

Back in the old days, I voted for republicans for president because the democrats controlled Congress. Now, I urge eveyone to vote for the democrat for president because the republicans control the Congress.

If the democrats nominate a blind dog, I'll vote for it over Bush.
 
2004-02-02 12:56:50 PM
BrotherMaynard

I disagree that the gov't has as much to lose as anyone else here. This is the same gov't that can't stop spending and yet can't be truthful about what they are spending it on.

They left out monies for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't think we'll ever know just how much Bush throws in there, if he gets re-elected.
 
2004-02-02 12:57:26 PM
2004-02-02 12:49:07 PM Spacemarinekilla: "It's a shame he's going to win another 4 years, no contest."

I wouldn't be so sure. I think the fedayeen and the Shiites will have a lot to say about it this summer. The election will be decided in Iraq, mark my words.
 
2004-02-02 12:59:27 PM
You know what they say: The bigger you are, the dumber you look.
 
2004-02-02 01:00:17 PM
Only a farktard like Bush could love this fell budget plan.

Let's see...kill EPA...fark with other nations...cut taxes...increase spending...give shiatloads of $$$ to a department (DHS) that couldn't secure their own ass after a 5 burrito lunch...spend to the hilt...then get this awesome new deficit.

Yep, sign o' the apocalypse.

Don't vote Republican, they're 'tards. When you see the Elephant logo, just envision the mounds of shiat the animal produces.

We must balance the budget, and deficit spending is not the way to go. Contrary to popular Repub belief, Regain did not prove that deficits are irrelevent.
 
2004-02-02 01:01:46 PM
I don't get it. Why does everyone think this election is already over?

Newsweek had Kerry beating him. His approval rate is barely over 50%. And in 2000, 3.5 million more votes were cast for Nader + Gore.

Nader's not running.

Thankfully, neither is Gore, the least charismatic candidate I may have ever seen.

Put up Kerry the war hero. Factor in a southern VP. Add in Nader's votes and the energized Dem base who came out in record numbers in the primaries, and Bush could easily lose.

Don't be intimidated by Bush's fascist tendencies to think this election is over. !@#$!#@ George Bush's record deficit and fake war. If enough Americans wake up by November, he will be toast.
 
2004-02-02 01:05:48 PM
caiteach:
In other news, the Bush Administration just ruled that mercury isn't a toxin. No, I'm not joking. They just reached that decision in the latest Federal Registrar. So much for sound science.

That really depends. Mercury spilled all over your arm, for example, can't hurt you. Drinking large amounts isn't too smart, but you'd live. It's really methyl-mercury (and other organic compounds) that's toxic, which you won't find in any thermometer or dental filling.

So in a sense mercury, the kind people are concerned about (dental fillings get the most bad rap) is not immediately toxic. Whether it can become toxic after long exposures to the inside of your mouth is subject to debate.
 
2004-02-02 01:05:59 PM
Alexis-

The US government will never default on its debt due to an inability to pay. An unwillingness perhaps, but not an inability. All government spending is in the form of credits to accounts at the Federal Reserve (this is where you get your dollars when your treasury matures) and the government has an UNLIMITED ability to spend dollars. It is nothing more than an accounting transaction for them. As the monopoly issuer of the US$ they will NEVER runout. The reason that Latin America, specifically Argentina, defaulted on its debt is that it is denominated in US$, something that Argentina does not have an unlimited supply of. The debt is nonrecourse so if they end up accomodating their debtors in some way, it is simply that, an accomodation. And dont worry,what most people dont understand is that the Government doesnt need Treasuries to finance spending, it needs them to control interest rates, that is all they do.
 
2004-02-02 01:09:23 PM
poorgirl
I disagree that the gov't has as much to lose as anyone else here.

I believe the collapse of the US monetary fund would devistate people like George W Bush and the rest of the his advisers/cabinet.

This is the same gov't that can't stop spending and yet can't be truthful about what they are spending it on.

I beleive they are spending this money in order to "Starve the Beast". They want to run up the national debt so they can kill off all social programs. Once they do this, all the wild spending will stop. Remember, those bonds are owned my someone..

Step 1) Engage in wild spending, sell bonds to cover costs.
Step 2) Buy lots of Bonds (see step 1)
Step 3) Kill off social programs and send the goverments money to the people who own the bonds.
Step 4) Profit.
 
2004-02-02 01:13:52 PM
canyoneer: It sounds as if you have big problems with taxing the income of rich people so as to redistribute that money to other rich people.

Is my analysis correct?

This basically summarizes my opinion of how shifting responsiblities to the Federal Government only makes this problem even worse.
 
2004-02-02 01:15:33 PM
Mercury will absorb through the skin - http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/eh/ChemFS/fs/Mercury.htm
WILL EXPOSURE TO MERCURY RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Metallic liquid mercury generally does not absorb very well when it swallowed. Breathing its vapors is very dangerous. When metallic mercury is touched it can slowly pass through the skin.

The following health effects can happen immediately or shortly after exposure to high levels of mercury:

Neurological effects, confusion, hand tremors
Chills
Chest tightness, bronchitis, pneumonia
Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite
Bleeding gums
Leg pains and burning sensation in feet
Lung and kidney damage
Skin rashes
Children and infants can develop a specific allergic reaction to mercury.

The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to mercury (more than 10 ppb in air):

Cancer: There is no evidence that mercury causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: Symptoms can include menstrual problems, possible miscarriages and damage to unborn babies.

Organ Systems: Peoples nervous systems and kidneys are very sensitive to mercury and are easily damaged. Symptoms of damage include blood in urine, shaking, burning pain in legs and feet, sleep disturbance, personality changes, irritability and memory loss.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. A person's reaction depends on several things, including individual health, previous exposure to chemicals, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking. Its also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten.



WILL EXPOSURE TO MERCURY RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Metallic liquid mercury generally does not absorb very well when it swallowed. Breathing its vapors is very dangerous. When metallic mercury is touched it can slowly pass through the skin.

The following health effects can happen immediately or shortly after exposure to high levels of mercury:

Neurological effects, confusion, hand tremors
Chills
Chest tightness, bronchitis, pneumonia
Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite
Bleeding gums
Leg pains and burning sensation in feet
Lung and kidney damage
Skin rashes
Children and infants can develop a specific allergic reaction to mercury.

The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to mercury (more than 10 ppb in air):

Cancer: There is no evidence that mercury causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: Symptoms can include menstrual problems, possible miscarriages and damage to unborn babies.

Organ Systems: Peoples nervous systems and kidneys are very sensitive to mercury and are easily damaged. Symptoms of damage include blood in urine, shaking, burning pain in legs and feet, sleep disturbance, personality changes, irritability and memory loss.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. A person's reaction depends on several things, including individual health, previous exposure to chemicals, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking. Its also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten.
 
2004-02-02 01:18:28 PM
Leonard_Cohen I'm so sorry to hear that your liberal has spread to 100% of your body, I do hope you recover.
 
2004-02-02 01:18:32 PM
Nightsweat
Here's some data I found:

WILL EXPOSURE TO MERCURY RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Metallic liquid mercury generally does not absorb very well when it swallowed. Breathing its vapors is very dangerous. When metallic mercury is touched it can slowly pass through the skin.

The following health effects can happen immediately or shortly after exposure to high levels of mercury:

Neurological effects, confusion, hand tremors
Chills
Chest tightness, bronchitis, pneumonia
Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite
Bleeding gums
Leg pains and burning sensation in feet
Lung and kidney damage
Skin rashes
Children and infants can develop a specific allergic reaction to mercury.

The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to mercury (more than 10 ppb in air):

Cancer: There is no evidence that mercury causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: Symptoms can include menstrual problems, possible miscarriages and damage to unborn babies.

Organ Systems: Peoples nervous systems and kidneys are very sensitive to mercury and are easily damaged. Symptoms of damage include blood in urine, shaking, burning pain in legs and feet, sleep disturbance, personality changes, irritability and memory loss.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. A person's reaction depends on several things, including individual health, previous exposure to chemicals, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking. Its also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten.
WILL EXPOSURE TO MERCURY RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Metallic liquid mercury generally does not absorb very well when it swallowed. Breathing its vapors is very dangerous. When metallic mercury is touched it can slowly pass through the skin.

The following health effects can happen immediately or shortly after exposure to high levels of mercury:

Neurological effects, confusion, hand tremors
Chills
Chest tightness, bronchitis, pneumonia
Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite
Bleeding gums
Leg pains and burning sensation in feet
Lung and kidney damage
Skin rashes
Children and infants can develop a specific allergic reaction to mercury.

