Lucky...

All right, schhol is back in, or should we call it detention? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush The tail end of the late 1980s recession, that had dogged most of Bush's term in office, was a contributing factor to his defeat in the 1992 Presidential election. The coalition victory in the Persian Gulf War led to a feeling that Bush's re-election was a sure thing, but the economic recession led to Bush's becoming less and less popular. The precipitious decline in popularity was also due to a perception that Mr. Bush was "out of touch" with the American worker. One incident that led credence to this suspicion was an incident in which President Bush did not know how a supermarket scanner worked. And this: Several other factors were key in his defeat, including agreeing in 1990 to raise taxes despite his famous "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge not to institute any new taxes. In doing so, Bush alienated many members of his conservative base, losing their support for his re-election. However, Mr. Bush raised taxes to address an ever increasing budget deficit, caused by the tax cuts put into effect by President Reagan, Bush's predecessor. Ironically, when campaigning against Reagan in 1980, Bush refered to Reagan's tax proposals as voodoo economics. Then this: According to the widely-used definition of a recession, two quarters of negative growth, the late eighties recession only covered a brief period in 1987 (although not in the United States), and another in 1990–1991. By measures such as unemployment and public perception, the North American economy was in recession continuously for years after 1987, with only brief periods of revival. This establishes the duration of the recession: It soon turned out that the quick recovery was illusory, and by 1990, economic malaise had returned. For the next several years high unemployment, massive government budgetary deficits, and slow Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth affected the United States until late 1992 and Canada until 1995. While Canada enjoyed a brief recovery in 1994, the recession is believed to have lasted longer there due to the stress placed on the economy by the spectre of Quebec separatism. Yea, the country was in recession during most all of Bush's term. Furthermore, the national debt grew more vertically than even during Reagan. Detention is out...... there was a recession that was at best just starting to recover as Clinton took office.

School is in session. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993 The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93) was passed by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has also been referred to as the "Deficit Reduction Act of 1993." It created 36 percent and 39.6 rates for individuals, and created a 35 percent rate for corporations. The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed, transportation fuels taxes were hiked by 4.3 cents per gallon, and the taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised. Raising taxes on corporations.... what a concept. Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice-President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the actual bill and the conference report. In the House the bill passed by only a two-vote margin, 218-216. President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993. So Clinton fought this thru Congress. The entire bill was very controversial. Many Republicans warned that many of the bills provisions would result in economic catastrophe and that deficit would actually increase. Those Repubs are so smart.... The recently elected President Clinton was criticized by many for what was perceived as a reversal of his campaign pledge to cut middle class taxes although in actuality taxes increased on only the top 2% of taxpayers, and while many Americans initially were supportive of changes in the tax code to help the economy and lower the deficit (according to public opinion polls taken at the time), by the mid-term elections of 1994, many American voters were galvanized by the Republican charge that the Democratic Party had raised their taxes. And who raises taxes on the rich? Bush niw lowers them for the rich.... do the math. The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s. The theory holds that federal budget deficits increase both inflation and interest rates. These two phenomena are widely known to cause economic stagnation. Indeed, when inflation increases, often the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates to contain the inflation. __________________________________________________________ TO ALL THOSE WHO THINK DEBT IS A GOOD THING: The U.S. government pays for its debt by issuing additional debt instruments (such as Treasury Bonds and Treasury Notes). As U.S. government debt instruments are one of the safest investments in the world, they pay some of the lowest interest in the world. This causes the rate charged on federal bonds to act as a floor. This is because most other debt instruments are more risky (it is more likely that other issuers will default on their bonds than it is likely that the U.S. government will default on its bonds, and so those other issuers must pay higher interest rates to compensate for the higher risk). As more U.S. government debt is issued, there is an increasing demand for world capital to pay for these instruments. As the supply of these instruments increase, the interest rates paid by the U.S. government must increase to attract additional investors. As U.S. debt becomes more costly to carry, debt around the world also becomes more costly. This increase in worldwide interest rates causes it to be more expensive to operate businesses. This suppresses economic growth. It also causes companies to charge more for their products and services to pay for the more expensive debt. This causes inflation. ______________________________________________________________ School is recessed, go skydive now

Why because he relocated the homeless people in times square across town and he was mayor DURING 9/11? He really didnt do anything. He's a "hero" by default. John McCain has more experience and would be a much better choice... I agree that Guliani was overblown just because he was mayor during 911. McCain is a bad choice due to his expansion of the Iraq War. Anyone to think we can tame that region is delusional.

