If Bush were interested in balancing the budget he would have proposed reversing his tax cuts we can not afford and used the Veto on spending including the Pork which is at an all time high! He and his conservatives in Congress are responsible for the financial mess this country is in today!

"If Bush were interested in balancing the budget he would have proposed reversing his tax cuts we can not afford and used the Veto on spending including the Pork which is at an all time high! He and his conservatives in Congress are responsible for the financial mess this country is in today!"

Then, by that rationale, Clinton is directly responsible for the huge tax cuts of 2001, $99 billion of which he proposed himself. He proposed the budget, he signed it, so Clinton is to blame, right, even thought the GOP shoved in exponentially more cuts?

If so, you ought to go back and reread what you and others have written about those 2000/2001 tax cuts and look at it from your own, anti-executive brance perspective. I think you are being highly selective as to whether you blame the congress or the President in each administration, and I think it is obvious why.

Here is the bottom line. Bush told us that the taxes needed to be cut because of his projected surplus ($5.7 Trillion). When it became clear that was untrue, did he try and reverse the tax cuts? NO he added two more. Every year we have a bigger deficit and all he wants to do in make them bigger. Now he wants to make the tax cuts, we already can afford, permanent. What kind of an idiot would pose a policy like this? In 2002 the deficit was reported as 158 Billion. In 2003 it was 378 Billion, In 2004 it was 412 Billion and USA Today reported that the CBO estimated the 2005 deficit at $477 Billion. These amounts are after reducing the actual deficit by adding the surplus from Social Sceurity and Medicare. The actual deficit over the past four years is about $750 Billion higher then reported due to adding the surplus in Social Security and Medicare to make the budget deficit look smaller.

No, no, don't you shift back to "Bush mode". The shift you just made is why it is so obvious that your agenda is not "issues focused", rather it is just an other anti-Bush effort.

You villainize Bush, and even blame him for the huge initial tax cuts that were signed by Clinton. Clinton proposed $99 billion in tax cuts, HIMSELF, and signed the budget when Congress sent back substantially more. Like the rest of your Bush-hating peers, you choose to blame CONGRESS for that, and overlook Clinton's "proposing and signing" part of the deal. When Bush is in office, the proposing and signing is all important.

This, like the Iraq war stuff, and everything else, is a tool to attack Bush. When the focus of an issue shifts away from Bush or leading Republicans, you shift to another issue.

You can say this is "focusing on the author", but in reality when your perspective is this skewed, it becomes obvious that the blame you are placing is often exaggerated and even wrongly projected upon Bush when his responsibility for the bulk of the waste is substantially smaller.

The tax cuts that drained the treasury were the Bush tax cuts. Bush was the one that told us we had a $5.7 Trillion projected surplus not Clinton. The deficit resumed under Bush not Clinton! Clinton never proposed cutting taxes on the wealthy like Bush. Do you understand we are borrowing the money we are giving in tax cuts? Atb this point balancing the budget that has a $ 675 Billion imbalance will require spending cuts, more agressive tax collection and higher tax rates!!!!!

Oh, no, no. We were functioning in the red on the last budgets that Clinton signed. The Social Security surplus was dug into under a Clinton-signed budget. How can this kind of bias not be painfully obvious to anyone that reads these articles?

These initiatives that were continued by Bush were started in Congress during the Clinton administration. Does the Col. lambast Clinton for "proposing and signing" a Congressional budget that dug into Social Security and restarted the nation running in the red?

Hell, no. That wouldn't be serving the REAL purpose, would it?

The 1st deficit was in the year that ended 30 Sept 2002 at 157.8 Billion. The year that ended 30 Sept 2001 showed a 128.2 Billion surplus. go to www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0. That is on the Congressional Budget Office Web site, table 1 Revenues, outlays, surpluses and debt held by the public, 1962 to 2004. This one in on Bush not Clinton!

This is the table from CBO



Table 1.
Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962 to 2004
(Billions of dollars)
Deficit (-) or Surplus Debt
Held by
the Publica
Revenues Outlays On-
Budget Social
Security Postal
Service Total
1962 99.7 106.8 -5.9 -1.3 n.a. -7.1 248.0
1963 106.6 111.3 -4.0 -0.8 n.a. -4.8 254.0
1964 112.6 118.5 -6.5 0.6 n.a. -5.9 256.8
1965 116.8 118.2 -1.6 0.2 n.a. -1.4 260.8
1966 130.8 134.5 -3.1 -0.6 n.a. -3.7 263.7
1967 148.8 157.5 -12.6 4.0 n.a. -8.6 266.6
1968 153.0 178.1 -27.7 2.6 n.a. -25.2 289.5
1969 186.9 183.6 -0.5 3.8 n.a. 3.2 278.1

1970 192.8 195.7 -8.7 5.9 n.a. -2.8 283.2
1971 187.1 210.2 -26.1 3.0 n.a. -23.0 303.0
1972 207.3 230.7 -26.1 3.1 -0.4 -23.4 322.4
1973 230.8 245.7 -15.2 0.5 -0.2 -14.9 340.9
1974 263.2 269.4 -7.2 1.8 -0.8 -6.1 343.7
1975 279.1 332.3 -54.1 2.0 -1.1 -53.2 394.7
1976 298.1 371.8 -69.4 -3.2 -1.1 -73.7 477.4
1977 355.6 409.2 -49.9 -3.9 0.2 -53.7 549.1
1978 399.6 458.7 -55.4 -4.3 0.5 -59.2 607.1
1979 463.3 504.0 -39.6 -2.0 0.9 -40.7 640.3

