Yes, yes - Bush has done it.

All of us who voted for this man have reason to celebrate his responsible tax policy.

We also have reason to be concerned. Very concerned.

Please let us not wrap ourselves up in the glow of good news to the point where we forget about the danger that still threatens our country.

President Bush MUST do something about the Mexican invasion.

I wish that someone of courage would bring up the NAU treaty.

This treaty is being hidden from the public and it is time for them to become aware!

I close my message the same way that I opened it

- Yes. Yes. Bush has done it.

Speaking of the deficit and spending:

from today's NY Times:

Republicans defeated a Democratic measure calling for an investigation into waste and fraud in military contracts today as the Senate engaged in an emotional debate over the Iraq war. By a 52-to-44 vote, the Senate rejected the proposal by Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, calling for a panel like the one led by Harry Truman when he was a Senator, which uncovered many abuses in military spending during World War II.
Mr. Dorgan said that military spending is the worst it has ever been "right now -- right now! I think the American taxpayers are being fleeced."

unbelievable. up in arms about 1.9 billion wasted taxpayer dollars blown by katrina victims but when it comes to investigating tens of billions in potentially (and likely) fraudulent CPA contractors, the GOP SAYS HELL NO!

Nice job fleecing the American public. And you all support this? You support the suppression of any investigation into fraudulent activity? Makes me sick.

No wonder the deficit is hitting such astronomical and historical numbers.

Only the convoluted thought of a conservative could call a 300,000,000,000 Billion Dollar deficit a success. The rising interest rates as a result of the Federal government gobbling up a billion dollars a day are already stiffing growth in the housing sector of our economy. So much for the recovery.

I too, am more interested in the fact that the national debt has increased by 45% under bush's reign. I know your grandchildren are going to be real proud of all of you "conservative Republicans" for spending their once secure future. Remember the budget surpluses? Peace

Stow it, blowmelater--you're full of hot air. Helmet-head Dorgan is just playing politics; noone ever calls for investigations when the money is wasted at home. Did you not even read the post? You...are a meathead!!!

I think the most telling sentence in the cited Lowry article was this one: "if annual spending increases in the Bush years had been limited to the rate of the Clinton years, roughly 3.3 percent, there would be a federal surplus now."

As Shakespeare said, therein lies the rub. Reducing the deficit from the stratospheric levels it has been at -- especially in a time of economic expansion -- isn't exactly a victory in my book.

Of course, we could also get into the various "off budget" expenses that don't even appear when calculating the deficit (but do increase the national debt), coupled with the assumptions made when estimating future deficit, coupled with the fact that interest on social security revenues, which should NOT be considered part of core revenues, but are (and have been since the Johnson administration), all serve to underestimate the true deficit. For these and other reasons, the deficit numbers are largely smoke and mirrors. If you really want to get a feeling for what is going on, watch the national debt numbers -- and compare it to GDP. That's the real bottom line.

But what do I know, right?

I think the most telling sentence in the cited Lowry article was this one: "if annual spending increases in the Bush years had been limited to the rate of the Clinton years, roughly 3.3 percent, there would be a federal surplus now."

As Shakespeare said, therein lies the rub. Reducing the deficit from the stratospheric levels it has been at -- especially in a time of economic expansion -- isn't exactly a victory in my book.

Of course, we could also get into the various "off budget" expenses that don't even appear when calculating the deficit (but do increase the national debt), coupled with the assumptions made when estimating future deficit, coupled with the fact that interest on social security revenues, which should NOT be considered part of core revenues, but are (and have been since the Johnson administration), all serve to underestimate the true deficit. For these and other reasons, the deficit numbers are largely smoke and mirrors. If you really want to get a feeling for what is going on, watch the national debt numbers -- and compare it to GDP. That's the real bottom line.

But what do I know, right?

Now how did THAT get posted twice??!! I'm sure I only submitted it once!

GOP'ers are simpletons.

More economic smoke and mirrors that's all this is.

Or so I'm surprised no one has said. While I'm glad the deficite MIGHT go down below 3% of GDP it's still an awfully big number and the spending isn't helping any.

We've still got a long way to go to be a fiscally conservative government. Someday maybe.