Well, when your brother and father have undeniably fucked the country, it's hard to shake. As for Hillary, Bill fixed the countries fiscal woes from a receission and then Bush 2 fucked it again. People are pathological. You have background checks, as people believe history repeats itself. Especially with the term, "Billary" infering that Bill and Hillary ran the country. How can you remove Hillary from the equation? Do you think CIA senior Bush had zero to do with the formation of his son's carrers? Please....... I realize you want seperation/severance due to pathetic performance from both Bush's and great success from the Clintons, but that isn't rational. That said, I see McCain being elected due to Americans being either 1) GOP loyalists all the way into the ground 2) Moral righties willing to throw away real numbers and real logic for some intangible and ficticious ideology.

Well no, because this year isn't presidential election. The media just stated that Jeb's term ends in 08 and due to term limits he cannot run again in Florida. SO you think massive debt and runaway spending that both Bush's have demonstrated is better than what Hillary would offer up? Tough argument to make, as the Bush twins (with a Reagan kicker) will be responsible for 70%+ of the entire national debt by Jan 2009. Tough argument.......

Hey its not the rest of Americas fault that they were not born into families that could afford to send them to college. They could have pulled themselves up by their boot straps. They should have gotten a better job and saved and invested so they could be comfortable in their old age. Why support vets.. they knew what they were getting into when they joined the military. Can you think of any other cliches I missed?? 'Bout covers it

Please tell me what the Dems have done. Not waht they conspired to do or wanted to do, but fiscally, what have they done and what is the outcome? Too tired and too late to get into it right now, but why don't you read a little about how they have stood in the way of Social Security reform, which we cannot afford to support any longer. - It's your arguement, you read and make it. Also, if we kill SS, then what do seniors do? What do disabled do? Die in the streets, litterally? You can't seriously propose a change w/o addressing problems. Perhaps wave the majic wand of the Libertarian Party where social welfare comes from the church and from charitable contributions? It's easy to solve the woes of the fiscal gov when we ignore the most compelling issue about the budget. And then you or I need SS, disability, etc..... Bush offered alternatives to Social Security but the Dem opposition took the position that Americans are too dumb to be in charge of their own retirement plans. Surely you remember? - Bush's plan included doing to SS what he did to prescriptions: throw them at the corporations along with huge amounts of tax money and see what happens. I think teh results are huge corp profits and seniors lacking affordable meds. Those dumb Americans, the ones who are opposed to the 31% approval from the smart Americans, saw it comming and chiucked it. Perhaps you missed my question in ths very post to which you replied: Also, if we kill SS, then what do seniors do? What do disabled do? Die in the streets, litterally? You can't seriously propose a change w/o addressing problems. Perhaps wave the majic wand of the Libertarian Party where social welfare comes from the church and from charitable contributions? It's easy to solve the woes of the fiscal gov when we ignore the most compelling issue about the budget. And then you or I need SS, disability, etc..... Again, what is your answer to eldery who are indigent? Let's see your majic wand........... Do a search on this forum. This was debated to death at the time and suggestions and alternatives were given. I'm not interested in rehashing it again. - Also, if we kill SS, then what do seniors do? What do disabled do? Die in the streets, litterally? You can't seriously propose a change w/o addressing problems. Perhaps wave the majic wand of the Libertarian Party where social welfare comes from the church and from charitable contributions? It's easy to solve the woes of the fiscal gov when we ignore the most compelling issue about the budget. And then you or I need SS, disability, etc..... Again, acquiescense noted. BTW, you could even list a couple, but the truth is you feel, "Personal responsibility - fuck the elderly and the poor."

Please tell me what the Dems have done. Not waht they conspired to do or wanted to do, but fiscally, what have they done and what is the outcome? Too tired and too late to get into it right now, but why don't you read a little about how they have stood in the way of Social Security reform, which we cannot afford to support any longer. - It's your arguement, you read and make it. Also, if we kill SS, then what do seniors do? What do disabled do? Die in the streets, litterally? You can't seriously propose a change w/o addressing problems. Perhaps wave the majic wand of the Libertarian Party where social welfare comes from the church and from charitable contributions? It's easy to solve the woes of the fiscal gov when we ignore the most compelling issue about the budget. And then you or I need SS, disability, etc..... Bush offered alternatives to Social Security but the Dem opposition took the position that Americans are too dumb to be in charge of their own retirement plans. Surely you remember? - Oh, one more question: Please tell me what the Dems have done. Not waht they conspired to do or wanted to do, but fiscally, what have they done and what is the outcome? You were tired, ok, now you have a full 8 hours of sleep for which answer this. Already answered when I posted the Citizens Against Govt. Waste. Unfortunately you fail to see a problem unless it's a conspiracy and you ignore the pork spending done by individual politicians. - Please tell me what the Dems have done. Not waht they conspired to do or wanted to do, but fiscally, what have they done and what is the outcome? Fine, acquiescense noted.

