Mark,

I can't remember, how large was the deficit when President Bush took office in 2000? It was pretty high wasn't it? Thanks.

Mike

While gains are broad, those at higher-income levels are enjoying bigger salary hikes.

But Mark, that's just not faaaaaaaiiiiir!!!! The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and it's all eeeeevil Boosh's fault.

Those making over $200,000 now pay 46.6% of total income taxes...

That's an outright lie. Everyone know the tax code is designed to provide loopholes for the rich. The rich don't pay taxes.

There, axis and ash, I saved you the trouble of commenting on this thread. No need to thank me.

This is the real Spook, now, not my evil twin impersonating our resident Libs.

Mark, you left off a really significant part of this sentence (emphasis - mine):

Those making over $200,000 now pay 46.6% of total income taxes, presidential adviser Karl Rove recently said. That's up from 40.5% — despite Bush's tax cuts.

Axis, or ash or Barney of any of you Lefites -- can you explain how this could possibly be, that the wealthy could have their taxes cut and yet their share of the total tax bite increased by over 15%? Take your time; I'll wait.

I could research it spookie, but you will have to cite a more credible source than Karl Rove.

Retired Spook

You'll have to quote Jason Leapold from Truthout for Ash to believe you.

They forgot to add the $94-billion Iraq War/Katrina Relief Appropriation funding to the deficit, and I wonder why you left these two nuggets off your post (from same article)?

“Long-term growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid "threaten to force either European-style tax increases, unprecedented spending cuts or unprecedented debt," said Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "There's no growing out of the long-term budget problems."

And this:

“Heritage sees an $800 billion deficit in 2016, assuming tax cuts are extended and spending stays on its present course. If the economy and tax receipts continue to outperform, the deficit would still be at least $600 billion, Riedl said.”

What do you say to this Spook? Let me answer for you. It was the libs that prevented Bush from saving SS.

The debt has increased by nearly 50% since Bush has taken office.

In Trillions
Today $ 8,380
2005 $7,933
2004 $7,379
2003 $6,783
2002 $6,228
2001 $5,807
2000 $5,674

Ash, Barney - HAL stock is in the $70 buying range again. You missed the profits before --- don't you ever listen?

Payroll taxes,you all know who pays the payroll tax right, rose 14% in 2005. Gas was up 35%. The minimum wage has not been raised since 1998, so the non-wealthy get it in the neck again. Military spending worldwide increase 3.5% in 2005. 80% of that increase came from America. We can't afford a Universal Health Care System for all Americans, but we can spend 2 billion a week in Iraq as the national debt increases? Peace

Long-term growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid "threaten to force either European-style tax increases, unprecedented spending cuts or unprecedented debt,"

I find it a little disingenuous that you're quoting the Heritage Foundation, but assuming you agree with their assessment, which of those three options do you choose?

This should be a bi-partisan problem, but Democrats have been even less forthcoming with solutions than Republicans. In fact, most liberal Democrats I know are in favor of "European style tax increases" to solve the problem. Most Libs I know want us to emulate countries like France and Germany with their 10% unemployment, 1-1/2% economic growth and 50-60% tax rates. Most Libs I know favor just about any solution that doesn't involve cutting spending or making government smaller. My biggest gripe with Republicans is that they seem to have jumped aboard that rudderless ship too.

What do you say to this Spook? Let me answer for you. It was the libs that prevented Bush from saving SS.

Barney, you sound like you're proud of that. Bush put forth his plan, invited the Dems to participate in the discussion, and said virtually anything and everything was on the table. Their response -- they spit in his face.

Hey, Barmy is finally on the team for reforming Social Security? Right, Barn? Because you would not have mentioned it as an ongoing drain on the economy if you didn't want it fixed, would you? That would be....inconsistent. That would be...irrational.

Barmy, are actually telling us that Bush GAVE MONEY to Hurricane Katrina relief? I thought the whole hurricane was conjured up to kill poor black folk---you know, to provide cover for blowing up the levees. I know that when the Cindy Sheehan Tour sent its half-million dollar buses down there from Crawford to see how they could help, and set up those elaborate catering tents of theirs to feed the "victims" of the Bush racially motivated attempt at genocide, it was made clear that they were all being left to die, unaided by the government. Thank God Cindy's backers diverted their millions to disaster relief. And now you say the government DID do something after all?

