Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on August 17, 2002, 10:24:34 AM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20020817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_45
Didn't he have a $5.6 TRILLION surplus when he took over?
How many days left before this bellybutton is out of office?
-
How much has the entire 9/11 and afterward situation cost the Federal government? Any idea?
-
Now Toad, don't go applying common sense here.
-
Who knows... bail out of the airline industry... federal payment to survivors... this little skirmish in Afganistan... oh... and tax refunds.
yeah... it all adds up...
Of course... disclosure isn't one of the Bush administration's strong points.
Yeah... we're digging a nice hole and on top of that Bush wants to poke sticks in Hussein's face.
Wonder how much further our deficit will go for that....
-
Who knows... bail out of the airline industry... federal payment to survivors... this little skirmish in Afganistan... oh... and tax refunds.
I assume you are against all these? I could understand a Leftie being against a tax cut, but under the circumstances I can't understand the others. Well, ok, there is that war thing too, but where does one draw the line and use force?
How would President Sandman have coped in similar circumstances?
-
Didn't quite follow the logic of passing out federal $$$ to family survivors of the 911 attacks.
Granted... If there ever was a good case for government charity, that was it. Still... I don't care for it. Hell... I pay for life insurance, health insurance, auto insurance, dental insurance... Do they not do this in NYC?
I especially don't like the government easing the burden of insurance companies. They're in it for profit and the moment the hammer falls, they cry about money.
I also didn't see the point of the tax refund. I considered it a political ploy to gain public approval. Still... I'm hypocrite enough to spend it.
We don't know and I doubt we will know what the 911 attacks cost us, directly and indirectly. Like I said... disclosure isn't a big item on the Bush agenda.
-
Agree on the insurance companies totally. Their business is risk management; they're forever telling eveyone how good they are at it. Your kid gets a ticket... wham, risk management, his rates go up.
However, if THEY miscalculate, WE have to bail them out.. every time. Look at the Florida hurricanes. People in the New Mexican desert are still paying for that.
Tax Refund? My take on it is that it is MY MONEY... not theirs. That surplus... THAT'S OUR MONEY. Yeah, we need to have a little reserve. We did. After 9/11, we spent it all and more.
But you let a big pile of money just sit around in untroubled times and politicians will go into a feeding frenzy trying to find ways to spend it. Good spending, bad spending.. don't matter. Just SPEND!
So, quite obviously, NOW we need to raise taxes to cover the cost. The big pile is gone. The trick now will be to raise the taxes, pay down the debt and ONLY spend on things that REALLY NEED DOING. No more $2 million dollar grants to study the mating habits of the US citizen or whatever. No more pork fat... just the lean muscle.
Lastly, disclosure. I'd be interested to know which administrations out of the last 5 or 6 you consider to be "open" and "transparent". The Bush bunch is doing business in the traditional "Washington Way"; just like all the others before them.
-
Well, one thing they could do is trim the fat, begin with over-paid Civilians working at the defense dept. Get a regular GI to do twice the work in half the time.
-
If there had been a $trillion + surplus when Bush took over, why was there still a deficit when he took over????:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Actually, the projections were wrong, that is all that changed.
-
And, I have seen nothing to indicate that revenues are down, though expenses associatated with 9-11-01 and the war have risen.
-
Here's a chart of the Federal Budget and a link to the where I found it. No idea how credible this data is or the political leanings of the site.
Federal Budget (http://www.federalbudget.com/)
-
"Department of Education". Well theres the problem right there.
-
Damn right, too many teachers in this country.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Didn't quite follow the logic of passing out federal $$$ to family survivors of the 911 attacks.
I would agree with you except (and I'm going from memory here) didn't acceptance of the fedaral cash preclude family members from binging lawsuits against the Airlines? In that case this makes more sense if you ask me.
-Sikboy
-
Tax Refund? My take on it is that it is MY MONEY... not theirs. That surplus... THAT'S OUR MONEY. Yeah, we need to have a little reserve. We did. After 9/11, we spent it all and more
Yeah, I bought a new Afterburner11 stick with MY $90 tax cut... At least I make enough to get a tax cut.. 40-50 million American workers didn’t even receive one. Was expecting $300 more but ah.. shoots the refund from 2001 turned out to be only an advance. Somebody misrepresented the truth on that being a refund.
Anybody here that has outstanding debt better pay off your credit cards now. The Fed can only lower interest rates one more time then they go up... Way up. That’s what happens when you run deficits. I bought a new truck in the 80s when Reagan was President, interest payments were 18%!.
Toad gives us the standard GOP line that if we run surpluses the Government will find ways to spend the money. However, the other guy promised to pay down the national debt and keep a balanced budget. This strengthens consumer confidence and investor confidence because your able to maintain strong financial foundations.
In the article Democrats in recent weeks have focused their election-year criticism of the president on the return to federal budget deficits under his tenure and tax cuts. Bush had previously laughed off the resurrected deficit — projected to run $165 billion in the budget year ending Sept. 30, the first red ink in four years — by saying he had always maintained that deficit spending would be necessary only if there was a war, recession or national emergency.
His standard punchline then: "I didn't think we were going to get the trifecta."
