Originally posted by cryptorad
Futuro...
You've saved me from a lot of typing. I can unequivocally say that you are spewing Democratic / Liberal standard boilerplate. So, while I could dig up and counter with plain old Republican / Conservative boilerplate I won't bother filling up this forum with the same drivel you can read everyday, anywhere in the press. While I believe many of the things they say, and I know some of your comments are wrong, there is no need for that level of verbal sparring here. It has no point.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Here I went to several different sources to get my information, and I'm accused of using some standard "boilerplate" that I have never seen. And seriously, if you can correct me on any points I made, please be my guest. I'm careful to post information that I've verified, and would like to know if I got some wrong information. I'm all for supported evidence from someone making a point opposite mine.
I will take issue with one of your points, since it's not really a political issue other then politics are the probable source of your comment and it's desired implication that Bush spent the country into deficit. I hope that I can get you to at least think about it, since it seems that you 'missed' a lot of what has happened in the United States as far as costs and budgets go lately, and provide some points to ponder for you so can consider that in your ‘futuro’ decisions.
Yuk, yuk. I haven't missed a thing. What I haven't missed is a president that spends and spends and borrows and borrows. I didn't miss this for 8 years, and I wish I wasn't missing it now. (Um? yeah). Unfortunately, we once again have a president who's solutions to every problem is a tax cut. "Oh, we have surpluses? Let's cut taxes!" "Oh, we have a deficit? LEt's cut taxes!" "Oh, there's a war on terrorism? Let's cut taxes!" "Oh, I have a polyp in my rectum? Let's cut taxes!". Whoops, that last one was Reagan, but don't think Bush wouldn't try it too.
First the fact of a 300 billion dollar deficit. Can you find a 'non Democratic' reference for that figure? Clinton quoted the 300 billion deficit in his debates, he arranged with Bob Dole, which themselves make me laugh. Bill is absolutely partisan, and I actually respect that, but he is also a frequent liar. Not someone accused of lying, like Powell and Bush, but a proven liar who for some reason isn't in jail for lying to a Grand Jury. I guess that's politics. I think you can figure what he says is at best half true.
How's the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED Congressional Budget Office for a non-democratic soure?
Code:
CBO'S BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
(In billions of dollars)
As of January As of March Change
Receipts 1,922 1,891 -30
Outlays 2,121 2,137 17
Deficit -199 -246 -47
Just FYI, these projections do not include the cost of any action in Iraq, military or otherwise. I hope you accept this source, probably the same one Clinton used Sunday night.
But.. for sake of argument lets assume 300 billion dollars is actually THE current budgetary deficit. Where could that have come from you ask? Please consider the following before you ask something like that again. These were mostly headlining stories in the US you must have missed.
I guess you missed the 1.2 TRILLION (over ten years) tax cut?
1) Massive US military cuts. It costs money to rebuid an army. Too bad we're missing priceless experience and talent from the first gulf war we can't get back at any price but, that is a Clinton legacy. Iraq is at 40 percent of former strength the liberals love to quote. Their army is 80 percent the size of our army now. By the way.. did I say massive? Least we had a temporary budget surplus. And hell.. that got Billy elected a second time. His first election was courtesy of Ross Perot of course. (Sorry.. shameless partisan dig there).
Shameless partisan dig back : Reagan wouldn't have beat Carter without John Anderson. But really, this is something of an amazement to me. You mean that even though Clinton ravaged the military so badly, Bush was able to get it up to speed in just 10 months? On that same CBO site, there's a chart under the historical data section, Historical Budget Data that shows that Clinton's so called "massive" cuts were at most 12 or so percent less than Bush's, and Clinton's last few budgets were increasing military spending.
But don't mind that, blame it all on Clinton
2) War on terrorism. We ARE at war. Troops in Afghanistan and the like. Aid to allies to fight terrorism. New York City devastated. How much of the current budget was slated to rebuild the pentagon do you think? Yeah.. that's probably a deficit too.