What?? You say that the Sheehan tour, half-million dollar buses and catering tents and all, just drove right PAST the carnage in the South, and stuck with the party/protest agenda?

Nah---say it ain't so, Joe.

And Barmy, the impact of debt is relative. To you, $1,000 in debt is probably a very big deal, but to someone making half a million a year it is nothing. Debt clearly has to be related to income to make any sense. So you have to relate the dollar amount of the debt to the GDP. Get back to us on that, OK?

But thanks, Ash,for the news update that Karl Rove has now taken over the IRS. Keep us posted on his movements, will ya? I want to be sure to turn on the TV when he is hanging on the top of the Empire State Building.

And Ash, quit angling for axis' position as the apex of ignorance. It's not nice to see you boys wrangling for Idiot of the Week.

The debt has increased by nearly 50% since Bush has taken office

Barney, 9 years ago my wife and I sold our house and built a new one. The mortgage on the house we sold was around $80,000, and the mortgage on the new one was $150,000. Our debt increased OVERNIGHT by 87.5% Our income at the time was increasing, but not to the extent that Federal revenues are currently increasing. So, you point is?

I don't know anyone who believes that the increases in Federal debt that we've seen over the last few years are sustainable long term, just as the monstrous increases during WWII were not sustainable. If this current crop of politicians attempts to maintain the spending status quo, they'll be voted out of office regardless of political affiliation.

Spook, “Their response -- they spit in his face.” Who are you referring to? The democrats that are a minority in all phases of local, state and federal government, or the republicans that control all branches of government and are the majority political party in this country?

Blame yourself.

Spook, in twenty years or less you will pay off the debt. Can you say the same for the Federal Goverment?

this stuff is too rich - you really cannot make this up. the idea that the above report somehow proves that this administration is fiscally responsible is like making the claim that rove is honest and straightforward because he barely managed to EVADE indictment. let me begin by quoting a nice thinkprogress quote:

1. Even accepting the most optimistic predictions, the deficit will not be cut in half. The article asserts that the deficit for this year may end up being $270 billion, or 2.1% of GDP. Even accepting that optimistic assessment, the 2004 deficit was $412 billion or 3.5% of GDP. For those of us living in reality, that’s not cutting the deficit in half. The White House projected a deficit of $512 billion for 2004, but that never happened. At the time, budget experts warned the number was inflated for political purposes.

2. The budgetary outlook for 2006 has degraded by about $800 billion since Bush took office. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office predicted a $505 billion surplus for 2006. The optimistic deficit number pushed by International Business Daily is still $775 billion worse.

if this is what you guys march around as evidence of FISCAL DISCIPLINE, excuse me while i jettison coffee through my nose because I just cannot contain the laughter..

anyone who blows a 523 billion dollar surplus and turns it into a TRILLION dollars and counting deficit ought to be shown the door and sent back to an elementary accounting class.

and dont give me this, iraq war, defense build-up crap either as an excuse. that's like saying, well my credit card debt is so large because i had to have that new jacket but i just did not want to PAY for it now...

so pathetic the outright willingness to look the other way while this country piles on the debt for future generations (your kids and grandkids) to pay for.. yeah - let's pat ourselves on the backs and call it a WIN-WIN. pathetic

This is rich, quoting about incoming money that has a "chance" at being used to pay down the deficit, rather than simply blown on somethin else, the same as bush has done for 5 years

Bush and paying down debt do not mix, he believes thats someone elses worries

Tax cuts work, thats why you have an out of control deficit and an 8.3 Trillion national debt, highest in US history, highest in world history in fact and more than 3 trillion increased since taking office.

Your tax cuts are simply a deferral, your kids will end up paying for them thru increases to pay off the debt that you are racking up.

Tax increases are the only way to pay off that debt. Not to worry, you will end up paying soon enough too as the cuts are a short term thing that can't be sustained at the same time as out of control spending and wars in play

Apparently Blarney is far too stupid to know the difference between the National debt and the National deficit.