1980 517.1 590.9 -73.1 -1.1 0.4 -73.8 711.9
1981 599.3 678.2 -73.9 -5.0 -0.1 -79.0 789.4
1982 617.8 745.7 -120.6 -7.9 0.6 -128.0 924.6
1983 600.6 808.4 -207.7 0.2 -0.3 -207.8 1,137.3
1984 666.5 851.9 -185.3 0.3 -0.4 -185.4 1,307.0
1985 734.1 946.4 -221.5 9.4 -0.1 -212.3 1,507.3
1986 769.2 990.4 -237.9 16.7 * -221.2 1,740.6
1987 854.4 1,004.1 -168.4 19.6 -0.9 -149.7 1,889.8
1988 909.3 1,064.5 -192.3 38.8 -1.7 -155.2 2,051.6
1989 991.2 1,143.8 -205.4 52.4 0.3 -152.6 2,190.7

1990 1,032.0 1,253.1 -277.7 58.2 -1.6 -221.1 2,411.6
1991 1,055.0 1,324.3 -321.5 53.5 -1.3 -269.3 2,689.0
1992 1,091.3 1,381.6 -340.4 50.7 -0.7 -290.3 2,999.7
1993 1,154.4 1,409.5 -300.4 46.8 -1.4 -255.1 3,248.4
1994 1,258.6 1,461.9 -258.9 56.8 -1.1 -203.2 3,433.1
1995 1,351.8 1,515.8 -226.4 60.4 2.0 -164.0 3,604.4
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 -174.1 66.4 0.2 -107.5 3,734.1
1997 1,579.3 1,601.2 -103.3 81.3 * -21.9 3,772.3
1998 1,721.8 1,652.6 -30.0 99.4 -0.2 69.2 3,721.1
1999 1,827.5 1,701.9 1.9 124.7 -1.0 125.5 3,632.4

2000 2,025.2 1,789.1 86.3 151.8 -2.0 236.2 3,409.8
2001 1,991.2 1,863.0 -32.5 163.0 -2.3 128.2 3,319.6
2002 1,853.2 2,011.0 -317.5 159.0 0.7 -157.8 3,540.4 First year of Deficit 30 Sept 2002
2003 1,782.3 2,159.9 -538.4 155.6 5.2 -377.6 3,913.4
2004 1,880.1 2,292.2 -567.4 151.1 4.1 -412.1 4,295.5
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Note: n.a. = not applicable; * = between -$50 million and $50 million.

a. End of year.

The rallying cry of the righties, when the numbers they spout don't add up:

Clinton lied about a blow job, therefore everything bad that's happening under dubya's watch is Clinton's fault.

Give it up COL. These guys will continue to vote against their own best interest no matter what you or any other non neocon says. Time is the only thing that will show these brainless wonders anything.

Dabe

You are right. How did all these right wing a*s holes get on joeuser? The irony is the policies they so staunchly support will, in the long run, be in their own worst interest. Those who complain about paying taxes will pay and pay and pay from what Bush is doing to this country!

Those who complain about paying taxes will pay and pay and pay from what Bush is doing to this country!

Yup, for sure. I just did my taxes, and I paid more than I have ever, ever paid in my life. And, it's not because my income is so high. The tax cuts are a fallacy, a stupid illusion. The interest on the deficits, the rising costs of fuel which is likely a direct result of the Iraq invasion, the costs of health care and education and food and everything is going up and up and up, resulting from the fuel costs. And, all these brainless wonders can see is this illusory tax cut. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies, insurance and banking industries, oil companies, defense contractors, etc. are laughing all the way to the bank. Brainless wonders...............

DABE and COL. GENE, come live with me here in Paris. There are so many fabulous American expatriates here to keep you company; in fact, Sean Penn just arrived. As I’m sure you’re aware, we French have a contest for immigrants that is tradition. Dabe, don’t shave your armpits. Every day we French give a year’s supply of snails to the new arrival with the hairiest pits. Good look girlfriend. Col. Gene, I understand that Anglo-men tend not to be hairy under the pits. Sorry! You’re still welcomed, though.

The col, again, skews statistics.

He wants you to look at the last line in all those numbers, and assume that it all started on the day the report came in. Look at the first column:

2000 2,025.2
2001 1,991.2
2002 1,853.2 First year of Deficit 30 Sept 2002

Oddly enough, what the Col doesn't mention is that REVENUES dropped significantly during the last Clinton years in office. That is a decrease of around 172. Is it any suprise, then that we had a startlingly similiar deficit of -157.8?

It's those evil tax cuts that Clinton signed into existance!! Oh, and all that spending Clinton approved!!! Does Clinton even get a wink from the Col? No. And that is the real point here.

It will never matter that the true fault for the vast majority of waste in the Federal budget is the responsibility of the Congres. He and dabe and others are irrational at this point, unable to see any problem as having any other cause than our evil overlord George Bush.

dabe: I never mentioned blowjobs, you trolling idiot. And if you are paying the most taxes you have ever paid in your life, then all your bullshit about how bad the economy is must be full of it too. You either made more money than you ever made in your life, or you can't use a calculator.

I don't know WHY the topic of this post went from Iraq to the budget, but I'll throw in my two cents on Iraq.

It's obvious some Bushites want to stifle discussion of Iraq as more and more facts make it tacitly clear that mistakes, lies, and corruption make up the majority of this administration's policies regarding Iraq. Some don't want to hear the "broken record" or the "leaky faucet" but until this issue is cleared up and as long as developments surface pertaining to Iraq, it's important that they are talked about.

Iraqi sunnis deserve death for what they do to innocent American christians. Blow the hell out of those towels heads already.