PDA

View Full Version : Which party is the party of fiscal responsibility?


DenverChief
01-29-2004, 03:20 PM
Found this and thought it might spark some interesting debate

http://www.littlepiggy.net/deficit/Deficits.gif

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 03:26 PM
Amazing the stuff you can find, this is One Trillion pennies, which amounts to Ten billion, one hundred and sixty-six dollars and forty cents....just to give an idea of how far in debt we really are:

http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/one_trillion_A.jpg

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 03:29 PM
Number of pennies in circulation Two hundred billion, thirty-five million, three hundred eighteen thousand six hundred and seventy-two Pennies.

http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/two_hundred_bill_A.jpg

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 03:44 PM
U.S. National Debt as of today -

4,045,660,567,959.00 - Public debt
2,969,140,269,519.20 - Intragovernmental holdings
__________________
7,014,800,837,478.20 - Total

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

Donger
01-29-2004, 03:46 PM
Three words: Wars Are Expensive.

ENDelt260
01-29-2004, 03:50 PM
For my parties, we always get the cheapest keg of beer possible.

I own my own tap, and I have a shell already. So, there's no deposits.

So, clearly, the answer is: ENDelt's party.

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 03:52 PM
Three words: Wars Are Expensive.Clinton: Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq blockade/flyovers
GWB I : Iraq, Blockade/flyovers
Reagan : Panama, Grenada
GWB II : Iraq/blockade/flyovers, Afghanistan

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 03:53 PM
For my parties, we always get the cheapest keg of beer possible.

I own my own tap, and I have a shell already. So, there's no deposits.

So, clearly, the answer is: ENDelt's party.

sweet and I bet that it keeps the door fee pretty cheap...how many Keg's you have?

Boozer
01-29-2004, 03:54 PM
Number of pennies in circulation Two hundred billion, thirty-five million, three hundred eighteen thousand six hundred and seventy-two Pennies.

http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/two_hundred_bill_A.jpg

Number of families dressed like this one: 1 (I hope)
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=21749&stc=1

BigOlChiefsfan
01-29-2004, 03:55 PM
For my parties, we always get the cheapest keg of beer possible. I own my own tap, and I have a shell already. So, there's no deposits.

So, clearly, the answer is: ENDelt's party.

Any kegger without a deposit is the epitome of a party showing fiscal responsiblity. A tip of the (free@feedstore) hat.

Donger
01-29-2004, 03:56 PM
Clinton: Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq blockaide/flyovers
GWB I : Iraq, Blockaide/flyovers
Reagan : Panama
GWB II : Iraq, Afghanistan

I'd add winning the Cold War for Reagan, FYI.

I've no idea what the total costs of Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo were? Not nearly as much as both Iraq's and the Cold War, I'd guess.

Donger
01-29-2004, 03:57 PM
Clinton: Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq blockade/flyovers
GWB I : Iraq, Blockade/flyovers
Reagan : Panama
GWB II : Iraq/blockade/flyovers, Afghanistan

Ooops. Panama was December 1989, i.e., Bush Sr.

ENDelt260
01-29-2004, 03:58 PM
sweet and I bet that it keeps the door fee pretty cheap...how many Keg's you have?
I've just got the one. If I ever needed more than one, I've got some friends I could call to borrow a shell, I believe. But, I'll never have a party at my current residence big enough to warrant getting more than one keg.

Heh. Last time I got a keg by like 9 or so the 8 or 10 guys I'd been hanging out with at the bar the night before had shown up. When I looked around and realized who was in attendance, I asked a question to the general group, "Hey, did anybody actually tell anyone else we were having a party tonight?" Everyone kinda looked at each other, and it became clear the answer was no. So, we just said f*ck it and got drunk anyway.

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 03:59 PM
I'd add winning the Cold War for Reagan, FYI.

I've no idea what the total costs of Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo were? Not nearly as much as both Iraq's and the Cold War, I'd guess.

Ok Reagan still managed to keep the deficit under control while spending tons of money on nukes....that just strenghtens my point about GHWB

Donger
01-29-2004, 04:02 PM
Ok Reagan still managed to keep the deficit under control while spending tons of money on nukes....that just strenghtens my point about GHWB

Trust me, I'm not at all pleased with GHW Bush's spending spree. If it were just on rebuilding our military and intelligence strength, I'd be less concerned. But, it's not.

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 04:02 PM
Ooops. Panama was December 1989, i.e., Bush Sr.

yup my bad, then Reagan only had Grenada...

Amnorix
01-29-2004, 04:03 PM
Three words: Wars Are Expensive.

If even 1/10th of that debt was the result of actually being at war, then your comment would be a bit more insightful.

Amnorix
01-29-2004, 04:05 PM
Number of families dressed like this one: 1 (I hope)
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=21749&stc=1

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Umm....wtf? Where is that from, and why wasn't anyone arrested....?!?!?

Donger
01-29-2004, 04:09 PM
If even 1/10th of that debt was the result of actually being at war, then your comment would be a bit more insightful.

Like I said, I'm not sure exactly how much of the deficits under Reagan and Bush Sr. were due to defense spending. It's not just the cost of fighting a hot war that costs money.

Boozer
01-29-2004, 04:12 PM
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Umm....wtf? Where is that from, and why wasn't anyone arrested....?!?!?

