NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6329917.stm

Yet, look at the areas where he's cutting spending and the areas where he's increasing spending. Not that this is a surprise, but it still shows what a 'tard he is.

We do need to restrain domestic spending, but we also need to reign in defense spending; $100 billion dollars spent on an unwinnable war is a lot of money, and is almost enough to eliminate the deficit altogether. It makes no sense to waste more money on Iraq; it's time to get out of there and let the chips fall where they may.

The soaring federal deficit has been tipped to exceed $750bn (£381bn) for 2006.

There's a mistake here. The Federal deficit is only $172 billion while the current account deficit (which includes the trade deficit) is probably going to be around $750 billion. It's an important difference, since the trade deficit is produced by people buying goods and services from overseas and has nothing to do with government spending.

We do need to restrain domestic spending, but we also need to reign in defense spending; $100 billion dollars spent on an unwinnable war is a lot of money, and is almost enough to eliminate the deficit altogether. It makes no sense to waste more money on Iraq; it's time to get out of there and let the chips fall where they may.

I agree 100%.

I agree 100%.

I mean, seriously, we wouldn't have a deficit if we weren't wasting the kind of money in Iraq that we are currently.

Just imagine what that $300 billion dollars could do if we invested it in alternative energy or petroleum-free infrastructure; needless to say, it would be far more beneficial to us than W's Middle Eastern adventure and it wouldn't cost over 3,000 soldiers' lives. We'd deal a killer blow to the terrorists without even having to fire a shot.

And $750 billion on defense is a ton of money...that's equal to over 6% of our GDP.

This is an onion article that accidently got posted on the BBC, isn't it?

"Unless we act, we will saddle our children and grandchildren with tens of thousands of unfunded obligations," Mr Bush said.
Which is of course why he is cutting back energy, health, and education spending because if we remove social programs, there won't be any obligations to the children! Genius!

This is an onion article that accidently got posted on the BBC, isn't it?

Nope.

Which is of course why he is cutting back energy, health, and education spending because if we remove social programs, there won't be any obligations to the children! Genius!

*sighs*

That's Dubya for you. :(

Nope.

...I don't believe you. There's no way in hell Bush would urge for restraint.

Unless "restraint" means "Fuck you, education, social welfare, and medicaid!"

Yes, reading the article, it does.

...I don't believe you. There's no way in hell Bush would urge for restraint.

Unless "restraint" means "Fuck you, education, social welfare, and medicaid!"

Hmm...ye, pretty much.

...I don't believe you. There's no way in hell Bush would urge for restraint.

Unless "restraint" means "Fuck you, education, social welfare, and medicaid!"

Yes, reading the article, it does.

You know, restraint in the sense that the Clear Skies Initiative meant more pollution. Orwellian restraint.

This is an onion article that accidently got posted on the BBC, isn't it?

No, that' would be this. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/white_house_quietly)

The difference is that when the Onion prints a story about Dubya the story will be accurate, but the quotes will not. Precisely the opposite of when any other media outlet reports on a Bush speech except the Daily Show, i)n which both will be accurate,) and the Colbert Report and FOX News )in which accuracy will be made easily available to the viewer by simply interpreting everything as the opposite of what was said.)

We do need to restrain domestic spending, but we also need to reign in defense spending; $100 billion dollars spent on an unwinnable war is a lot of money, and is almost enough to eliminate the deficit altogether. It makes no sense to waste more money on Iraq; it's time to get out of there and let the chips fall where they may.

Agreed, but ths is different from earlier remarks. What changed your mind?

George Bush calling for budget restraint is like a rapist asking his victim out for dinner and a movie.

You know, restraint in the sense that the Clear Skies Initiative meant more pollution. Orwellian restraint.

Pretty much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6329917.stm

Yet, look at the areas where he's cutting spending and the areas where he's increasing spending. Not that this is a surprise, but it still shows what a 'tard he is.

Bush wouldn't know budget restraint if he almost died choking on it.

Bush wouldn't know budget restraint if he almost died choking on it.

QFT.

We do need to restrain domestic spending, but we also need to reign in defense spending; $100 billion dollars spent on an unwinnable war is a lot of money, and is almost enough to eliminate the deficit altogether. It makes no sense to waste more money on Iraq; it's time to get out of there and let the chips fall where they may.



There's a mistake here. The Federal deficit is only $172 billion while the current account deficit (which includes the trade deficit) is probably going to be around $750 billion. It's an important difference, since the trade deficit is produced by people buying goods and services from overseas and has nothing to do with government spending.

It can't be that low. This is budget deficit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6329917.stm

Yet, look at the areas where he's cutting spending and the areas where he's increasing spending. Not that this is a surprise, but it still shows what a 'tard he is.

Thier you have it ladies and gentlemen. If you believe in fiscal conservatism, then you are in fact, a "tard". :rolleyes:

If by fiscal conservative you mean one who advocates spending vast quantities of money on the military and on military endeavors, while advocating pulling that funding from domestic areas that can tangibly benefit the populace, I'd say "tard" is an accurate label.