Spook, in twenty years or less you will pay off the debt. Can you say the same for the Federal Goverment?

Actually Barney, I'll have mine paid off in about 4 years, but I'm at one distinct disadvantage compared to the Federal Government -- I can't print money. Many people die with a mortgage on their house -- my in-laws did. What's interesting is that for most of the 40 years that Democrats controlled Congress, they defended deficit spending until Reagan was elected; then deficit spending went from good to bad virtually overnight.

Tax increases are the only way to pay off that debt.

ROTFLMAO!!! Once again axis exhibits his total lack of understanding about basic economics. Even if your statement were true (which it's not), the last politician that ran for President on a platform of raising taxes was Walter Mondale, and we all know how well that worked out for him.

BlowAviators

I'm always astonished to read you posts because their content gives the indication you are retarded, and therefore incapable of typing. Perhaps you use some sort of voice-recognition deal, one that somehow filters out all the "duhs" and "doys" and "derrs" to only leave text that sounds like real words.

You actually think --- and feign such great shock --- that Mr. Bush is fiscally irresponsible. What a moron.

Who else could so deftly manage such ballooning debt? You think your boy Kerry could look at that burden and still steer the economy into the strong upshift it now enjoys? No way, he'd choke, he'd raise taxes, hell, he might declare martial law.

Remember, it is the Democraps that pile pork into every bill. There's all this talk about billions for Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere" and hundreds of millions to move train tracks, but I'll bet Kennedy and Pelosi and the rest of them bums got plenty of billion-dollar pork in as well. You'd never see a Republican load up pork like that. The Dims are just that hopeless, pathetic, craven and untrustworthy.

And you think BUSH is bad with money! Just wait 'til Barack Obama gets his hands on power.

CJ

You're right, Barfey is an idiot.

Barfster: National DEBT is the total this nation is beholden to banks both foreign and domestic. National DEFICIT is how much more burden we're adding every year. There's a difference, you know.

Get an education, dummy.

CJ

You're right, Barfey is an idiot.

Barfster: National DEBT is the total this nation is beholden to banks both foreign and domestic. National DEFICIT is how much more burden we're adding every year.

There's a difference, you know, Barfey. Get an education, dummy.

Spook, in twenty years or less you will pay off the debt. Can you say the same for the Federal Goverment?

Actually Barney, I'll have mine paid off in about 4 years, but I'm at one distinct disadvantage compared to the Federal Government -- I can't print money. Many people die with a mortgage on their house -- my in-laws did. What's interesting is that for most of the 40 years that Democrats controlled Congress, they defended deficit spending until Reagan was elected; then deficit spending went from good to bad virtually overnight.

Tax increases are the only way to pay off that debt.

ROTFLMAO!!! Once again axis exhibits his total lack of understanding about basic economics. Even if your statement were true (which it's not), the last politician that ran for President on a platform of raising taxes was Walter Mondale, and we all know how well that worked out for him.

Barfey100

"Spook, in twenty years or less you will pay off the debt. Can you say the same for the Federal Goverment? "

That is exactly the point. Not only will my house be paid off, but it will have increased in value dramatically, and I can borrow even MORE money against it.

The point is that you work your way up to debt of this scale. In 20 years, I could borrow way more than I can borrow now. Well, this nation has been around for over 200 years, and it can handle massive debt, as it is so ably right now.

This is all a bunch of worry for nothing. Grow up.

Hmmm, consumer debt goes up and tax revenues increase. Voila! Nothing like the government using home equity to its advantage!

CJ and Core, I do not see how I have confused debt and deficient? This is what I wrote:

“They forgot to add the $94-billion Iraq War/Katrina Relief Appropriation funding to the deficit,..”

And this:

“The debt has increased by nearly 50% since Bush has taken office.
In Trillions
Today $ 8,380 “

Maybe I should have wrote “grown” and not “increased”, but other than that, where is the mistake?