Some godless New Englander like yourself posted it on this board earlier today. ;)

Amnorix
01-29-2004, 04:15 PM
Like I said, I'm not sure exactly how much of the deficits under Reagan and Bush Sr. were due to defense spending. It's not just the cost of fighting a hot war that costs money.

I do believe in a strong military. But you can't have guns, butter, cut taxes, and just run up the national debt endlessly. It makes no sense.
Here's a good one from the same Treasury Department web site. If I read this right, and I'm pretty sure I am, the FIRST QUARTER of the 2004 fiscal year (which I believe starts October 1 for the Feds) will cost us $115 billion in interest expenses.

That's.....just.....great.

Interest Expense
FISCAL Year 2004
December $ 82,435,960,974.56
November 19,292,044,501.20
October 13,311,682,915.94
----------------------
FISCAL Year Total $ 115,039,688,391.70

Garcia Bronco
01-29-2004, 04:16 PM
yup my bad, then Reagan only had Grenada...



Doin't forget about Lybia

JimNasium
01-29-2004, 04:20 PM
Doin't forget about Lybia
Plus, as previously mentioned, the Cold War. Subs, aircraft carriers, missles and bombers are exceedingly expensive.

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 04:21 PM
Doin't forget about Lybia


ROFL yeah 5-6 bombs plus fuel for the plane probably around $350,000

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 04:23 PM
Plus, as previously mentioned, the Cold War. Subs, aircraft carriers, missles and bombers are exceedingly expensive.

If Reagan had it tougher then why is GHWB running our debt into China?

There is no cold war to fight anymore

siberian khatru
01-29-2004, 04:23 PM
You're gonna be hard-pressed to find anyone on this site defend GWB's -- and the GOP Congress' -- non-defense spending habits. I've already taken my shots at it on an earlier thread today.

Donger
01-29-2004, 04:25 PM
I do believe in a strong military. But you can't have guns, butter, cut taxes, and just run up the national debt endlessly. It makes no sense.
Here's a good one from the same Treasury Department web site. If I read this right, and I'm pretty sure I am, the FIRST QUARTER of the 2004 fiscal year (which I believe starts October 1 for the Feds) will cost us $115 billion in interest expenses.

That's.....just.....great.

Interest Expense
FISCAL Year 2004
December $ 82,435,960,974.56
November 19,292,044,501.20
October 13,311,682,915.94
----------------------
FISCAL Year Total $ 115,039,688,391.70

I think you know how I feel about the debt. I hate it and it scares the crap out of me.

We spend approximately $320 billion on interest payments every year. We spend approximately $400 billion on defense every year.
We spend approximately $450 billion on HHS every year.

Scary stuff.

siberian khatru
01-29-2004, 04:30 PM
There is no cold war to fight anymore

Actually, the post 9/11 world is both: You'll have the "cold" war stuff such as homeland defense, special ops, espionage punctuated from time to time by "hot" wars such as Afghanistan and Iraq. That all will by costly.

Still, that doesn't come close to accounting for all of the spending splurge under Bush.

Here's a preview of an edit I wrote that will be published this weekend:

PRESIDENT BUSH has announced his intention to limit the growth of federal spending not connected to defense or homeland security to less than 1 percent in the coming year.

That’s like Otis the Drunk promising Sheriff Andy Taylor that he’d take smaller sips from the bottle.

Believe it when you see it.

Mr. Bush and this Republican Congress have spent the people’s money like intoxicated Swedish socialists, rapidly increasing the federal budget deficit and swelling the national debt. The Congressional Budget Office on Monday predicted that budget deficits will total $2.4 trillion over the next decade, or $1 million more than what CBO predicted just last August. The debt calculator is spinning like a Vegas slot machine, the numbers a mere blur as the red ink mounts.

Only this one-armed bandit won’t be delivering a jackpot — it will be reaching out and lifting your wallet, and your children’s wallets.

The excessive spending can’t all be blamed on post-9/11 national security costs, which are legitimate and unavoidable. Indeed, the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, calculates that non-defense spending has soared nearly 30 percent under Mr. Bush. Cato’s more-conservative counterpart, The Heritage Foundation, says discretionary spending jumped 25 percent over the last two years. These are historically high rates, in line with Lyndon Johnson’s “guns and butter” policies of the late 1960s.

So what has Mr. Bush done recently? He’s advocated more spending for the Education Department, a corporate welfare fund for manufacturers, a 5 percent raise in NASA’s space budget and $250 million more in job-retraining money. And that’s on top of the über-costly Medicare prescription drug benefit he signed into law at the end of 2003, which many analysts believe will cost nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

Mr. Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill that crossed his desk, yet he now implores Congress to “focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people’s money.” He could lead by example by vetoing the pending $373 billion omnibus spending bill that includes $20 billion in unrequested (much of it pork-barrel) spending.

Alas, the president has signaled that he will sign it. Where’s the incentive for Congress to be fiscally responsible?

On top of all that, Republican leaders often attempt to pull a little sleight-of-hand with the numbers. For instance, they argue that federal discretionary spending for this year will increase only 3 percent, compared with 13 percent and 12 percent hikes the last two years.

But as Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, that 3 percent reflects only “budget authority,” which is money spent in 2004. What got the number down to GOP bragging levels is that Congress decided that a chunk of money to be spent this year be put on the 2003 books (such as the $87 billion supplemental bill for Iraq reconstruction). According to Mr. Riedl, the actual increase in spending, regardless of which ledger Enron-like accounting assigns it, is closer to 9 percent, which is still unacceptably high.

This fiscal profligacy isn’t just bad stewardship of taxpayer dollars, creating deficits that are too big for even robust economic growth to overcome. It’s also potentially bad politics for the White House. Many conservatives and moderate swing voters already unhappy with the president’s immigration plan are outraged at his spending habits. This leaves him vulnerable to Democratic attacks that he’s fiscally irresponsible (although many on the left appear more interested in raising taxes than cutting spending).

Some conservatives may be sufficiently demoralized that they sit home on Election Day, while swing voters may believe pulling a lever for a Democrat may punch the ticket to deficit reduction.

Some might argue this is the price of Mr. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.” But there’s nothing compassionate nor conservative about runaway spending and escalating deficits that burden future generations with debt and which encourage some politicians to raise taxes.

Mr. Bush has vowed to (finally) hold the line on spending. It’s a promise that voters — especially those in his conservative base — must hold him to.

2bikemike
01-29-2004, 04:36 PM
I would just like to add that IMHO the economy roller coasters around up and down. I would be interested in seeing that chart through several past aministrations.

And just glancing at the chart and knowing a little bit of what went on I will try and summarize my thoughts on your little chart.

Carter had the worst economy. Extremely high interest rates. IIRC inflation was a problem.

Reagan comes along and things started to come around. He wanted a 600 ship Navy and other defense programs to shut out the Russkies in the cold war. Mission accomplished however expensive. Tons of money rolls into the economy. Interest rates drop dramatically.

Bush the sr. comes on and we go to war with Iraq. We lob all kinds of expensive chit at Saddam. He promises no new taxes. But does so anyway. Due to an expensive war and other budget problems. Economy takes a little hit. It starts to come around when...

In walks Clinton. Technological advances in computers and .coms really supercharge the economy. Jobs are plentiful Money is plentiful Tax revenues are pouring in. There is no cold war lets gut the military. Tons of tax dollars saved. Wow the deficit drops. The wheels are starting to come off tech. and .coms when..........

Jr. takes over. Now the wheels have come off tech and the .coms revenues drop. A bunch of crazy ass rag heads fly some planes into some buildings. Fear and panic set in across the investment community. Stock market plunges along with those wonderful tax revenues. Companies are watching their pennies. Jobs are lost. We go to Afghanistan and Iraq and kick a little ass. Troops are in a hostile evironment for much longer periods than any conflict since Viet Nam Spend more money but not as much is coming in. Deficits soar.

At least thats how I percieve it.

JimNasium
01-29-2004, 04:37 PM
I certainly cannot defend the out-of-control spending that is going on. I am also irritated that Bush continues to cling to this WMD argument. He truly must think that the average US citizen is a moron. He needs to quit listening to Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld but I fear that it might already be too late.

2bikemike
01-29-2004, 04:43 PM
I do believe in a strong military. But you can't have guns, butter, cut taxes, and just run up the national debt endlessly. It makes no sense.
Here's a good one from the same Treasury Department web site. If I read this right, and I'm pretty sure I am, the FIRST QUARTER of the 2004 fiscal year (which I believe starts October 1 for the Feds) will cost us $115 billion in interest expenses.

That's.....just.....great.

Interest Expense
FISCAL Year 2004
December $ 82,435,960,974.56
November 19,292,044,501.20
October 13,311,682,915.94
----------------------
FISCAL Year Total $ 115,039,688,391.70

I would bet those figures are on the debt already in place not the deficit. The debt has always been there at least for as long as I can remember. The Deficits just add to that each year.

2bikemike
01-29-2004, 04:50 PM
I would be very interested in seeing a chart like this on the amount of revenues collected by the Feds.

ENDelt260
01-29-2004, 04:52 PM
Goddammit! We were talking about beer! You bastards thwarted my hijacking!

I won't forget this. You'll all pay.

KCDU
01-29-2004, 05:02 PM
It would be interesting to see that graph adjusted for inflation

the Talking Can
01-29-2004, 05:09 PM
no one is dumb enough to believe the lie that Republicans are responsible with the budget (well, except "ditto heads")...Bush will be long gone when the real bill for all this comes due: the medicare bill will double (at the least), billions will be pumped into Iraq for a decade, The Dept. of Homeland Repression will continue to grow and its budget will easily double in a decade, while serving almost no discernable purpose other than to make it even harder for intelligence agencies to communicate...who will even care at that point how many 100's of millions have been skimmed off of the no-bid contracts handed out like jello shots, the 100 million Boeing is trying to scam with its refueling lease-pork-shameless-bill etc forever and ever amen...

will there be any candor about our long term costs or the inevitable collison between our multi-trillion dollar debt and receipts for SS/Medicare once the baby boomers break all their hips? from a Republican? from George Bush?

no need to answer that....do I expect any more candor from the Dems? no, only to the extent that its useful in the election...but at least they blush a little, Bush acts like we really believe anything he says...I'm surprised lightning doesn't strike him when he says things like "I'm responsible with your money...and Sadaam is, right at this very moment, sending winged monkeys across the Atlantic with fistfuls of Red Hots....run for your lives!"

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 05:16 PM
and Sadaam is, right at this very moment, sending winged monkeys across the Atlantic with fistfuls of Red Hots....run for your lives!"



ROFL ROFL ROFL

Saggysack
01-29-2004, 05:49 PM
Goddammit! We were talking about beer! You bastards thwarted my hijacking!

I won't forget this. You'll all pay.

OH YEA!!

Well suck my.... wait, scratch that

Kiss my a...nope, scratch that too.

Ah hell, nevermind.

Ugly Duck
01-29-2004, 06:08 PM
Ok Reagan still managed to keep the deficit under control Huh? Under control? Better check that graph again... he racked up record deficits....

Ugly Duck
01-29-2004, 06:16 PM
no one is dumb enough to believe the lie that Republicans are responsible with the budget (well, except "ditto heads")Can, I think you're a great guy, so sit down to read this. You're not going to like it when I say this, but...... people actually really do believe it. Seriously. Its a shocker, but its true....

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 06:16 PM
Huh? Under control? Better check that graph again... he racked up record deficits....


compared to GWB and GHWB

Ugly Duck
01-29-2004, 06:19 PM
compared to GWB and GHWBOh, gotcha. Compared to the guy that broke the new record and the guy that then broke that record.

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 06:43 PM
no one is dumb enough to believe the lie that Republicans are responsible with the budget (well, except "ditto heads")...Bush will be long gone when the real bill for all this comes due: the medicare bill will double (at the least), billions will be pumped into Iraq for a decade, The Dept. of Homeland Repression will continue to grow and its budget will easily double in a decade, while serving almost no discernable purpose other than to make it even harder for intelligence agencies to communicate...who will even care at that point how many 100's of millions have been skimmed off of the no-bid contracts handed out like jello shots, the 100 million Boeing is trying to scam with its refueling lease-pork-shameless-bill etc forever and ever amen...

will there be any candor about our long term costs or the inevitable collison between our multi-trillion dollar debt and receipts for SS/Medicare once the baby boomers break all their hips? from a Republican? from George Bush?

no need to answer that....do I expect any more candor from the Dems? no, only to the extent that its useful in the election...but at least they blush a little, Bush acts like we really believe anything he says...I'm surprised lightning doesn't strike him when he says things like "I'm responsible with your money...and Sadaam is, right at this very moment, sending winged monkeys across the Atlantic with fistfuls of Red Hots....run for your lives!"
So what you are saying is that George W is a LIBERAL?

I agree.

the Talking Can
01-29-2004, 06:49 PM
So what you are saying is that George W is a LIBERAL?

I agree.

umm, no...the last Liberal in office balanced the budget...I'm saying he's not only dishonest about the Iraq war but dishonest about his spending habits..

the Talking Can
01-29-2004, 06:52 PM
Can, I think you're a great guy, so sit down to read this. You're not going to like it when I say this, but...... people actually really do believe it. Seriously. Its a shocker, but its true....

right...next I bet you'll tell me there are people who actually believe there are WMD's in Iraq...please...

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 07:19 PM
Does a Liberal prefer to spend more, or less?

Does a LIberal prefer to tax more or less?

Does a Liberal perfer to use the Military to break things and kill people, or to Use the Military to Nation build?

The only thing that Bush is a Conservative on is Taxes.

memyselfI
01-29-2004, 07:24 PM
umm, no...the last Liberal in office balanced the budget...I'm saying he's not only dishonest about the Iraq war but dishonest about his spending habits..

It doesn't matter. I heard one of his supporters on the radio today. He said he did not care about any of DUHbya activities that should normally piss off the right...

he just wants to feel 'safe.' With DUHbya he does. As long as there are no terrorists coming to get us he was fine with W. running the country into the ground.

Sadly, I don't think he's an isolated moron.

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 07:33 PM
But he is the biggest spender ever. No Democrat could get away with the spending that this guy has. Limbaugh is criticising Bush on spending. It should make you liberals happy to have such a free spender growing every aspect of that which makes you happy. More for education, more for the arts mORE MORE MORE> Frankly, us conservatives are getting pissed. He spends more and then you all Bitch at how conservative and right wing he is. We could have told him it wouldn't work, so why are you doing it.

Bottom line, his biggest danger isn't you all b(((ing and moaning about how stupid, and incompetent, and fiscally bumbling he is. NO his biggest danger is that Conservatives will stay home and not vote for him. Unlike democrats, we vote on principle. All our principles have been thrown down the gutter on some wild scheme to triangulate the Democrats into voting for him.

He has just about crossed the point of no return line for a lot of us. You all should encourage his spending and then not vote for him anyway, clearest path to victory for a Democrat. Pat Bush on the back, help him spend, then get in front of the TV and say what a reckless drunken sailor he is with the National Treasury. You get no argument from me.

Boozer
01-29-2004, 07:36 PM
But he is the biggest spender ever. No Democrat could get away with the spending that this guy has. Limbaugh is criticising Bush on spending. It should make you liberals happy to have such a free spender growing every aspect of that which makes you happy. More for education, more for the arts mORE MORE MORE> Frankly, us conservatives are getting pissed. He spends more and then you all Bitch at how conservative and right wing he is. We could have told him it wouldn't work, so why are you doing it.

Bottom line, his biggest danger isn't you all b(((ing and moaning about how stupid, and incompetent, and fiscally bumbling he is. NO his biggest danger is that Conservatives will stay home and not vote for him. Unlike democrats, we vote on principle. All our principles have been thrown down the gutter on some wild scheme to triangulate the Democrats into voting for him.