The housing market is simply slowing after 5 years of record home sales. 2005 was the best market ever in terms of sales. 2006 will be the third best market after 2003. Housing starts are still well above any Clintune year. And interest rates rising...well you still can get a thirty year fixed rate below 7%. In contrsst, during Cluntune they ranged from 7 to 8%.

President Bush has presided over the strongest economy in american history. God bless you President Bush, the greatest president in american history.

Remember the budget surpluses?

Our goverment runs on budgets, it is not supposed to have a surplus. When it does that means it is over charging you the tax payer.

OK, Libs----get in line to support the Line Item Veto. Be sure you let your congresmen know that this is a high priority. While you're at it, make sure they know that you are so offended by the prescription drug bill (I assume you object to it, due to the contribution it has made to the deficit) that you absolutely will NOT consider a national health care plan, ever, now that you realize what THAT would cost.

And the LAST think I want is a surplus. Just why would anyone want the government to take more money from us than they spend?

I notice that none of the negative comments offers an alternative. None presents a different plan. How can they? Tax revenues have gone up. The immense spending it took to revamp the military is starting to level off. The immense funds needed to generate the kinds of changes in other countries necessary to provide more safety for us here in this country will be reduced as the Iraqis and Afghanis take over their own security.

Yes, we do need to address Social Security. And there are plenty of other areas where cuts need to be made. No one has said, implied, or hinted that all is perfect.

But the totally predictable knee-jerk Lib reaction to what is extremely good economic news is a hoot. Gee, guys, this is terrible for you! Low unemployment, record tax revenues, solid economic gains across the board, American confidence rising----it's just one disaster after another for you guys, isn't it?

And on top of all that, you just can't figure out how to blame the rain in Houston on Bush.

Rico made an excellent point---not only do you need to keep an eye on the national debt, you need to see it in relationship to the GDP. And, I might add, compare that to the ratio in other wartime economies.

For those of you with a memory longer than two seconds the Contract With America said that the Republicans if elected would NOT DEFICT SPEND, and work to pass a balanced budget amendment.
Of course as soon as they did get elected they found , as George Will said, the pleasure of spending other peoples money. This is like a heroin addict saying they must be doing better because they have cut their dose in half. Not that they need to worry about this, all Rove needs to do is say something about burning illegal gay flags and the base is out in droves. Real Conservatism is dead, now all we have is a liberal bashing cult.

I think Mr. Bush is doing a great job of meeting the goals he set for himself. I am going to send him a blessing from www.onlineblessings.com of health so that he may keep doing a wonderful job.

Almiranta-

Other wartime economies wouldn't be a great comparison (except Viet nam and Korea). Until after WWII, there was no sizeable standing army, and whenever we went to war, the "war machine" would grow and the economy would boom. Then, when the Department of War was replaced by the Department of Defense, the "war machine" was put into pretty much perpetual motion and the economy didn't bloom nearly as much during wartime.

Now, I just find it hard to fathom that a self-described fiscal conservative could allow spending to baloon 42% under his watch, and how he could allow the debt to get where it is. How can someone be "fiscally responsible" when they don't write a billion dollar war into the budget?

Why are we praising Bush for getting us half out of a mess that he got us in?

The U.S. economy under Bush is like a guy that makes 25 000 a year in debt for 10 million dollars.

Only a conservative would call that a success.

Clinton had budget SURPLUSES and was paying down the national debt. Bush has RECORD DEFICICITS and has added nearly 50% to the national debt since he took office.

Again, only a conservative would call that a success.

Axis...that is perhaps the worst analogy ever.

Do you own a house Axis? Do you pay a mortgage? Do you finance that mortgage?

What do you think the gov't does?

By the way, most conservative AREN'T calling it a success. Many REPUBLICANS are, but not conservatives. Big difference.

Axis, thanks to clinton and the surpluses we got 9/11. If clinton had been man enough to do what had to be done, that is fight the war on terror, we would not have been attacked on 9/11. But poof, there would go the surpluses. Under clinton, we had been attacked over and over again-1993 WTC bombing, Kobar Towers, USS Cole bombing, US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the cut and run from Somolia. Clinton did nothing to respond. Bin laden watched and learned and started planning 9/11 in 1996. But clinton was all polls and no substance. I would rather have 3,000 more living americans than a budget surplus any day. Thank God under President Bush's leadership, we have not been attacked in almost 5 years. Not one incident, even though the enemy has hit many times in other countries.