The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to mercury (more than 10 ppb in air):

Cancer: There is no evidence that mercury causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: Symptoms can include menstrual problems, possible miscarriages and damage to unborn babies.

Organ Systems: Peoples nervous systems and kidneys are very sensitive to mercury and are easily damaged. Symptoms of damage include blood in urine, shaking, burning pain in legs and feet, sleep disturbance, personality changes, irritability and memory loss.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. A person's reaction depends on several things, including individual health, previous exposure to chemicals, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking. Its also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten.
WILL EXPOSURE TO MERCURY RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Metallic liquid mercury generally does not absorb very well when it swallowed. Breathing its vapors is very dangerous. When metallic mercury is touched it can slowly pass through the skin.

The following health effects can happen immediately or shortly after exposure to high levels of mercury:

Neurological effects, confusion, hand tremors
Chills
Chest tightness, bronchitis, pneumonia
Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite
Bleeding gums
Leg pains and burning sensation in feet
Lung and kidney damage
Skin rashes
Children and infants can develop a specific allergic reaction to mercury.

The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to mercury (more than 10 ppb in air):

Cancer: There is no evidence that mercury causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: Symptoms can include menstrual problems, possible miscarriages and damage to unborn babies.

Organ Systems: Peoples nervous systems and kidneys are very sensitive to mercury and are easily damaged. Symptoms of damage include blood in urine, shaking, burning pain in legs and feet, sleep disturbance, personality changes, irritability and memory loss.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. A person's reaction depends on several things, including individual health, previous exposure to chemicals, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking. Its also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten.
 
2004-02-02 01:19:00 PM
Hey mods, can we ge a ban for the poop boy?
 
2004-02-02 01:19:18 PM
Raiders of the Fark: What "fake" war? Did the WTC really not collapse? Did we really not remove Saddam Hussein?

I know technology has progressed, but I'm fairly certain this war is not fake.

I really hope all those people that voted for Nader and Gore show up to vote in the 2004 elections. With all the "new" people Dean is bringing in it should be a sure Democratic victory in 04. But then again surpluses, record unemployment lows, economic prosperity and 8 years of peacetime turned out to be a negative for the Democrats in 2000.
 
2004-02-02 01:19:44 PM
 
2004-02-02 01:21:45 PM
BrotherMaynard

Running up the debt to kill social programs is about the worst idea I've ever heard of. What sucks is that you are right, it would probably either work like a charm, ensuring that many people are farked in the process, or it would backfire, ensuring that many people are farked in the process.

Isn't Dubya great?
 
2004-02-02 01:23:14 PM
nifty! i propose a 50 trillion dollar budget. hey! like the government can afford it either, but since we're pulling figures out of our arses, WTH....
 
2004-02-02 01:24:56 PM
Brother_Maynard: That sounds like the Milton Freidman plan. Since you'll never in a million years convince the "60 Minutes" voter to tear down the Social Security stage and then "biggaty bam" go smoke a bowl through votes, the only other way is to starve it.

Speaking of starving folks, I hear Fidel is about to croak.
 
2004-02-02 01:25:56 PM
Farking_Retard_Facsists. You people aint doing nothing about it but belittling each other. Enjoy.
 
2004-02-02 01:26:46 PM
Johnny_Canuck
Leonard_Cohen I'm so sorry to hear that your liberal has spread to 100% of your body, I do hope you recover.

Well, maybe after the next riding association meeting I might be singing a different tune.

btw I never knew there was a Johnny Canuck comic book, I remember Captain Canuck from the the 70' or 80's.
 
2004-02-02 01:27:38 PM
poorgirl: What's a guy to do when he's handed a horse with two broken legs and bladder infection? The social programs were a bad idea the day they were proposed. Increasing them is like trying to pull yourself out of bucket by the handle.
 
2004-02-02 01:30:13 PM

Trillions? Why that's all so complicated it makes my head spin, with all those numbers and everything.

What matters is that Jesus hates baby-murdering democrats, and that George W. Bush is spending money to promote Christianity.

Go GOP -- God's Own Party!!!

 
2004-02-02 01:32:29 PM
poorgirl
Running up the debt to kill social programs is about the worst idea I've ever heard of.

I agree. If you want to kill a social program, atleast have the balls to stand up and put it to a vote.

What sucks is that you are right, it would probably either work like a charm, ensuring that many people are farked in the process, or it would backfire, ensuring that many people are farked in the process.

I don't believe the goal to fark over the average person. I believe they truely do feel that social programs are evil, and by destroying them they are helping America. Personally, I find it batshiat crazy.

Isn't Dubya great?

It's more than just Dubya. This is a feeling held by a large faction of the conservative movement. Just do a google search on Grover Norquist.
 
2004-02-02 01:33:39 PM
canyoneer -- Interesting and yes, I am surprised. I can't say that I've ever encountered someone so, well, passionate about our system of checks and balances. You might not want to hear this, but there are quite a few very extreme Republicans in Congress who adhere to a completely strict interpretation of the Constitution who would likely agree with you on many issues. :)

I'm with you on the immigration proposal. Garbage.

Good debating with you today. Time to get back to work.
-R
 
2004-02-02 01:38:16 PM
canyoneer said:
No, Rayonic. I don't want to upset you. You see, I know you're a jut-jawed optimist about the Glorious United States of America and you probably got all maudlin last night during the Stupid Bowl and seeped a few tears onto your shirt collar when you saw the Apache Helicopters and heard the National Anthem and saw Old Glory waving majestically in the ventilation fan-blown breeze of Enron Field...er, whatever the name of the place is now.

I missed the beginning... tuned in during the second quarter. Did they really do that, though? With the anthem and the helicopters and the flag? (The roof opens up, by the way.)

Man, after watching that patriotic opening -- and seeing the "Patriots" win, no less -- I'm surprised you didn't go hang yourself out of depression. "Damned Americans, why won't you listen! You're doomed! You're all DOOMED!"

All you need is an obsession with over-interpreting the Bible, and you'll be ready to stand on a busy street corner with a sign reading "Leviticus 13:12" or somesuch.
 
2004-02-02 01:39:36 PM
2004-02-02 01:09:23 PM BrotherMaynard

I beleive they are spending this money in order to "Starve the Beast". They want to run up the national debt so they can kill off all social programs. Once they do this, all the wild spending will stop. Remember, those bonds are owned my someone..


Read David Stockman's book. He was Reagan's budget director early on in that administration. It's the exact tactic he accused Reagan (and later Bush) of using. For some reason the liberal media didn't talk this up too much.
 
2004-02-02 01:42:28 PM
Nightsweat: true, small amounts can get inside you, but it will be inert, and eventually leave your body. Exposure to high levels can cause certain symptoms... but the question "is mercury toxic" is like asking is a knife wound fatal. Yeah, sometimes, depending on the situation. But if you got some mercury on you I wouldn't go around expecting to die any minute.
 
2004-02-02 01:42:28 PM
2004-02-02 01:13:52 PM setaanbomb: No. I believe government should work for the general benefit of the citizens of the nation. It should work through democratic processes to reach the fairest consensus of what that general benefit is.

Let's use the traffic signal as an example: At some level, the government collects taxes to purchase and install and maintain traffic signals. These benefit all by regulating traffic flow and making transportation safer.

But, the benefits of this traffic signal are not evenly distributed, are they? For example, a rich man who owns a fleet of delivery trucks that helps his business flourish uses the traffic signal to his benefit more than a fellow who drives through it only twice a day on his way to and from his job with a different company. Meanwhile, the rich man's vehicles working to enrich him pass through the intersection safely many times per day.

So, shouldn't the cost of purchasing and installing and maintaining the traffic signal be distributed in proportion to the benefit derived from its existence and usage? Shouldn't the rich man pay a little more for the traffic signal than the other fellow? After all, the rich man gets more benefit out of it.

Here is an example of a government function that benefits all, but benefits certain members of society disproportionately. Let the rich man, who reaps greater utility, bear more of the cost. And since he makes so much more money, his share of the cost represents a relatively smaller percentage of his income.

I'd say the rich guy is getting out of the deal pretty favorably, all things considered.
 
2004-02-02 01:43:14 PM
setaabomb

//Raiders of the Fark: What "fake" war? Did the WTC really not collapse? Did we really not remove Saddam Hussein?//

You're kidding, right? You have to be kidding with this. Tell me this is a parody of the Bush doublethink. Tell me you can actually tell the difference between who attacked us on 9-11 and Iraq.

For the record I was 1/2 a mile from the WTC on 9-11. I had friends die. I smelled the burning odor for a month afterwards in my apartment. I nearly signed up to go to war in Afghanistan.

And it offends me when keyboard warriors such as yourself can't learn how to read a freakin' map and understand that we just invaded a country that never attacked us, never tried to attack us, and posed no threat to us.