Thier you have it ladies and gentlemen. If you believe in fiscal conservatism, then you are in fact, a "tard". :rolleyes:

He's not a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

It can't be that low. This is budget deficit.

No, they're talking about the current account deficit unless they're using a different method to calculate it (which would be incorrect in and of itself since the government operates on a cash-flow basis to begin with).

The CBO is predicting a deficit of $172 billion in 2008. In fact, we'll be running a surplus in a few years if things remain according to projection; if anything, the fact that our deficit has shrunk faster than anticipated due to better economic performance is a sign that the budget may produce a surplus even earlier than it's projected to.

Agreed, but ths is different from earlier remarks. What changed your mind?

It's clear that the situation is deteriorating beyond our control. By pulling out, we will spare our money and soldiers' lives as well as hopefully prevent the deaths of some Iraqis that might have been killed either by the resistance or by the terrorists.

Thier you have it ladies and gentlemen. If you believe in fiscal conservatism, then you are in fact, a "tard". :rolleyes:
Let's see. He decreases funding for social programs and increases military spending, again - under the guise of helping the children of the future. Pretty sure agreeing to the methodology there makes you a 'tard.

He's not a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

You just keep telling yourself that.

Let's see. He decreases funding for social programs and increases military spending, again - under the guise of helping the children of the future. Pretty sure agreeing to the methodology there makes you a 'tard.

Helping children for the future in the sense of providing for national securing and interantional assets... thats also a "guise" of his. Not saying I believe it but ya....

You just keep telling yourself that.

He spends more than a drunken sailor and accumulates massive debt and deficits, and you call him a fiscal conservative?

There's an old saying that goes something like this:
If you want someone who'll take good care of you, look to a Democrat. If you want someone who'll take good care of you're money, look to a Republican.

Now Bush is not a fiscal conservative to me. At least not much of one. He's more fiscally conservative than either Gore or Kerry would have been but that's not saying much.

Thier you have it ladies and gentlemen. If you believe in fiscal conservatism, then you are in fact, a "tard". :rolleyes:
Let's see: GWB has been blank-chequing his spending for 6 years now, running up a massive deficit that's going to damage the US economy for years to come, and now that he's lost control of congres and the senate is demanding fiscal restraint and a balanced budget.

You're right: It's not a 'tard.

It's more akin to a spoiled brat who's just made a mess whining at his mother, "You clean it up!"

There's an old saying that goes something like this:
If you want someone who'll take good care of you, look to a Democrat. If you want someone who'll take good care of you're money, look to a Republican.

Now Bush is not a fiscal conservative to me. At least not much of one. He's more fiscally conservative than either Gore or Kerry would have been but that's not saying much.
You can't seriously mean that, at least about Gore. Gore was VP when we had a budget surplus--you can't get much more fiscally responsible than that.

You can't seriously mean that, at least about Gore. Gore was VP when we had a budget surplus--you can't get much more fiscally responsible than that.

Gore was pretty fiscally conservative. I honestly doubt that he would've been a big spender while in office; if anything, I seem to recall that fiscal responsibility was part of his platform in 2000.

He spends more than a drunken sailor and accumulates massive debt and deficits, and you call him a fiscal conservative?

He's moving towards a new federal initiative too cut down the defecit. Erm, he has sort of been cutting taxes since he BEGAN his presidency, and has pulled hard too keep the cuts. "Reaganomics" were fiscally conservative economic policies which dictated increased millitary spending, and Reagan's administration wasn't at armed conflict.

Let's see: GWB has been blank-chequing his spending for 6 years now, running up a massive deficit that's going to damage the US economy for years to come, and now that he's lost control of congres and the senate is demanding fiscal restraint and a balanced budget.

You're right: It's not a 'tard.

It's more akin to a spoiled brat who's just made a mess whining at his mother, "You clean it up!"

You forget employment rates slicing too record lows, lower taxes, corporate revunue up (tax revunue that is). But who mentions THIS nowadays? :rolleyes: As for losing the congress, can I please have a sensible democrat who proposes a sensible and legitimate attack at our national debt?

Reagan did alot of good, and ran up a bill of his own. Bush's policies have taken thier financial toll, and rather him being the spoiled brat, hes turned around too balance a budget, take one final shot at Iraq, and decrease social spending. Its sort of like you many people being caught on the defecit, a superficial fixation. The good thing is, hes moving towards the defecit, too take initiative. He really hasnt had the opportunity with a foreign war raging, and all that ruff....

You forget employment rates slicing too record lows, lower taxes, corporate revunue up (tax revunue that is). But who mentions THIS nowadays? :rolleyes: As for losing the congress, can I please have a sensible democrat who proposes a sensible and legitimate attack at our national debt?

Reagan did alot of good, and ran up a bill of his own. Bush's policies have taken thier financial toll, and rather him being the spoiled brat, hes turned around too balance a budget, take one final shot at Iraq, and decrease social spending. Its sort of like you many people being caught on the defecit, a superficial fixation. The good thing is, hes moving towards the defecit, too take initiative. He really hasnt had the opportunity with a foreign war raging, and all that ruff....

So wait--we're supposed to give him credit for doing a shitty job with the deficit because he's in an unnecessary war that he started? There's lowering the bar, and then there's what you're doing for the guy. At least Clinton got his hummer while doing a good job in office.

There's an old saying that goes something like this:
If you want someone who'll take good care of you, look to a Democrat. If you want someone who'll take good care of you're money, look to a Republican.

uh, yeah...

chris mooney talks about the republican war on science. i think that is just one front in their larger war on reality.

take that, facts and logic!

Which is of course why he is cutting back energy, health, and education spending because if we remove social programs, there won't be any obligations to the children! Genius!

Cutting back on education is brilliant on his part.

If we stupidfy the people, that will make the cheap labor again. The jobs that moved over the last 60 years will move back.

However, I found this story better: :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3580626.stm

However, I found this story better: :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3580626.stm

lol

Are defense cuts taboo in the US or something? I mean the US has a massive wealth but it would rather arm it's soldiers than support it's populace?

Who the fuck is he to lecture ANYONE about budget restraint? Who cut taxes AND increased unnecessary military expenditures to the point where our budget deficits are the largest in history?

However, I found this story better: :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3580626.stm

Smoky the bear says.. says.. says. What? Oh yeah, Smoky saysss only you can start forest fires.. no, wait.. ah, fuck it, I love you guys.

Channelling bits from everything into the army, no surprises there.

They're training a breed of ultra-powerful idiots to fight!

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/2541/supersoldiervh9.gif

Channelling bits from everything into the army, no surprises there.

They're training a breed of ultra-powerful idiots to fight!

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/2541/supersoldiervh9.gif
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't say it but that right there is insulting.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't say it but that right there is insulting.

I'm saying that you're idiots.... I'm saying that cutting education funding has repercussions. I wanted an excuse to make another picture too. I didn't mean to offend anyone.

You can't seriously mean that, at least about Gore. Gore was VP when we had a budget surplus--you can't get much more fiscally responsible than that.
Clinton got a surplus through taxes and luck. Gore was just the VP.

I said that Bush's not fiscally conservative. He knows how to cut taxes and that does help but presidents have very little control over economies. There is no magic control panel in the oval office for the stock market or anything else and he didn't cut back on spending. He may not have grown government as fast as a Democrat would have but it still grew under Bush.

So wait--we're supposed to give him credit for doing a shitty job with the deficit because he's in an unnecessary war that he started? There's lowering the bar, and then there's what you're doing for the guy. At least Clinton got his hummer while doing a good job in office.

Erm, I won't credit bush for THAT, but ill credit you for building a strawman. As for Clinton, he had too suffer, and still today- suffer the wrath of Hillary Clinton. I don't think it was worth it for poor Bill :(

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't say it but that right there is insulting.

But if funding percentages continue the way they do, that being taking from the civil sector and dumping it into the military, that's what it'll end up being. As it is, the American education system is almost a joke. Keep it up, and it will be a joke.

Except the ones doing the laughing would be the Indians, Chinese, Europeans and other nations that actually pay attention to having things like a good education.

Clinton got a surplus through taxes and luck. Gore was just the VP.

I said that Bush's not fiscally conservative. He knows how to cut taxes and that does help but presidents have very little control over economies. There is no magic control panel in the oval office for the stock market or anything else and he didn't cut back on spending. He may not have grown government as fast as a Democrat would have but it still grew under Bush.

It must hurt you to hear this, but the government got smaller and leaner under Clinton-Gore. The last Democrats to hold the executive made government smaller. Face it, Dosuun, Republicans don't stand for small government anymore, if they ever did. They had the last 6 years to put it into practice, and they grew it faster than anyone else ever has. Time to put aside your articles of faith and look at the facts--the Dems are the fiscally responsible party now.

Erm, I won't credit bush for THAT, but ill credit you for building a strawman. As for Clinton, he had too suffer, and still today- suffer the wrath of Hillary Clinton. I don't think it was worth it for poor Bill :(
The only way that was a strawman is if you credit Bush with having the brains of the Scarecrow before he met the Wizard in the Emerald City.

Face it, Dosuun, Republicans don't stand for small government anymore, if they ever did.

and, really, it's fairly obvious that they didn't

Face it, Dosuun, Republicans don't stand for small government anymore, if they ever did. They had the last 6 years to put it into practice, and they grew it faster than anyone else ever has. Time to put aside your articles of faith and look at the facts--the Dems are the fiscally responsible party now.
Nationally that's true. There are still a lot of local conservatives though and that is a fact.

I don't like what has happened to the national Republicans, they got cocky when they won and thought they had all the time in the world for all their pet projects. But Democrats will never be the party of fiscal conservatism. The DFL does nothing but pump more money in the education budget and raise taxes to pay for it even though we've had next to no positive results from it in metro area schools in the past few years. And any time anyone tries to cut that budget by even a penny or demand better results from schools for all they're getting they get attacked for it.

You just keep telling yourself that.
Cutting education and saying it's for the children.
New Ausha how can you defend that?

If in 2 years the budget is fixed I'll apologize
If it isn't. I'll say "I told you so."


The Republican party of the past has died. Get used to it.

The only way that was a strawman is if you credit Bush with having the brains of the Scarecrow before he met the Wizard in the Emerald City.

"So wait--we're supposed to give him credit for doing a shitty job with the deficit because he's in an unnecessary war that he started? There's lowering the bar, and then there's what you're doing for the guy."

The only way that was a strawman, was if you misrepresented my point, substituting a dummy point too punch at. The Iraq war being "unecessary" is up for debate, as is his "shitty job".

Actually all this 'The President is the decider' and congress giving all this respect is the hardest thing to stomach, and seems undemocratic. Honestly, judge the guy by what he has done.

Cutting education and saying it's for the children.
New Ausha how can you defend that?

If in 2 years the budget is fixed I'll apologize
If it isn't. I'll say "I told you so."


The Republican party of the past has died. Get used to it.

Ah, may I have an explicit example of Bush stating cutting the education budget would benefit the children? I've yet too see it... Yes he is pushing for cutting domestic spending, but where is all this "it will help our children, that is underfunding social programs" coming from. If I did know any better, i'd say that is of your minds invention...

If the budget is fixed in two years, ill say, "Hey I never said it would be fixed, I said they were working on it, oh well."

If it isnt ill say: "Hey I never said it would be fixed, I said they were working on it, oh well."

Why do you assume I cling too the "Old republicans?" I'm by no means a republican, spare "tradiionalist". I just question the daily attacks on the Bush administration at times... Of course this makes me a "Rush Limbaugh" or "Ann Coulter" of NS yes?

Out of interest, the leaked budget plans:
Call for a 10.5% increase in military spending, to $481 Billion.
$300 Billion for Iraq war over the next 2 1/2 years.
Making the tax cuts permanent.
1% rise to 'discretionary' domestic spending - if accepted, means GWB has veto rights over anything and everything that counts for 'discretionary' domestic spending if it goes over the bar he's set.

It strikes me that all he's doing is pushing the Dems into a corner where they either accept his nonsense or open themselves up for being anti-'our troops' and/or spendthrifts.
So much for bipartianship and promises to work together.:rolleyes:

Bush ain't gonna go gently into that good night, but rage pettily against the Dems in full flight.

"So wait--we're supposed to give him credit for doing a shitty job with the deficit because he's in an unnecessary war that he started? There's lowering the bar, and then there's what you're doing for the guy."

The only way that was a strawman, was if you misrepresented my point, substituting a dummy point too punch at. The Iraq war being "unecessary" is up for debate, as is his "shitty job".
up for debate?
With whom?
Outside of the Bush admin and Fox, who else has been arguing recently that the war was necessary?

As for his shitty job, let's see:
Stock Market Performance:
Under the two Reagan terms, the US Dow Jones went up 26% & 79% over each 4 year term respectively.
Under Bush I, it went up 52%.
Under Clinton, it went up 95% and 67%.
Under Bush II, it went DOWN 0.1% in his first term and so far (up until the end of 2006) it's gone up 11%.


National Debt as % of GDP:
Jimmy Carter: ND dropped from 35.8% to 32.6%, a 3.2% decrease
Ronald Reagan, in his first term grew ND from 32.6% to 43.9%, a 11.3% increase
Ronald Reagan, in his second term ND grew from 43.9% to 53.1%, a 9.2% increase.
George H. W. Bush: ND grew from 53.1% to 66.2%, a 13.1% increase
Bill Clinton: First term, ND went from 66.2% to 65.6%, a 0.6% decrease
Bill Clinton: Second term, ND went from 65.6% to 57.4%, a 8.2% decrease
George W. Bush: First term, ND went from 57.4% to 65.7%, a 8.3% increase.
Projections are for it to rise to >70% by the end of his term.
(aside: notice which presidents ND dropped as a % of GDP and which ones it rose? Which side is touted as being the fiscally responsible side again?)

As for other information, I found this site:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/pm110
Here's what their analysis of the information and statistics held by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve, Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau showed, as of June 2006:


Wages/Income:
Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages have fallen 0.1% from where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. Yet, productivity—the growth of the economic pie—is up by 14.7%.
Wage growth has been shortchanged because 46% of the growth of total income in the corporate sector has been distributed as corporate profits, far more than the 20% in previous periods.
Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row (2000-2005) and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389.


Job creation:
As of 2006, The United States had only 1.9% more jobs compared to March 2001 (the start of the last recession). Private sector jobs are up only 1.5%. At this stage of previous business cycles (coming out of recessions), jobs had grown by an average of 8.8% and never less than 6.0%.
The unemployment rate is relatively low at 4.6%. But the percent of the population that has a job has never recovered since the recession and is still 1.3% lower than in March 2001. If the employment rate had returned to pre-recession levels, almost 4 million more people would be employed.
More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000.


Poverty:
The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004.
The number of people living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.
More children are living in poverty: the child poverty rate increased from 16.2% in 2000 to 17.8% in 2004.


Household debt:
The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 42.0% over the last five years.
The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history. Mortgage and consumer debt is now 120% of after-tax income, more than twice the level of 30 years ago.
The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.9%.
The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since the Depression.

So what was that about him not doing a shitty job?

The Iraq war being "unecessary" is up for debate, as is his "shitty job".

ah, a bitter-ender. you people will make for interesting footnotes in the history books and war crimes trial documents.

ah, a bitter-ender. you people will make for interesting footnotes in the history books and war crimes trial documents.

Ah yes, the trials the Germans are planning on holding against Rumsfeld, is that what you're pertaining too? I hope they take place in the remnants of Auschwitz, or perhaps Buchenwald. If you dont sense the bitter irony then perhaps the pews of a torced synagogue from the 40's would fit you, as an observer that is. Just because your facist claims and speculations label an event, does not make it so.

*snip*

wait... you're actually adjusting his job based on numbers from the first year he became president?!

lmao.

up for debate?
With whom?
Outside of the Bush admin and Fox, who else has been arguing recently that the war was necessary?

The 30% Pro-War sect of America? The Blair Administration? Israel? Sadaams previous victims?

wait... you're actually adjusting his job based on numbers from the first year he became president?!

lmao.

Lol, nice catch.

I love how no one notices the airline industry was cutting jobs like emos cut wrists after 9/11... and look at that industry now.

Not exactly antieconomy there, seeing as travel is a very major contributor to commerce in airport cities.

wait... you're actually adjusting his job based on numbers from the first year he became president?!

lmao.
Oh so sorry! How foolish of me to make comparisons between the start of a person's presidency and the end of it in order to see how effective that presidential term has been on the economy!
How utterly utterly foolish!

When would you want me to make comparisons from? 1929? 1066? 53BC?

Or will you just pull some convenient year out of your butt where you can ignore all the negatives the bushbaby's presidency has had on the US economy?

Let me guess: you're going to loudly announce that the Dow Jones is at record highs, thus proving the bushbaby's masterful handling of the US economy.
Shame that this ignores the fact that when you're already on a high, any increase automatically means a new record, and that in 6 years of presidency the Dow has gone up just 11% - less than inflation: 17% over the last 6 years.

The Iraq war being "unecessary" is up for debate, as is his "shitty job".

No it isn't. The war was based on lies and did not have to be fought when it was in the way it was, and Bush's job approval ratings speak for themselves.

Sadaams previous victims?

The dead talk to you?

It must hurt you to hear this, but the government got smaller and leaner under Clinton-Gore. The last Democrats to hold the executive made government smaller. Face it, Dosuun, Republicans don't stand for small government anymore, if they ever did. They had the last 6 years to put it into practice, and they grew it faster than anyone else ever has. Time to put aside your articles of faith and look at the facts--the Dems are the fiscally responsible party now.
Maybe it's because of my age, but I have never understood all the BS about Republicans being the "party of small government" or "party of fiscal responsibility."

In my lifetime, Republicans have made government bigger every single time they've been in power. Republicans have increased the debt and deficit every single time they've been in power. The one stretch of time when a Democrat was in the White House was the only stretch where government was reduced and the budget was balanced. And this was done largely over the loud protests of the Republicans of the time.

I think there are lots (and I mean lots) of things wrong with the Dems. But throughout my entire lifetime the Democrats have shown themselves to be better at managing the country's money, and also better at limiting the size of the government. The Republicans are the ones who have most consistently spent money we don't have and shoved government into my private life.

On those issues, I think the choice is so obvious that I can't believe there are actually people arguing the opposite. The D's are better than the R's on fiscal responsibility. Are they good enough to make me happy? Not really, but they're better than the alternative. The D's are better at limiting the scope of the government. Are they as good as I want? Fuck no, but they're much, much, much, much better than the R's.

No it isn't. The war was based on lies and did not have to be fought when it was in the way it was, and Bush's job approval ratings speak for themselves.

QFT.

Sadaams previous victims?
According to pretty much every single recent poll, the overwhelming majority of people who previously suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime OPPOSE THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Now, I'm sure people who were suffering under Saddam Hussein would have really appreciated some help with that. Naturally, they'd like to stop suffering. But they seem to not really appreciate having one kind of suffering replaced with another. That doesn't really do much for them.

Oh so sorry! How foolish of me to make comparisons between the start of a person's presidency and the end of it in order to see how effective that presidential term has been on the economy!
How utterly utterly foolish!

When would you want me to make comparisons from? 1929? 1066? 53BC?

Or will you just pull some convenient year out of your butt where you can ignore all the negatives the bushbaby's presidency has had on the US economy?

Let me guess: you're going to loudly announce that the Dow Jones is at record highs, thus proving the bushbaby's masterful handling of the US economy.
Shame that this ignores the fact that when you're already on a high, any increase automatically means a new record, and that in 6 years of presidency the Dow has gone up just 11% - less than inflation: 17% over the last 6 years.

No, it's because almost every economist and politician knows that judging the economic growth or failure by the first 2 years of a new president's term is silly because those effects are from the previous president.

You couldn't have expected Bush to come into office in '01 with legislation in his hand to improve upon the already-decent economy. Besides, at the time, he wouldn't have had it pass in time to even have effect by the end of his first year, maybe not even his second if it was deadlocked in the House or Senate.

According to pretty much every single recent poll, the overwhelming majority of people who previously suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime OPPOSE THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Now, I'm sure people who were suffering under Saddam Hussein would have really appreciated some help with that. Naturally, they'd like to stop suffering. But they seem to not really appreciate having one kind of suffering replaced with another. That doesn't really do much for them.

Could we get any kind of source for "the overwhelming majority of people" recent polls bullshit? because there have been so many people in iraq that have supported the US for taking down Saddam that your statement doesn't make any sense.

Could we get any kind of source for "the overwhelming majority of people" recent polls bullshit? because there have been so many people in iraq that have supported the US for taking down Saddam that your statement doesn't make any sense.
Read the polls yourself. Iraqis oppose the war. The people who lived under Saddam and actually know what it was like oppose the war. I find it hilarious that somebody who is not Iraqi and didn't live under Saddam will presume to say what "Saddam's victims" want.

Unless, of course, he's presuming to speak for the people who died under Saddam's regime. In that case, it's not funny. It's just pathetic.

Sure, people wanted Saddam out. Like how you want a burglar out of your house ASAP. But you don't want the burglar removed from your house if the 'removal' is achieved by burning down the house and shooting several of your family members in an effort to catch the burglar.

Read the polls yourself. Iraqis oppose the war. The people who lived under Saddam and actually know what it was like oppose the war. I find it hilarious that somebody who is not Iraqi and didn't live under Saddam will presume to say what "Saddam's victims" want.

Sure, people wanted Saddam out. Like how you want a burglar out of your house ASAP. But you don't want the burglar removed from your house if the 'removal' is achieved by burning down the house and shooting several of your family members in an effort to catch the burglar.

Unless, of course, he's presuming to speak for the people who died under Saddam's regime. In that case, it's not funny. It's just pathetic.

Uhh, I presume to understand what Iraqis want from listening to them. Using "the vast majority of polls" doesn't exactly give me confidence in your research, also.

There are many people in Iraq that have been recorded as saying "Bless the US" for taking down the despot Hussein. So why is it that you base your accusations about the truthfulness of the Iraqis saying they love the US based on "polls" that are still up in the air, while I have seen and heard Iraqis on tape tell the camera that they thank the US for taking down Saddam?

Well, Bush has a few options.

He can either make the claim that the only purpose of the government is to safeguard the security and liberty of its people, drop all areas except education, military, and police funding, and hand everything else over to the private sector. But wait! That means reducing his own power, and that of Congress and the rest of them! (And altering the Constitution too, I suspect.)

He can continue to increase military spending while decreasing taxes, removing necessary social programs which the private sector will then take over, except without regulation stating that they are to be the official providers of such programs, they'd only make such programs available to people capable of paying for them.

He can declare himself supreme dictator for life, suspend the Constitution, dismiss Congress, and bring home the troops to uphold his martial law. (But that would mean pulling out of Iraq! = no-no.)

He can fuck up the system just enough that it won't implode until the next President gets into power, and leave the mess for whoever that is to be. People will blame it on said president, and Bush gets off in the history books with a positive mention for conducting the country through a war in Iraq and a difficult financial period post-9/11.

I'm of the opinion he'll take option 4, it's the most sensible, and while it may be delicate, that's what he has advisors for.

Maybe it's because of my age, but I have never understood all the BS about Republicans being the "party of small government" or "party of fiscal responsibility."

In my lifetime, Republicans have made government bigger every single time they've been in power. Republicans have increased the debt and deficit every single time they've been in power. The one stretch of time when a Democrat was in the White House was the only stretch where government was reduced and the budget was balanced. And this was done largely over the loud protests of the Republicans of the time.

I think there are lots (and I mean lots) of things wrong with the Dems. But throughout my entire lifetime the Democrats have shown themselves to be better at managing the country's money, and also better at limiting the size of the government. The Republicans are the ones who have most consistently spent money we don't have and shoved government into my private life.