"Tax increases are the only way to pay off that debt"

Mark, do you pay any of the L3's that post here to entertain us? If not watch out for a civil suit. They have convinced me to purchase a parrot for daily entertainment at home. I never before realized the entertainment benefit of such limited intellect. Parrot it is.

what IS astonishing con to the core is that, true to character, you resort to name-calling and baseless accusations about poor writing style (which is laughable coming from someone who uses 'barfster' and 'pukeface' in ordinary speech) but never address the facts being debated. we see this pattern in every thread. a few of us try to have a constructive debate and along comes con to the core to try to stir things up with a bit of vitriol.

You actually think --- and feign such great shock --- that Mr. Bush is fiscally irresponsible. What a moron.

Who else could so deftly manage such ballooning debt? You think your boy Kerry could look at that burden and still steer the economy into the strong upshift it now enjoys? No way, he'd choke, he'd raise taxes, hell, he might declare martial law.

again, you call me a moron because i accuse bush of being fiscally irresponsible. if you can prove otherwise, i'll happily put the dunce cap on. but speak with some facts before making such statements. you look stupid.

who else could so deftly manage such ballooning debt

BlowAviators

Boy, you just go and prove my point now, why dontcha?

You said, "you call me a moron because i accuse bush of being fiscally irresponsible. if you can prove otherwise, i'll happily put the dunce cap on."

Well, put on the dunce cap, moron. You are a moron if you think Bush is fiscally irresponsible. Not vitriol, just truth. You're a moron. Sorry for the moment of clarity.

You sez, "baseless accusations about poor writing style (which is laughable coming from someone who uses 'barfster' and 'pukeface' in ordinary speech)"

If you go back and read my post, I neveral called you "pukeface," so that's your first lie (what is it with liberals and the need to lie all the time?).

And secondly, I didn't use "barfster" in common speech, I used it as a salutation. Unless you consider proper nouns' use in common speech, as in "I went to the Henry for cigarettes and lotto tickets."

Moron. Double moron. Infinity moron.

You are truly the gold standard of liberals, BlowAviators.

bloviator,

Yeah, whatever - Clinton just too credit for what the GOP did; but, no matter - the main thing is that the "out of control deficit" seems to be getting under control...this is inexplicable in leftwing economics because tax cuts are supposed to result in reduced revenues....it is, however, explicable in real world economics.

mark,

so now, raising taxes and steering the economy during clinton's tenure was not his doing but that of the GOP? wait, you can't pick and choose when and what you want the GOP to take credit for...

so let me get this straight - surplus and higher taxes and strong economy during clinton era - the GOP's fault?

deficits, massive spending, weak employment during bush era - democrats fault?

come on. other people are reading this too mark. i expect more from YOU at least...

Mark, “the main thing is that the "out of control deficit" seems to be getting under control...this is inexplicable in leftwing economics..”

Mark, I did not know that the Heritage Foundation was “leftwing”?

From you own link above (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=5&issue=20060612&view=1),

““Heritage sees an $800 billion deficit in 2016, assuming tax cuts are extended and spending stays on its present course. If the economy and tax receipts continue to outperform, the deficit would still be at least $600 billion, Riedl said.”

ok - con to the core. what i asked of you in my initial reply, was the following:

again, you call me a moron because i accuse bush of being fiscally irresponsible. if you can prove otherwise, i'll happily put the dunce cap on. but speak with some facts before making such statements. you look stupid.

and this is your reply:

You said, "you call me a moron because i accuse bush of being fiscally irresponsible. if you can prove otherwise, i'll happily put the dunce cap on."

Well, put on the dunce cap, moron. You are a moron if you think Bush is fiscally irresponsible. Not vitriol, just truth. You're a moron. Sorry for the moment of clarity.

what you did is restate that i am a moron. but you don't address my point above that you need to come to the table with facts when involving yourself in the debate process. repetitive namecalling is hardly a viable substitute.

finally you end your comment with the following:

Moron. Double moron. Infinity moron. You are truly the gold standard of liberals, BlowAviators.

which gets back to the substance of what i was saying originally in reply to you:

you resort to name-calling and baseless accusations about poor writing style (which is laughable coming from someone who uses 'barfster' and 'pukeface' in ordinary speech) but never address the facts being debated. we see this pattern in every thread.

now let me ask you one more time to explain to me why you think bush is NOT fiscally irresponsible?

no names, no accusations, just the facts...

