Bush panders to the idiots

[Lucky... 0]

Bush is trying to petend he has a balanced budget. He claims the actual budget deficit is projected to be less than formerly thought.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060818/pl_nm/bush_economy_dc_4

DORK: "We recently learned that this year's deficit is projected to be 30 percent lower than we initially thought," he said. "And that means we're on track to cut the deficit in half by 2008, a full year ahead of the original goal."

nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office "However, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Thursday forecast the government budget deficit would rise to $286 billion in fiscal 2007, up from $260 billion projected for this year."

Dork: "Bush and his advisers discussed a need to work with Congress to address the costly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs, which he called a "huge challenge" for future economic growth. But with a short congressional session before the November 7 election, the chance for action on those programs was slim."

ME: Why don't you cut social programs, then you can give tax cuts for your rich buddies and blame the poor.

Harry Reid: "for millions of hard-working middle-class families, life under Republican rule has grown less affordable and less secure,"

No doubt.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "They're much better off than they would be if the economy were growing slower or weren't growing, but many Americans aren't feeling it in terms of their own economic situations,"

ME: Right, so we're better off, but we're not feeling it. HMMMMM, ok, so the net result is that we're not better off. I think the rich are better off tho.

ARTICLE: Some indicators have shown a mixed economic picture: the gross domestic product expanded at an annual clip of 2.5 percent in the second quarter, much slower than the brisk 5.6 percent pace in the first three months of 2006.

Which is as I already stated. The indicators are turning south, so where is the bragging point? Whatever Bush seems to throw together that is positive seems to be short-lived, whatever negative seems to drag on and do much damage.

What I ask is this: hey idiot, the GDP is down once again and unemployment is at a 5-month high, so how is it the economy is on a roll?

[Andy9o8 2]

"Bush panders to the idiots"

So what? All politicians try rally their core political base.

[kallend 2,150]

"Bush panders to the idiots"

So what's new about that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

"Bush panders to the idiots"

So what? All politicians try rally their core political base.

Are you saying that Bush's core are idiots? That's not what I was saying. I'm just saying that he is trying to pander to anyone that isn't able to understand simple math, like him.

[Lucky... 0]

Nothing new, just blatantly typical. This is actually condescending in that the numbers are so contrary that I can't see how it could be misunderstood that the economy, deficit and ovrall health of the fiscal gov is in HUGE trouble.

[rushmc 23]

When are all of you bashers going to get together for a big hug?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

Quote

What I ask is this: hey idiot, the GDP is down once again and unemployment is at a 5-month high, so how is it the economy is on a roll?

5 month high? It's lower than it was in the 90s, during the peace-love-dope-post-cold-war-no-enemies-fog-dot-com-bubble...remember that?

GDP is down? What the hell are you reading? The Bureau of Economic Analysis (Dept of Commerce), says otherwise: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

When are all of you bashers going to get together for a big hug?

Yep, with you in the middle.
Kissy-kissy!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

When are all of you bashers going to get together for a big hug?

Yep, with you in the middle.
Kissy-kissy!

Nnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooo

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

When are all of you bashers going to get together for a big hug?

When the dictators are out of power...... that's when.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

When are all of you bashers going to get together for a big hug?

Yep, with you in the middle.
Kissy-kissy!

See above.

[TheAnvil 0]

Such facts as those run contrary to the fantasy world in which many Bush-bashers dwell. Especially those who tend to say 'tax cuts for the rich' with great frequency.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

What I ask is this: hey idiot, the GDP is down once again and unemployment is at a 5-month high, so how is it the economy is on a roll?

5 month high? It's lower than it was in the 90s, during the peace-love-dope-post-cold-war-no-enemies-fog-dot-com-bubble...remember that?

GDP is down? What the hell are you reading? The Bureau of Economic Analysis (Dept of Commerce), says otherwise: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm

GDP issue: If you read the article you would see that what you post and what I post are the same.