I have no class envy, I just don't want my tax dollars going to some rich corp so they can dole out the jobs as they see fit. So if you saw an obvioulsy innocent man getting convicted, you would say/do nothing? Not your business. This isolation is how the US gov works.

I realize righties hate to hear about that, but is impossible to talk Bushonomics w/o talking Reaganomics and Bush1's subsequent policies. It is 1 big 6 trillion dollar nightmare, with a Clinton reprieve in the middle. And now it's growing to be 2T more by Bush's end. As for Congress, they are empowered by the pres. If he puts forth a budget and they disagree, they willoften go with him or fear veto. I never said class envy, but classism.

Clinton came into office, inherited an economy in deep recession and raised taxes. By the end of his term he had record employment rates and actually turned the deficit and the debt around. Bush came in and gave the treasury away and now, 5 years later, we have good jobs but the gov is far deeper in debt. See the difference? You guys will still blame the Dems even when the debt is 20T and dollar is competing with the Peso...... You're looking at the US economy as a one-dimensional profile rather than a dynamic, which is what it is. Furthermore, no one has said what they feel, and that is, "Fuck the elderly and homeless." Come on guys, just say what you feel. These people who shaped America and wiped our asses are old and poor and we need to support them into comfortable death. You will support Viet Nam vets, who are entering retirement, but then say fuck SS. We know what you really mean.

Just because you have gotten a raise doesn't mean that everyone is doing better. And just because we (as a country) have gotten a larger credit limit on our credit card doesn't mean that we're richer. Wealth is assets minus liabilities, not just assets. That's why the huge house and fancy car, encumbered to the max, don't mean shit. Wendy W. OK? And where did I say that was the criteria I used?? When talking about the strenghth of the economy I do not take into account the spending habits of other people. Unemployment nearing record lows, average income up, GNP stats are very strong, orders for durable goods up, near record reciepts at the US treasurey ect ect ect. One has to look past what is not being reported. (and they can't report it because it is favorable to the current administration) OK, and if you earn 100k/year and your wife soends 80k on crap, you still have to pay mortgages and bills, so you are doing well but in the hole. Taht's where we're at. No argument that in teh past 6 months the economy is doing well, but: A) Will it sustain B) The National debt is still rising due to runaway spending and now tax cuts, which offsets the good of the economy, for the rich. The bottom line is the bottom line: where is the debt? I don't care what you make, it's what you're doing with it that counts. If a guy earns 200k year but drives a modest car, rents and has no savings, he's a bit of a loser. If a guy earns 50k, drives a nice car, owns his home and has savings, he's a winner. POINT IS: don't look at individual economic indicators; look at them all.

Please tell me what the Dems have done. Not waht they conspired to do or wanted to do, but fiscally, what have they done and what is the outcome? Too tired and too late to get into it right now, but why don't you read a little about how they have stood in the way of Social Security reform, which we cannot afford to support any longer. - It's your arguement, you read and make it. Also, if we kill SS, then what do seniors do? What do disabled do? Die in the streets, litterally? You can't seriously propose a change w/o addressing problems. Perhaps wave the majic wand of the Libertarian Party where social welfare comes from the church and from charitable contributions? It's easy to solve the woes of the fiscal gov when we ignore the most compelling issue about the budget. And then you or I need SS, disability, etc..... Bush offered alternatives to Social Security but the Dem opposition took the position that Americans are too dumb to be in charge of their own retirement plans. Surely you remember? - Oh, one more question: Please tell me what the Dems have done. Not waht they conspired to do or wanted to do, but fiscally, what have they done and what is the outcome? You were tired, ok, now you have a full 8 hours of sleep for which answer this.

Please tell me what the Dems have done. Not waht they conspired to do or wanted to do, but fiscally, what have they done and what is the outcome? Too tired and too late to get into it right now, but why don't you read a little about how they have stood in the way of Social Security reform, which we cannot afford to support any longer. - It's your arguement, you read and make it. Also, if we kill SS, then what do seniors do? What do disabled do? Die in the streets, litterally? You can't seriously propose a change w/o addressing problems. Perhaps wave the majic wand of the Libertarian Party where social welfare comes from the church and from charitable contributions? It's easy to solve the woes of the fiscal gov when we ignore the most compelling issue about the budget. And then you or I need SS, disability, etc..... Bush offered alternatives to Social Security but the Dem opposition took the position that Americans are too dumb to be in charge of their own retirement plans. Surely you remember? - Bush's plan included doing to SS what he did to prescriptions: throw them at the corporations along with huge amounts of tax money and see what happens. I think teh results are huge corp profits and seniors lacking affordable meds. Those dumb Americans, the ones who are opposed to the 31% approval from the smart Americans, saw it comming and chiucked it. Perhaps you missed my question in ths very post to which you replied: Also, if we kill SS, then what do seniors do? What do disabled do? Die in the streets, litterally? You can't seriously propose a change w/o addressing problems. Perhaps wave the majic wand of the Libertarian Party where social welfare comes from the church and from charitable contributions? It's easy to solve the woes of the fiscal gov when we ignore the most compelling issue about the budget. And then you or I need SS, disability, etc..... Again, what is your answer to eldery who are indigent? Let's see your majic wand...........

