POLLS SHOW VOTERS MADE ERROR IN NOVEMBER

on Mar 28, 2005

Draginol

Lets stop the BS. We are spending $675 Billion MORE then we are taxing this year. Last year it was about $625 Billion more then we taxed. We need to cut spending and or increase tax revenue by $675Billion. Since there is no place to cut spending anything close to $675 Billion, our taxes MUST be increased. Only a fool cuts taxes when the budget is out of balance. For example, in every war since the Civil War, we have increased taxes to pay the added cost of the war. Not Bush- he cuts taxes and the deficit goes nuts! Every year when the total deficit increasess the interest we must pay goes up because we owe more. Now interest rate are increasing so the total intetrest will go up for two reasons- we owe more and the rate of interest is higher.

If you believe the economy is so dam good, explain why the deficit is growing larger? I have no idea where you went to business school but the spiral that we are in will bankrupt any country, company or individual given enough time. When George Bush began with his tax cuts, Alan Greenspan as well as Paul O. Neil told him they must be tied to available surpluses and not to again go into a spiral of deficit spending. What did Bush do the exact opposite of what to most knowledgeable individuals in our government financial management advised him to do. I have never seen such idiotic explanations for a way to run anything including this country that I have seen from the blogs on this site. almost every credible economist and financial manager has told the administration same thing we cannot continue operating with trade deficit ,federal deficit, ignoring the impact of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security the way we are operating.

just keep burying your head in the sand and when you take it out when a find a financial disaster facing you and everybody in this country.

47

drmiler

on Mar 28, 2005

Draginol

Lets stop the BS. We are spending $675 Billion MORE then we are taxing this year. Last year it was about $625 Billion more then we taxed. We need to cut spending and or increase tax revenue by $675Billion. Since there is no place to cut spending anything close to $675 Billion, our taxes MUST be increased. Only a fool cuts taxes when the budget is out of balance. For example, in every war since the Civil War, we have increased taxes to pay the added cost of the war. Not Bush- he cuts taxes and the deficit goes nuts! Every year when the total deficit increasess the interest we must pay goes up because we owe more. Now interest rate are increasing so the total intetrest will go up for two reasons- we owe more and the rate of interest is higher.

If you believe the economy is so dam good, explain why the deficit is growing larger? I have no idea where you went to business school but the spiral that we are in will bankrupt any country, company or individual given enough time. When George Bush began with his tax cuts, Alan Greenspan as well as Paul O. Neil told him they must be tied to available surpluses and not to again go into a spiral of deficit spending. What did Bush do the exact opposite of what to most knowledgeable individuals in our government financial management advised him to do. I have never seen such idiotic explanations for a way to run anything including this country that I have seen from the blogs on this site. almost every credible economist and financial manager has told the administration same thing we cannot continue operating with trade deficit ,federal deficit, ignoring the impact of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security the way we are operating.

just keep burying your head in the sand and when you take it out when a find a financial disaster facing you and everybody in this country.

YOU stop the BS! You were PROVEN wrong with data from YOUR own source! I realize though that you will NEVER admit to it. I proved you wrong with data that differed from yours and drag has proven you wrong yet again with data from your prefered site. When are you going to own up?

48

COL Gene

on Mar 28, 2005

drmiler

Look at article by Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, Monday March 7 2005 page AO1. That article shows that YOU are Wrong genius. This article entitled "tax cuts loose spot on GOP agenda" clearly state what I have been saying and quote such people as Alan Greenspan, Senator Lindsey Graham and the Senate finance committee.

49

Lee1776

on Mar 28, 2005

I'm so happy for you, drimiler. But, since when do you represent the 50 million people without health insurance and/or jobs? You don't. You don't represent anyone.

I think he represents the area of the country he is from. My area is at 3.9%.Link Historically that means full employment. If you feel you can't find a job, maybe you should move to another part of the country, . If you just sit at home crying that know one is opening a new business next to your house, so you have a job to walk to. Then it's your own fault you don't have a job and I for one would not place you high on my highering list with that type of attitude.

Ask the growing number of the unemployed and the low-level employed who do not have health insurance.

The national unemployment rate is 5.4%. The national Average rate for the last 35 years is 6.2%.
Link

You also fail to point out that during almost half the Clinton years there was more raw numbers of people out of work then in Jan 2005. The average number of unemployed between 1992-1999 was 7,503k (Clinton era), compared to 7,737k in Jan 2005. Now add to the fact that over 12.3 Million more people now live in the US since the end of the Clinton Era. I think that shows we are surpassing what's needed for population increase.

And since when is it the Governments (i.e. my responsibility) to pay for someone else's health insurance?????

I pay for my own family. My wife, who has lived in a country that has a national health system for over half her life, gets ticked off every time she hears how great a national health system is. She wound up paying for over half of her medical expenses because it was the only way to get a medical care fast and safe.