Warrior, no it isn't a bad analogy. Some debt is fine and perfectly manageable. Bush's debt is out of control and record setting. This is NOT ok.

Your second point has me a bit confused, if you are a conservative and you are not ok with the Republicans track record, why do you still support their each and every move and agree with the rubber stamp policy? Why are you not up in arms demanding change in your party since they are not living up to your expectations?

Why are we praising Bush for getting us half out of a mess that he got us in?

Posted by: Georgia Frawg at June 20, 2006 11:30 PM

Clinton had budget SURPLUSES and was paying down the national debt. Bush has RECORD DEFICICITS and has added nearly 50% to the national debt since he took office.

Again, only a conservative would call that a success.

Posted by: axis at June 21, 2006 12:56 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You moonbats conveniently forget the recession, terror attacks, and war that has faced the Bush Admin. unlike the Clinton Admin. They were handed a cakewalk and they DID manage it well! Now what do we have to show for it! Psycho's in N.Korea, Iran, palestine, Darfur etc., ex-psycho's in Iraq, afghanistan, Libya, etc. etc. Maybe if Clinton was paying attention to intelligence and doing something about national security he wouldn't have had such a big surplus.

Well stated TOM!

Ok, folks, i'll talk slow so I don't lose you.

All economics is microeconomics, and the micro-economy sucks!

How can you call the highest rates of bankruptcy, personal debt, forclosures; coupled with lowest spending rates, and over 15 years of relatively stagnant real wages, a good thing?

You guys amaze me, complaining about a government surplus. Do you run your budget always at a balance? Do you always spend exactly what you get, do you not save some for the proverbial 'rainy-day'?

Don't be idiots (except you almiranta, we already know it's terminal in your case), Just because your big screen tv and your laptop are costing less, doesn't mean that the economy is getting better. Inflation has outstripped real wages, leaving most people to finance this economic boom on credit, which would perfectly explain why bankruptcies and forclosures are at an all time high, and savings are hovering around 2%. You can try to spin those numbers all you want, but you can't have a healthy, robust economy when it is all financed on the backs of the lower and middle class, this is what is referred to as a bubble.

Think about it logically, if we aren't counting the debts of SS or the WOT, what exactly is Bush cutting, it's like a husband hiding his credit card statement for 10-grand from his wife, and claiming they are getting their finances in order; it's a silly premise that most people frankly don't understand, and that is how the noise machine works, cherry pick info, and hope to demonize the people who call BS.

we aren't talking about us Blind, we are talking about the government!

Hi all,

I wanted to apologize for the posts that have been placed on this board with the text "GOPs are Simpletons" under the pseudonym "BMOC." Whoever is posting these messages is providing a link to a blog that I maintain. However, BMOC is not me. I have never been to this site before noticing the amount of traffic coming to my blog from this site.

"BMOC" is almost certainly an individual who lurks on my site from time to time who wants to embarass me by posting idiotic messages linking to my site on conservative-themed websites. The sad thing is that he's been a victim of this himself (liberal posters putting up assinine posts linking to *his* website), and I stood up for him and did what I could to help track down the folks responsible for the faux postings.

Apparently he's embraced the very tactic he was victimized by.

At any rate, I just wanted to let you all know that "BMOC" is not me, and while I'd be more than happy to have you stop by my blog, I'd never say something as dopey as all GOPers "simpletons." Heck, I don't even *think* that! I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum from most Republicans, but I think that both the left and the right have their fair share of both simpletons and civilized people. It would be nice if more of the debate were carried out by the latter rather than the former.

Thanks, and sorry again for the silly posts put up in my name.