Some indicators have shown a mixed economic picture: the gross domestic product expanded at an annual clip of 2.5 percent in the second quarter, much slower than the brisk 5.6 percent pace in the first three months of 2006.

I'll simplify it for you. Picture a graph with time on the horizontal axis and growth on the vertical axis. Q1 2006 reads, "5.6% growth" and Q2 2006 reads, "2.5% growth;" which way is the graph running? Could it be downhill? So with all things consistent, in Q3 we will be in the red on growth, get it? Simply reading instead of reacting after glacing at 1 sentence or a title is what leads to this. Oint is, GDP is running downhill, just as any small gains under Bush2, any successes are temporary.

As for unemployment, you stepped in it again. Acording to the Bureau of Labor, a national agency, they have the unemployment in 1992 they were 7.5%, 1993 at 6.9% when Clinton took office. In 2000 they were 4.0 and 2001 they were 4.7. So this trend of Clinton receiving high unemployment and then turning it around, while handing off low unemployment and having soar is illustrated on both ends, so once again, you have done nothing but to support my arguments to the utmost, and I thank you.

BLS: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt

In fact, if you look at the Reagan/Bush/Bush years, you see nothing but disaster. Again, this is the Republican MO; crash the economy since goods are based upon the cost of labor. Now, which party is for the working American?

1981 unemp = 7.6%
1989 unemp = 5.3

Under Reagan, the unemp rate peaked at 9.7, highest since 1969, the start of this graph. Reaganomics are worse than even Bush2.

Again, where's your argument?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Such facts as those run contrary to the fantasy world in which many Bush-bashers dwell. Especially those who tend to say 'tax cuts for the rich' with great frequency.

What are you talking about? What I wrote is consistent with what he posted. Growth was 5.6 in Q1, is 2.5 in Q2 which is what everyone had agreed upon. The trend is downward.

“Some indicators have shown a mixed economic picture: the gross domestic product expanded at an annual clip of 2.5 percent in the second quarter, much slower than the brisk 5.6 percent pace in the first three months of 2006.”

The unemployment issue is supported by the BLS that unemployment is higher now than when Clinton had time to lower it.

1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7

Even if you take 2001, which was owned by Bush2, all but 20 days and take into account for 9/11, the rate is still lower than now. Statistics ruin any chance of you supporting your argument.

Unemployment is at a 5-month high, as it was 4.8 in February. Everything the article I posted is factually, statistically correct per the BLS. Where’s your argument? Try to stay on -topic.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Try to stay on -topic.

If you could throw in a few "reading is fundamental" and "do some research and get back to us" comments, you'll be on an even keel with Anvil.

Oh, and a good "disgusting" or two would fit right in as well.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Try to stay on -topic.

If you could throw in a few "reading is fundamental" and "do some research and get back to us" comments, you'll be on an even keel with Anvil.

Oh, and a good "disgusting" or two would fit right in as well.

This is what I didn't want, deviation from the topic. Let's discuss the issues originally presented and supported, k?

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

This is what I didn't want, deviation from the topic. Let's discuss the issues originally presented and supported, k?

Well, it's hard to take one seriously when one attributes the words of the Prez as coming from "DORK".

However, I agree that he panders to his constituency -- as do most other politicians. Keeps 'em in a job. I consider the current rate -- 4.8% -- pretty damned good. Ever heard of "full employment"?

What is the use of comparing current rates to rates from the past? Presidential policies can certainly impact unemployment rates, but they are far from the total picture.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

This is what I didn't want, deviation from the topic. Let's discuss the issues originally presented and supported, k?

Well, it's hard to take one seriously when one attributes the words of the Prez as coming from "DORK".

However, I agree that he panders to his constituency -- as do most other politicians. Keeps 'em in a job. I consider the current rate -- 4.8% -- pretty damned good. Ever heard of "full employment"?

What is the use of comparing current rates to rates from the past? Presidential policies can certainly impact unemployment rates, but they are far from the total picture.