Just so you can feel macho and like you have a big johnson in your pants after 9-11.
 
2004-02-02 01:43:18 PM
setaanbomb

I'm not saying increase them, but to put this country in so much debt that it can't get out of it unless you kill certain programs is a bad excuse.

BrotherMaynard is right, they should at least have the balls to put it up for a vote. I for one don't mind some of the programs, though why I care, I don't know, SS won't be there when I retire, but there are some ways to fix the system without completely farking the country into hell's debt otherwise.
 
2004-02-02 01:44:36 PM
Here is an excellent article that appeared in the Sacremento Bee regarding Tax Policy the problems with a progressive tax policy and poor investment opportunity.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12009

Short Short Version: If the 'rich' are taxed more than the 'non-rich' you better hope all conditions either stay the same to maintain the number of 'rich' people or improve the so the 'rich' get richer or more people join the 'rich' bracket.
 
2004-02-02 01:45:47 PM
The easiest way to cut the deficit is to end the obscenely bloated Military Industrial Complex. We can keep a functioning army and top level military at about 1/2 the cost we're currently spending.

But that would cut off all the funders of the Republican Party. And God forbid that happens.

So the rest of us will continue to pay the billions to the Texas war machine.

Maybe Jefferson was right. Maybe we do need a revolution and a new government.
 
2004-02-02 01:46:09 PM
a_cure_for_gravity

I've never read Stockman's book. But I did read his interview in the Atlantic. The one where he said that supply-side economics was just an excuse to give more money to the wealthy. The truth is, anyone who pays attention can see it's happening. It's just that the average American doesn't pay attention.
 
2004-02-02 01:47:04 PM
I'm watching the government do stuff like this, especially the money for Iraq to be asked for AFTER the elections and the probe into US intelligence whose report is slated to come in AFTER the elections, and I'm just crossing my fingers, rocking back and forth in my chair, closing my eyes, and saying, "Please don't be stupid, Americans. Please don't be stupid."

Vote 3rd party in local elections. Vote for anyone who supports instant runoff elections.
 
2004-02-02 01:50:54 PM
BrotherMaynard

When it comes to monetary policy, they have as much to lose as everyone else.

Yes, hooray for crony capitalism, right?
 
2004-02-02 01:51:08 PM
i remember hearing something about some people that refused to pay war taxes. hm.
 
2004-02-02 01:51:39 PM
2004-02-02 01:38:16 PM Rayonic: "Man, after watching that patriotic opening -- and seeing the 'Patriots' win, no less -- I'm surprised you didn't go hang yourself out of depression. 'Damned Americans, why won't you listen! You're doomed! You're all DOOMED!' All you need is an obsession with over-interpreting the Bible, and you'll be ready to stand on a busy street corner with a sign reading 'Leviticus 13:12' or somesuch."

Haha. Read you like a book, didn't I?

"Hang myself out of depression."

Haha.
 
2004-02-02 01:52:04 PM
canyoneer: That's why you have tolls and turnpikes. Those that use are those that pay. The guy that only uses them twice a year pays no where near what the guy that uses them twice a day would pay.

Raiders of the Fark: Holy Nos. I was in the WTC on 9/11. Save your cryparty for the next Dean Meet-Up. The war isn't fake no matter how many times you publish the lie on the Internet.

I actually love the fact that the peace at any pricers will call for the head of a dictator if he is burning too many fossil fuels but will look the other way the dictator is putting humans into tree shredders. If there were a better ways to handle Saddam in the post 9/11 world the people with those ideas are either mute or never wished to share them.
 
2004-02-02 01:52:08 PM
setaanbomb

Short Short Version: If the 'rich' are taxed more than the 'non-rich' you better hope all conditions either stay the same to maintain the number of 'rich' people or improve the so the 'rich' get richer or more people join the 'rich' bracket.


Given that the US has a 300+ year history of the rich getting richer and more numerous, That should be a good plan.
 
2004-02-02 01:52:51 PM
ProgrammerCat
Yes, hooray for crony capitalism, right?

Right or wrong, it's the way the world works.
 
2004-02-02 01:53:36 PM
Most of it is earmarked for education and environmental protection, right?

Sadly, yes.

/flame on!
 
2004-02-02 01:56:03 PM
iollow,

The rule specifically deals with merucry emitted from coal fired power plants. That mercury eventually setlles down into waterways where it is converted into the more toxic methyl-mercury by bacteria in the environment. There are an estimated 60,000 children/year in this country that develop learning disabilities as a result of mercury exposure.

The reason the Bush Administration is doing this is to skirt around requirements in the Clean Air Act for controlling toxic air emmissions, which we allow them to release a much weaker rule onj controlling mercury emissions than what is required by law.
 
2004-02-02 01:58:12 PM
Raiders of the Fark: Good idea. We'll cut military spending, call our troops home from Korea, Japan and Iraq and the world will live in peace, harmony and love.

Are you prepared to answer to critics of such policy when the North Koreans roll into Seoul?

Are you prepared to answer to critics of such policy when North Korea attacks Japan?

Are you prepared to answer to critics of such policy when hundreds of thousand of people are killed because the United States abanoned them to save a couple hundred billion to please the Kucinich itch?
 
2004-02-02 01:58:48 PM
setaanbomb

If there were a better ways to handle Saddam in the post 9/11 world the people with those ideas are either mute or never wished to share them.


Are you by any chance deranged enough to believe there is any connection between 9/11 and Iraq?

No one has been mute. Many advocates of peace have said that the inspections seemed to be working and that we should allow them to continue. All post-war evidence indicates that they were correct.
 
2004-02-02 02:00:53 PM
2004-02-02 01:44:36 PM setaanbomb: "Short Short Version: If the 'rich' are taxed more than the 'non-rich' you better hope all conditions either stay the same to maintain the number of 'rich' people or improve the so the 'rich' get richer or more people join the 'rich' bracket."

The USA had a "progressive" tax code throughout the 1950's and 1960's, which was a period of fantastic expansion, wealth creation, and upward mobility. Was "progressive" taxation the cause, or did the economy boom in spite of it?

Can you discuss these economic theories in the context of history, or only as dry theory on paper? History really happened, you know.
 
2004-02-02 02:01:12 PM
BrotherMaynard
ProgrammerCat
Yes, hooray for crony capitalism, right?
Right or wrong, it's the way the world works.

I think there must be a better way of doing things.
Its safe to assume that even the staunchest lefty would agree that parts of capitalism are "good" and its a safe bet that the richest daddy moneybags accepts lefty social programs, so where does that leave us?
There hasn't been a poitical paradym shift since Marx.

I'm sick and tired of people argueing about political semantics.
 
2004-02-02 02:01:18 PM
Johnny_Canuck- if you got something better for a social leftist like myself, then by all means, show me


the liberals are just about as right wing as the old conservatives where under Mulrouney (I know i spelt that wrong, I just know it) and I wouldn't DARE vote conservative, even if Stonarch got leadership nods.

hey, if they spend too much, at least it would be money they taxed off me, cause then we wouldn't have anymore debt.

anyways, the party is shifting more centrist everyday. Regardless of whether or not the NDP ever gets power, if they become the official opposition, whoever IS in power needs to listen to them, or at least steal ideas off of them, which is just as good.
 
2004-02-02 02:03:30 PM
setaanbomb

Raiders of the Fark: Good idea. We'll cut military spending, call our troops home from Korea, Japan and Iraq and the world will live in peace, harmony and love.



Now you are trying to say we can not cut military spending without abandoning Korea, Japan and Iraq? We managed to support troops overseas in the past with a much lower budget. What makes you think we could not do so now?
 
2004-02-02 02:03:52 PM
The USA had a "progressive" tax code throughout the 1950's and 1960's, which was a period of fantastic expansion, wealth creation, and upward mobility. Was "progressive" taxation the cause, or did the economy boom in spite of it?

How about the fact that after World War II, the USA was the only major industrialized country NOT in ruins?

It would have been pretty hard not to fark up the ensuing prosperity.
 
2004-02-02 02:04:02 PM
BIGGEST BUDGET EVER with reduced funding to the EPA??? WHAT THE FARK IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!?!?
 
2004-02-02 02:05:48 PM
Leonard_Cohen
Yes, hooray for crony capitalism, right?
Right or wrong, it's the way the world works.

I think there must be a better way of doing things.


I agree. However, I know there are people out there who do not feel this way. Or perhaps I'm just a cynic.

Anyway... hope for the best, expect the worse.
 