Could you be more vague? If you don't want to reply, then just don't. Is it that you don't want to acquiesce, but you have no reply? I guess the, "It" is the supply side economics. If so, when has it worked? Again, you must look at the employment rate, the wage median, the rate of poverty, etc... So many angles, but w/o writing a 200-page dissertation, in general, when supply side economics are applied, millionaires are made, the rate of poverty rises and the debt soars. Can you disagree with that?

Let me explain the pictures to you. See the media doesn't make any money off of cute pictures or pictures of our troops playing nice and praying and what not. They prefer the shock factor. I hate the media. You are playing into their twisted little world. Don't believe everything you read. Anything that counters the prevailing thoughts is of shock value.

... And I want to know why the Feck they're still there!? I supported the war! I still do! I honestly believe that Iraq HAD to be liberated from the Ba'Athists & Saddam Hussein! I quite frankly didn't give a Flying-Feck about the WMDs or lack thereof. This was (at first) a matter of liberating the Iraqi people and giving them the opportunity to make choices about their future. Well... Job done. Hussein & the Ba'Athists are toppled. Towns & cities are under control of an elected council. National elections have been held. The core of a new Iraqi police & military have been trained in neighbouring countries.... Time to come home and leave the Iraqi's to the self-determination which we are so fond of preaching. Unless, of course, our troops are still there to follow some half-arsed hidden agenda to match the half-arsed plan!? Mike. In case you were unaware, that was the motive to go into Iraq. Bush couldn't say it was about 9/11, as there was no connection from OBL to Sadam, so Bush drempt up this scheme about WMD's. If you were in a bar fight that your buddy got you into and in the middle of it determined that it was your buddy who wholly started it aginst a smaller guy, a guy that did nothing, would you continue to fight and say, "I quite frankly didn't give a Flying-Feck about ......?" So sorry, that was maybe 2nd or 3rd.

But what's the ratio of US soldiers petting kitties to that of insurgents petting kitties? Bet you can't answer that.....

Awww... the kitty is so CUTE! I'm sure the women crying for their decapitated children will be comforted by that. Yea, and when the killing gets worse, they'll bring out the puppies!

The common rhetoric now is that millionaires will see 42k per year and middle class will see 20 bucks a year. So more trickle-down, ala Hoover, Reagan and now Bush. It has never worked to throw money at the rich and hope they are charitable enough to spread some around, why should it now? Definition of insanity goes something like this: - To repeat the same action and expect differnt outcomes. Isn't it insanity to continue to go back to supply side economics and expect them to work?

Public outcry? Good one - the 3-headed monster doesn't care about that. They're all doing what? And other reasons are things like: 1) Illegal wiretaps 2) Forced Google disclosure 3) Forced Library disclosures 4) Selling the ports to the UAE 5) Privatizing prescriptions for corp gain, elderly losses 6) The Iraq war cost and deaths with no end in sight 7) Just being a Bushy Oh yea, driving the national debt up to presidentially unprecedented levels. So to your, "They all do it," I say, establish it and then I'll believe it, but it's your sinking ship from your party - exclusively.

Please tell me what the Dems have done. Not waht they conspired to do or wanted to do, but fiscally, what have they done and what is the outcome? Too tired and too late to get into it right now, but why don't you read a little about how they have stood in the way of Social Security reform, which we cannot afford to support any longer. - It's your arguement, you read and make it. Also, if we kill SS, then what do seniors do? What do disabled do? Die in the streets, litterally? You can't seriously propose a change w/o addressing problems. Perhaps wave the majic wand of the Libertarian Party where social welfare comes from the church and from charitable contributions? It's easy to solve the woes of the fiscal gov when we ignore the most compelling issue about the budget. And then you or I need SS, disability, etc.....

Please tell me what the Dems have done. Not waht they conspired to do or wanted to do, but fiscally, what have they done and what is the outcome?

Here's a way to look at spending versus GDP: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

And even tho the House was Dem, as I recall, the Senate ran the country? RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Your scenario has the batboy getting the credit for the majical homerun.