Sure, anything under 5% is descent. The article that I originally posted simply stated that indicators seem to be pointing downward. This little spurt has shot its load and is turning south. Does that mean that we're headed for a recession? Certainly not. But it debunks Bush's rhetotic about how the deficit is projected to be ahead of schedule, when even that is debunked by an independant agency.

Point is, everything from his mouth is designed to pander to loyalists, idiots, or anyone else willing to nod their head and fail to review any imperical evidence; these people seem to be the bulk of who follows him.

Aside from any indicators, the deficit/debt are surely going to be the downfall of this nation. All the enemies, along with the GOP righties have buried this country in debt and the enemies have won, they're just waiting to cash in.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Point is, everything from his mouth is designed to pander to loyalists, idiots, or anyone else willing to nod their head and fail to review any imperical evidence; these people seem to be the bulk of who follows him.

I don't know what everything from his mouth is designed to do, but I can tell you that not everyone on the right is a loyalist or idiot. Not sure about the "bulk", but many on the right are not happy with his spending or war policies. Where is the viable candidate who will actually reduce spending -- when he or she arrives on the scene for '08, they'll get my vote regardless of the party they come from. I thought Bush would do this -- I was wrong. I'm not holding my breath for anyone else.

Quote

Aside from any indicators, the deficit/debt are surely going to be the downfall of this nation. All the enemies, along with the GOP righties have buried this country in debt and the enemies have won, they're just waiting to cash in.

No argument there. Our debt is a serious problem for the near future. Where's the candidate who'll seriously manage it?

. . =(_8^(1)

[TheAnvil 0]

Though I'm glad to see you're finally availing yourself of some gov't data sources, you really ought to learn a bit about the stats you're viewing.

Unemployment is at a five month high. Look at the range of the data you're touting: 4.6 - 4.8. Not really statistically significant. Lower, in fact, than the majority of the 1990's. Most humorous that you consider that significant. Hilarious in fact.

If you were familiar with the federal budget, you'd realize that the gov't was operating under a Clinton/Gore budget for the majority of '01. 9/11 didn't even fall within the FY for GWB's first budget.

Keep trying. The truth is out there for you. Might I suggest looking at some CBO data and coming to grips with the fact that tax revenues are at an all-time high and that the 'rich' are paying the vast majority of those taxes? BLS is but one source of gov't info available to you.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I don't know what everything from his mouth is designed to do, but I can tell you that not everyone on the right is a loyalist or idiot. Not sure about the "bulk", but many on the right are not happy with his spending or war policies.

Well, then if a person calls him or herself a Republican in the midst of all this neo-con stuff, which didn’t start with Bush BTW, but Reagan 26 years ago, and they are dismayed with the neo-con protocol, aren’t they being loyalists? This isn’t a new phenomenon, this has been going for 26 years but is now becoming more noticeable likely due to the debt.

Quote

Where is the viable candidate who will actually reduce spending -- when he or she arrives on the scene for '08, they'll get my vote regardless of the party they come from. I thought Bush would do this -- I was wrong. I'm not holding my breath for anyone else.

Did Clinton get your vote? I was so entranced with the Republican Party that he didn’t get my vote, but he did just that (fiscal responsibility). He took a 45 degree climbing debt and turned it horizontal, leaving 200+ Billion in an annual surplus. What did Bush do basically first when he came into office? He gave it away, probably much of it in administrative costs deciding who gets what. The idiot said that the gov shouldn’t be hanging onto our money. Well, the truth is that we are hanging on to theirs to the tune of 8.5 trillion $. He should have paid down the debt if he didn’t want to use it for running the government. But no, he doubled the debt increase under what Clinton did in 8 years, in just 5 years. And Clinton inherited a 45 degree climb, left a sinking horizontal debt: Bush inherited that horizontal debt, immediately turned it vertical in months.

So when you say you want fiscal responsibility, you would have to vote for Hillary because it seems that the Dem haters started hating the Clintons saying, “Billary ran the country.” If so, then we can expect the same fiscal heroism.

