kallend 2,150
Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
Do you realize that the current accounting counts the "extra" money coming in from social security as "income". That's one example.
As it was in the 1990's but the Dems didn't seem to have a problem with counting it then.
.
Whatever you count, it was better in the 1990s than it is now.
However you look at it, the debt has grown more under the Reagan/Bushes than under any other administrations.
For the last several decades the Democrats seem to leave recessions for their Republican successors. Odd thing, that.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Considering the party of "fiscal conservatism" has given us huge deficits, I wonder why the Democrats haven't tried to present themselves as the party of "responsible government management".
Quote
If you could get gasoline for a nickel a gallon would you do it? or would you feel like you are hosing people because you are paying too little? Think of any product you want and ask yourself, "If you could get it cheaper, would you?" The answer to that is "Yes."
Not necessarily. It depends on the vendor. I will gladly pay more for a product if, by paying less, I'd be supporting an entity whose policies run counter to my own. I don't think it's right to profit, through savings or investment, from a business which thrives off of the things that I find reprehensible. That's why my investments were not shifted towards certain defense contractors a few years back. I knew they were going to do very well with a war loving Pres and VP, and they have. So I had to get more creative. Did I get as wealthy by making that choice? No, I just did ok. But I can live with myself because my ideals mean more to me than money. And I know that that separates me from many other people. I can live with that too.
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Do you realize that the current accounting counts the "extra" money coming in from social security as "income". That's one example.
As it was in the 1990's but the Dems didn't seem to have a problem with counting it then.
.
Whatever you count, it was better in the 1990s than it is now.
However you look at it, the debt has grown more under the Reagan/Bushes than under any other administrations.
For the last several decades the Democrats seem to leave recessions for their Republican successors. Odd thing, that.
Under GWB' administration, for every dollar increase in GDP, our economy produced $7.11 worth of debt. This ratio is far worse ($1:$63) when you compare debt to the productive portion of GDP (manufacturing, construction, agriculture, mining, transportation etc.).
Living within your means may involve not buying lots of stuff with money you don't have, and not borrowing with the intention that your grandchildren will be repaying your debts.
The USA is now the biggest debtor in the history of the world. The USA used to be the world's largest creditor. Great, isn't it?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
And the biggest economy in the history of the world.
kallend 2,150
QuoteAnd the biggest economy in the history of the world.
The USA had the biggest economy when it was ALSO the world's largest creditor.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,119
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>And the biggest economy in the history of the world.
Sounding more and more like Rome, circa 180 AD. They were the biggest empire in the world with the strongest economy and the best armies. They would never fall!
Sounding more and more like Rome, circa 180 AD. They were the biggest empire in the world with the strongest economy and the best armies. They would never fall!
QuoteQuoteAnd the biggest economy in the history of the world.
The USA had the biggest economy when it was ALSO the world's largest creditor.
Are you talking about our federal debt or our trade imbalance? Are these two interchangable?
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd the biggest economy in the history of the world.
The USA had the biggest economy when it was ALSO the world's largest creditor.
Are you talking about our federal debt or our trade imbalance? Are these two interchangable?
Originally federal, then mnealtx switched to the economy as a whole, so that too.
Both are the biggest of their kind in history.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Have you noticed the deafening silence from the Dems about the freewheeling spending going on? Do you recall them screaming about it during Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush? Nope hardly a peep because as long as they were getting their pork, they kept their mouths shut. I can't name one Dem in Congress who's out there shouting from the rooftops about it, but I can name a lot of them on here who like to blame it all on Repubs.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd the biggest economy in the history of the world.
The USA had the biggest economy when it was ALSO the world's largest creditor.
Are you talking about our federal debt or our trade imbalance? Are these two interchangable?
Originally federal, then mnealtx switched to the economy as a whole, so that too.
Both are the biggest of their kind in history.
So, are you talking about our trade imbalance or the amount of US debt held by foreingers or the total (public and private) US debt?
billvon 3,119
>Have you noticed the deafening silence from the Dems about the
>freewheeling spending going on?
> I can't name one Dem in Congress who's out there shouting
>from the rooftops about it . . .
Gotta watch something other than FOX! From a 30 second search:
-------------------
Democrats Criticize Republican Budget Plan
3/27/2004
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats charged on Saturday the Republican budget plan approved by the House of Representatives this week would create historic deficits and spend every cent of Medicare and Social Security funds over the next decade.
------------------
US Senate Democrats Criticize Bush Administration for Lack of Accountability on Iraq Spending
By Deborah Tate
15 February 2005
Members of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing Monday to express their concern about the lack of oversight of non-military funds being spent in Iraq.