..that's what i thought

Moron

(I'm not even going to address you by name, you haven't earned such respect. But just so's everyone knows I'll provide this clue: he blows aviators. That's all I can say at this time)

How big of a moron can you be that you don't understand the simplicity of my answer? Are you trying to be obtuse, as some sort of gag?

No, the answer must be my original thesis: you are a moron.

The question --- in the mangled ur-language in which you speak -- is not "why do I think Bush is not fiscally irresponsible." You can try as hard as youo might to change the original question, but eventually you will have to answer it.

So, please, save me your womanly hystrionics and let's shortcut this game of liberal wack-a-mole with you answering the original question: are you such a moron that you believe Mr. Bush is fiscally irresponsible?

Until you answer the original question, I will not take part in your moronic attempt to change the subject.

Googleplex-infinity moron plus 1, you moron!

Don't worry Blow, core wont answer my question either. He sees a fool in the mirror.

Blarney

The post was about the deficit not the debt.

"Blarney

The post was about the deficit not the debt."
Posted by: CJ [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 14, 2006 06:10 PM

And I addressed the deficit in my first post. Did I not CJ?

Later I referred to the growing debt. Both usage was correct, but than I wouldn't expect you to correct your mistake.

"While gains are broad, those at higher-income levels are enjoying bigger salary hikes. Because they pay higher rates, federal tax revenues soar when they do well." So what? Where this gains is?

Can there possibly be any reason for wasting any more time talking economics to the terminally and determinedly ignorant? Easier---and a lot more fun----to teach a pig to fly. Then, at least, you'd have a flying pig. If even one of these mouthpieces obediently prattling the Lib talking points were ever to learn even one real element of economics, he would still be a prattling idiot who just happened to know one element of economics.

But a flying pig---now THAT would be something!

Can there possibly be any reason for wasting any more time talking economics to the terminally and determinedly ignorant? Easier---and a lot more fun----to teach a pig to fly. Then, at least, you'd have a flying pig. If even one of these mouthpieces obediently prattling the Lib talking points were ever to learn even one real element of economics, he would still be a prattling idiot who just happened to know one element of economics.

But a flying pig---now THAT would be something!

BlowAviators

Barfey sez "Don't worry Blow, core wont answer my question either."

How does it feel when your own "friends" recognize your skill at Blowing Aviators?

Barfey100

Your misuse of the English language renders your question moot.

That you would confuse debt --- the crushing onus of money owed by the U.S. government to foreign banks --- and deficit --- the ongoing reckless piling on of that debt --- demonstrates your lack of nuance in discussions financial.

But, hey, let's not split hairs, let's answer Barfey100's trite question, which was: will the U.S. pay off its debt in 20 years?

Of course the debt will not be paid in 20 years. What do you think this is, a home mortgage? Clearly, this debt will be decided by future presidents and future administrations.

I don't know where you come up with these asinine questions, or how you think forcing an answer ("boo-hoo, you never answered my question, you just called me names") helps your case.

ok con to the core, we'll play by your rules (still snickering about the 'moron to infinity plus one' - holy shite this is gradeschool):

you asked,

So, please, save me your womanly hystrionics and let's shortcut this game of liberal wack-a-mole with you answering the original question: are you such a moron that you believe Mr. Bush is fiscally irresponsible?

and of course, waaaay back when, i provided the following:

1. Even accepting the most optimistic predictions, the deficit will not be cut in half. The article asserts that the deficit for this year may end up being $270 billion, or 2.1% of GDP. Even accepting that optimistic assessment, the 2004 deficit was $412 billion or 3.5% of GDP. For those of us living in reality, that’s not cutting the deficit in half. The White House projected a deficit of $512 billion for 2004, but that never happened. At the time, budget experts warned the number was inflated for political purposes.
2. The budgetary outlook for 2006 has degraded by about $800 billion since Bush took office. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office predicted a $505 billion surplus for 2006. The optimistic deficit number pushed by International Business Daily is still $775 billion worse.
if this is what you guys march around as evidence of FISCAL DISCIPLINE, excuse me while i jettison coffee through my nose because I just cannot contain the laughter..
anyone who blows a 523 billion dollar surplus and turns it into a TRILLION dollars and counting deficit ought to be shown the door and sent back to an elementary accounting class.