He has just about crossed the point of no return line for a lot of us. You all should encourage his spending and then not vote for him anyway, clearest path to victory for a Democrat. Pat Bush on the back, help him spend, then get in front of the TV and say what a reckless drunken sailor he is with the National Treasury. You get no argument from me.

What would you say are the chances, right now, of you voting for Bush in November? If not Bush, who would you vote for, if at all?

2bikemike
01-29-2004, 07:57 PM
This thread has got me thinking about how much revenue the Fed Govt. takes in.

This is what I think is the answer. From here. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?topic2id=90

In 1999 =499,510 (In millions)
IN 2000= 539,640
IN 2001= 559,765
In 2002=533,432

I wonder what they stole in 2003

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 08:14 PM
What would you say are the chances, right now, of you voting for Bush in November? If not Bush, who would you vote for, if at all?
Right now, the National Security issue trumps all others. National Security=Economy. I mean, what kind of economy will we be debating if a city gets lit up with radioactivity?

I am willing to give Bush a long leash when it comes to spending right now because we are coming out of a recession and spending, coupled with tax breaks is very expansionary for the economy. Longer term, when the economy starts growing, I would expect Bush to hold the line on needless discretionary items.

What befuddles me, and what I am trying to adress, is how in the heck can self professing honest liberals be upset at deficit spending? It is what you lived for when you had control. Ahhhh, I get it, YOU want to be the spender, can't stand someone else doing that right?

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 08:17 PM
Right now, the National Security issue trumps all others.

"Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,deserve neither liberty nor safety."Ben Franklin, 1759

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 08:18 PM
Neither do they deserve a job either.

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 08:19 PM
is how in the heck can self professing honest liberals be upset at deficit spending? It is what you lived for when you had control.

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face when the graph shows how well Clinton reduced spending and the deficit :shake:

2bikemike
01-29-2004, 08:21 PM
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face when the graph shows how well Clinton reduced spending and the deficit :shake:

How much more money was taken in during Clintons watch?

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 08:23 PM
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face when the graph shows how well Clinton reduced spending and the deficit :shake:
Look, I am not going to get drawn into that Democrat=good; Republican=bad thing. That is not the point. The point is be honest and consistent.

I am NOT happy that Bush is a runaway spender, however, the whole "its the economy stupid" thing is assinine if we lose a city to terrorism. (BTW, were there WMD in Ben Franklins day?)

Total spending increased under Clinton as it has under every President since we went to a central bank. Its a shell game man. The Republicans use to say cut spending cut spending. The Dems are for the little guy, its all a scam. There isn't a nickels worth of difference between the two when it comes to nationalistic issues. Its all about the new world order, on that vane, they are all the same. Very few honest politicians.

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 08:24 PM
How much more money was taken in during Clintons watch?

I keep hearing this, but I have never paid the prices I do now for Alcohol and Cigarettes amongst other things...seems like taxes are higher...and wasn't it GWB that said "no new taxes" and what happened?

2bikemike
01-29-2004, 08:26 PM
I keep hearing this, but I have never paid the prices I do now for Alcohol and Cigarettes amongst other things...seems like taxes are higher...and wasn't it GWB that said "no new taxes" and what happened?

Well in Kalifornia the state is responsible for raising a lot of those taxes. Not sure what the feds did. I don't smoke or drink anymore. And my choice of smokes were never taxed.

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 08:26 PM
I keep hearing this, but I have never paid the prices I do now for Alcohol and Cigarettes amongst other things...seems like taxes are higher...and wasn't it GWB that said "no new taxes" and what happened?
Now you are all confused. GHWB said, "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES", then Dick Gephardt and the Dem controlled congress rolled him into taking increases. He was a wimp I swear.

GWB has cut taxes twice.

Like father not like son.

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 08:28 PM
When Clinton came in, during his first 100 days, he proposed VAT tax, Sin tax, fuel tax, every kind of tax you can immagine. How did all that grow the economy. Darn good thing that the 1994 revolt happened otherwise I can assure you there would have been no Balanced budget.

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 08:28 PM
Look, I am not going to get drawn into that Democrat=good; Republican=bad thing. That is not the point. The point is be honest and consistent.

I am NOT happy that Bush is a runaway spender, however, the whole "its the economy stupid" thing is assinine if we lose a city to terrorism. (BTW, were there WMD in Ben Franklins day?)

Total spending increased under Clinton as it has under every President since we went to a central bank. Its a shell game man. The Republicans use to say cut spending cut spending. The Dems are for the little guy, its all a scam. There isn't a nickels worth of difference between the two when it comes to nationalistic issues. Its all about the new world order, on that vane, they are all the same. Very few honest politicians.I'm not doing good guy bad guy either I just find it interesting the Democrats are labeled "big spenders" when it's 2 republicans in the last 20 years that have spent the most...Have you looked at the Patriot act? I mean really we can accomplish what we need without gutting the Constiution...we could still lose a city to terrorism...the is a huge swath of land on a our southern border that thousands of illegals get across everyday...what has GHWB done to prevent a terrorist from exposing that weakness? I can tell you the patriot act won't stop them....