2004-02-02 02:06:47 PM
Yeargh. Quit insinuating that just because someone thinks the war was the correct thing to do means we think that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Saddam was a bad man, he slaughtered his own people, and kicked weapon inspectors out of his country. Regardless of his lack of connection to the attacks, it's a damn good thing he's gone.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. That doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing we took him out of power. Oy.
 
2004-02-02 02:07:34 PM
But it will make you safer, don't you want to be safe?

/sarcasm
 
2004-02-02 02:10:59 PM
Wayward2

Would have been very easy to screw that up running surpluses. The deficits of the 50's were the exact reason for prosperity. Unfortunately for the US they were still on the Gold Standard and eventually the gig came to an end.....now that the Gold Standard has been abandoned deficits are infinitely financeable and therefore only a matter of accounting to the government. To taxpayers surpluses are a burden as more capital is removed from the system then is added through spending. Therefore growth is unsustainable in an environment of continuing surpluses as capital is constantly being drained from the infrastructure....
 
2004-02-02 02:12:31 PM
2004-02-02 01:52:04 PM setaanbomb: "canyoneer: That's why you have tolls and turnpikes. Those that use are those that pay. The guy that only uses them twice a year pays no where near what the guy that uses them twice a day would pay."

So, the entire world should be coin-operated? Sounds really efficient, man. We could even have competing subway systems in New York, where a person could choose which subway to board based on how much it will cost him. I can see where having three or four private companies build their own subway systems would really lower the price. Uh huh. Of course, the litigation as these companies scrambled for routes would be pretty intense.

And several airports per city. Why, we could even have four or five competing armies, and take bids on invasions of Middle Eastern nations, before we choose which one to hire!

Ditto the tollways: Do you propose only one, or many competing ones? And if there is only one, then it is a defacto monopoly. Are you proposing capitalist monopolies as the best way forward for America?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is most certainly a place in the world for collective action, even if the idea irks you greatly. I, for one, am very happy that there is water at the tap, an electricity grid, sewer systems, roads, and telecom networks. Unfortunately for your hyper-privitization mentality, none of these things would exist in America if their construction had been left up to private concerns.

How do I know this? Because that is what really happened.
 
2004-02-02 02:13:32 PM
canyoneer said:
Haha. Read you like a book, didn't I?

Hardly. Just because you're a simple-minded pessimist doesn't mean your opposition is composed of simple-minded optimists.

Not that I completely blame you for this, mind you. Besides your myopic intellectual worldview. I will admit to being extra-positive here on Fark, if only to balance people such as yourself.

I'm curious -- once America completes its "inevitable" decline (how long has it been declining, by the way?), who on the world stage will take its place?
 
2004-02-02 02:15:22 PM
Rayonic

Believe it or not, we both are optimist when it comes to the US economy. However, I think Bush is driving its long-term growth in to the ground right now.
 
2004-02-02 02:17:34 PM
setaan: You stated that payroll taxes were not income taxes, and as a bookkeeper, I beg to differ.

The Federal Withholding taxes that you pay from your paycheck are a credit towards what you may owe, or what you have overpaid in Federal INCOME Tax. If you do not have enough Federal Withholding taken out of your paycheck, most likely you will OWE taxes. If you have more than needed taken from your paycheck, you will get a REFUND.

Get your facts straight with your accountant before you file this year.
 
2004-02-02 02:18:26 PM
Pontechango

quite the opposite. The economy needs the capital provide by deficit spending not the draining of capital that a surplus requires. frankly, the deficit is probably not a high enough % of GDP to drive aggregate demand to a level high enough to significantly increase cap utilization....
 
2004-02-02 02:21:11 PM
Man! I've heard a LOT of bad things about Bush 2 lately.

First that O'Neil dude comes out with his embarrassing rant on GWBush and a whole book.

Next this investigator comes out of IRAQ and says we were all idiots to even think that there were weapons there in the first place.

Now this.

There is no way in Hades that Bush will EVER get re-elected.
It just seems imposible to imagine right now how he could turn any of this around.

If republicans wanted to shoot themselves in the foot (twice) they found their man. It's an embarrassment for the country. Who would have ever thought his administration would fall in on itself really hardcore like this?
 
2004-02-02 02:23:16 PM
caiteach:
The reason the Bush Administration is doing this is to skirt around requirements in the Clean Air Act for controlling toxic air emmissions, which we allow them to release a much weaker rule onj controlling mercury emissions than what is required by law.

No doubt - Bush will crap on the environment if it'll make someone a buck somewhere.
 
2004-02-02 02:25:02 PM
Eoghan: It just seems imposible to imagine right now how he could turn any of this around.

Easy. See previous post: Jesus hates baby-murdering Democrats, and the Republicans are solving our real problems by bringing Christianity back to its rightful place in government. Who could vote Democrat?

 
2004-02-02 02:25:17 PM
pontechango said:
Believe it or not, we both are optimist when it comes to the US economy. However, I think Bush is driving its long-term growth in to the ground right now.

How? I'm not counter-arguing here, I honestly don't know. Does the massive borrowing by the U.S. government have some long-term effect on the money market or something? Or are you talking about our trade deals, farm subsidies, public image...?

I'd certainly like to believe that our deficit cannot affect our economy, but IANAE.
 
2004-02-02 02:26:40 PM
cayoneer: You must have misunderstood my point. I never advocated for a tax policy one way or the other. I merely pointed out the problems that occur when income tax burden is heavily weighted on the wealthy and what can happen if the wealthy don't stay wealthy. Not many wealty people are in the 'decrease my wealth please' business.

Funny that you draw up a few systems of competition and then define the as 'capitalist monopolies'. If there are four and five competing airports how is that capitalist monopoly? But your ideas sound fantastic. Competing armies would be great. We could have lower cost, better efficiency and fewer defeats/quicker victories. This would also decrese waste that presently exists via favored contractors and/or the influence of previous government officials.

I've never said that collective action was all bad. I think a lot of it is bad. Hyper-egalitarianism and hyper-social engineering is an excellent way to serfdom or death, most likely you'll get both.

Burn98: Saddam Hussein himself had nothing to do with 9/11. As for people that worked for him the story is still untold imo. Considering his generals were lying to eachother, lying to Saddam and lying to inspectors it will be quite the task to really determine who knew what and when.
 
2004-02-02 02:29:08 PM
Spacemarinekilla

Yeargh. Quit insinuating that just because someone thinks the war was the correct thing to do means we think that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.


I am not insinuating anything. When certain people constantly mention 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence. It is appropriate to ask what they think. Especially when polls from this time last year indicated that most Americans believed Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11.

Saddam was a bad man, he slaughtered his own people,

Agreed

and kicked weapon inspectors out of his country.

Ant then let them back in.

Regardless of his lack of connection to the attacks, it's a damn good thing he's gone.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. That doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing we took him out of power. Oy.


Agreed.
And it is true that scattered in amongst the constant droning about WMD and 9/11, there were some references to the problems you have mentioned. But the Administration spent most of its time talking about WMD, 9/11 and Saddam often in the same sentence. This gave almost everyone the impression that Saddam and 9/11 were linked. The Admin still talks about them together. If you have ever studied propaganda methods you would know that this is a common method of linking in the minds of your listeners two things that are not really connected. Most people last year believed that 9/11 and Iraq were related. The Administration worked very hard to create that impression. It did almost nothing to discourage it. I remember telling people on Fark last year that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Some people responded and asked me how I could be so stupid. These same people are now saying there is no connection but its not important. So why talk about it?

Now that the war is over, No WMD have been found, and more people are aware that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now people want to focus on other reasons for the war. If the way Saddam treated his people was the real reason, why did we not hear more about that before the war?
 
2004-02-02 02:29:33 PM
cwiegmann33

But in the process, Bush is negligently wasting other forms of capital.
 
2004-02-02 02:30:07 PM
conservatives say "we can trust business, use cut their taxes and let them create jobs nad give us lower prices!!!"


case against:

Alberta Insurance, ALberta Natural Gas Rates and subsequent Rebates

in Alberta, the fiscally conservative tories are cutting everything and swimming in huge departmental surpluses while insurance agencies that have been recently deregulated, are bending consumers over and shovihng large rate hike dildos up our sore anuses.

in Alberta, a 50 year old woman with a perfect driving score for insurance brokers has to pay 1000 dollars as of 2003/2004, and the rate WILL go up based on the most recent rate hike before the rate freeze came into effect. what does this all mean? well, her insurance was well under 1000 dollars a few years ago....and it went up! why??? she hasn't done one goddamn thing!

however, a student like myself when insured on a vehicle driven by a person that is in fact a "perfect" driver has to pay a starting rate of 1500!!! I haven't even had an accident. no previous record, and I get the breakjs from lessons and from not owning my own car, and I still pay significantly more! it's even WORSE for the 18-25 year olds that OWN THEIR OWN CARS!

they blame the rates on "bad investments" and recent market downfalls DESPITE RECORD PROFITS!!!!

the consumers don't pay for corporate fark-ups, but that is exactly what is happening.

don't even get me started on how much money the government dumps into gas rebates. They figure that upwards of 100 million CDN could be spent oif conditions stay bad. for less cost and less trouble they might as well reregulate the rates and save us all a lot of trouble.

yes, let's cut those corporate taxes and deregulate EVERYTHING! because then we'll ALL get the same assraping provided by the private sector while we are rolling in cash that we have to give to the private secotr anyways.


so, what would I rather have....taxes or uncontrolled capitalism....

where do I sign up for that tax hike?
 