Anyway there are laws now that forbids hospitals from not helping the un-insured. i.e. the State or national Government eventually picks up the tab. It is ironic how people are screeching that every illegal alien gets free health care, but refuses to acknowledge that the same system that gives them healthcare is the same system that pays for the un-insured.

That's My Two Cents

P.S. As for the origianal artical I just believe that people was unhappy with Bush's preformance even before the election. They just could not bring themselve to vote Kerry/DNC that was three times as worse then Bush/RNC.

50

Lee1776

on Mar 28, 2005

An addition to my last post P.S. Points

Just because Bush got elected does not mean he should stand on a high horse claiming he has a mandate. But the Democrats should not also take bad polls for Bush as an indication that they are winning and will be elected back in. Because IMO to many still find them a worse choice then the RNC.

51

COL Gene

on Mar 28, 2005

That means nothing. The actual uderemployment rate which is people that do not have jobs that pay a living wage is 9.3%. I documented that in my earlier Blog about how the unemployment rate does not document the issue of jobs. All that does not change the $675 Billion deficit etc. 46 Million nonretired Americans have no health coverage and only 25 % of companies have pension plans. Better read the March 7th article before you show how much you do not understand!

52

drmiler

on Mar 28, 2005

drmiler

Look at article by Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, Monday March 7 2005 page AO1. That article shows that YOU are Wrong genius. This article entitled "tax cuts loose spot on GOP agenda" clearly state what I have been saying and quote such people as Alan Greenspan, Senator Lindsey Graham and the Senate finance committee.

YOUR not addressing the POINT genius! The CBO said YOUR wrong. Not us. I knew you wouln't fess up.
Hey Col, you need to wipe your mouth. There's still the tiniest spot of BS showing around your lip.

53

Draginol

on Mar 28, 2005

Col Gene: You claimed the tax cuts caused the deficit. You claimed that your info came from the CBO. When questioned you couldn't come up with a link.

I found the link and it states the opposite. Tax cuts did not cause the deficit. The cause of the deficit is largely because the economy hasn't grown as fast as was originally projected and spending increased faster than expected as the same time. Tax cuts were a minor element in this whole thing.

If you REALLY want to balance the budget, then demand a one or two year spending FREEZE on everything. No cuts, just don't increase spending on anything. The deficit will evaporate pretty quickly then.

When you have a deficit of only say 3%, then all you have to do is wait for the taxable receipts to increase 3%. Last year the economy grew at greater than 3%. The problem is that we increase spending at around 6% each year (hence the 3% deficit).

I find it pretty sad that when confronted with errors in your statements that you try to change the topic. It's rather vile actually.

54

COL Gene

on Mar 28, 2005

The CBO does not say anything like that. Read Alan Greenspan and the senate Finance committee. CBO. and OMB clearly show the deficit the long term problems I have documented and Greenspan says can not continue. You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!

55

Draginol

on Mar 28, 2005

I don't say this very often but.. Col Gene, you're a liar.

You have yet to provide a single link to back up any of your claims. I (and others) have provided links to government sources that demonstrate you're wrong.

I don't like the deficit either. However, it was not caused by the tax cuts which you have claimed on numerous occasions. EVEN if we raised taxes back to where we had them, we would still have a large deficit.

Here's another congressional budget chart based on the CBO figures:

http://www.budget.house.gov/lgcausdeficit030905.pdf

If we had not provided tax cuts, the deficit MIGHT have been 14% smaller. However, even that's misleading because odds are the economy would not have recovered as quickly or as strongly withou those tax cuts.

The weaker than expected economy and excessive new discretionary spending (such as increases in education and the military) are a problem.

Here is another chart about deficits you should look at:

http://www.budget.house.gov/netinterest030905.pdf

(note that both these governments are .gov sites, they're not being spun, these are just the raw numbers based on the CBO that Col Gene loves to shried about).

The biggest issue I have with deficit spending is that the interest payments start to eat up the budget. However, in 2004 (that would be last year btw), the interest on the debt was only 7% of the budget. Compare that to when it was 16% during the Clinton years.

So let me sum this up to you - I don't like deficit spending but it's largely for aesthetics reasons. The deficit is clearly not a major problem right now and for most people the economy has been steadily improving since the 9/11 attacks.

Those are the facts. Shrieking and sounding insane only damage your "argument".

56

drmiler

on Mar 28, 2005

The CBO does not say anything like that. Read Alan Greenspan and the senate Finance committee. CBO. and OMB clearly show the deficit the long term problems I have documented and Greenspan says can not continue. You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!

Lying sack! Then explain the url from draginols chart link, fool! http://www.budget.house.gov/nottaxcuts030905.pdf

57

Lee1776

on Mar 28, 2005

That means nothing. The actual underemployment rate which is people that do not have jobs that pay a living wage is 9.3%. I documented that in my earlier Blog about how the unemployment rate does not document the issue of jobs. All that does not change the $675 Billion deficit etc. 46 Million nonretired Americans have no health coverage and only 25 % of companies have pension plans. Better read the March 7th article before you show how much you do not understand!