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 08:31 PM
I'm not doing good guy bad guy either I just find it interesting the Democrats are labeled "big spenders" when it's 2 republicans in the last 20 years that have spent the most...Have you looked at the Patriot act? I mean really we can accomplish what we need without gutting the Constiution...we could still lose a city to terrorism...the is a huge swath of land on a our southern border that thousands of illegals get across everyday...what has GHWB done to prevent a terrorist from exposing that weakness? I cna tell you the patriot act won't stop them....
I agree with you 100% on stopping illegals from coming in unchecked. Bush has completely dropped the ball here. Is Laura Bush a Mexican or something????WTF my Gawd is he in love with Vicente Fox.

This could really be his undoing. If a terrorist is shown to come in throught the porous borders, then I will be calling for W's impeachment.

2bikemike
01-29-2004, 08:31 PM
And don't get me wrong I think the entire Govt. Spends way more than they should on chit that they shouldn't. I have no interest in going to Mars or the moon for that matter. I can careless about that Rainforest or whatever the hell it is they want to build in Iowa or wherever it was. I don't think Amtrak should get a plug nickle.

All poiticians spend freely because its not thier money. I wish I had that luxury. I can't quite get my company to go for it though. After all if I don't get enough to cover my extravagances I could just demand more money.

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 08:32 PM
And don't get me wrong I think the entire Govt. Spends way more than they should on chit that they shouldn't. I have no interest in going to Mars or the moon for that matter. I can careless about that Rainforest or whatever the hell it is they want to build in Iowa or wherever it was. I don't think Amtrak should get a plug nickle.

All poiticians spend freely because its not thier money. I wish I had that luxury. I can't quite get my company to go for it though. After all if I don't get enough to cover my extravagances I could just demand more money.
Just look at Enron for an example of what happens when it is NOT YOUR MONEY.

The only problem with government is that they feel as if they are morally justified in their spending.

DenverChief
01-29-2004, 08:33 PM
Is Laura Bush a Mexican or something????WTF my Gawd is he in love with Vicente Fox.


ROFL

On a side note I had heard that Fox is living in Switzerland (or Sweden, I forget :shrug: ) for now becasue I guess he pissed of some pretty powerful people in Mexico :shrug:

Calcountry
01-29-2004, 08:35 PM
ROFL

On a side note I had heard that Fox is living in Switzerland (or Sweden, I forget :shrug: ) for now becasue I guess he pissed of some pretty powerful people in Mexico :shrug:
Hey Boss, I got to log out now, the kids are wating. I always love debating with you, very stimulating. :thumb:

Saggysack
01-30-2004, 02:14 AM
Look, you guys are going way too fast for me. I'm still trying to find out why the price of cocaine drops when a Bush is in office.

Ugly Duck
01-30-2004, 02:32 AM
What befuddles me, and what I am trying to adress, is how in the heck can self professing honest liberals be upset at deficit spending? It is what you lived for when you had control. The facts belie your rant, me bucko. Look at the graph again and notice who is the deficit spender. You say that Dems are not principled like Repubs are. Looks like deficit spending is a principle of Republicanism.

listopencil
01-30-2004, 02:46 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=21749&stc=1

That chick on the far right is pretty hot. But both of those grown-ups should be shot and the little ones taken away based solely on the amount of fake penis fondling going on in this pic alone.

yoswif
01-30-2004, 07:16 AM
Even if the budget were in balance, America's children would still be condemned to a lifetime of slavery to the federal government because spending is out of control. To maintain the power and cost of the federal government at it's current level, the average child in America will have to pay over 80% of their lifetime earnings in federal taxes. The only way to reduce that 80% tax rate to a morally responsible and sustainable level is to radically reduce the power and cost of the federal government. That will require the elimination of most federal bureaucracies, the repeal of most international treaties, and reducing the military to what is authorized in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, an Army and Navy. That's why no one in either party wants to deal with the intergenerational taxation and fiscal sustainability issues.

DenverChief
12-13-2004, 01:29 AM
U.S. National Debt as of today -

4,045,660,567,959.00 - Public debt
2,969,140,269,519.20 - Intragovernmental holdings
__________________
7,014,800,837,478.20 - Total

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Almost 1 year later ( 01-29-2004 -- 12-09-2004)

4,446,790,128,026.14
3,099,988,549,915.23
__________________
7,546,778,677,941.37

A differnce of

+531,977,840,463.17

Rausch
12-13-2004, 01:33 AM
That chick on the far right is pretty hot. But both of those grown-ups should be shot and the little ones taken away based solely on the amount of fake penis fondling going on in this pic alone.

DenverChief
12-13-2004, 01:37 AM
funny picROFL

Ugly Duck
12-13-2004, 02:16 AM
He needs to quit listening to Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld but I fear that it might already be too late.But.... if he quits listening to them... howz he gonna know what to say?

yoswif
12-13-2004, 06:41 AM
The only long term solution for the deficit problem is to dramatically reduce the power and authority of Congress to spend money. Congress will always spend every penny they have the power and authority to spend.

The "War on Poverty" has cost more in national treasure than all other "Wars" combined. And all that spending has made American workers a lot poorer.

DenverChief
12-13-2004, 11:55 AM
The only long term solution for the deficit problem is to dramatically reduce the power and authority of Congress to spend money. Congress will always spend every penny they have the power and authority to spend.

The "War on Poverty" has cost more in national treasure than all other "Wars" combined. And all that spending has made American workers a lot poorer.

I think the war on drugs is a much more costly war

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2004, 11:57 AM
The only long term solution for the deficit problem is to dramatically reduce the power and authority of Congress to spend money. Congress will always spend every penny they have the power and authority to spend.