one need ONLY focus on the very last line to understand how fiscally irresponsible bush actually is.

so there you go con. i capitulated and gave you some hard facts. what are you going to come back with? more playground insults and preschool names?
jesus man, you embarrass yourself..

*moron to infinity plus one.... - who says those kinds of things*

Nice try core, but you still haven't answered my direct question to you (for the third time now). You answered my question to spook.

Who looks stupid now?

BlowAviators

You make this too simple, but I guess that is because of how simple you are.

"anyone who blows a 523 billion dollar surplus and turns it into a TRILLION dollars and counting deficit ought to be shown the door and sent back to an elementary accounting class."

So I guy with ten bucks in his wallet who goes out and buys a house and now owes thousands is fiscally irresponsible?

The fact that Mr. Bush has leveraged $500 billion in our pockets into over a trillion dollars of buying credit shows his shrewd knowledge of economic engines.

I think if we keep working hard, we can leverage that up to TWO trillion, and then this economy would be cookin' with gas.

Owe a bank $1,000 and they owe you...owe foreign banks a trillion and, well, you know how that goes.

Good of you to finally answer a simple question, but you're still a moron. Just look how hard one must work to get a simple answer from them.

Barfey100

I'm sorry if I hurt your wittle feelings. Perhaps, when you aren't busy campaigning for the Dutch Pedofile Party or stuffing envelopes for al-Queda you could grow the fuck up.

I had to go back to find which of your insipid questions was directed ast me? Which question have I been avoiding, as its answer will surely change me into a child-raping moonbat?

Here are your direct questions, and my responses:

"CJ and Core, I do not see how I have confused debt and deficient?"

Uh, is that a question, or a statement by a retard who added a question mark instead of a period?

"Maybe I should have wrote 'grown' and not 'increased', but other than that, where is the mistake?"

Gee whiz, maybe you SHOULD have "wrote" a different verb. But to answer your question, it would be difficult determining your mistake, but here are some possibilities:

1. being born
2. drinking the Kool-Aid
3. joining the Communist Party
4. figuring out what you should have "wrote"
5. getting into that stranger's car as a child
6. hating America

So you tell me, which of those was your mistake? I'm thinking "all of the above."

Thanks for proving our point core.

Is either side being totally honest? First off, the surpluses were projected into infinity by a Democratic OMB to look their budget projections look good.

First off, these surpluses weren't TAX revenues, but rather SS payments. Any economist will tell you that it's good when the government only collects what it needs and not acquire massive receipts as that excess cash isn't being used for it's purpose, to fuel the economy. The more government takes, the less money there is to fuel the economy in the private sector.

And finally, the true measure of how bad the debt is the proportion to the GDP it is. But of course, everyone will only choose to focus on the part that proves their point. Barney et al will focus on the numbers and treat it like a mortgage to scare people who don't understand economics. And the other side will downplay the need to get control over spending (which is definitely a problem with EVERY member of Congress).

However, I do see it good that the deficit has gone down, that tax receipts are up, and that finally there is evidence that the rich do INDEED pay their fair share. If I hear a feckin' liberal say that the poor aren't getting any help with these tax cuts I'm gonna puke. You have to pay taxes in order to get a CUT. Remember Kerry saying the poorest aren't getting any help, and someone should have said to him "how is it fiscally responsible to say that if you don't pay ANY tax now, we'll GIVE you more money so a tax cut ends up actually COSTING money, not slowing the amount brought in. What kind of sound fiscal policy is that?

ROTFLMAO!!! Once again axis exhibits his total lack of understanding about basic economics. Even if your statement were true (which it's not), the last politician that ran for President on a platform of raising taxes was Walter Mondale, and we all know how well that worked out for him.