Quote

No argument there. Our debt is a serious problem for the near future. Where's the candidate who'll seriously manage it?

The Clintons’ did. They turned around the unemployment rate at > 7% and hit a low of 4% flat. They turned around a several hundred billion $ deficit into a 200+ billion $ surplus. They also flattened out the national debt, turning it horizontal. I realize what you’re saying is, “Who besides the Clintons’ can save the nation?” If you want to get stuck on semantics and hate for certain people, then you aren’t open-minded and will continue to throw a greedy GOP fiscal in there on keen rhetoric and Dem-hating BS….. Different election, same loyalists, same result.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Though I'm glad to see you're finally availing yourself of some gov't data sources, you really ought to learn a bit about the stats you're viewing.

You remember the graph depicting the national debt by president, the one establishing the GOP is raping the country? Yea, I have posted many reliable data / graphs, government and otherwise. I’m glad to see you still avoiding the issue that of the last 4 presidents over 26 years, 3 Repub and 1 Dem, you still have failed to articulate any empirical evidence that the 3 Repubs have done anything but ruin the fiscal picture of the nation and the 1 Dem has repaired it.

Quote

Unemployment is at a five month high. Look at the range of the data you're touting: 4.6 - 4.8. Not really statistically significant. Lower, in fact, than the majority of the 1990's. Most humorous that you consider that significant. Hilarious in fact.

The article simply stated the president’s words: “US deficit will be halved ahead of 2009 goal.” The article then went on to say that there are a couple primary indicators of economic heath that differ from that; unemployment and GDP growth. Growth has shrunk and unemployment is up. These 2 attributes go hand-in-hand; if people are unemployed it is believable that growth is down. Furthermore, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated that the annual deficit is up from Bush’s projections: Bush brags $260B, they claim $286B - either way is a joke and over ½ trillion more than when Bush took office, and that’s just 1 year.

I don’t find .2 unemployment to be statistically significant, but I do find a culmination of all of the stats/data to be collectively significant.

As for most of the 90’s being higher, you can only count 1993-2000 plus January 2001 as Clinton years. Furthermore, Clinton inherited a slamming unemployment rate of 7.5 for all of 1992 and it took years to turn it around. Kinda funny to read Republicans, who author the claim that it takes 4 years to make a change, blame Clinton for what happened the first part of his presidency. But look at the vast and immediate improvement to unemployment stats as provided by the BLS:

1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7

Clinton caught a ragged baton and handed off a gem, both by unemployment stats and by debt/deficit figures. Can you debunk that?

Quote

If you were familiar with the federal budget, you'd realize that the gov't was operating under a Clinton/Gore budget for the majority of '01. 9/11 didn't even fall within the FY for GWB's first budget.

OK, and the government giveaway was the doing of Clinton/Gore? Let me be you for just a second: I find it hilarious and especially laughable that you humorously think the government giveaway was the doing of Clinton/Gore, Bahahaahhahahah. Eww, I’m done now. How many billions did that trash in 2001? Wait, I’ll stop the reply now and go do research…..play musac…….. Ok, I’m back. The numbers are more complicated and steeper than I thought. To directly answer the question, the rebates totaled $38 billion, according to a PBS website - a bunch a flaming, lying liberals I’m sure.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec01/tax_rebate.html

---- As an aside, this POS president wanted to reduce taxes for this purpose: He said the government was spending too much money on programs to help the poor and wanted to lower the percentage of people's paychecks the government took in taxes.---- A real humanitarian. Jebus will love him when he goes to heaven.

Anyway, the rest of Bush’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 lost the government $1.35 trillion over 11 years, a mere 25% of the projected increase Bush will succeed in damaging the debt; he is projected to slam it 5-6T.

So, now is your claim still that Bush was operating under the budget of Clinton/Gore? Was his June 2001 tax raping and refund a part of Clinton/Gore? You lost, Vinny.