2004-02-02 02:32:29 PM
Rayonic

Wish I could debate it with you now but I can't. Catch you later.
 
2004-02-02 02:33:06 PM
Eoghan
There is no way in Hades that Bush will EVER get re-elected. It just seems imposible to imagine right now how he could turn any of this around.

I disagree. I believe the average American doesn't care about these kinds of things. To them, the idea of two gays get married is far more important than the size of the budget deficit. I hope I'm wrong.
 
2004-02-02 02:35:16 PM
pontechango

you may have a good point. I can't intelligently debate on the environment since I am woefully uneducated on the subject. I was only speaking economically, and economically the entire argument over the deficit is moot and the product of text books that still view world economics in the gold standard era......
 
2004-02-02 02:36:02 PM
BrotherMaynard-

for the sake of the modern world, let us hope you are wrong. oh so very wrong.
 
2004-02-02 02:38:11 PM
cwiegmann33

Would have been very easy to screw that up running surpluses. The deficits of the 50's were the exact reason for prosperity. Unfortunately for the US they were still on the Gold Standard and eventually the gig came to an end.....now that the Gold Standard has been abandoned deficits are infinitely financeable and therefore only a matter of accounting to the government. To taxpayers surpluses are a burden as more capital is removed from the system then is added through spending. Therefore growth is unsustainable in an environment of continuing surpluses as capital is constantly being drained from the infrastructure....


This is just crazy. deficits are infinitely financeable!?!? and therefore only a matter of accounting!?!? You mean we can borrow and spend forever and never have to worry about it? We should just eliminate taxes altogether then.

To taxpayers surpluses are a burden as more capital is removed from the system then is added through spending. Therefore growth is unsustainable in an environment of continuing surpluses as capital is constantly being drained from the infrastructure.

Not if the surpluses are used to pay down debt! When you pay off debt you return money to investors who then will find something else to invest the money in. (something better than government spending)
 
2004-02-02 02:38:58 PM
pontechango: Remove 'Bush' and replace it with 'Humans' and your statement is more accurate.
 
2004-02-02 02:39:00 PM
Saddest thing about being a twenty-something:

Knowing that all these entitlement programs politicians are claiming that they're trying to 'save' won't exist by the time I retire. Oh yeah, and the very real possibility that we could all be incinerated in nucular blast before 30, never getting the chance to biatch about how much it sucks being 'over the hill.'

/wondering how our parents farked everything up...
 
2004-02-02 02:39:30 PM
CanadianCommie I think things are best run in Canada if there is an elected minority government and won under an election that is a real horse race a squeaker if you will. It doesn't really matter to me which of the three wins because the government is run by the civil servants anyway the elected body just rides the horse if you will. Things don't work with a divided conservative party and really don't work up here with a two party system.

Leonard_Cohen, Johnny_Canuck was a comic in the 40's one of the original pulp comics my handle was a bit of an homage to this effect. And yes I have at least one of each of the Captain Canuck comics published in the 70's.
 
2004-02-02 02:39:34 PM
BrotherMaynard: I believe the average American doesn't care about these kinds of things.

Not that they don't care. They can't understand. Average = average.

 
2004-02-02 02:40:58 PM
2004-02-02 02:10:59 PM cwiegmann33:"...deficits are infinitely financeable and therefore only a matter of accounting to the government. To taxpayers surpluses are a burden as more capital is removed from the system then is added through spending. Therefore growth is unsustainable in an environment of continuing surpluses as capital is constantly being drained from the infrastructure..."

There is an aspect of deficit economies that is unaccounted for: the physical world.

It is marvelous that we can invent wealth based on an accounting trick, and therefore continue the expansion of human population and economies forever...except we cannot continue the expansion of human population forever. The planet is, in fact, finite. Noticed the collapsing fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, for example? How about the many rivers that no longer reach the ocean because so much water is taken out by people upstream? There are many examples where universtiy economics theory falls far short of the real world.

Haha. I always get a laugh out of economics in the sterile vacuum of the human brain. Nice theoretical world, if you buy into it.
 
2004-02-02 02:41:34 PM
I have been lurking in this thread and have read EVERY SINGLE COMMENT (believe it or not) and all I have to say is this: I am never having children. I am getting an ulcer just thinking about all this shiat. For the first time, I am truly afraid of the changes to come. I can't imagine bringing a child into this farked up world.

Oh god! I sound like a farking hippie!!
 
2004-02-02 02:43:50 PM
"CanadianCommie[-]I think things are best run in Canada if there is an elected minority government and won under an election that is a real horse race a squeaker if you will. It doesn't really matter to me which of the three wins because the government is run by the civil servants anyway the elected body just rides the horse if you will. Things don't work with a divided conservative party and really don't work up here with a two party system."

blame the Weeners the post system. let's get a better system and then maybe we'll have more responsible government
 
2004-02-02 02:45:57 PM
Setaanbomb

//I actually love the fact that the peace at any pricers will call for the head of a dictator if he is burning too many fossil fuels but will look the other way the dictator is putting humans into tree shredders. If there were a better ways to handle Saddam in the post 9/11 world the people with those ideas are either mute or never wished to share them.//

And I'm deeply, deeply touched by your caring for the people of Iraq. Really, I am. You are a kind humanitarian with a warm heart. You care about your fellow mankind. You and your Neo Con bretheren enter reluctantly into battle to save the poor people of Iraq.

I'm moved by your beauty. You are gorgeous.

I just wiped a tear from my eye to know good people like you care so much about people you've never met that you're willing to go to war for them.

Never mind that you'd already attempted to explain the war as a response to 9-11 (a vestigal trace of the double-think your mind has been going through since the reasons shifted). Never mind that it was originally about WMDs and protecting America.

Now that I realize it was really your deep and empathetic caring for the children of Iraq, I want to cry, and hug you. I really do. Your heart is so large, you are a wonderful human being.

/You're a transparent fraud.
 
2004-02-02 02:46:16 PM
like, whoa a part of my last post changed


it was s'posed to say first-past-the-post
 
2004-02-02 02:47:15 PM
Lenny_da_Hog
BrotherMaynard: I believe the average American doesn't care about these kinds of things.

Not that they don't care. They can't understand. Average = average.


I disagree. How many people can tell you the ERA of the New York Yankees starting line up? How many people can explain every coaching mistake Andy Reid made in the Panthers-Eagles game? These are topics that are just as complicated as deficit spending. The difference is, people care more about these topics.

Note: I'm not trying to belittle sports fans or anything like that. I'm just saying that people do have the ability to understand difficult issues. They just don't want to do it.
 
2004-02-02 02:48:08 PM
Lenny_da_Hog
BrotherMaynard: I believe the average American doesn't care about these kinds of things.
Not that they don't care. They can't understand. Average = average.

**my apologies for this generalization**
One of my professors told me once that most Americans aren't capable of think in ways that question the status quo, he felt it was a question of secondary socialization.

Although most fakers might be the exception to that rule.
 
2004-02-02 02:51:09 PM
Burn98

You got my point exactly deficits are infinitely financeable. The federal government can spend as much as it wants. In fact it does not need to borrow to pay for anything. It is the monopoly issuer of US$, it has an infinite supply of them. The only cap on how many $ it spends is one it puts on itself.

It cannot however eliminate taxes. The US$ that it issues has value only because the government accepts it as payment for taxes (and for the provision of certain services). If they ceased accepting dollars then they would in fact be worthless, as they are nonconvertible....

The Fed will never pay down the debt because it needs it to control interest rates longer than the overnight rate which it has direct control over. Treasuries are a tool of interest rate maintenance not financing
 
2004-02-02 02:51:52 PM
Heather-Mae
I can't imagine bringing a child into this farked up world.
Oh god! I sound like a farking hippie!!


Relax honey, people have been saying that for years, probably your parents said the same, give yourself some credit.
 
2004-02-02 02:53:46 PM
Well, I am out of here. I offer apologies in advance to anyone who responds to my previous posts. I will not be able to continue the debate. I have other fish to fry.