Cheers,

Ted

Bear,

Don't know if anyone told you, but the government IS us.

well put third eye. you just cannot get through to some of these wingnuts the very blatant fact that you can't run a government that does not balance its finances. anyone who says that surpluses are bad, does not have the acumen/mental wherewithal to understand that surpluses help lower the debt. lower debt means lower borrowing costs for the US government. lowering borrowing costs equate to LOWER INTEREST RATES, and low and behold... what do lower interest rates do folks? everybody all at once - STIMULATE THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!! almiranta should be banned for making such asinine statements.

like putting lipstick on a pig (or karl rove i should say), they can call it pretty all they want but our mounting debt is still a fat, ugly beast.

(apologies if this is double posted)

This is why I’ve given up posting here, the lies continue unabated.

1. Lie: “highest rates of bankruptcy” Fact: Bankruptcies are at the lowest level in 20 years.
2. Lie: “foreclosures are at an all time high” Fact: foreclosures have been rising since 1978 (creative financing) but haven’t reached the levels as related to homeownership of the 1960’s.
3. Lie: “15 years of relatively stagnant real wages” Fact: Wages outpaced inflation since 2000.
4. Lie: “lowest spending rates” Fact: Savings is the absence of consumption.
5. Lie: “Clinton had budget SURPLUSES “ Fact: There was no surplus in the Clinton Administration.
6. Lie: (Clinton was ) paying down the debt” Fact: unfunded liabilities increased the debt.

This is why I’ve given up posting here, the lies continue unabated.

1. Lie: “highest rates of bankruptcy” Fact: Bankruptcies are at the lowest level in 20 years.
2. Lie: “foreclosures are at an all time high” Fact: foreclosures have been rising since 1978 (creative financing) but haven’t reached the levels as related to homeownership of the 1960’s.
3. Lie: “15 years of relatively stagnant real wages” Fact: Wages outpaced inflation since 2000.
4. Lie: “lowest spending rates” Fact: Savings is the absence of consumption.
5. Lie: “Clinton had budget SURPLUSES “ Fact: There was no surplus in the Clinton Administration.
6. Lie: (Clinton was ) paying down the debt” Fact: unfunded liabilities increased the debt.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/dobbs.june21/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Without much fanfare, the House of Representatives last week voted to give members of Congress yet another pay raise, as it has done almost every year for nearly a decade.
For some reason, our elected officials decided against holding a news conference. Maybe that's because they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that they raise their own salaries almost every year while refusing to raise the pay of our lowest-paid workers.

Yes... again, Bush, the congress and big business do it to the people... I suggest you read all of Lou Dobbs artical cited above.

bane - don't know where to start but i WILL start with the obvious (i trust third eye and others will be right behind me debunking your scurrilous, brazenly outlandish lies):

5. Lie: “Clinton had budget SURPLUSES “ Fact: There was no surplus in the Clinton Administration. 6. Lie: (Clinton was ) paying down the debt” Fact: unfunded liabilities increased the debt.

1999 - 125.6 billion SURPLUS

2000 - 236.2 billion SURPLUS

Debt held by the public decreased from 3772.3 trillion to 3409.8 trillion.
but don't take my word for it, take it right from the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE table of STATISTICS (page 2 of 14) here: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

dude - do some research and back your statements up with hard links to real data. a statement does not a fact make.

bane - don't know where to start but i WILL start with the obvious (i trust third eye and others will be right behind me debunking your scurrilous, brazenly outlandish lies):

5. Lie: “Clinton had budget SURPLUSES “ Fact: There was no surplus in the Clinton Administration. 6. Lie: (Clinton was ) paying down the debt” Fact: unfunded liabilities increased the debt.

1999 - 125.6 billion SURPLUS

2000 - 236.2 billion SURPLUS

Debt held by the public decreased from 3772.3 trillion to 3409.8 trillion.
but don't take my word for it, take it right from the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE table of STATISTICS (page 2 of 14) here: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

dude - do some research and back your statements up with hard links to real data. a statement does not a fact make.

Bane,

We love having you here; it's so fun when i get to rebut all your stupid assertions.