The "War on Poverty" has cost more in national treasure than all other "Wars" combined. And all that spending has made American workers a lot poorer.

Comparisons on who controlled Congress, would be much more telling. My guess, it's a wash. Congress has become addicted to spending, like a junky on crack.

BigMeatballDave
12-13-2004, 12:08 PM
I would just like to add that IMHO the economy roller coasters around up and down. I would be interested in seeing that chart through several past aministrations.

And just glancing at the chart and knowing a little bit of what went on I will try and summarize my thoughts on your little chart.

Carter had the worst economy. Extremely high interest rates. IIRC inflation was a problem.

Reagan comes along and things started to come around. He wanted a 600 ship Navy and other defense programs to shut out the Russkies in the cold war. Mission accomplished however expensive. Tons of money rolls into the economy. Interest rates drop dramatically.

Bush the sr. comes on and we go to war with Iraq. We lob all kinds of expensive chit at Saddam. He promises no new taxes. But does so anyway. Due to an expensive war and other budget problems. Economy takes a little hit. It starts to come around when...

In walks Clinton. Technological advances in computers and .coms really supercharge the economy. Jobs are plentiful Money is plentiful Tax revenues are pouring in. There is no cold war lets gut the military. Tons of tax dollars saved. Wow the deficit drops. The wheels are starting to come off tech. and .coms when..........

Jr. takes over. Now the wheels have come off tech and the .coms revenues drop. A bunch of crazy ass rag heads fly some planes into some buildings. Fear and panic set in across the investment community. Stock market plunges along with those wonderful tax revenues. Companies are watching their pennies. Jobs are lost. We go to Afghanistan and Iraq and kick a little ass. Troops are in a hostile evironment for much longer periods than any conflict since Viet Nam Spend more money but not as much is coming in. Deficits soar.

At least thats how I percieve it.Sounds about right. The resident Libs won't buy it. Remember, Clinton was a God...

BigMeatballDave
12-13-2004, 12:15 PM
I keep hearing this, but I have never paid the prices I do now for Alcohol and Cigarettes amongst other things...seems like taxes are higher...and wasn't it GWB that said "no new taxes" and what happened?
ROFL Who gives a shit. Quit drinking and smoking...

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2004, 12:18 PM
ROFL Who gives a shit. Quit drinking and smoking...

"Sin" Taxes....Jason, you're lucky they don't tax that other "vice."

:p

BigMeatballDave
12-13-2004, 12:19 PM
I agree with you 100% on stopping illegals from coming in unchecked. Bush has completely dropped the ball here. Is Laura Bush a Mexican or something????WTF my Gawd is he in love with Vicente Fox.

This could really be his undoing. If a terrorist is shown to come in throught the porous borders, then I will be calling for W's impeachment.This is certainly an area where W has failed miserably...

Lightning Rod
12-13-2004, 01:28 PM
Neither Party has any idea of what fiscal responsibility is :banghead:

HC_Chief
12-13-2004, 01:30 PM
Fiscal responsibility? Politicians? HA! HAHAHAHAHA! good one :D

whoman69
12-13-2004, 03:28 PM
Three words: Wars Are Expensive.
The debt last year was larger than the defense department budget.

MadProphetMargin
12-13-2004, 04:52 PM
Sounds about right. The resident Libs won't buy it. Remember, Clinton was a God...

Naw. But he was the best conservative president since Ike. In fact, he was the ONLY conservative president since Ike.

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2004, 05:05 PM
Naw. But he was the best conservative president since Ike. In fact, he was the ONLY conservative president since Ike.

Reagan? :hmmm:

:shrug:

MadProphetMargin
12-13-2004, 05:08 PM
Reagan? :hmmm:

:shrug:

Naw. He spent too damn much, and ****ed around with privacy too often.

Gotta give the man his props, though. He knew a hopeless case when he saw one (Beirut), which is more than can be said for our current CINC.

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2004, 05:11 PM
Naw. He spent too damn much, and ****ed around with privacy too often.

Gotta give the man his props, though. He knew a hopeless case when he saw one (Beirut), which is more than can be said for our current CINC.

Military spending, and failure to curtail social spending (because of Congress) weren't great for deficits....but with him in office we spent less than we WOULD have. Privacy? Depends on the issue doesn't it....conservative doesn't mean libertarian on that issue.

Agree on Beirut; still wonderin' and hoping about Iraq though, personally.

MadProphetMargin
12-13-2004, 05:14 PM
Military spending, and failure to curtail social spending (because of Congress) weren't great for deficits....but with him in office we spent less than we WOULD have. Privacy? Depends on the issue doesn't it....conservative doesn't mean libertarian on that issue.

Agree on Beirut; still wonderin' and hoping about Iraq though, personally.

1. Can you prove that another president (Carter, for example) would have spent more?

2. Sure. I just can't see Barry Goldwater or Ike demanding that we pee in a bottle, or telling schoolkids to turn their parents in if they suspect their parents are doing drugs. I'd expect that kind of shit from Mao, not the GOP...until the last 20 years or so.

3. Optimist. :p

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2004, 05:18 PM
1. Can you prove that another president (Carter, for example) would have spent more?

2. Sure. I just can't see Barry Goldwater or Ike demanding that we pee in a bottle, or telling schoolkids to turn their parents in if they suspect their parents are doing drugs. I'd expect that kind of shit from Mao, not the GOP...until the last 20 years or so.