As a parting shot I would just like to say that based on the level of intelligence I have seen here I have no doubt that Bush will be re-elected. Make of that what you will.
 
2004-02-02 02:55:06 PM
Burn98

Now that the war is over, No WMD have been found, and more people are aware that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now people want to focus on other reasons for the war. If the way Saddam treated his people was the real reason, why did we not hear more about that before the war?

Because it's a whole lot easier to influence people through fear than compassion. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's true.

No matter the reason it was done, I think it was the right thing to do. I've resigned myself to the fact that politicians are going to lie; I'm very much jaded and cynical in that respect. So, because of that, all that matters to me any longer are their actions, all rationale they may have given for it aside, and I agree that we should have gone in there and taken care of Saddam. Many of Bush's policies at home, however, I don't agree with in the least...
 
2004-02-02 02:55:39 PM
It'd be a lot cheaper without $530 billion for prescription drugs... but whatever.
 
2004-02-02 02:56:13 PM
//As a parting shot I would just like to say that based on the level of intelligence I have seen here I have no doubt that Bush will be re-elected. Make of that what you will.//

Can I make of that that you have no actual argument to support why Bush should be reelected, so you just keep repeating a meaningless mantra to make yourself feel better?
 
2004-02-02 02:59:30 PM
BrotherMaynard: How many people can tell you the ERA of the New York Yankees starting line up?

Memorization does not equate to understanding. It can be an impedence, as it is in this case. Memorize the rhetoric, and you don't have to admit you don't understand any of it. Just memorize the mantras :"Cutting taxes leads to more jobs."

Instead of understanding the complicated dynamics of lobbyists, campaign contributions, and budget spending, just memorize and repeat. Repeat louder if someone says you're mistaken.

 
2004-02-02 03:01:24 PM
I'm surprised he didn't ask for a Gazillion dollars.
 
2004-02-02 03:12:27 PM
Well we're just having a headline-makin' day now aren't we.

School-shootings suck.
Bush is being an idiot as usual.
Rhino-lovin'.
And over-protective moms.

Dammit, why does my month have to be so damn VIOLENT?
 
2004-02-02 03:15:25 PM
Lenny_da_Hog
Instead of understanding the complicated dynamics of lobbyists, campaign contributions, and budget spending, just memorize and repeat. Repeat louder if someone says you're mistaken.

I could accept this. However, even the simple items escape people. How many people know who the name of their Senators? Or their US Rep? These items are also simple memorization as well. If you truely cared, you would atleast know these items.
 
2004-02-02 03:20:58 PM
BrotherMaynard

I could accept this. However, even the simple items escape people. How many people know who the name of their Senators? Or their US Rep? These items are also simple memorization as well. If you truely cared, you would atleast know these items.

Why memorize that shiat when you can look it up? Quite, frankly, it's always "Dear Senator Bunghole" with me until I'm ready to actually send the letter; as every man jack in Congress is a thief.
 
2004-02-02 03:23:34 PM
Before I go on, I should admit that I am just as guilty as everyone else. I may know who my federal represenatives are, but I am clueless as to my state Senator or State Rep. As well as the local borough council and school board.

Again, it's not because I can't learn it. I just really don't follow it.
 
2004-02-02 03:25:10 PM
meh..I say more should spend more on the military. Cut the social welfare bullshiat out of the factor and that'll make up the $500 bil.

If you complain about the increase in spending the terrorists have won.
 
2004-02-02 03:27:11 PM
Spacemarinekilla

Yes, because there were not over a hundred times as many people dying in the Congo when they went to rescue Iraq. They went there for oil and for reconstruction contracts. They made up the justifications after they decided to go to war. Its plain as day.
 
2004-02-02 03:27:42 PM
ProgrammerCat
Why memorize that shiat when you can look it up? Quite, frankly, it's always "Dear Senator Bunghole" with me until I'm ready to actually send the letter; as every man jack in Congress is a thief.

I always figured if you are motivated enough to write a letter, there's a really good chance you know who you are sending it to. Perhaps I am wrong about that.
 
2004-02-02 03:32:06 PM
If bush gets re-elected, Who volunteers to burn down every trailer park in America so someone like him isn't thrown into office again?
 
2004-02-02 03:37:42 PM
I can't even read this thread, its all too much. I'd just like to say to the random people that happen to be reading these words at this exact moment, that this whole world is all madness and I never wanted any part of it.
 
2004-02-02 03:42:00 PM
I like how Bush blamed "a war" and "a recession". There were two wars during this administration...one of which was completely unnecessary. There were tax cuts at the same time there was a budget increase, which points out that this administration really has no clue what they are doing (until it's time to get re elected).

Throw the bums out.
 
2004-02-02 03:52:55 PM
In this thread I can see how people can be catagorized according to Verba and Almonds's 3 catagories of political culture.
For your reading pleasure...


1) parochial, in which no clear differentiation of specific political roles and expectations exists among actors, i.e. "political specialization is minimal"

2) subject, in which institutional and role differentiation exists in political life, but towards which the citizen stands in largely passive relations.

3) participant, in which the relationships between specialized institutions and citizen opinion and activity is interactive.

They summarize this general schema as follows:

"A participant is assumed to be aware of and informed about the political system in both its governmental and political aspects. A subject tends to be cognitively oriented primarily to the output side of government: the executive, bureaucracy, and judiciary. The parochial tends to be unaware, or only dimly aware, of the political system in all its aspects".
 
2004-02-02 03:54:56 PM
I got my earnings statement for work today (I have direct deposit for my paycheck). $213 came out for social security this month. My employer chipped in their share but as I am only 24 I don't thing I'm ever getting any of that money back when I retire.

As unfortunate as that is I wouldn't feel so bad if I thought it was going to my mom and dad or my grandparents. Instead it is going to some conservative donors company in the form of an over-priced pork barrel program that is of very little use to me or my family. They take money from social security by borrowing money from the social security "lock box" to pay for the budget overruns. Some millionaire stock holders will get a little more money and I'll have to work until I'm 75 or I die. I'll also owe my share of the several trillion dollars in public debt so the president can get a little more money for his next campaign from one of his millionaire donors.

So, for everyone who will never see a dime of this money back this has become in effect a regressive tax on the poorest people in America. Millions pay more money into the payroll tax than federal income tax. They'll never get this money back but everyone figures them for deadbeats because they don't pay much "real" taxes. What they never get is a real tax break. There might have been an outside chance that social security could have been saved if only we could have kept conservatives from robbing it at every turn.

I'm not suggesting everyone stop paying social security or even end the program. I'm suggesting we change the name of social security to something more accurate.

Here are some ideas:

- Campaign Donation Repayment Fund (drop in a few million and you can get fat government contracts keeping our troops in squalor)

- The Partisan Corporate Welfare Fund (golden parachutes don't pack themselves)

- The Poor Tax (since every $ over your gross 70,000 is exempt)

- The Ronald Regan Memorial Debt Reconciliation Fund (now headed by G.W. Bush)

- The Federal War Chest (Which wouldn't be a bad idea if we weren't always at War with someone or something)
 
2004-02-02 04:00:04 PM
Why don't they just say 'Bush proposes putting all the money in the world into war, forever and ever, amen.'
 
2004-02-02 04:00:16 PM
JSimmons , wrong. The Bush Family isn't from a trailer park. hm, it must be nice to be from a wealthy family that doesn't have to face any of the problems and repercussions that most people do.
 
2004-02-02 04:16:02 PM
"the administration projects will fall to $237 billion in 2009" like that's an achievement. They're the ones that put us in the hole! Faith-based economics.
 
2004-02-02 04:19:09 PM
Democrats = tax + spend.

Republicans = spend even more than the Dems, spend it on all the wrong stuff, cut spending on important stuff, then cut taxes so there's nowhere near enough money to pay for it all...all while waging multiple wars.

Suddenly, taxing & spending doesn't sound so bad anymore.
 
2004-02-02 04:21:56 PM
Move along citizens, nothing to see here. Get back to your shopping.


Politics sounds like a blast! How do I get involved?
 
2004-02-02 04:22:36 PM
Maybe they'll let George keep on mowing the white house lawn after the election, he so loves riding around on that mower? Now that he's a go-zillionaire and all. Or Dad will give him another oil well or a baseball team to bungle. Yep, he quite an inspiring leader.
 
2004-02-02 04:26:12 PM
It's Georgie's prowess on the stock market that really impresses me. Especially his magical "market timing". Seriously, you can't coach that kind of shiat.
 
2004-02-02 05:22:43 PM
364 billion to 401 billion!!!

401b-364b = 37 billion dollars;

37 000 000 000 / 290 342 554 = $127.44 per capita in your country.