1. Bankruptcies:
1980: 210,359
2005: 1,637,234

Are you friggin stupid? that would be an all time high.

http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/bankrupt_ftable_jun2005.xls

2. Foreclosures are ramping up, actually up 12% in only a couple months, 91,905. The relative numbers have been climbing since December, this is not the signs of a healthy market.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2005/08/foreclosures_on.html

http://www.foreclosure.com/images/press/011106_prnewswire_html.html

3. "The median weekly salary in 2005 was $659 (half of all workers earned more, half earned less). After inflation, that’s 1.9% less than in 2004. Average hourly pay for all production and nonsupervisory workers was $16.11—a 0.7% decline when adjusted for inflation."

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_03-12-2006/wpe_lede_story

The story goes that while real wages are staying in a reasonable range with inflation, housijng, and fuel, and the big ticket purchases are getting more expensive, so it's much more difficult to live the middle-class american dream. I mean for God's sake, read the article you linked to, and see just how stgnant the wages really are if you live outside of a major city, or even IN a major city for that matter. Stop telling fibs!

4. Sorry, "spending should have been savings:

"You've probably heard that the American savings rate for 2005 was negative 0.5 percent, the lowest since the Great Depression. The annual savings rate has been negative only twice -- in 1932 and 1933, during the Great Depression."

http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/moneyhappy/2643

4a. At this point, in total, personal and public debt is $44 trillion, now personal debt is right in the range of $2 trillion, this excludes real estate, which would drive the personal debt load to about $9 trillion; both all times high, even adjusted for inflation. Who are you fooling?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3939463&p1=0

5. Those unfunded liabilites are still present in SS and Medicare, and haven't even been TOUCHED by the 12 years of republican control, so don't try and shirk any responsibility for that white elephant.

In conclusion, we can see that you have absolutely no facts, nor a clue about what you're talking about. We are in a pickle, of stagnant wages, record debt and bankruptcies/foreclosures, and record low savings, outside of the Great Depression ofcourse, but then again, in fantasyland, it's always sunny, isn't it?

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060614/wright.gif

Bane,

We love having you here; it's so fun when i get to rebut all your stupid assertions.

1. Bankruptcies:
1980: 210,359
2005: 1,637,234

Are you friggin stupid? that would be an all time high.

http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/bankrupt_ftable_jun2005.xls

2. Foreclosures are ramping up, actually up 12% in only a couple months, 91,905. The relative numbers have been climbing since December, this is not the signs of a healthy market.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2005/08/foreclosures_on.html

http://www.foreclosure.com/images/press/011106_prnewswire_html.html

3. "The median weekly salary in 2005 was $659 (half of all workers earned more, half earned less). After inflation, that’s 1.9% less than in 2004. Average hourly pay for all production and nonsupervisory workers was $16.11—a 0.7% decline when adjusted for inflation."

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_03-12-2006/wpe_lede_story

The story goes that while real wages are staying in a reasonable range with inflation, housijng, and fuel, and the big ticket purchases are getting more expensive, so it's much more difficult to live the middle-class american dream. I mean for God's sake, read the article you linked to, and see just how stgnant the wages really are if you live outside of a major city, or even IN a major city for that matter. Stop telling fibs!

4. Sorry, "spending should have been savings:

"You've probably heard that the American savings rate for 2005 was negative 0.5 percent, the lowest since the Great Depression. The annual savings rate has been negative only twice -- in 1932 and 1933, during the Great Depression."

http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/moneyhappy/2643

4a. At this point, in total, personal and public debt is $44 trillion, now personal debt is right in the range of $2 trillion, this excludes real estate, which would drive the personal debt load to about $9 trillion; both all times high, even adjusted for inflation. Who are you fooling?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3939463&p1=0

5. Those unfunded liabilites are still present in SS and Medicare, and haven't even been TOUCHED by the 12 years of republican control, so don't try and shirk any responsibility for that white elephant.

In conclusion, we can see that you have absolutely no facts, nor a clue about what you're talking about. We are in a pickle, of stagnant wages, record debt and bankruptcies/foreclosures, and record low savings, outside of the Great Depression ofcourse, but then again, in fantasyland, it's always sunny, isn't it?

Blow,
Social Security Trust Fund:
1992 = $319,000,000
1993 = $413,460,000
1994 = $458,502,000
1995 = $514,025,000
1996 = $589,121,000
1997 = $681,645,000
1998 = $798,812,000
1999 = $930,986,000
2000 =$1,071,540,000
This is the "surplus" your Clinton had.
No Surplus Get it?
I'm still waiting for one of you nit-wits to cite anything that Clinton did, proposed, supported, or suggested that had any positive effect on the economy, ANYTHING!