On those issues, I think the choice is so obvious that I can't believe there are actually people arguing the opposite. The D's are better than the R's on fiscal responsibility. Are they good enough to make me happy? Not really, but they're better than the alternative. The D's are better at limiting the scope of the government. Are they as good as I want? Fuck no, but they're much, much, much, much better than the R's.
Here's how it happened. The Republicans were largely out of power in the Congress since the Depression--they'd make the occasional comeback in the Senate, but for the most part, they were the minority party, and when you're in the minority, it's easy to take potshots at the majority and talk about wasteful spending and the like. Dubya is the first Republican president in the contemporary age who didn't have to work with a hostile Congress (until now). So the small government talk all these decades was just that--talk. They didn't have to actually come through on anything, which made it easier for them to take shots.

But then they got into power, and everything changed. There are some true believer small government conservatives in Washington right now, but they're in the vast minority, and they always have been. The optimistic side of me says that the last six years in particular can be seen--in the very long run--as a good thing. It's shown conclusively that people who claim government is the problem shouldn't be in control of the government, because it really does become the problem then.

George Bush calling for budget restraint is like a rapist asking his victim out for dinner and a movie.

Nice. :) And didn't I hear this "budget restraint" thing a few weeks ago from the Senate the American people elected recently?

Wasn't it put in somewhat stronger terms ... er, a balanced budget?

The delay would probably be all that new vocabulary GWB had to learn. :p

The Bush budget would slash medicare and social security. I guess he's just trying to be fair and balanced and kill as many sick and old Americans as he did healthy Iraqis.

According to pretty much every single recent poll, the overwhelming majority of people who previously suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime OPPOSE THE WAR IN IRAQ.

and not merely oppose in the american sense of the term - a significant majority in many areas actively approve of shooting the occupiers (as well they should).

and yeah, last i heard the numbers had been varying between 60 and 75% for "get the fuck out, and get out yesterday"

and not merely oppose in the american sense of the term - a significant majority in many areas actively approve of shooting the occupiers (as well they should).

and yeah, last i heard the numbers had been varying between 60 and 75% for "get the fuck out, and get out yesterday"

I figured the number would be even higher.

The dead talk to you?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Movie_i_see_dead_people.jpg

"I see dead people!"

For posterity, here's me at the end of the thread.
It was me that killed it, not Congo-Kinshasa.
I'm not being funny. I'm not being clever. I'm not adding to the debate.
I'm just posting for no reason.

*PURE FACTS*
So what was that about him not doing a shitty job?

Sorry Demented just won, there is NOTHING you guys can do to counter this.

Game over, go home!

You just keep telling yourself that.

again and again

http://www.federalbudget.com/

http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/

don't let my facts get in the way of your well thought out opinion.

More fuel for the fire

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7731/01-24-BudgetOutlook.pdf

That's for being a Bush Bootlicker.

The name of this game is called "I win" because in the end I just win.

I figured the number would be even higher.

that number contains the kurdish population, which is willing to give the u.s. a bit more time. something like 11% of them are in the "get the fuck out now, you fucking imperialist bastards" camp, while a total of 66% is at "two more years or less".

up for debate?
With whom?
Outside of the Bush admin and Fox, who else has been arguing recently that the war was necessary?

As for his shitty job, let's see:
Stock Market Performance:
Under the two Reagan terms, the US Dow Jones went up 26% & 79% over each 4 year term respectively.
Under Bush I, it went up 52%.
Under Clinton, it went up 95% and 67%.
Under Bush II, it went DOWN 0.1% in his first term and so far (up until the end of 2006) it's gone up 11%.


National Debt as % of GDP:
Jimmy Carter: ND dropped from 35.8% to 32.6%, a 3.2% decrease
Ronald Reagan, in his first term grew ND from 32.6% to 43.9%, a 11.3% increase
Ronald Reagan, in his second term ND grew from 43.9% to 53.1%, a 9.2% increase.
George H. W. Bush: ND grew from 53.1% to 66.2%, a 13.1% increase
Bill Clinton: First term, ND went from 66.2% to 65.6%, a 0.6% decrease
Bill Clinton: Second term, ND went from 65.6% to 57.4%, a 8.2% decrease
George W. Bush: First term, ND went from 57.4% to 65.7%, a 8.3% increase.
Projections are for it to rise to >70% by the end of his term.
(aside: notice which presidents ND dropped as a % of GDP and which ones it rose? Which side is touted as being the fiscally responsible side again?)

As for other information, I found this site:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/pm110
Here's what their analysis of the information and statistics held by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve, Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau showed, as of June 2006:


Wages/Income:
Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages have fallen 0.1% from where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. Yet, productivity—the growth of the economic pie—is up by 14.7%.
Wage growth has been shortchanged because 46% of the growth of total income in the corporate sector has been distributed as corporate profits, far more than the 20% in previous periods.
Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row (2000-2005) and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389.