Now I'm no economist, but I give your a bold prediction:

$127.44 would help YOU out a lot more than it will help out the military.

Don't shoot the messenger!

I am absolutly dumbfounded how this man is considering running for election. What is more unfathomable is that the Deomcrats are unorganized.

One party, two wings.

Why don't you people see this? Perhaps enough people here do; but I doubt a fark forum is representitive of the American electorate.

Oh well, don't shoot the messenger!
 
2004-02-02 05:25:53 PM
HoodedWanderer - I so want to shoot you right now.
 
2004-02-02 05:29:54 PM
Leonard_Cohen - you lost me at "In"
 
2004-02-02 05:31:19 PM
 
2004-02-02 05:41:44 PM
HoodedWanderer

I think Bush is outta here next Nov.
Thank God I don't understand what people see in him, all i see is a really bad president

I was glad Gore didn't get in in '00 but bush has made me wish Gore had won, and I hate gore he sux, only slightly less than bush - McCain was our best shot in '00
 
2004-02-02 05:54:30 PM
Dean's the best hope us Dems have right now. Kerry is a'ight but really, we need to unite, like yesterday, and we need to pick the best person for the job; Dean. Compare the two and you'll see.

/Bush gives me the heebie jeebies
 
2004-02-02 05:57:36 PM
I can't believe he calls himself a Republican - what an asshole. I want my money back. I guess this is another year that a Republican votes for a Democrat
 
2004-02-02 05:57:38 PM
You know all those flamewars back when Neo Cons thought they were doing themselves a favour by going to war and supporting all things Bush?

I'm still laughing because the only country Bush screwed more than Iraq was the country that all the lovely middle/upper class Neo-cons came from.

YOU AND YOUR STUPID KIDS CAN SUCK ALL $2.4 TRILLION OF IT!!!!

Swallow.It.Down.


HA HA....
 
2004-02-02 06:11:09 PM
Republican welfare = the Military

They don't mind paying you a pittance, as long as you agree to go kill some furriner at their behest.
 
2004-02-02 06:13:29 PM
I've been reading the comments section for a while now,(possibly too long) and I must say absolutely nothing has been accomplished whatsoever. Some of you guys,(& gals) are obviously knowledgeable about the political process, but all you seem to do is discuss, disagree and attack others who don't believe as you do. We are individuals with our own ideas, beliefs and opinions. That's what makes us unique. My confusion,and frustration, is that all I witness is a bunch of jabber. Why can't we use our cynicsm and discouragement in the current Bush administration to do something positive? Let's unite. Start a revolution. Why not? Am I being too naive? Is that an impossible suggestion? It's apathy, laziness and selfishness that has led America to the dismal point in history that it now stews. Yes, I'm including myself in the description above. Talk, talk, talk. We sound like the damn politicians that we abhor so much. We the people should unite as one. Put aside racial, economic, religious affiliations and TRY with all our hearts and minds to make a definite change for the better before this country and possibly the world goes to "hell in a handbasket".
 
2004-02-02 06:14:04 PM
Yesquite: I do remember those flame wars. As someone that didn't vote for Bush, or buy one ounce of his B.S., I too have to eat this travesty in overspending by one of the most irresponsible regimes this country has ever seen.

...thanks for caring.
 
2004-02-02 06:15:46 PM


huh,huh, Yesquite said SUCK...huh,huh

yeah, swallow it, huh, huh, huh
 
2004-02-02 06:22:19 PM
DrStrangelove

nice
 
2004-02-02 06:22:23 PM
MysticWolf: We can start by getting rid of this administration; it would be the strongest statement the people as a whole can make. I believe Ralph Nader chose not to run this year so the Democrats can get rid of Bush. It's just the beginning, but it's a very necessary beginning.

I encourage all Republicans in the middle to lower tax brackets to heed this advice...even if Bush finally gets Bin Laden. Don't forget you'll have to pay for this enormously short-sighted over spending. Remember the troops that have been suffering in that hell-hole called Iraq, and most of all, make a statement about being lied to; let the politicians know you're not as dumb as they think you are.
 
2004-02-02 06:25:24 PM
MysticWolf
all you seem to do is discuss, disagree and attack others who don't believe as you do

ok i guess some of us do
certainly not all of us!
you're a moron for saying that

-kidding aside ok i'm in what's our platform?
 
2004-02-02 06:28:32 PM
Glenlivid

Unfortunately all the good people in America will of course suffer as well. Much like all the good people in Iraq suffered. Bush managed to get everyone. That's what I'm pointing out. Everyone is going to foot the bill, Bush supporter or not. But in America, people can CHOOSE whether or not they vote. And considering that a fairly small percentile of eligible voters actually vote in your country. It just goes to show how much people don't care about the process of how American "Democracy" is executed. So much for the "Free world". Perhaps this monumental hole in your economy will be the catalyst for people to start seeing that in order to sustain any semblance of democracy... you need to get out there push it along whenever you can.

Apathy towards others can be a harsh mistress....

Apathy in your own backyard is a harsh mistress with a belt-driven dildo.
 
2004-02-02 06:29:22 PM
 
2004-02-02 06:39:20 PM
Also notice that not much in the media has ever really been quantified in TRILLIONs before?

I guess putting the numbers in Billions just doesn't cut it any more.

Perhaps you should all move to that "cheese-eating surrender-monkey loving" France... they may stink... according to you guys... but at least they have proper schooling, better health care and lesser levels of poverty than you guys.

See? All this country bashing isn't making me or anyone who does it actually superior after all....

idiots.

But what the hey... welcome to the overpriced toilet-bowl that is your country.

-FLUSH!!!

God I can go all day... :)
 
2004-02-02 06:41:27 PM
Pxtl

Nah, I totally agree with you on the Congo. We should take them all out in turn. Of course, good luck with that with anyone but a republican in office.

/still closest to a libertarian at heart
 
2004-02-02 06:45:56 PM
 
2004-02-02 06:46:42 PM
Almost no Pro-Bush arguments in this thread. Great! Nice for us europeans to see that you americans finally get your act together and get rid of that useless fascist.

Just wondering what took you so long? Might it be that seeing a piece of the real world on 9/11 scared you into supporting him?
 
2004-02-02 06:54:05 PM
If you were to line up 24,000,000,000 (24 billion) $100 bills, end to end, it would wrap around the Planet Earth 47 times! $2,400,000,000,000 is alot of paper!
 
2004-02-02 06:55:55 PM
 
2004-02-02 07:00:20 PM
Bush is a Fiscal Liberal!

(note the irony)
 
2004-02-02 07:09:52 PM
Dumb: Bush and his lies

Dumber: The people who are stupid enough to continue believing him when he says things.
 
2004-02-02 07:12:20 PM
Cutting funding for the environment? What a surprise! Plus, let's not forget that he appointed Mike "stripmine" Leavitt as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. To rip off someone's comment earlier, it's like appointing Jenna Jameson as the head of the Celibacy Agency.
 
2004-02-02 07:24:45 PM
Thanks Dubya.. enjoy your last year in office.
 
2004-02-02 07:26:51 PM
TheConvincingSavant
Sadly, I bet this is what a lot of our left-leaning FARKers will be writing after this election. If you have a better proposal for how a political system should be run, speak up.

Libertarian.

 
2004-02-02 07:27:18 PM
Yesquite: I voted Gore in the last election (just held my breath and did it). As someone that does vote, I feel the election was stolen, and there's not much you can do about that. I do understand what you mean about apathy; I've been suffering from it myself lately.

I voted for doctor assisted suicide in Oregon, it passed, and Ashcroft said he would prosecute any doctors that purchase the drugs necessary to cause the death of their patient to the fullest extent of the law.

I voted for medical marijuana in Oregon, it passed, but Ashcroft has sworn to prosecute anyone that possesses or sells pot to the fullest extent of the law.

What really happened in America was a conservative revolution, which amounted to the conservative party turning into a bunch of Nazis, blindly following their fuehrer and his advisors to the downfall of our country at the cost of the rest of the world. They really wanted to show the world how the conservatives get things done, and believe me, they did.
 
2004-02-02 07:42:18 PM
Glenlivid

The electoral system that America has is deeply flawed. And I'm surprised that no one has put more attention to it, other than the whole "hanging chad" scandal.

1. Voting should be compulsory. - This sounds harsh especially to people who are used to the voluntary vote system, but Australia has had this system for decades. Compulsory voting means that you can't just play to the people who have both the time and common sense to vote, you have to create policies that encompass everyone.