"Debt held by public" = BONDS this is a debt we owe ourselves. Get it?

Why don't you follow the links I provided and educate yourself?

Turd-Eye,
Restating your lies and parrot the other half-wits that misrepresent what the numbers mean doesn’t make them fact.
“nor a clue about what you're talking about.” I’m a government fiscal analyst, moron. What are your qualifications?

Can someone explain to me how someone can increase spending by 42% and still be considered a "small government" conservative?

I can list his (TEO's) qualifications if you'd like.

Tier 1 rated hypocrite.
Grade A liar
#1 rated imbecile who continues to repeat untruthful statements even when shown to be wrong

He's at the top of his class, no doubt about it.

classic debate form here. you guys (warr and bane) get TROUNCED and so resort to yelling and name-calling. but facts are indisputable.

oh, i did check that third-rate link you provided. what the hell is that? let's see, CBO versus 'Grandfather Economic Report Series'??? wtf??

What’s the matter Blow, do you need someone to read it to you?

Georgia,
“Can someone explain to me how someone can increase spending by 42% and still be considered a "small government" conservative?”

A reasonable question, thanks for asking.
Spending is a function of GDP; obviousaly when the country’s output was far smaller, the amounts and types of expenses was likewise smaller. Don’t misunderstand; the Republicans have discovered the “golden teat” of democratically elected governments. A program of spending on high profile feel good projects designed to make the legislators look caring and responsive to the peoples’ needs; in other words buying votes a program the democrats perfected over 40 years of the “Great Society.” Sorry, but the gentlemen legislators from the Republican Party control the purse-strings now, and they won’t let the opposition party play along.

Conservatives are not happy about the non-military discretionary spending, but the size and types of expenses are consistent with the necessities of the decade; war (twice) natural disasters, terror attack and the resulting loss of jobs, the recession etc. In fact, the spending on disasters and non-budgeted responses is consistent with the spending levels of the Clinton Administration during the flooding of the Mississippi, and military spending is far lower than the first Gulf War, and Bush (43) doesn’t have the income stream from the coalition countries that Clinton received after the first Gulf War.

When it comes to spending, conservatives can be as loopy as liberals; we want the Federal Government to “crack down” on the border security and damn the cost, we’ll make up for it in welfare savings. (This isn’t really quantifiable, if you know what I mean.) Liberals want massive domestic social engineering spending, and demand security without cost, Conservatives want massive security programs and demand social programs without cost.

Except for the 1990’s after the Gulf War, the military spending as a function of GDP is at historic low levels; 3%-4% (Clinton Admin was 4.4% - 3.0%. Carter was 4.9%). What’s a mother to do? Vote Republican and hope they stop spending like a Kennedy (drunken democrat) or vote for a democrat when we know they have weak bladders when it comes to spending? And, as is evident here, the liberals don’t bother with facts when discussing the economy; they prefer to make lemons out of lemonade and search (desperately, I might add) for some crumb of bad economic news.

Bane,

If you're a fiscal analyst, now I know why we are so screwed up.

can you please show me how the governments own numbers are wrong...can you show me how any of my numbers I have quoted are wrong, can you infact show me anything to rebut the fact that we are on the edge of a very high cliff?

Please, show me how the numbers I have presented are untruthful, or inaccurate, or imbelished...ill wait

1) Government numbers aren’t wrong, but typical non-fiscal neophytes try to fit the product of those numbers into their limited experiences. The Government deals in fund Accounting; this method requires that revenue streams are designated to certain functions and the time value is calculated into the monetary value. In your world, revenue is income and outlay is expense; in governmental accounting revenue earned by Federal components from operations (Parks, fees and postage stamps) are a contra-asset; reducing liabilities. There have been significant increases in these contra-assets, but they aren’t reported in a way you would recognize; they don’t decrease the deficit they offset an expense. You are inaccurate.