3. Optimist. :p

1. Of course not; but intelligent and informed people can infer....

2. Criminal acts masquerading as, or behind, "privacy" are still criminal acts. How does government hold anyone accountable for anything if there isn't a balance between "privacy" and reasonable investigative methods? We can't. We simply disagree over what is "reasonable" I suspect.

3. Yep, Mr. Pessimist. :p

MadProphetMargin
12-13-2004, 05:23 PM
1. Of course not; but intelligent and informed people can infer....

2. Criminal acts masquerading as, or behind, "privacy" are still criminal acts. How does government hold anyone accountable for anything if there isn't a balance between "privacy" and reasonable investigative methods? We can't. We simply disagree over what is "reasonable" I suspect.

3. Yep, Mr. Pessimist. :p

1. Based on the graph above, I cannot see how you are inferring this.

2. So, you aren't too wild about amendment IV?

3. I prefer to call myself a realist. :D

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2004, 05:35 PM
1. Based on the graph above, I cannot see how you are inferring this.

2. So, you aren't too wild about amendment IV?

3. I prefer to call myself a realist. :D

1. Inferred from projected social spending that was cut (remember the whining and nashing of teeth?) during the Reagan years, above and beyond the "increases" in defense.

2. Fourth is fine, but like all rights....must be weighed against other rights: the right of society to protect itself. Wholesale abuse of the fourth should not be tolerated; but real criminals ought not to "get off" on "technicalities" either. Balance.

3. I thought libbies are supposed to be the "idealists," with whom hope springs eternal? :p

MadProphetMargin
12-13-2004, 05:42 PM
1. Inferred from projected social spending that was cut (remember the whining and nashing of teeth?) during the Reagan years, above and beyond the "increases" in defense.

2. Fourth is fine, but like all rights....must be weighed against other rights: the right of society to protect itself. Wholesale abuse of the fourth should not be tolerated; but real criminals ought not to "get off" on "technicalities" either. Balance.

3. I thought libbies are supposed to be the "idealists," with whom hope springs eternal? :p

1. Then why the huge increase in the deficit?

2. Sure. That's why we have warrants. Also, without "technicalities", you don't have a legal code. It's the nature of the beast.

3. Wrong kind of liberal. HOIST THE BLAG FLAG, COMRADE! IT'S THROAT-CUTTING TIME! RAH!

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2004, 06:00 PM
1. Then why the huge increase in the deficit?

2. Sure. That's why we have warrants. Also, without "technicalities", you don't have a legal code. It's the nature of the beast.

3. Wrong kind of liberal. HOIST THE BLAG FLAG, COMRADE! IT'S THROAT-CUTTING TIME! RAH!

1. "Unexpected" increases in entitlement programs, coupled with increases in social spending (that didn't satisfy his critics, but were given in exchange for defense), and, yes, defense spending.

2. Warrants fine; eigent circumstance, good faith discovery, and plain view....are reasonable exceptions. The court seems to be finding a middle ground.

3. I knew it; you listen to too much Rage and Against All Authority, don't you?

MadProphetMargin
12-13-2004, 06:03 PM
1. "Unexpected" increases in entitlement programs, coupled with increases in social spending (that didn't satisfy his critics, but were given in exchange for defense), and, yes, defense spending.

2. Warrants fine; eigent circumstance, good faith discovery, and plain view....are reasonable exceptions. The court seems to be finding a middle ground.

3. I knew it; you listen to too much Rage and Against All Authority, don't you?

1. Then why didn't Carter have these increases? Sounds like Reagan was a closet hippie.

2. How is random, or not so random, testing "middle ground"? Sounds more like a fishing expedition. And can you explain the "turn your parents in for drugs" program? If that ain't Maoism, nothing is.

3. Actually, that was a paraphrase of H L Mencken, believe it or not.

Boozer
12-13-2004, 06:06 PM
1. "Unexpected" increases in entitlement programs, coupled with increases in social spending (that didn't satisfy his critics, but were given in exchange for defense), and, yes, defense spending.

2. Warrants fine; eigent circumstance, good faith discovery, and plain view....are reasonable exceptions. The court seems to be finding a middle ground.

3. I knew it; you listen to too much Rage and Against All Authority, don't you?

Everybody watch out, SD's been drinking again! :p :)

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2004, 06:08 PM
1. Then why didn't Carter have these increases? Sounds like Reagan was a closet hippie.

2. How is random, or not so random, testing "middle ground"? Sounds more like a fishing expedition. And can you explain the "turn your parents in for drugs" program? If that ain't Maoism, nothing is.

3. Actually, that was a paraphrase of H L Mencken, believe it or not.

1. Bad timing.

2. You really want children, who in good conscience, want to turn in their junky parents, to be denied that right?

3. I believe it. That makes it desirable? :shake:

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2004, 06:09 PM
Everybody watch out, SD's been drinking again! :p :)

Nah, not yet; I'm waiting till kickoff.

MadProphetMargin
12-15-2004, 04:22 PM
1. Bad timing.

2. You really want children, who in good conscience, want to turn in their junky parents, to be denied that right?

3. I believe it. That makes it desirable? :shake:


1. Uh huh. :rolleyes:

2. When were they denied that right? Naw, that program stunkj of the same kind of crap that we enjoyed with "recovered memory syndrome".

3. You're just no fun at all, are you?