2. Voting should take place on either public holidays or weekends. Last the last American vote was on a Tuesday between work-day hours. Doesn't this seem odd to any American on the street? Why Tuesday? Because people who work in the lower classes, say manual labor, hospitality staff, most low-end income earners work during the day. They do not have the time to vote. Who has the time to vote? Usually the conservatives and business people who can vote on their lunch hours. This is how both the Democrats and the Republicans have steadily been able to get away with leaning more and more to the right wing than the left wing. People's voices are not being heard.

Again in Australia voting here takes place on a weekend. To ensure Everyone has a chance to vote. Being compulsory makes it even better. People will vote or be fined. It's a small price to pay for a truly representative democracy.

I'm not saying our system is perfect. But it runs rings around the almost corrupt way American electoral systems are run. Especially when you consider the funding allocation to properly working electoral machine boxes to places like Harlem etc, where the machines are almost inoperable. Resulting in the whole hanging-chad debate. Essentially rendering people's votes useless.

Anyway, I am sorry for your predicament. It seems the more the conservatives are in power, the more greedy, obtuse and just plain evil on the black and white of it they become.
 
2004-02-02 07:44:55 PM
 
2004-02-02 08:14:19 PM
Yesquite: Very good points. We're a long way from reform in this country; the hot topic right now is Janet Jackson's nipple. Literally, the entire country has been freaking out because she exposed a boob during the superbowl.

Welcome to my apathetic nightmare. How can we change the media (to fucus on the things that actually matter), reform the voting system, dispell big money from running the country, end corporate corruption and successfully bring our country into the 21st century on the most basic topics like healthcare?

It's a long road, and this country could certainly do with some unity on what really matters.

/anti conservative republican rant.
 
2004-02-02 09:16:26 PM
Bush will win in November, deficit or no deficit.

Why? Because no matter who the Dems nominate, they're going to run on a platform that includes raising taxes. You can't win on that.

And don't give me that "fiscal irresponsibility" act. The Dems tried to pin that on Reagan in '84 and see how far that got them?

Four more years, Farkers. Learn to live with it.
 
2004-02-02 09:30:43 PM
Just one quick question: they expect a 13.2% rise in revenues, what if the rise is -13.2% or zero rise or 5.0% does that mean the deficit will be even higher?
 
2004-02-02 09:55:58 PM
"Ya, Mis parientes pueden venir aka. Van a vender chicle i sexo por las equinas.
Encienden adelante/flame on!"


Thats some of the worst Spanish I have ever read....

/Tu espaol apesta.
 
2004-02-02 10:01:51 PM
number sure are getting big these days
 
2004-02-02 10:07:08 PM
Mouser

I would venture to say that you have not been paying attention to the Dems public statements thus far on the tax situation.
 
2004-02-02 11:06:40 PM
Mouser: I can see how little you know about the intelligence of the American people. We're not so dumb that we can't see through economic failure of Bush's administration to realize the difference between "tax and spend" or "don't tax and spend". One of them makes sense to the dumbest people around me, the other speakes of the Darwinism behind a dying breed.
 
2004-02-02 11:58:49 PM
You know, if instead of spending all that money on blowing stuff up the US spent it on building stuff, giving food to people, researching AIDS and cancer... well, wouldn't we all be better off?

Just my 2.4x10^2 trillion cents.
 
2004-02-03 12:03:52 AM
Let's weigh some things.

George W. Bush

Accepted into Yale University, an extremely selective school, on mediocre grades. Cause: Daddy's influence.

Was a mediocre student at Yale.

Accepted into Texas Air National Guard by charging up the waiting list through Daddy's influence. Avoided deployment to Vietnam. Towards the end of said tenure, managed to sneak off for awhile to participate in a political campaign. Suffered no negative consequences.

Poor businessman in his later life. Confirmed he is a recovering alcoholic and rumored to have done cocaine.

Poor public speaker. Poor analytical decision maker. He himself admits he prefers to make gut decisions from his own instinct. Facts are irrelevant.

Does not seek any sort of intellectual challenge. Heavily dependant on advisors for counsel and knowledge of basic history, politics, economy, and how they are linked.

Good ceremonial leader following 9/11. It's hard not to love your president when your country is attacked.

Launched succesful invasion of Afghanistan. However, majority of nation is still under control of regional warlords. Despite having a larger population and land area than Iraq, has far less foreign troops within borders to provide stability. Taliban activity on rise and difficult to predict. Intelligence shoddy. Nearby Pakistan provides aid and refuge and is also a nuclear power. Future uncertain. Afghanistan IS a central nexus of terrorism and Al Qaeda activity...however, our commitment is curiously lax in favor of...

Iraq, home of Saddam Hussein and Bush I's nemesis. WMD evidence is shoddy to say the least. Link to Al Qaeda is unsubstantiated. On further analysis, mingling with Al Qaeda would have undermined Saddam's own foundation of secular dictatorial power in favor of fundamentalist theocracy. Translation, even if he had nukes, giving them to crazy jihadiis who pose as much a threat to him as his enemies wouldn't be very smart. His threat to neighbors is minimal given our obvious commitment to bomb anyone who threatens our oil supply. He's more or less your standard phallic dictator who also sits on a lot of oil. As for his cruelty and repression of the people, I'm still waiting for our invasion plans for North Korea, several African nations, hell, how about Tibet and Western China? Are we gonna free them too?

Conclusion, war with Iraq is a waste of resources better spent elsewhere. Saddam is a minimal threat given our already towering might. Conquering cruel leaders is such an obvious double standard. Al Qaeda link is unsubstantiated. Afghanistan, hub of terror, home to Binny the Ladin, barely has a quarter of the troops Iraq has despite being a much larger country. Poor intelligence and double speak given to American people as justification. Democratization of Middle East is an expensive bloody task with no help, not to mention arrogant considering democracy also allows for election of a theocracy. It's called self determination. Why bother with all this nonsense when their own internal contradictions will eventually bring about their own collapse in much the same way the Soviet Union fell? It's cheaper and they learn more that way too. But on to the domestic side.

Bush excessively coddles to conservative Christians who have little tolerance for other faiths. Makes numerous verbal faux paus such as calling war on terrorism a "crusade." Religion is a terrible weapon when put in the hands of morons.

2.4 Trillion budget, humongous deficit. Does not take into account extra money needed for Iraq(will be announced post election) NOR the tremendous veterans benefits the boys will need if and when they come home. Despite being a Republican, has YET to veto a single spending bill. Low taxes AND high spending is not sound economic policy.

Bush...failed as a student, a businessman, a soldier...he even fails as a fiscal conservative. The man is obviously a slave to his agenda-ridden advisors. A true leader is able to balance out his advisors' counsel. He..for crying out loud, with terrorism, a world that can't stand US foreign policy, the Iraq war, ballooning deficits, health care, and education issues...........the man talks about STEROIDS. STEROIDS. STEROIDS!!!

Even if you don't like democrats, you can't dispute that both democrats AND republicans are human beings, fallible, petty, and eager to take your money. We have a Republican president AND a republican congress. That kind of power balance is unacceptable. It is a recipe for abuse. Look at the facts, the Reps are no longer the party of small government or low taxes. They have betrayed their own ideology for wild spending and irresponsible crusades, all lead by a man who can't make a decision by himself.

I will vote for a democrat this year...not because I AM a democrat, but for balance. Balance. The absolute power the Reps have now has corrupted them absolutely.
 
2004-02-03 01:25:26 AM
SmitetheRighteous
Well done. You've summed up this mess very nicely. I hope you don't mind but more people need to read what you wrote so I've pasted it into my profile. If you don't want me i'll get rid of it.
 
2004-02-03 01:36:42 AM
hmm where my totalfark go? where do i get help on this :p
 
2004-02-03 02:13:42 AM
and you guys impeached clinton! *rolls about laughing*

it's funny how "america" figures that fingering an intern is a crime and anything bush does isnt.

50 years max, america is going to implode if something doesnt change.
 
2004-02-03 04:24:26 AM
what the fark do you need this much money for?
well i guess taking over the world is a slow and expensive process.
 
2004-02-03 04:29:27 AM
fark you khan reaper.
 
2004-02-03 08:25:18 AM
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Gibt es Gerechtigkeit zu sterben, damit man fahren kann?
Bestimmt nicht in diesem Fall.

 
2004-02-03 09:21:12 AM

ARRHRAHRHARHRHAHHRHAHRH!!H!H! I cannot believe the farking GALL of these weasels.

Defense budget doesn't include funds for Iraq, Afghanistan

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7858468.htm

Noticeably absent from next year's request is money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. White House budget director Joshua Bolten estimated that another $50 billion would be needed to cover those costs next year. The White House expects to cover the war costs with supplemental funds after next fall's elections.
 
2004-02-03 01:26:28 PM
Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply replace the government with Halliburton?
 
Displayed 415 of 415 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report