2) “The Debt” is not an accumulation of deficits, even though that’s what Wikpedia claims; the debt includes the future value of the service on the debt, as the economy improves servicing the debt costs less. The GOP budgets in the 1990’s allowed for a rosy picture of the debt service because the economy was expanding. When the dotcom bubble burst and the corporate scandals of the 1990’s blew up, the Clinton recession (third quarter 2000 before Bush was elected) hit and servicing the debt became instantly more expensive in the “out years”. The debt rose in 2002 (before the first Bush budget was ever proposed in fiscal 2002) because the debt service was built into the projections. You have embellished these facts.

3) Net costs to the Federal Government are also impacted by the variability of the costs that result from the change in actuarial liabilities. The tables were increased by legislation in the mid-1990’s and cannot be controlled by “spending cuts.” The increases in liabilities are mandated. You are inaccurate regarding spending cuts.

4) A large portion of the increases are actuarial changes and increased funding to Military Benefits and military retirement funds.

5) The CBO counts SS trust fund as a set aside, yet the actual money is used to pay Government debts; this has the effect of counting the money twice, by listing it as a revenue stream (payroll taxes) and then as an asset they can claim that they have a “surplus” when in fact they haven’t met the revenue projections without the payroll taxes. You are embellishing the so-called surplus.

6) Rate of Bankruptcies are at a 20 year low, quoting numbers from a period last year before the legislation while bankruptcy attorneys were trying to avoid the affidavits now required is disingenuous. If bankruptcies are so prevalent, why not become a bankruptcy attorney? The field is wide open as every bankruptcy attorney I know is changing specialties. You are untruthful about this.

7) Foreclosures (spell it right for once) is a function of creative loans, as home ownership rises and people are suckered into creative financing, foreclosures increase; the rate climbed steadily from the late 1970’s until recently. To state that it is worse than before is a lie; it’s a continuation of previous trends and as homeownership increases people have more personal wealth, not less. You are less than honest about this.

8) Savings aren’t a product of government mandates, might as well blame the Federal Government for the rising tooth decay rate in Appalachia. You are misleading about this.

9) Savings in the 21st century is a paradigm shift from liquid to fungible assets; this trend began in the 1980’s and continues today. The S&L bailout of the 1980’s convinced most people with personal wealth to invest, purchase bonds or buy property. Stock, Bond and property ownership are at record levels. Looking at “Savings Accounts” alone is simplistic, sophomoric and fails to see the true value of the American’s personal assets and wealth. You are ignorant on this subject.

10) Other countries require personal savings in the form of liquid capital as the governments often need that capital, and demand it. The US economy is growing at such a rate that more personal wealth is being made, and less is being warehoused. Savings is the absence of consumption. You are ignorant of this.

11) Wages have outpaced inflation, this is a fact. Even your CNN stated that in the article. Big ticket items are used in the calculation of inflation at a rate at which these items are purchased; if refrigerators were to increase by 600% inflation would barely be affected. People don’t buy refrigerators like they buy instant oatmeal. Since the 1970’s items that are replaceable, are deemphasized; that is, if steaks rise too quickly, people will replace beef steaks with chicken. Conversely, as computer prices drop precipitously consumers don’t buy more PC’s; they buy better PC’s, the price drop is calculated but deemphasized. You are untruthful about this.

“you can't have a healthy, robust economy when it is all financed on the backs of the lower and middle class, this is what is referred to as a bubble.”

12) On what planet? This is what is referred to as Non Sequitur. You are trying to make something up out of whole cloth; nothing is financed on the backs of the lower and middle class. There are no “bubbles” in the current economy; realistically a bubble is when the cost exceeds the utility. (Take a class in basic economics to understand utility.) You are throwing out buzzwords you heard on MSNBC or at Kos and you don’t understand their meaning. You are muddle-headed about this.

Now, I need to prepare for tonight’s class, my students are paying for my lesson, you got it for free. Your next move is to claim you never said that, or to claim I represented something I didn’t write. You are as predictable as a Kennedy at an open bar.