Quote

Keep trying. The truth is out there for you.

I just delivered the truth. Of course you will deny and tell me to get an education, of which I already have, but it would be unique if you just once admitted you are wrong.

Quote

Might I suggest looking at some CBO data and coming to grips with the fact that tax revenues are at an all-time high and that the 'rich' are paying the vast majority of those taxes? BLS is but one source of gov't info available to you.

OK, even if tax revenues are at an all-time high, so is the debt, so what’s your point? It’s a vacant victory, if it even is one at all. Could it be that we are spending so much that it’s offset? You claim that .2 unemployment is statistically insignificant, then say that revenues are at an all-time high, but the debt is at an all-time high and shooting up, so your stat, if true, is statistically insignificant by effect.

Do me a favor and address all of my points.

[Lucky... 0]

Here's a graph depicting the unemp rate over 10 years

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000&data_tool=%22EaG%22

Now certainly 9/11 had a part in that, but I think we can discern that Bush's tired trickle down didn;t work for anyone but the rich.

Here's another chart from an Oregon site depicting national data:

http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ChartView?startyear=1990&area=0000000000y&area2=&area3=&graph=unemp

This makes it clear what Clinton had to work with; what he inherited and what the result was.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

When are all of you bashers going to get together for a big hug?

When the dictators are out of power...... that's when.

Have you considered anger management?

It will help you think much clearer

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TheAnvil 0]

From federal budget basics to tax basics, you've given me reason to smile. Actually I should frown, but your passion causes me to smile instead.

You're a long way from establishing the GOP to be raping the country. You might want to actually take an initial step if that's your goal. If you do choose to attempt that initial step, remember that if you adhere to a static age demographic, geopolitical situation, economy, or spending level when making your case, it'll be pretty hard for anyone to take you seriously.

There is indeed a difference of $26 Billion between projections from President Bush and the CBO (according to you, at any rate) On a multi-trillion dollar budget. I'm amazed you find this amazing. OMB and CBO are, after all, different organizations working for different branches of the government. I suspect the true # will be higher than both, but that's just me. 1/2 Trillion, by the way, is roughly double the #'s you're batting about.

If Mr. Clinton handed off such a gem of an economy 'tis quite odd that '01 showed a 0.7 % increase in unemployment, eh? 0.2/4.8 was an indicator for you, but 0.7/4.0 is not?

Not sure how your thoughts migrated to 'the great gov't giveaway' as you put it, but if you'll look at the $38 billion as compared to overall spending for '01, you'll find it's a bit over 2% of outlays for the year. Like it or not, FY01 was a Clinton/Gore budget. FY02 was a GWB budget. Deal with it.

Why you or anyone else would want to take money from people that earned it and give it away to people that didn't via any mechanism is truly beyond me.

If you'd actually take a look at the data (most helpful thing to do when discussing any topic) you'd find that between '00 and '05 GWB's atrocious discretionary spending has increased over '00 levels by about $998.2 Billion total - much to his shame. You'd also find that mandatory spending has increased by an even greater total of $1,215 Billion during the same time frame. That GWB and his staff had no choice for the majority of the spending increases during his tenure in office is a matter of public record. Deal with it however you desire.

The mandatory spending projections over the next few decades are reason enough to give anyone cause for alarm. They're also reason in and of themselves to laugh at anyone touting the expansion of social programs whilst bemoaning the deficit. Laugh quite hard, in fact.

The PBS article written in '01 gave mere projections based upon the economy at the time. The record high tax revenues seen in '05 tell me that they didn't do their projections accurately, but believe whatever you like. I base my opinions on facts - you may choose not to. The choice is yours and I respect your right to make that choice.

Mandatory spending and the education system are the two greatest threats our country faces today, in my opinion. Slam the GOP as much as you desire using whatever data you like or even manufacture some data and use that - Dan Rather might give you some tips on that. It will not give the left any credibility on either of the two aforementioned issues.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!