Sounds great only one problem, no reporter can find where Bush actually said the only time he would run a deficit is during war or recession.. they’ve searched everywhere. Again, somebody simply misrepresented the truth.
Lastly, disclosure. I'd be interested to know which administrations out of the last 5 or 6 you consider to be "open" and "transparent". The Bush bunch is doing business in the traditional "Washington Way"; just like all the others before them.
Hmm nice way to frame the debate.. Here’s a better question, Which administration out of the last 5 or 6 you consider to have maintained a surplus, balanced the budget lowered crime to the lowest levels in thirty years, had the lowest abortion rate for the same period, built the most schools and created the most millionaires?.
"Department of Education". Well theres the problem right there.
This part of the Right Wing line of thinking has always fascinated me. Of all the social programs public education has to be the best. They of course know that even if you don’t have children and are paying taxes for someone else's kids, that you are making an investment in the future of the country. The more educated people you have, the better it is to compete with other countries. It’s hard to believe but is it the ultimate agenda to end public education? That sounds crazy to me I wonder if one of you can explain.
-
I've seen examples (TV shows about education programs) of where private schools dont always produce or guarantee better students. I just meant that teachers should get paid more. then we would produce an incentive for better candidates (as in better natural techers) to become teachers rather than seek better paying jobs elsewhere.
-
Here’s a better question, Which administration out of the last 5 or 6 you consider to have maintained a surplus, balanced the budget lowered crime to the lowest levels in thirty years, had the lowest abortion rate for the same period, built the most schools and created the most millionaires?.
How many times are we gonna beat this horse? You attribute the economic success of the '90's totally to the Clinton administration, and in another thread blame creative corporate bookkeeping to the Bush administration- the same books that show the success of the '90's, I might add. You are playing both sides of the fence, to be sure.
Clinton didn't maintain a surplus- there was no surplus, only a projected surplus. I suppose you don't remember Clinton declaring recessions dead in one of his State of the Union addresses, do you? Did he lie, or is he a fool?
Even if there had been a surplus, Congress has more to do with the spending than does the president- you know this.
Clinton didn't lower abortion- and what a laughable proposition that is.
Clinton didn't lower crime- though I can point to a high-profile mayer that cleaned up a certain high-profile city against the protests of a certain former first-lady (regarding civil rights and the treatment of criminals). Seems to me he got more in the way than anything.
Built the most schools? Where do you get that nonsense? Communities build schools, and fund them with either bonds or loans, and combine these moneys with taxes. And, once again, Congress spends the money, not the president. Sorry, Clinton didn't build schools.
Built the most millionaires? In that case, why aren't you shouting for Clinton's head over corporate mismanagement?
There are many errors in your paragraph.
-
Give me a few hours to get my links together Kieran the kid wants to go fishing so I'm up for that. But... what do I get for winning this debate your Couger stick?... cuz that's what I want. Afterburner11 bah!.
Had to give Toad the Iraq debate.. see other thread..(The war on Iraq is already under way)
Don't cock it if you ain't gonna throw it.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
MY $90 tax cut
[/b]
Politicians love guys like you. 127,590,000 Individual Tax Returns filed in 2000; 129,783,000 filed in 2001.
If everyone would have cheerfully let them keep $100 that would have been $12,759,000,000 in their pockets in 2000 and $12,978,300,000. Pocket change, right?
It's volume; just like in cheap suits. They love to make you forget that. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money. YOUR money. :)
Originally posted by 10Bears
However, the other guy promised to pay down the national debt and keep a balanced budget.
[/b]
If you really believe that he was going to do that... if you REALLY believed it...... it tells me two things.
1. Politicians indeed must love you, given your view of overtaxing.
2. You are definitely the kind of guy the Democrats in particular are looking for. :)
Gore was a politician, just like Bush. "Promise them anything but get elected." Just a common coin with two faces. If you think Gore'd not be running a deficit budget in light of the aftermath of 9/11 I'd sure love to see you explain how that would happen.
Originally posted by 10Bears
Hmm nice way to frame the debate..
[/b]
Nice way to totally duck and run from the question. Especially from an admirer of the guy who can't remember what "is" actually means.
Disclosure? You gotta be ralphin' me. The last admin were the true masters of non-disclosure. But hey... they were just fargin' politicians.. just like the present bunch. #1 priority of all or any of them is to get re-elected. Disclose or non-disclose whatever is necessary to achieve that goal.
The big difference between you and I, apparently is that I don't believe any of them. If their lips are moving they're lying.
Further, if the Democrats run a guy that I think will make better choices for Supreme Court Justices, I'll vote Demo next time. I seriously doubt you can say that about voting Republican.
BTW, 10... rumor has it there was virtual unanimity in the Senate that it is high time that prescription drugs...so where's the bill? Oh, they left town without getting it done again? Any thoughts on why, if it's time, they couldn't agree? Check CNN for hints. ;)
-
Didn't he have a $5.6 TRILLION surplus when he took over?
And I'm thankful he gave me some of it back. Look, the government takes my money in order to operate, not to invest or save it 'just in case', thats my job it's my money.