One other thing on servicing the debt, this is done retroactively, the CBO reported that income exceeded expense in 2000 and 2001, when in fact, because of the recession and dotcom bust the debt service for 1999, 2000 and 2001 was higher than budgeted. The credits listed in the Federal budget were never realized and the “cost” was added to the debt in 2002.
Get it? Remember what I said about the debt including anticipated expenses and expected reduction in debt service?
The credits listed in the budget in 1999 and 2000 and 2001 were never received, you can’t go backwards on a budget so the increases were budgeted into 2002, 2003 and 2004. Bush prepared a budget with higher debt service in 2003, 2004 and 2005, when the service was reduced by borrowing less each year, the interest credits were put into the 2007 budget, reducing the debt.

Bane,

I'm glad you can throw around jingo, I have very little clue about what you're talking about.

With that said, you still didn't even touch on most of the points I made, so lets go over them again.

1. If everyone has their wealth stashed away in bonds, and stocks, why the hell are bankruptcies through the roof? Look at the numbers man, and quit trying to just brush them off, the bankruptcies are up, every single year since the mid 90's, if we are getting wealthier as a nation, we would see a reversal of trends. the oddity caused by a rush to file before the laws changed is understandable, but we aren't talking about a one time jump from 200k to 600k filings, ask anyone you know in the business, and they will tell you just the same, give it a year, and the number of filings will be right back up as soon as the intricacies of the new system are understood.

Can you quote me as to what portion of the population actually has a significant portion of their wealth in the stock market? Thats right, a vast majority of the wealth in this nation, still resides with a small amount of people. 80% of the wealth in this nation resides with 20% of the workers, so stop trying to make anyone believe that a vast majority of the country isn't saving anything because it's all tied up in markets and bonds, cuz thats a flat out lie!. So if they aren't saving it, and they aren't putting into stocks and bonds...where is it going?

2. So if more people are getting caught in the economic margins, with ARM financing, that means they weren't in the most healthy position in the first place to be owning a home, kinda puts a damper on the idea that home-ownership is rosy. the numbers have been steadily increasing, the rate hikes are just going to add to this number. So if we have a large number of people who are barely making it, that tends to lend creedeance to the idea that people are just barely getting by in many sectors. Where are their large caches of stocks and bonds to bail them out of trouble?

Quit making things up, I quoted PERSONAL debt, that is sitting pretty at 2 trillion dollars, that doesnt include housing and car loan costs, that is plain old CC and small-purchase financing debt. I may not be an economist, but I know what the hell debt is, take your national debt explaination, and save it for your students.

3. Real wages are barely keeping up with inflation, mix in the rise in housing costs and fuel, and it's pretty basic, we are going backwards.

4. I never mentioned "spending cuts", unless you are trying to argue regarding the post on the INS cuts, or re-shuffling of budgets if you will LOL.

5. Surpluses were the least of my argument, quit wasting so much time on them, whether Clinton and the Republican congress did or didn't account for them correctly or truthfully, I have no clue, all I know is that the "fiscally responsible" party has done bubkis to reduce much of anything.

So again, I appreciate you sharing your knowledge, and I appreciate you not trying to bill me for it, but all the jingo says very little about the fact that the rank and file american is saddled with a ton of personal debt, is existing pretty much on the margins, has little to no real savings, and a vast majority of their wealth tied up in their homes, not in liquid assets.

Bane,

I totally forgot to mention the Inflation vs. Real wage numbers. I don't buy your BS, show me some numbers that show that inflation is being kept in check with regards to real wages. We have seen jumps recently in core numbers, so we know it isn't energy prices, then what is it, why aren't we seeing the wages jump to meet the booming stock market and sky-high productivity?

Over the past 12 months wages have been pretty much stagnant against inflation, care to explain how fantasyland explains that away?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/14/news/economy/cpi/index.htm

You're hopelessly stupid. Read the post... or have the guards read it to you. My high-school students are better informed and better at critical thinking. Good-bye.

Bush's Approval Rating as per the only reliable source: Rasmussen

Our Pres is 'movin' on Up!'
Jun 23 44
Jun 22 43
Jun 21 42
Jun 20 41
Jun 19 40

Bushie is 'movin' on up!' as per the only reliable poll there is, Rasmussen!

Jun 23 --- 44
Jun 22 --- 43
Jun 21 --- 42
Jun 20 --- 41
Jun 19 --- 40