-- No, actually you demonstate an incredible and utter lack of common sense.

No one is going to campaign on it dumb, dumb, it is necessary to keep government in operation.

You are so stupid, do you honestly believe that a government can continue to operate vastly, vastly in the red every, day, every month, every year without ever paying it back? If not, then you must think that the magic debt faerie is going to appear and make it all better?

Since it is confusing, allow me to simplify it for you.

You have a job that earns you $2000 a month after tax and expenses.

You have a house mortgage of $1200 a month

Your wife goes out and buys a new rolls royce with $1500 a month payments.

Your other bills and expenses work out to $1000 a month.

So, 1200+1500+1000= 3700.00

So every month you live, you are going further in the hole and it goes on and on forever until you figure out a way to make enough to not only live on, but to pay for all your debt. If you let it go too long, you will end up bankrupt and have your possessions repossessed.

Conservatives are great at spending money without thought, lousy at repaying it or handling it responsibly.

The fact that Mr. Bush has leveraged $500 billion in our pockets into over a trillion dollars of buying credit shows his shrewd knowledge of economic engines.

I think if we keep working hard, we can leverage that up to TWO trillion, and then this economy would be cookin' with gas.

-- Any goof can recklessly spend money and do deeply in debt.

A schrewd person, can manage incoming money and budget it so that not only do you balance the budgets, but you also have some left over to pay down the national debt. This would be Clinton that was shrewd.

You made a typo above, when you said shrewd, you really meant to say "his skrewed knowledge of economic engines."

It is a fact that Bush has borrowed more money from foreign governments that ALL the previous Presidents (200 years+ back) COMBINED.

So, Bush's spending is not something to be proud of, its an embarassment and a sign of extremely poor leadership and poor management of revenue.

Axis,

What is really funny is how you on the left - who have spent Europe into bankruptcy - are trying to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Sorry, doesn't wash - we all know that if the Democrats were in power, then taxes would be higher and spending would be even higher than it is today. We'd have the worst of both worlds....

axis,
I can understand why you would want to “simplify” the deficit explanation; you are simple-minded! The problem with your grade-school explanation is that it exposes your total lack of understanding of the dynamic nature of governmental spending.

Let’s start with your accounting period; you refer to the monthly income and monthly expenditures of the axis family, if you were to convince your family members to give you money today to make the Mercedes payment and give them an axis-issued bond, which can be bought and sold among family members and friends of the family until the holder comes to you and asks for the value of that bond, your analogy begins to hold.

But wait, your eldest child is about to graduate from college with a JD and will soon be bringing more money into the axis household. The other family members want to buy axis-issued bonds because the payback is going to be even greater then the purchase price. The money garnered from the sale of bonds is used to pay back the student loans and set the child up in a law firm. The law firm will sue errant Canadians for libelous statements, and because there is a bumper crop of rude Canadians, the income stream is limitless. The entire assorted axis’ are now fully employed, producing and all are contributing to the household income except Mr. axis who spends his time on the couch playing on the internet and getting unhealthy eating crisps and drinking Anchor Steam; not to worry, Mrs. axis is a financial wizard and has a plan.

There will be greater income from a number of sources and Mrs. Axis knows that. The first thing she does is change the accounting period from monthly to yearly (annual). This has the advantage of counting revenues from the year end with the expendatures during the year, she can accrue expenses into the current year that have not been realized and pay them when the bill comes due in the next accounting period, because the expense was accrued, the net effect to the next period is zero.

As the axis family portfolio is increasing in value; the neighbors see the wealth potential and they want some axis-issued bonds, and the neighbors that you have been sending money to all these years now don’t need as much, except those that are finally paying back the loans you issued, you decide to issue axis-family bonds to the creditors, they happily accept the bonds because of the law suit potential.

Now, the boss that supplies the $2,000/month income the axis’ claim doesn’t pay on time always, but you’re okay because the creditors purchase from your boss and because they have been good debtors all these years the boss allows the debts to be paid on contract, and will accept axis-family bonds as payment, the creditors take the axis-family bonds to pay their debts and the boss ends up with an investment in the financial health of the axis family.