It' our responsibility to make a living and provide for our families and future not some government. Sure it ought assist to point developing plans to kick start a small business or provides shelter for the houseless or others in time of need. But it should not be considered your sugar momma.
Quit feeling guilty about others lack of motivation.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Give me a few hours to get my links together Kieran the kid wants to go fishing so I'm up for that. But... what do I get for winning this debate your Couger stick?... cuz that's what I want. Afterburner11 bah!.
Had to give Toad the Iraq debate.. see other thread..(The war on Iraq is already under way)
Don't cock it if you ain't gonna throw it.
You have me mixed with someone else- I have all CH gear. Don't recall it being a bet, either. And... how are you going to win?
Congress appropriates money, president can only recommend spending.
Congress funds programs, the president can only recommend funding.
Congress determines amount of money given by federal government to schools, at best president can only recommend. In fact, most school moneys come from state and local taxes. Sure, the president can ask Congress to spend a wad to upgrade school technology (for instance), but Congress doesn't have to go along.
Since '94, which party has controlled Congress?
With regards to crime, what intiative has Clinton proposed that reduced crime in the country? I tell you what I think (predicting you are going to show me charts that show a drop in crime); people that are working are happy, and don't need to commit crimes to meet their creature needs. The technology boom created a lot of new jobs, and this would have happened regardless who occupied the big office.
Worse, Hillary was quite vocal against Rudy and his handling of crime in New York City, yet NYC has been reborn under his management, and crime has dropped dramatically. Her comments regarding police brutality were scathing, and ultimately embarassing when she tried to share the stage with police and fireworkers at a post-9/11 benefit. Good ol' Billy was at her side in both cases.
-
Bush had previously laughed off the resurrected deficit — projected to run $165 billion in the budget year ending Sept. 30, the first red ink in four years....
Most of his business ventures were mismanaged in the same fashion, the only difference this time is the number of "investors" who will get screwed.
This time it's the citizens who get to pay for his inept financial bungling.....not wealthy associates of his father.
-
Once again, are you suggesting that all corporations ran perfectly and legitimately in the '90's? Are you suggesting that if they didn't, Clinton is not complicent in that misconduct, yet in the year and a half since Bush took office Bush IS the reason all these corporations are found to have fraudulent bookkeeping?
It's like the past administration happened in a vacuum. Everything was cool, everyone was happy then BAM! All of a sudden industry was evil, the government was evil, and the world is coming to an end. Just silly.
You cannot look at Bush and say corporate scandals are all his or his administration's fault without implicating the preceding administration; much of the supposed wealth and trading occurred in that time frame, with exactly the same rules in force and the exact same administrative participation/lack of participation. Heck, if you'd just use your heads you would remember Greenspan warning investors for the past few years stocks were overvalued. You didn't hear him cheer when the market set records; he knew better.
-
Originally posted by senna
I've seen examples (TV shows about education programs) of where private schools dont always produce or guarantee better students. I just meant that teachers should get paid more. then we would produce an incentive for better candidates (as in better natural techers) to become teachers rather than seek better paying jobs elsewhere.
I think the money is there already. AFAIK, the state pays $7K per year per student at the local middle school. I've pulled my son out and I pay closer to $3.5K for the year at a private school. Somehow, the public school manages to do less with more. (but this isn't really on topic).
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Somehow, the public school manages to do less with more. (but this isn't really on topic).
That, right there, is the story of "Big Government". The same guys that 10Bears wants to give more of his income to in the form of higher taxation.
Check this out if you want to puke over how your tax money is spent. Don't worry, folks, there's hog sh*t on all the participants, Democrat or Republican. This isn't an "us vs them" issue.. they're all wallowing in the sty.
Pig Book (http://www.cagw.org/site/FrameSet?style=User&url=http://publications.cagw.org/PigBook2002/introduction.htm)
Want to know where your deficits come from? It's in the book. The Pig Book. Send them all the money you care to send. Heck,send them every single cent you have... they'll only plead for more.
Just like the televangelists, these Jimmy Swaggarts of Politics will appear every Sunday on your TV, with sad tales and tears in their eyes, pleading with you for just one more little "gift" to solve all the problems. Except the problems NEVER get solved and they're back for more contributions next Sunday.
-
Now lemme get this straight...
In the good all "last administration" days, the country was rolling in dough. The corporations were having trouble hauling all the profits to the bank. Happy days were here again. The huge profitable Corporate America, scrupulously maintaining their corporate balance sheets using only the strictest and most respected accounting techniques, drove an economy that generated a surplus, balanced the budget and created the most millionaires.
And everyone lived happily ever after until
....in January of 2001, these self-same corporations turned out to be all cronies of the new, evil Presidente. They suddenly began "cooking the books" which they most certainly never did before January of 2001. Of course, this could not last, so now we have a collapsing economy and stock market crash all caused by this adminstration.
Is that how it goes?
Good fairy tale but it is pretty unbelieveable. Nobody will buy the basic premise.
Alan Greenspan, December 5, 1996
But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade?
Hmmmmm.... '96 was it? Unexpected and prolonged contractions over an entire DECADE? hmmmmmmmmmmm
You guys. :D