Job creation:
As of 2006, The United States had only 1.9% more jobs compared to March 2001 (the start of the last recession). Private sector jobs are up only 1.5%. At this stage of previous business cycles (coming out of recessions), jobs had grown by an average of 8.8% and never less than 6.0%.
The unemployment rate is relatively low at 4.6%. But the percent of the population that has a job has never recovered since the recession and is still 1.3% lower than in March 2001. If the employment rate had returned to pre-recession levels, almost 4 million more people would be employed.
More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000.


Poverty:
The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004.
The number of people living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.
More children are living in poverty: the child poverty rate increased from 16.2% in 2000 to 17.8% in 2004.


Household debt:
The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 42.0% over the last five years.
The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history. Mortgage and consumer debt is now 120% of after-tax income, more than twice the level of 30 years ago.
The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.9%.
The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since the Depression.

So what was that about him not doing a shitty job?

No no no!!!!!! Stop dealing with facts God damn you. Can't you see Ausha is Lewinskying the President as usual. Face it new, you're so far up his butt you'd think he was FOR gay marriage. Everything I read from you is, poor bush this, he's doing a great job that.

wait... you're actually adjusting his job based on numbers from the first year he became president?!

lmao.

umm, the numbers are from 2004, was that the first year? LMAO indeed sir.

I love how no one notices the airline industry was cutting jobs like emos cut wrists after 9/11... and look at that industry now.

Not exactly antieconomy there, seeing as travel is a very major contributor to commerce in airport cities.

It's called government subsidies. NEXT!!!!!!!!! Bushy bailed out the airlines like the Saudis bailed him out when he couldn't find oil in Texas. Or Am I making that one up too?

Killing two countries with one stone.

*sigh*

Bush couldn't restrain a budget if his life depended on it. :rolleyes:

Killing two countries with one stone.

Yep, pretty much.

Interesting graph for the al the fiscally conservative, Bushite Republicans.

http://www.louisville.cc/news/magazine/charts/newsNshit-deficit-chart.gif

He's moving towards a new federal initiative too cut down the defecit. Erm, he has sort of been cutting taxes since he BEGAN his presidency, and has pulled hard too keep the cuts. "Reaganomics" were fiscally conservative economic policies which dictated increased millitary spending, and Reagan's administration wasn't at armed conflict.

He's also been handing out money to religious groups through "faith based inititatives". Those groups have shown absolutely no benefit to the nation for all that cash. Wasting money isn't fiscally conservative. He's been borrowing a shitload of money. Going into debt isn't fiscally conservative. He started a war (Iraq) for no good reason. Once again, wasting money isn't fiscally conservative.

True economic conservatives are disgusted by Bush.

The 30% Pro-War sect of America? The Blair Administration? Israel? Sadaams previous victims?

Hi. I'm pro war. I'm American. I've never been in favor of the Iraq war though. Only retards were. Anyone with half a brain or more could see that there was very little possible upside for the us in deposing Saddam. The odds were also against us. Unfortunately, the liberal media, the Bush administration, and the many morons located primarily in the redneck parts of the USA were in favor of it. Now I'm proven right and they're proven wrong. I wish instead of "I told you so" I could just change the tax system so the morons are taxed more to cover the price of their stupid war.

We could have gone to war with Sudan. It would have been for a just cause, Iran wouldn't have been helped, and we would have hurt one of China's biggest oil suppliers. The UN might even have been brought on board. Sudan once sheltered and aided Osama bin Laden. That would have been a good war, but nobody listens to folks like me.

Uhh, I presume to understand what Iraqis want from listening to them. Using "the vast majority of polls" doesn't exactly give me confidence in your research, also.

There are many people in Iraq that have been recorded as saying "Bless the US" for taking down the despot Hussein. So why is it that you base your accusations about the truthfulness of the Iraqis saying they love the US based on "polls" that are still up in the air, while I have seen and heard Iraqis on tape tell the camera that they thank the US for taking down Saddam?

So what will they replace Hussein with? A Sunni extremist Al Qaeda linked government that will send suicide bombers at us or a Shi'ite extremist Iran linked government that will send suicide bombers at us?

Please consider todays issue of the Wall Street Journal

linky: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009630

(I am HTML retarded, so no poppy or jumpy action. Still check it out though.)

He's also been handing out money to religious groups through "faith based inititatives". Those groups have shown absolutely no benefit to the nation for all that cash. Wasting money isn't fiscally conservative. He's been borrowing a shitload of money. Going into debt isn't fiscally conservative. He started a war (Iraq) for no good reason. Once again, wasting money isn't fiscally conservative.

True economic conservatives are disgusted by Bush.

*applauds*

Anyone with half a brain or more could see that there was very little possible upside for the us in deposing Saddam.

Hell, despicable as he was, we could have used him.