More good news, because you have done so well at paying your bills and educating your children, the creditors have improved your credit rating and, because the credit rating has improved, the bonds are worth even more, creditors will accept new axis-family bonds as payment; the service of the debt is now less than you originally budgeted so the total debt is less, less debt, less interest on the debt, more funds available to pay to buy back the bonds; more funds, and more neighbors want your bonds.

There is a fly in the ointment; the axis children have all been putting their pennies into a jar in the kitchen, this is for them to divide up when they move out. Unfortunately, when Mr. axis was doing the finances, he counted the money in the jar as his money and claimed to have a “surplus” but now that the smarter, and less criminally inclined Mrs. Axis is paying the bills, she knows that the children’s trust fund isn’t hers and cannot be counted as part of the total assets of the axis family. This is why Mr. axis isn’t trusted with the checkbook or the interns.

Despite the fact that Mr. axis is a fool, the rest of the family wisely decides that they are going to take action against the crack-house on the street. They get together with a few other neighbors and take their case to the local constabulary, who, after much consideration, decides that he needs much more consideration. The crack-house attracts dangerous Canadians (redundant) and people are being robbed at gunpoint at the end of the street; all the neighbors are threatened by the crack-house and the elements it attracts.

The axis family and a few neighbors decide to take action even if the constabulary, who appears to be getting kickbacks from the crack-house, won’t. The axis family has to spend a great deal of money to hire a security team to block the entrance of the crack-house. The miscreants inside pick a fights rather than change their ways, but eventually they tire of the bloody noses, acquiesce and leave the neighborhood. The cost was substantial, but the new neighbors are good people and help to clean up the neighborhood; the axis-family bonds are worth even more than before.

Everybody’s happy, and as long as the axis children continue to care for the family, and keep the neighborhood clean and upstanding, they can continue to pay bills, issue bonds and allow grandpa axis to get drunk and embarrass the family in public.

I could not help but notice that you are having to look abroad for evidence of liberal economic slipups, because you are short on supply here.

Clinton did more for the economy in 2 weeks than bush has done in 5 years.

You crow about the 5 million jobs Bush has createdin 5 1/2 years. Clinton created over 20 million. Gas was a little over $1.25 a gallon under Clinton, opposed to 3.25 a gallon under Bush.

The national debt was 5.35 Trillion under clinton and DECREASING, as in being paid down. Its now 8.4 Trillion under Bush and rising at over 26 billion a second in interest alone.

The trade deficit was low under clinton. Last year under Bush, 800 Billion deficit.

Domestic jobs are being outsourced like crazy under bush, resulting in a net loss of jobs in the 5 years in office, taking into account all the new entrants into the job market.

Wages are stagnent, inflation is becoming a serious problem

American consumer debt is at an all time high, with interest rates on the rise and bankruptcy all but wiped out, there are going to be millions of bankrupt people chained to unescapable debt once interest rates rise a couple more points.

As it is, bankruptcy is at a high point.

All this is good to you conservatives. Inflation and people going bankrupt is awsome news and signs of a strong economy. LOL.

A preschooler could run this country better than Bush and his conservative cronies.

Bane, you are amazing. In your eyes, the more you borrow, the deeper in debt you get, the better it is. $8 trillion in the hole isn't nearly enough is it. Lets double it to $16 trillion.

Screw the budget surpluses that Clinton had. Deep deficits is the way to go baby! borrow and spend, borrow and spend and when its all gone, whine and cry and blame it on the liberals.

The US greenback is at a 30 year low against other world currencies. Its like monopoly money because investors are seeing your out of control spending and debt, rising interest rates, rising inflation.

Our Canadian dollar is 9 cents under par with yours. Soon it will be on par for the first time in about 40 years.

These are all signs of your conservative mismanagement.

Are you stupid or you just can't read?
There were no surpluses under Clinton, get it?

I still challange you to cite one thing that Clinton did or one thing that Clinton proposed that had anything to do with the economy.

Your hysterics aside, you have all of your "facts" wrong. Every one of them, back to the sandbox for you, your logic doesn't pass 7tth grade math.