1. I was replying to dabe.

2. So now the argument has changed from unemployed to underemployed. Col G, then could you please send out the memo to all those drones still beating the unemployed drum.

3. I read your other post and it don't hold water. Your saying that 9.3% underemployed rating is bad. Did you look at the historical numbers for that chart? Because it also shows that for two of the six years that appear in that data base you used (to pick this obscure number from), shows that during the middle of the Clinton Administration it was at 10%, even higher then the highest Bush rating. I will conceded that the average 8.8% during the last six years of the Clinton years (first two not available) and a 12 year average of 9.0% is lower, but that is not taking into account the first two years of Clinton or the historical averages before 1994. From Bush's highest point at 9.9% (lower then Clinton) it has dropped .6% and shows no changing its decline (can you show me different?). Let us not even take into effect 9/11 and the tech bubble busting either.

Better read the March 7th article before you show how much you do not understand!

I think I do know what I'm talking about Sir, so please stop being condescending. I have not been condescending to you and it does not help make your point.

4. Again, why is it my responsibility to provide health insurance for others?

5. Why is it requirement for a Company to provide health insurance and a pension? Such thing are called fringe benefits. Ultimately it is the individuals responsibility. If you required those Companies that did not provide those benefits, to start providing them, one of three things will happen. A) The employees pay will be cut and they will most likely get stuck with the bare minimum coverage.

I will have to pay more for the Companies services to pay for those benefits (i.e. again, why is it my responsibility to pay for some one else's insurance). C)The company will move the jobs oversea where pension and health insurance is not required in order to keep their doors open (Just another way of blaming Bush for losing jobs).

6. When I worked in the private sector, I didn't receive a pension or insurance from the company. I personally paid for those and that was most likely when I worked for your under the living wage. It was called living in a joint Kitchen studio, having a roommate or wife to lower overhead cost. People can live on below the living wage, I know because my single mother, two brothers, sister, and myself lived on that wage for 17 years after our father left us.. Yes, we did get free butter, cheese, bread, rice ect.. (IMO one of the best programs ever), did allot of fishing for dinner, bought shoes from Payless and got cloths from the Salvation Army (that's why I support them, even though I'm not religious). But it can be done. Millions of people have done it for years, so what if I never had cable, VCR, a new Atari, and had to piece together bikes. I think today I’m better off from the experience.

That's My Two Cents

58

COL Gene

on Mar 29, 2005

What you did is great but the vast majority do not act like you. The issue is how does one live with jobs that do not pay a wage that allows the worker to pay for their needs? The rate of underemployed was much lower when Bush took office. The fact is that many of the jobs that have been created pay far less then the jobs that were lost. Last night the clothing import news was released that shows last month imports from China was up 50%. They are dumping cheep goods in America and will soon eliminate the clothing industry in the U S. Bush does not even use the controls in the trade laws to help level the playing field and more Ameicans can not affortd to live. My wife has cancer and I can tell you that without my health coverage only a person with assets in the multi million range could have paid the bills. Thus if any of the 46 million without insurance had the same problem they could not survive.

I just read an article about a study of govt workers in Galveston County Texas who opted OUT of Social Security. The results were mixed. Some did better and some worse. That is the issue- Is it better to provide the sure thing under the current system, if properly funded, or convert the system as Bush wants and interject inconsistant results? For the majoritry the flloor which is sure plus equity accounts in addition to Social Security would be far less riskey solution. My point, when you look at the policies we are following and evaluate what is the likely impact on the vast majority of Americans, the outlook of what we are doing in not good.

59

COL Gene

on Mar 29, 2005

The argument of the conservatives is to get government out of people's lives and allow the individual to make choices for themselves. This sounds good on the surface but when you look at the choices that people are already making in their lives such as the amount of personal debt, lack of planning for future including retirement ,the bottom line is many people don't make wise choices. That should not mean that people do not have choices but it does mean that there needs to be a certain protective mechanism to insure some income and health care for retirement.

I agree the policies that Bush supports will benefit certain segments of our population. The problem is the number of people who will be adversely impacted by his policies. When you look at the impact on balance, far more will be adversely impacted the positively impacted by the policies that the conservative right is following.

60

Draginol

on Mar 30, 2005

You have your opinion but no evidence whatsoever to back up your opinion. I have my opinion, I have backed up my views with concrete evidence.

Ultimately we can only agree to disagree. We have no way of knowing whether in 10 years we'll look back and say "Oh man, Bush has wrecked the country". It's a pointless argument.

What we can say with some certainty is that most (>50%) of people have seen things improve since the 9/11 attacks. And sicne we just had an election that Bush won by a reasonable margin, most of the country prefers him to any other options.