I'm curious. Did it ever cross your mind or Bush's mind that perhaps raising taxes to pay for this, or maybe even not cutting taxes might help us pay for this in today's money, and not burden our grandchildren with debt?
3) Airlines. I will remind you that our airline industry was in trouble PRIOR to Sept. 11th. Now.. it's utterly in chaos. The government is paying fo that now. Or, we are actually. I think it's better then letting it collapse. Air travel is actually one of the symbols of our American freedom.
We have the freedom to travel by air, and the airlines also have the freedom to spend themselves into bankruptcy. I don't really think it's our duty as a country to rescue failing airlines, when we refuse to provide basic food and shelter to needy people. Why do the rich owners of failing airlines deserve help, but a single mother with small children doesn't?
4) Education. Bush signed into law the largest education spending bill EVER. You must have missed Ted Kennedy absolutely swooning with happiness during that time frame. Yeap.. it was unbudgeted. Go Figure.
Again, pay as you go. And FYI, Bush has since cut the funding for that education bill, so forget that.
5) Department of Homeland Security. This never existed before. So No, it wasn't budgeted. This cost a few bucks to set up. I am quite aware many of the departments already existed, but the total cost of a Department, due to infratstructure, is far larger then the sum of the cost of parts. Personally, I think the reason the Dem's are so upset about Homeland Security spending is that the Republicans are horning in on their territory by creating deficits and government jobs.
I find it hilarious that conservative are all for adding yet more beauracracy to the federal government. And it might be just me, but that title (Homeland) sends shivers up and down my spine. It smacks of 1984, Brave New World, and dare I say it, The Fatherland...
But if you think it's a good idea, PAY FOR IT! Don't saddle future generations with the bill, while attempting to cut taxes.
6) Economic downturn. Our economy was starting to fall off the 'false' high of the Clinton era before Bush ever took office. I'm not blaming the false high on Clinton. It just happened while he was in office. I don't think Billy really did anything except ride the wave, myself. That was probably a good decision. Now that the facts are starting to be revealed we discover that some of the largest of those 'roaring 90's' were nothing more then faked balance sheets. Fortunately some of those responsible are going to jail but that doesn't change the fact that the economy is down now. We are losing tons of tax revenue from this huge downturn where we now insist that figures are reported factually and actually. Alot harder to do business telling the truth apparently.
As far as the "faked balance sheets" goes, the dummies in the '80's didn't even need that. They were outbidding themselves for companies that were reporting increasing quarterly losses for as far as the eye can see.
But, we're in an economic downturn.... We're losing tax revenues to fund needed programs... Bush's answer? CUT TAXES!
Uh, wait, that didn't work, the economy is getting worse.... Bush's answer? CUT TAXES!
And he'll keep cutting taxes. And cutting taxes, and cutting taxes till the US government defaults on it's obligations, the dollar collapses, and we're all wearing barrels. Good plan.
Let's recap. War, economic downturn, military rebuilding, increased costs, increased aid, much much larger budget. I'm sure I missed quite a few but that should at least get you started so you can start thinking enough to look for basic information before making such wide sweeping statements like the one I quoted above. None of this was hidden from the US public. In fact, I think it was rather blatantly obvious.
I think you're missing something very important. It's slipping my mind.... wait, didn't I mention it above?
Oh, yeah, the tax cut.
I'm sorry you missed out on all of that. It was a helluva ride for the last few years. Maybe you can pick up and carry on from here and it'll make more sense to you now.
j/k .. don't take it personal.
I don't take anything personal, especially on a board where my real name is hidden for fear of reprisals from large international corporations.
However, I didn't miss any of that. I recall just two years ago when Bush first proposed his tax cuts, and prudent people were saying "But what if we get into a recession, or some unexpected expense comes up, shouldn't we keep the revenue and pay down the debt \, so that we'll be in a better position should we need the money?"
BUt did anybody listen? Nooo....