Lawmakers cited a recent audit that they say shows the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ruled Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004, distributed nearly $9 billion in Iraqi oil funds to Iraqi government ministries without any financial controls. The audit said funds were to be used for humanitarian efforts, reconstruction, disarmament and civil administration, but the authority was not able to verify that it was used for those purposes.
--------------------
Democrats Criticize Pentagon Budget, Anti-Terror War
by Vernon Loeb and Bradley Graham
Leading congressional Democrats took aim yesterday at the Pentagon's $379 billion budget request and its open-ended war on terrorism, voicing their strongest criticism of military operations and a proposed $48 billion increase in defense spending since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, grilled top defense officials at a budget hearing about the lack of an "exit strategy" in Afghanistan, their failure to capture al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and a widening global campaign against terrorists that seems to have "no end in sight."
. . .
Byrd and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) -- pro-defense mavericks who are staunch defenders of congressional prerogatives in foreign and military affairs -- focused on the open-ended nature of the war and its growing cost.
"If we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, that's going to keep us going beyond doomsday," Byrd said. "How long can we afford this? We went [to Afghanistan] to hunt down the terrorists. We don't know where Osama bin Laden is or whether he is alive or not. We don't know where Mullah [Mohammad] Omar is hiding. . . . When will we know we have achieved victory?"
Byrd said the Pentagon has sent him documents estimating that the war would cost $30 billion in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, meaning Congress will be asked to provide an extra $12.6 billion in addition to $17.4 billion in supplemental spending approved last fall.
"We've got a deficit and we know it will exceed $350 billion," Hollings said. The administration, he said, seems to be arguing, "Since we've got a war, we've got to have deficits -- and the war is never going to end."
Sooner or later, Hollings said, "this town is going to sober up."
>freewheeling spending going on?
> I can't name one Dem in Congress who's out there shouting
>from the rooftops about it . . .
Gotta watch something other than FOX! From a 30 second search:
-------------------
Democrats Criticize Republican Budget Plan
3/27/2004
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats charged on Saturday the Republican budget plan approved by the House of Representatives this week would create historic deficits and spend every cent of Medicare and Social Security funds over the next decade.
------------------
US Senate Democrats Criticize Bush Administration for Lack of Accountability on Iraq Spending
By Deborah Tate
15 February 2005
Members of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing Monday to express their concern about the lack of oversight of non-military funds being spent in Iraq.
Lawmakers cited a recent audit that they say shows the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ruled Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004, distributed nearly $9 billion in Iraqi oil funds to Iraqi government ministries without any financial controls. The audit said funds were to be used for humanitarian efforts, reconstruction, disarmament and civil administration, but the authority was not able to verify that it was used for those purposes.
--------------------
Democrats Criticize Pentagon Budget, Anti-Terror War
by Vernon Loeb and Bradley Graham
Leading congressional Democrats took aim yesterday at the Pentagon's $379 billion budget request and its open-ended war on terrorism, voicing their strongest criticism of military operations and a proposed $48 billion increase in defense spending since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, grilled top defense officials at a budget hearing about the lack of an "exit strategy" in Afghanistan, their failure to capture al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and a widening global campaign against terrorists that seems to have "no end in sight."
. . .
Byrd and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) -- pro-defense mavericks who are staunch defenders of congressional prerogatives in foreign and military affairs -- focused on the open-ended nature of the war and its growing cost.
"If we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, that's going to keep us going beyond doomsday," Byrd said. "How long can we afford this? We went [to Afghanistan] to hunt down the terrorists. We don't know where Osama bin Laden is or whether he is alive or not. We don't know where Mullah [Mohammad] Omar is hiding. . . . When will we know we have achieved victory?"
Byrd said the Pentagon has sent him documents estimating that the war would cost $30 billion in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, meaning Congress will be asked to provide an extra $12.6 billion in addition to $17.4 billion in supplemental spending approved last fall.
"We've got a deficit and we know it will exceed $350 billion," Hollings said. The administration, he said, seems to be arguing, "Since we've got a war, we've got to have deficits -- and the war is never going to end."
Sooner or later, Hollings said, "this town is going to sober up."
QuoteHave you noticed the deafening silence from the Dems about the freewheeling spending going on? Do you recall them screaming about it during Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush? Nope hardly a peep because as long as they were getting their pork, they kept their mouths shut. I can't name one Dem in Congress who's out there shouting from the rooftops about it, but I can name a lot of them on here who like to blame it all on Repubs.
There's no silence. I've heard and read plenty about the record breaking earmark feeding frenzy at our expense. But it doesn't seem to get much play in the "liberal" media. But is this actually an attempt to slam the Dems because they're not keeping the majority party, who controls all three branches of congress and consequently sets the agenda, in check?
Whatever you count, it was better in the 1990s than it is now.
However you look at it, the debt has grown more under the Reagan/Bushes than under any other administrations.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites