Bush Celebrates Fourth Largest Deficit In History
By on Jul 11th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Bush Celebrates Fourth Largest Deficit In History
Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies.
Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here’s the top five:
1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion
When President Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 Billion. At that time, the Bush administration predicted a $516 billion surplus for 2006.
The fact that Bush now considers a $296 billion deficit an occasion to celebrate shows how far we’ve fallen.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
From what I understand, the only reason this is the smallest deficit ever is because the IRS has been getting a lot of money out of people… except it’s the poor and middle class getting shaken down, not the rich.
You know, the more I read Nicholas Kristof, the more I like him. Especially when he takes the administration to task for dropping the ball on things like North Korea and even uses a little uncharacteristic snark, in the process. His new one is a pretty good read.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:13 amI seem to recall that under President Clinton, this country had a surplus of $230 billion in fiscal year 2000.
Perhaps instead of celebrating, Dubya ought to raise his sights just a smidge and shoot for a POSITIVE NUMBER.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:15 amCelebrate a 296 billion deficit – only in Bushies’ Bizarro world!
July 11th, 2006 at 10:15 amIf your objective is to drain the government of money so ultimately
July 11th, 2006 at 10:16 amkill government programs and futher the goals of federalism, then
he has much to celebrate.
In the Bush upside-down world, the target is set really, really low and then when it is surpassed, it’s time to celebrate! It’s the only way a “failure” can succeed.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:19 amYup….I can only imagine how the BushCo apologists who troll this site are going to respond to this…if they dare respond at all, that is.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:22 amI just know Judd adjusted this for inflation. Oh…. wait….
July 11th, 2006 at 10:25 amBush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies.
Argue is the correct word. I caught the last five minutes of the speech (I’m sick for the rest of the day, now), and I couldn’t believe how aggressive his voice and body language were. I expected him to start pounding the podium with his fists. He’s got a lot of nerve getting up there and making that speech.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:25 amhuh… well i was reading google news and that story in the LAtimes, posting #6 before reading the AM thread with the same link… sorry to be repetitive…
July 11th, 2006 at 10:26 amMan, there was so much spin in that B.S. address, I feel nauseous
July 11th, 2006 at 10:30 amI just know Seixon has something relevant to add to the discussion. Oh…, wait….
July 11th, 2006 at 10:31 amRegardless of how you look at the numbers–adjusted or not–the Bush administration’s fiscal policy has been an outright failure. One can look at their own rosy predictions for additional proof. But, of course, Bush and his cronies never hit their targets.
This deficit does not count any Iraq expenditures, correct? If it does not, what is the total when these dollars are added in and why don’t the Dem’s make an issue of the total?
July 11th, 2006 at 10:34 amBenjamin Disraeli said, “A Conservative government is an organised hypocrisy”
I think that pretty much says it.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:38 am“I am so relieved that the budget deficit wasn’t as much as predicted. Whew. I thought we were actually creating a larger debt that eventually will have to be paid off…….hey….wait a second….”, said Average Joe from Kansas who always dreamed of drinking a beer with Preznit Bush ’cause he seemed like a really nice guy.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:38 amI just know Seixon has something relevant to add to the discussion.
Ah, so Judd’s purposely deceiving use of numbers isn’t an issue? I’ll await Judd to provide numbers adjusted for inflation before anything else is discussed. There can be no honest debate about this until this is done.
Judd is just trying to spin away from the fact that the tax revenues being collected are much, much higher than anyone expected and that the budget deficit has been seriously cut by this. You’d think that Judd would be happy that the deficit is actually shrinking, but there’s always a way for a Clinton administration shill to take a negative spin on things.
This deficit does not count any Iraq expenditures, correct?
Actually it does. Remove the costs of the Iraq war and we’d be damn near close to a balanced budget.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:40 amSeixon, go polish your wooden clogs.
-GSD
July 11th, 2006 at 10:40 amso they reduced the deficit they created by 6.9% (projected) in the past year.
amazing. what will they do next?
July 11th, 2006 at 10:40 amlooking at Bush’s past record of sending businesses down the tube, and grovers wish to drown the government..it becomes apparent, at least to me, these people wish to indebt America up to it’s eyeballs, then pick it’s pockets while drowning it in the tub saying “It’s for your own good, and ours”
July 11th, 2006 at 10:41 amThere can be no honest debate about this until this is done.
Uh, actually, there can be no honest debate when Seixon participates.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:44 amSeixon,
July 11th, 2006 at 10:45 amIf you have a link that shows that the costs of the Iraq war are included in this deficit can you post it? Are you sure that it is included?
Nevermind the fact there has been a costly war (agree with it or not), an econcomic recession in his first term that was exacerbated by (need I say) terrorist attacks, and devestating natural disasters necessating vast federal aid. Couple this with a outright refusal to confront the structural collapse of the SSA and you have a set of conditions that result in (surprise) deficit!
Balancing the budget requires two things: more tax revenue and less spending. Simple enough right?
How about a flat income tax, with no loopholes or benefits whatsoever. Make the tax code 3 paragraphs long. Everyone pays X % regardless of income level.
Our how about we stop all the foreign aid we send out and keep it here, for us?
July 11th, 2006 at 10:46 ammore to the point:
the decifit is 87.9% higher than in 2002
keep those tax cuts coming.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:49 amIf the Iraq war has been piad for by supplemtental emergency expenditures is that included?
This is fishy.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:49 am- Seixon:
Ah, so Judd’s purposely deceiving use of numbers isn’t an issue? I’ll await Judd to provide numbers adjusted for inflation before anything else is discussed.
Here’s an idea: If you believe the numbers provided are ‘deceiving’ because they haven’t been adjusted for inflation, why don’t you do your own homework for once and adjust them yourself?
But you won’t, and this is why:
There can be no honest debate about this until this is done.
You’re not looking for less ‘deceiving’ numbers, you’re looking for a way to derail this thread. Seixon S.O.P..
So go ahead, do your own math. Prove me wrong…I for one would love to see how you use ‘adjustments for inflation’ to try to turn this into a win for Dubya, given a) the aformentioned ‘inflation’ would ostensibly be his responsibility as well, and b) ‘adjustments for inflation’ cannot possibly shrink both Clinton’s surplus and Bush’s deficit (although I wouldn’t put it past you to try).
So go ahead and get started…I haven’t had a good laugh today.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:49 amSexion … you got totally discredited in my eyes by TerryTheTurtle in this thread this morning … http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/10/thinkfast-am-july-10-2006/#comments
I am now chalking you up with ANVILHEAD and skiping right over your two faced inane “thought” processes … you really are a waste of time like ANVILHEAD.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:54 amSeixon takes a regular beating here, and, apparently, on his own website. It’s gotta be tough to be Seixon!
July 11th, 2006 at 10:54 amWhen are people going to catch on that Bush’s strategy is simply to go the outrageous opposite? He always just proclaims he is doing the opposite of what he is actually doing…i.e. If a policy is failing push harder, laugh louder in the American people’s face, and CELEBRATE. Why do people shake their heads in confusion? I’m almost madder at them than at Bush. For God’s sake wake up. It’s a TACTIC people……Rove and Bush have been using it for over 5 years. It’s the big lie…and it is meant to confuse and knock one’s opponent back on his/her heels. I’m so tired of hearing people whine : “how can he say that?!! *@ etc. God people are dumb. It’s time to call a spade a spade….Bush and his crime family must be ousted.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:55 amI don’t take research orders. The inflation numbers are publicly available. Anyone can use them and make whatever point they wish.
BTW, When Bush spoke today, he didn’t adjust the numbers for inflation either. He talked about this years deficit compared to last years compared to 2004 but didn’t adjust the numbers for inflation. Guess he is being dishonest too.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:56 am#21.
The “costly war” was a voluntary endeavor forced upon the nation via a massive and expensive propaganda campaign.
There would be around 400 billion dollars ectra to fund Hurricane Katrina damage and fight the war against radical Islamic terrorists if Rove, Bush, Cheney and their Neo-conartists didn’t shove this phony war for “Iraqi Liberation” down our throats.
Also, Seixon, like the true Rovian “23% AUTHORITARIAN WORSHIPPER” has proceeded to attack Judd and TP for not using the rhetorical trick known as “adjusted for inflation” in his calculations.
Simply attack the messenger and avodi the debate. Nice work Dutch Boy.
-GSD
July 11th, 2006 at 10:56 amI suggest reading these revenue and spending charts provided by the Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C/c1.cfm
Use the “next” button to march through the charts (there are six of them). Pay particular attention to the second, third, and sixth charts, and study the relative comparison of Democratic and Republican administrations.
And Seixon, since I suspect you will claim to have never heard of the Heritage Foundation, I will give you advance warning that they aren’t a bunch of liberals.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:59 am- Seixon:
Actually it does. Remove the costs of the Iraq war and we’d be damn near close to a balanced budget.
Another Seixon Lie.
It’s getting old, Seixon…
July 11th, 2006 at 11:00 amspeechless
July 11th, 2006 at 11:01 amThe deficit and the debt are two different things.
Our debt is now over $9 Trillion (that includes Iraq) and is headed to $11T.
Our deficit is what is based on the budget (that does not include Iraq).
July 11th, 2006 at 11:01 amah the soft bigotry of low expectations…..
July 11th, 2006 at 11:03 amIf Seixon is Rove Bush’s brain is in really bad shape.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:04 amI am not sure about the costs of Iraq, but I am damned sure it includes the surplus being paid into social security which is probably in the 80 billion dollar range. The problem is that money will be needed in just over 10 years and it has all been spent for tax cuts on the rich. The really insidious part is that the rich do not pay social security taxes–only working people do.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:04 amUsing the cost of the war to explain the debt is silly.
The debt went up by about $2,500,000,000,000 – 2.5 trillion dollars.
The war has cost about $400,000,000,000 – 400 billion dollars.
That’s like borrowing $250,000 to buy a $40,000 car.
Sarcasm on
July 11th, 2006 at 11:05 amNice fiscal management from the party of fiscal responsibility.
Who has the worst? Oh, GW Bush. Umm, second? GW Bush. third? GW Bush. Fifth? GHW Bush (That would be GW’s pappa.) Sheesh, now that’s record for any fiscal conservative to be proud of! /Sarcasm.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:10 amThe really insidious part is that the rich do not pay social security taxes–only working people do.
Comment by terry — July 11, 2006 @ 11:04 am
That sir is not true, they pay taxes on their first $90,000 in income(that figure could be off a bit) but they do indeed pay into the SS system.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:12 amCome on people wise up and get with the program. It’s a failer because thier intentions are to breake this country and without a half trillion deficent each year they will have failed. What a snow job on the American people. Ha
July 11th, 2006 at 11:13 amWow….not a peep out of Seixon since diet challenged him here, and I challenged him here and here.
Thanks for playing, Seixon. Keep up the bad work.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:14 am[...] Bush celebrates the fourth highest deficit in US history. Does anyone still buy his nonsense or the ‘fiscally conservative’ oxymoron? Oops. [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 11:17 am- Navy Vet:
You’re absolutely right…in the eyes of our rapacious administration, this is not a failure at all…they deliberately engineered this to keep the American populace in bondage.
You peole need to wake up and realize that the issues we’re facing are due to our administration’s malevolence…not its incompetence.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:18 am#41
July 11th, 2006 at 11:19 amThanks for playing “Whack-a-Troll”. I got my tickets and here’s yours. Let’s go get some crappy plastic toys that were made in China from the counter.
#41 Seixon hasn’t responded yet because he is still studying those Heritage Foundation charts I pointed out to him.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:19 amSeixon want’s us to fall under the Rule of the Royal Dutch Shell King, and to do that they must bankrupt us.
Screw you and both of your Kings [Bush, Blair] Seixon
July 11th, 2006 at 11:21 amJudd,
So when making an overview of the largest deficits of all time, you don’t think inflation will play a larger role than when Bush is comparing the past 2 years? Give me a break. You don’t take research orders? Well maybe if you’d actually done research before posting you wouldn’t have to do so. That you and TripMaster tell everyone else to actually do some honest research shows that you’re altogether uninterested in having an honest debate.
GSD,
Seixon, go polish your wooden clogs.
I live in Norway, not Holland, you ignorant sap.
TripMaster,
Prove me wrong…I for one would love to see how you use ‘adjustments for inflation’ to try to turn this into a win for Dubya
I’m not trying to make this a win for Dubya, I’m trying to get Judd to post some honest research instead of his usual Clinton shilling. I think it’s revealing that you don’t want to actually have the numbers adjusted for inflation when that would be a more honest approach to the numbers.
In other words, you don’t want an honest debate. You want the numbers fixed against Bush to avoid an honest debate. When I call on Judd to fix this, you all attack me. Good grief you guys are a bunch of partisan dupes.
chris,
Seixon takes a regular beating here, and, apparently, on his own website. It’s gotta be tough to be Seixon!
You forgot your pom-poms. Can’t have a cheerleader without pom-poms!
Another Seixon Lie.
It’s getting old, Seixon…
A lie? I might have been slightly wrong, that doesn’t mean I’m lying. The Iraq war does stand for a hefty part of our annual budget, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t the budget be a bit lighter without the costs of war? Yes, it would.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:22 am#28 Good answer, Judd, but it looks like you can return to doing more important things, because it appears that the truth-posse here has Seixon on the run.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:22 am- Navy Vet:
You’re absolutely right…in the eyes of our rapacious administration, this is not a failure at all…they deliberately engineered this to keep the American populace in bondage.
You peole need to wake up and realize that the issues we’re facing are due to our administration’s malevolence…not its incompetence.
=====================================
The Reformists are Back!
July 11th, 2006 at 11:25 amHeres an old Tangent to FDR and Wall Street..and the New Deal that has brought us to TODAY.
Its a free online book.
[Im poor for some odd reason, must be the wage laws =)
http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-fdr-ch1.html
forgot to paste the link (B^x doh!
July 11th, 2006 at 11:26 amSeixon,
Get your ass over to the Heritage Foundation pages I linked, and start explaining to us how Bush’s numbers look better than Clinton’s (or for that matter, how Republican numbers look better than Democrat numbers). And note that these charts are derived from the latest data, and that where relevant have been adjusted for inflation.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:26 amI’m not trying to make this a win for Dubya, I’m trying to get Judd to post some honest research instead of his usual Clinton shilling. I think it’s revealing that you don’t want to actually have the numbers adjusted for inflation when that would be a more honest approach to the numbers.
In other words, you don’t want an honest debate.-Seixon
Since you claim to be the one so interested in “honest debate”, why don’t you post the inflation-adjusted numbers yourself?
I think you’re basically just trying to pick a fight with Judd and others, not much else.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:28 amForced upon Congress, you mean, who incidently voted overwhelmingly to authorize miltiary force in Iraq. I’m sure a quick discussion about fabricated intel will follow, so I’ll be patient.
I don’t like the idea of using federal funds (in the form of grants) for natural disaster relief, particulary when the disaster was foreseeable (as most have been). Disaster recovery has been, historically speaking, a local function.
If, somehow, we had that $400 billion spent in Iraq back, I would rather return it to taxpayers than use it to further fund FEMA. In fact, get rid of FEMA. Why should the US be in the business of rebuilding for people who do not have private insurance, or worse, live in areas where private insurance won’t operate because of the risk? We shouldn’t be.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:30 amSo what if there was a surplus in the Clinton administration? Can someone please enumerate the Clinton and/or Liberal/Progressive/Democratic policies that caused the surplus of federal revenues? If you can’t think of any (because there are none) then the surplus was caused by market forces and not legislative forces, ergo Clinton (nor the Dhimis) can honestly claim credit for the surplus.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:30 amI’m trying to get Judd to post some honest research.
I might have been slightly wrong, that doesn’t mean I’m lying.
WTF?
Seixon does this make sense what you said?
You want Judd to do honest reasearch so you post inaccurate, but not your fault, informaition so Judd can do some Honest research?
Do all the people in Norway think like this?
July 11th, 2006 at 11:30 amWell with the spending habits of this Congress, I’m willing to bet that if we weren’t in Iraq, the funds currently being spent for that “endeavour” would probably be funnled into pork(military or otherwise) or faith based initiatives and the net result would be same.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:31 am#56
July 11th, 2006 at 11:33 amCan I use that crystal ball after your done with it? I want to “see” who will win the Siper Bowl this year.
My recollection is that the “supplemental defense appropriation” of $230 billion or whatever it was, was finally factored in to the budget for 2005.
Remember, though, that Bush is only talking about a “projected” deficit here for 2006, and the supplemental defense appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan have not been added into the budget or the 2006 budget projections yet.
The corporate revenue is also related to a one-time payout a lot of corporations had to make this year, it being the end of a tax deferment period deal they had negotiated with the White House and the Finance committees.
Let’s see what happens to all that revenue after the elections. Something tells me that before this is over, there will be additional upward re-revisions.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:34 amDisaster recovery has been, historically speaking, a local function.
Even when the locality is completely wiped out? Should be just have abaondoned the people in New Orleans to die?
Chris, you are just spewing a right wing talking point. People and governments have been giving disaster relief on regional and global scales for a long time, ever since feasible. This is because many people are decent compassionate human beings.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:34 amLet me introduce myself here before I get to the meat of my post.
I am a retired CEO of a multibillion dollar revenue multinational corporation.
What I have observed here is a most distressing lack of knowledge of how the world of finance and global flows of capital works.
To me , this thread shows a depressing lack of a grasp , even in the most liberal of terms, of how economies work and factors impacting that performance.
As I observe this commentary, it only strengthens my belief that the Achilles Heal of the blogosophere is that junk science and the support of it is the seed of their downfall.
Some seem to grasp the currentlly popular political agenda regurgitation no matter how flawed and faulty it may be. Yes it is so self actuating to jump on the current bandwagon, but without examination of the bedrock premise of that bandwagon is a sure be a perscription for disaster.
Sure quote the Clinton surplus, but leave out the part of the Contract with America to hold him to the fire to make it possible. Good revisionist history here. Credit the result and not the cause.
Yes, I am sure all of you here are conversent on multinational money flows, trade imbalances and central bank offsets. I am sure currency swaps and hedging of multinational risks are in your daily vocabulary.
More likely I think most of you would choke at the point of signing your first line of credit to finance 130 million of inventory to get your startup company off the ground.
The line in the sand, between those who can and those who wish they could.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:36 amDoes any here realize that the U.S. government SHOULDN’T be running a surplus much less a deficit?
July 11th, 2006 at 11:37 amChris, sorry, I mistook you for Chase with my last posting about disaster recovery. Let me repeat my message to Chase in full, with typos corrected:
Chase wrote: Disaster recovery has been, historically speaking, a local function.
Even when the locality is completely wiped out? Should we have simply abandoned the people in New Orleans to die?
Chase, you are just spewing a right wing talking point. People and governments have been giving disaster relief on regional and global scales for a long time, ever since feasible. This is because many people are decent compassionate human beings.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:37 am#56
Can I use that crystal ball after your done with it? I want to “see†who will win the Siper Bowl this year.
Comment by dlet — July 11, 2006 @ 11:33 am
Yeah you’re right, I should never question that the R’s in congress are indeed the party of fiscal responsiblity.
For the Super Bowl, I pick the Bucs which I have done every year for the past 20, so I’m 1-20, if I only had that almanac from Back to the Future.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:37 amPlease, please, please stop using the nonsense numbers to talk about government indebtedness. The $290B deficit of the unified budget is a terrible way to try and understand what we owe and it accepts the most beneficial frame for the people who created the mess.
Go by the National Debt number. That is a true measurement of what the government owes, and surprise, surprise, it’s enormous. This year may not be the worst ever, but it’s going to be close.
The language is the high ground, stop letting your opponents define the battlefield.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:38 amHey Georgie Porgie, to put us back where we were as a nation when you came in to trash us, you are about 800 billion short.
Why dont you try and tell the truth for once.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:39 amIn other words, you don’t want an honest debate. You want the numbers fixed against Bush to avoid an honest debate. Comment by Seixon — July 11, 2006 @ 11:22 am
Put downs of posts or posters is not debating. In a debate, one party offers evidence (proof) to off set the facts provided by another debater. You are not debataing. You are name calling and attempting to change the focus of the issue. If you believe the numbers are “fixed” than it should be easy to discredit them and paint a positive picture of the bush economic success for
July 11th, 2006 at 11:39 amAmericans. We’re waiting.
Yes, I am sure all of you here are conversent on multinational money flows, trade imbalances and central bank offsets. I am sure currency swaps and hedging of multinational risks are in your daily vocabulary.
And do you think Bush and Rove do?
July 11th, 2006 at 11:40 am- Seixon:
Guess you felt that you had to post something in response to your lastest drubbing….it might have been better for you if you had kept quiet.
I’m not trying to make this a win for Dubya, I’m trying to get Judd to post some honest research instead of his usual Clinton shilling.
My challenge stands. If you think the numbers posted are ‘deceptive’, adjust them yourself. Do your own homework, or admit that you’re just yammering about ‘inflation’ to attempt to derail yet another thread.
You want the numbers fixed against Bush to avoid an honest debate.
So fix them yourself. You’re more than capable.
When I call on Judd to fix this, you all attack me.
It’s not an attack…it’s a challenge. You only perceive it as an attack because you’re being called to put up or shut up…something you’re not willing to do, given the real motive behind your objection.
As Judd said, the inflation numbers are publicly available…anyone can use them and make whatever point they wish. Put up or shut up.
A lie? I might have been slightly wrong, that doesn’t mean I’m lying.
‘Slightly wrong’??? Please tell me you’re joking.
Seixon’s position:
The Truth:
‘Slightly wrong’, indeed. Just admit your lie so we can move on.
(Oh yes, that’s right. You’ll never admit your lie because you have no interest in moving on….in fact, you have a vested interest in not moving on, since your entire goal is to derail this thread. No matter…we can move on with without you.)
July 11th, 2006 at 11:40 amSure quote the Clinton surplus, but leave out the part of the Contract with America to hold him to the fire to make it possible. Good revisionist history here.
so the Contract with America became null and void when Clinton left office? Or did aliens secretly switch all our Congressmen?
Please give us more of your economic insight! You almost had half a point.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:42 amspeechless
Comment by lib4
I wish GWB were, too. *sigh*
July 11th, 2006 at 11:42 am#63
July 11th, 2006 at 11:43 amMy best friend is a Bucs fan. Took a lot of crud for it growing up, especially since he is from Buffalo. But at least he has celebrated once.
Merlinos2 typed alot of things, but where is the meat?
I mean, what is the point of capital flows, if you have foxes in the henhouse?
July 11th, 2006 at 11:45 amI guess it is George’s fault that we were attacked on 9/11, that Katrina hit, that he inherited a falling stock market from Clinton.
I guess since 5% of tax payers pay 50% of the taxes and 50% of the taxpayers pay no taxes shows that he is socking it to the poor.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:45 amAn unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and hurricane relief.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big rise in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
- Source Edmund L. Andrews
July 11th, 2006 at 11:45 amThe New York Times
[...] Read more here: Think Progress » Bush Celebrates Fourth Largest Deficit In History [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 11:46 am#67 I think it’s funny someone would come here, say they know all about multinational monetary policy, and then make absolutely no point except that a) we’re stupid, and b) it’s all Clinton’s fault.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:47 amRRS
Clinton insisted on a balanced budget, and got one. Further, his welfare reforms, also helped drop the national debt somewhat.
One can credit Clinton with this primarily due to the fact that while the presidents changed, the Congress didn’t. If it was due to Congress the budget would still have been being balanced when Bush came into power, but it wasn’t. Further, when he came into power he didn’t see the need for a balanced budget. Bush’s program of tax cuts, and his spending on a unneeded war with Iraq, have basically eliminated fiscal restraint in the current government.
This has resulted in run-away debt, which carries interest. Bush’s appologists will scream that America doesn’t need to pay back this debt, because honestly who would institute bankruptcy procedures with America? But most liberals, and honest conservatives note that just because something is unthinkable, doesn’t mean it won’t happen, and further, that America wouldn’t be borrowing money from China, which isn’t a country known for its business ethics, if it could borrow form somebody less likely to use such leverage against it. Elements such as respecting copyright, not dumping stock on countries in a bid to destroy the competition, and their appalling working conditions all show that in the end these guys are sharks.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:47 amI think that he is celebrating because the deficit is much smaller than predicted, based on increased tax receipts.
But, I guess those are details that are just too small for you big headed progressives to get your hands around.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:47 amMerlinOS2,
You left out something huge that happened before Gingrich’s Contract with America stunt (which the Republicans have soundly betrayed, by the way). Clinton pushed hard to raise taxes in 1993. Republicans in Congress went berserk, claiming it would destroy the economy (the rhetoric spewed in Congress was really at that level). But that didn’t happen. Instead deficits went down and interest rates fell and the economy roared. How do you explain that? I am not disputing that Republican control of Congress during parts of the Clinton’s terms had no effect, but without Clinton and the Democrats pushing for those tax increases, there is no way that supply-side fantasy economics would have had such a salutory effect.
By the way, why should we put much stock in you having been a CEO? How many of your CEO brethren have driven their companies into the ground, all the while looting and pillaging them? CEOs aren’t the geniuses they think they are (though Robert Rubin made one hell of a Treasury Secretary).
July 11th, 2006 at 11:48 amTripMaster,
As Judd said, the inflation numbers are publicly available…anyone can use them and make whatever point they wish. Put up or shut up.
So why didn’t Judd use them? There’s a reason. Figure it out, dupe.
‘Slightly wrong’, indeed. Just admit your lie so we can move on.
WTF? Of course the budget doesn’t include war expenditures for the future. Duh? It includes $50 billion, as you say, for that year.
I challenged Judd to put up numbers adjusted for inflation, and for doing this, you all attacked me and demanded that I do Judd’s work for him.
Man, Judd, you’ve got it good. You shill for Clinton on behalf of your sugar daddy Podesta, Clinton’s Chief of Staff, and have all these willing dupes defending you.
If the adjusted numbers are so easy to get, why didn’t Judd use them?
July 11th, 2006 at 11:50 amI am sure currency swaps and hedging of multinational risks are in your daily vocabulary.
Yeh Yeh protect your business and your wealth and screw the people, you capitalist pigs are all the same, you think we want to steal your lousy quarters, and that we want your job. And that money is more important than life itself.
Guess what Billionaire Pig, I don’t want your money, your job, nor to even work for you. I happen to like working with my hands, I happen to like working outdoors, it does not bother me to break a sweat.
Give us the name of your corporation big rich man who is oh so wise.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:50 amI think that he is celebrating because the deficit is much smaller than predicted, based on increased tax receipts.
But, I guess those are details that are just too small for you big headed progressives to get your hands around.
Comment by Herbie — July 11, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Nope, we get it. It’s kind of like predicting that you’d get an F on your exam, but then celebrating when you actually get a D-.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:53 amI challenged Judd to put up numbers adjusted for inflation, and for doing this, you all attacked me and demanded that I do Judd’s work for him.
No Seixon you claimed that you wanted to have Judd do honest reporting him by posting inaccurate data.
YOU tried to do his work.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:53 amTop 100 Executives by Total Compensation. This is simply shameful and disgusting. 7/11
July 11th, 2006 at 11:54 amKent Conrad on C-Span2 now, says that although the deficit dropped slightly this year, our debt this year will increase by $593B. He’s doing his budget presentation again, it’s pretty good.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:57 amCool Breeze,
I want Judd to post numbers adjusted for inflation. I didn’t post any inaccurate data. I never tried to do his work. You’re either dumb or lying. Pick your poison.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:57 amIm still waiting for the Wizard Merlinos2 to enlighten us as to why the world turns, when life began, and why CEO’s are such self-centered greedy types.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:58 amAccording to this graph, it would appear that only Bush’s deficit for 2004 would rank among the top 5. Again, when is Judd going to get around to posting some honest numbers?
July 11th, 2006 at 11:59 amAnother question for Mr. CEO:
Please study the charts I linked in message #30 above, and please explain why these charts make Bill Clinton’s presidency look so much better than GWB’s. And please don’t bring up the brief and shallow recession, 9/11, or the war in Iraq. The recession and 9/11 simply don’t explain justify what has happened to the budget and deficit in 5 years under Bush, and the war in Iraq was a preposterously stupid blunder of the highest order for which Bush and the GOP are responsible.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:00 pm- Seixon:
If the adjusted numbers are so easy to get, why didn’t Judd use them?
If the adjusted numbers are so easy to get, why didn’t Dubya himself use them?
If the adjusted numbers are so easy to get, why haven’t you used them?
Put up or shut up, troll.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:00 pmI want Judd to post numbers adjusted for inflation. I didn’t post any inaccurate data. I never tried to do his work. You’re either dumb or lying. Pick your poison.
Your Attacking Me oh Waaaaa!!
Read your posts Seixon.
You want?
Who are you to demand anything of anyone?
Go to your blog and post it then Jeebus H Christ.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:01 pm(I am going to try the break the mind-numbing cycle of repetition):
Seixon,
You never answered my question posed on an earlier thread: what is your favorite high-level programming language, and why?
July 11th, 2006 at 12:03 pmgeez, reading seixon’s posts on a daily basis – I tell ya, he sounds exactly, and I mean exactly like every other lemming. No ability to really debate or discuss anything of importance, just detracts, or tries to, with mere drivel, and personal attacks. Really, the lemmings do look rather stupid after all. Perhaps we should just stop engaging them. I mean, what’s the point?
July 11th, 2006 at 12:03 pmJudd: “Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time.”
This is deceptive, due to the fact that it is not adjusted for inflation, where it appears only 2004 would be among the top 5. When will Judd address this?
RealScientist,
Which party had control of Congress from 1994-2001 during Clinton?
the war in Iraq was a preposterously stupid blunder of the highest order for which Bush and the GOP are responsible
Yeah, nevermind Senator Jay “Imminent Threat” Rockefeller and all the other Democrats who voted for the war. Keep rolling in your partisan muck man, it’s all you can do.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:03 pmI want Faux news to tell the truth Seixon
Do you think they will stop lying because of what I want?
I want Anne Coulter to stop plagiarizing.
I want Rush Limbaugh to stop doing drugs.
I want Athletes to stop taking steroids.
Sexion, a Norwegian, wants you Americans to post that what he/she “Wants” you to post.
Are you like a spoiled child from some royal family Seixon?
July 11th, 2006 at 12:08 pmThis aint burger king pal and you do not get it your way.
Seixon
Repeating a lie is not going to make us believe it. Post a link to a site with the last 50 years (at least) American inflation figures on it, then we can argue.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:08 pmRealScientist,
You never answered my question posed on an earlier thread: what is your favorite high-level programming language, and why?
I never saw that question, and I fail to see what it has to do with anything other than, well, me. Being a web developer, that’s quite an easy one: PHP. Aside from that, I think C++ and C# are good ones, although I don’t have as much experience with the latter as the former.
TripMaster,
If the adjusted numbers are so easy to get, why didn’t Dubya himself use them?
What, you’re parroting Judd now? As I said, the difference between 2006 and 2004 isn’t much when adjusted for inflation. The difference between 2004 and 1944 is much, much larger when adjusted for inflation, thus it would make much more sense to adjust for inflation when trying to rank the largest deficits in US history, as Judd did.
If the adjusted numbers are so easy to get, why haven’t you used them?
Why didn’t Judd use them? Quit trying to switch this over on to me. I’m asking Judd to find the adjusted numbers, I don’t know what they are, but as I have just shown with a graph I found, Judd’s top 5 seems to be wildly inaccurate.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:10 pmYeah, nevermind Senator Jay “Imminent Threat†Rockefeller and all the other Democrats who voted for the war.
I am well aware of who voted for the War Seixon.
What I don’t understand is your fixation on American politics and our democracy..Surely you can find a Mountain in Norway and Yodel from?
July 11th, 2006 at 12:11 pmCool Breeze,
Judd sycophant. That’s all you are. His “top 5″ is not accurate. Now you can either demand that Judd make it accurate, or you can continue shilling for him like a dupe. Your choice.
Sexion, a Norwegian, wants you Americans to post that what he/she “Wants†you to post.
I’m an American too, smart one. Yes, I want Judd to post the truth. Don’t you? You want FOX to tell the truth, so why don’t you want Judd to do the same?
Bruce,
Repeating a lie is not going to make us believe it. Post a link to a site with the last 50 years (at least) American inflation figures on it, then we can argue.
I already linked to a chart.
It’s not a lie, but Judd’s “top 5″ is.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:13 pmIt would appear that only Bush’s deficit for 2004 would rank among the top 5
4th place, 5th place, 3rd place…
Whatevah! George is still a top contender for the deficit award and he has a few more years to go. I feel that George will eventually reach first place!
Go George!
July 11th, 2006 at 12:14 pmThis is deceptive, due to the fact that it is not adjusted for inflation, where it appears only 2004 would be among the top 5. When will Judd address this?
Comment by Seixon — July 11, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Okay, even based on the chart you linked to, this isn’t true. You may want to look at it again (hint: look at 2003).
July 11th, 2006 at 12:15 pmThis is deceptive, due to the fact that it is not adjusted for inflation, where it appears only 2004 would be among the top 5. When will Judd address this?
Don’t worry. The chances of Zombie Reagan coming back to re-introduce his economic policies are very low. Unless you’re referring to 1941-1945, maybe every army on earth has mobilized and half the world is in a state of war and we just haven’t noticed.
Which party had control of Congress from 1994-2001 during Clinton?
The same party that had control of Congress 2001-2006 under Bush?
Yeah, nevermind Senator Jay “Imminent Threat†Rockefeller and all the other Democrats who voted for the war. Keep rolling in your partisan muck man, it’s all you can do.
Two words: Al Gore. He was right on both Gulf Wars. For the first, against the second. That’s a record you can run on.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:15 pmHis “top 5″ is not accurate.
And neither were you.
So you and Judd are even now and you can now go back to norway, pass out drunk in the freezing cold, and hopefully the Saint Bernard will come rescue your useless mass.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:17 pmCool Breeze,
What I don’t understand is your fixation on American politics and our democracy..Surely you can find a Mountain in Norway and Yodel from?
I’m an American you complete moron. Yodeling is something done in Austria or Switzerland or somewhere around there. You’re completely ignorant, and instead of just debating, you try to undermine me based on my geographic location. There are many other posters here at TP that aren’t even Americans who live outside the US, but I don’t see you harassing them about yodeling. Why is that? It’s because you’re a dishonest partisan attack dog. Hypocritical and ignorant – what a guy you are.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:17 pmThe difference between 2004 and 1944
Well, Bush is just a genius then. He figured out a way to spend money like we’re in a world war, despite the currently favorable economic climate. Makes you wonder what would happen if we hit a real fiscal crisis, doesn’t it?
July 11th, 2006 at 12:18 pmI’m an American you complete moron. Yodeling is something done in Austria or Switzerland or somewhere around there. You’re completely ignorant, and instead of just debating, you try to undermine me based on my geographic location. There are many other posters here at TP that aren’t even Americans who live outside the US, but I don’t see you harassing them about yodeling. Why is that? It’s because you’re a dishonest partisan attack dog. Hypocritical and ignorant – what a guy you are.
Oh the pain! lol.
Yodeling is something anyone can do from any mountain.
I do not have to be swiss to Yodel.
What I was saying is go to the Park, hop on a parktable, then start babbling, if someone wan’ts to listen to you great.
Other wise your voice here is but a nuisance.
Surely you would have more listeners if you spoke from the top of a mountain, I think…
July 11th, 2006 at 12:22 pmbluefish,
Okay, even based on the chart you linked to, this isn’t true. You may want to look at it again (hint: look at 2003).
You’re right, I missed that. From the chart, it would appear that the top 5 is:
1. 1943
2. 1945
3. 2004
4. 1944
5. 2003
Kermit,
The same party that had control of Congress 2001-2006 under Bush?
Exactly, yet Clinton gets credit for the previous period, while the GOP and Bush get credit for the latter. Why is that? Shouldn’t the GOP get “credit” for all of it?
Two words: Al Gore. He was right on both Gulf Wars. For the first, against the second. That’s a record you can run on.
Sure. “I’m Al Gore, and I’d rather that Saddam Hussein was in power.”
July 11th, 2006 at 12:22 pmSounds like a good campaign commercial to me!
Seixon, the reason you have to get the proof you seek is that, at least for me, I trust Judd to give me facts. You know, facts are things that are true. Rehashing that Dems voted for military action in Iraq shows that you have no idea what a fact is since they didn’t know they didn’t have the facts. You want this and want that but never provide facts. You have been learning how to debate from Bush and Rummy and pals.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:24 pmWhile we’re having a hickey fit over Bush’s taking the country down the economic toilet, let us observe the following chart showing the total US National debt over time. Notice the sharp increase after Bush took office.
http://www.uwsa.com/monthlydebtimage.html
July 11th, 2006 at 12:24 pm“I’m Al Gore, and I’d rather that Saddam Hussein was in power.â€
Naw it was Bush Senior that Left Sadda in Power, remember?
July 11th, 2006 at 12:26 pmLet’s see, the interest alone on the national debt is $353 billion this year, which is way higher ever since Bush has pushed tha national debt to over $8 trillion from under $6 trillion. The debt was being paid down even. Then Bush took office and maxed out our credit, and we had to get our limit extended.
The military budget is over $400 billion a year. Add that to the interest paid on the national debt, most of which is past military spending, and you’ve got about $900 billion a year spent on our military. Our total budget outlays are about $2.2 trillion a year. Isn’t that amazing? If we cut military expenditures in half, we’d still outspend all other nations many times over, but we’d eliminate the national debt in “short order.”
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Fri_Dec_29_151111_2000.html
http://www.federalbudget.com/
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Right thread this time.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:27 pm- Seixon:
Still haven’t seen those numbers, buddy.
My challenge still stands.
Put up or shut up.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:28 pmIt cracks me up when “Conservatives” crow about Bush. He’s the biggest spendthrift in world history and the King of Big Gub’mint.
“You can fool some people all of the time–and those are the ones you have to concentrate on.”
-George W. Bush, February 14, 2000
July 11th, 2006 at 12:30 pmhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/60minutes/main1302378.shtml
of course there are more billions yet to be added to the bush butcher bill
July 11th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#62 –
Yes, actually. San Francisco 1906 after the earthquake and devestating fire is a prime example.
No, but the national government should not have played such a role. Ultimately the responsibility rests upon, in order, a.) effected individuals, b.) local gov’t and c.) state gov’t. NGOs, although they have no “responsibility” will undoubtedly contribute to the cause. Individuals in Oregon who want to help out financially can donate to them.
Actually, I doubt you’ll see this on any “talking point” list. It’s actually my honest belief in conservative ideals. Honest people can have disagreements, ya know?
We here in the US started in the 1930s.
I’m also decent and compassionate (I swear!!!) but that doesn’t mean I must agree that the federal government is required to assist in (or lead) all disaster relief efforts.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:33 pmBush has failed to cut federal spending enough. It is sad that i couldn’t get many of the unneeded social programs cut in half or more. We would be much better off today budget wise. This I blame on the Republicans.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:33 pm“Those are $100,000 bricks of $100 bills and that’s $2 million there,” Willis explains, looking at a photo of brick-shaped stacks of money wrapped in plastic. “This, in fact, is a payment that we made on the 1st of August to a company called Custer Battles.”
Willis says the bricks of money were also sometimes referred to as footballs, “… because we passed them around in little pickup games in our office,” he says laughing.
========================================
Hey seixon this is funny isn’t it?
Hahhahaaaa.. Not.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:35 pmChase,
wouldn’t disaster relief fall under protecting the US citizens?
July 11th, 2006 at 12:35 pmBush has failed to cut federal spending enough. It is sad that i couldn’t get many of the unneeded social programs cut in half or more.
The biggest social program is Iraq, not to mention we also support the welfare state of Israel, and of course the lost billions, bremer, also went missing.
Yeh we need to make the people, on welfare, here in the United States suffer so we can keep Custer Battles, Iraq and Halliburton in business.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:39 pmI’m going to take a shower. Hopefully by the time I’m done some of you sycophants will deal with the following problem with Judd’s list:
1. 1943
2. 1945
3. 2004
4. 1944
5. 2003
Come on guys, it’s OK to tell Judd that he’s deceiving you.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:39 pmSo 2004 is “beaten” with let me see…
1943. WWII. After America had to rebuild her navy pretty quick to take down the Japanese. And after the Great Depression too. Gee, that is a real endorsement of GW there.
Let me just say this again, it took WORLD WAR TWO to beat Bush’s deficit.
2004 is about tied with 1945. (2nd, 3rd place.)
2003, when adjusted according to the graph, gets fifth place.
The Korean war and Vietnam wars don’t seem to have generated this amount of debt.
Interestingly, if you compare the dates of whose deficit was worst, with who was in power, the Dems (from Carter onwards) seem to actually come out quite well. Only Reagan’s first year in office beats Carter’s worst year.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:40 pm- Seixon:
Still haven’t seen those numbers, buddy.
My challenge still stands.
Put up or shut up.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:45 pm1. 1943
2. 1945
3. 2004
4. 1944
5. 2003
nice seixon, lets re-arrange the order
1943 =1}
1944=3}not Bush
1945=2}
——–
2003=4} Was Bush
2004=5}
45 years elapsed before bush went hog wild..
July 11th, 2006 at 12:46 pm-Heckuva job George!
This just in!!!
King George broke his arm today patting himself on the back. Only this administration would celebrate negative results. No wonder Chimpus has failed at three business ventures.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:47 pmSo seixon bush does hold the fourth and fifth spots!
LMAO!!
July 11th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#119 – Simply put, no.
In the United States, the Constitution assigns the responsibility of public health and safety with state governments. That seems like a more obvious assignment for “disaster relief”.
Federal disaster relief is a relatively new beast – and if Katrina showed us nothing else, it doesn’t work very well.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:49 pmWhere is Mr. CEO? It looks like he did a hit and run job with his pseudo-financial gobbledygook. I would love to see him debate Noam Chomsky on capital flows and the consequences.
The line in the sand, between those who can and those who wish they could.
Looks like you can’t debate, but wish you could, Mr. CEO.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:49 pmI would love to see Thomas Sowell debate Chomsky! That would be amazing!
July 11th, 2006 at 12:52 pmChase,
You are drawing artificial boundaries around the innate moral responsibilities that humans have for one another. It is a typical Libertarian attitude. Dog eat dog and to hell with everything else. Well, I’ve got news for you, buddy. Most Americans want federal disaster relief, and they want it done competently. The two are not mutually exclusive, except under Bush it seems. Your constitutional argument is total BS.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:53 pmOn the Fence: Really rich people do not work–they clip coupons from their bonds, collect stock dividends, take capital gains etc–none of which is subject to FICA taxes. Indeed, it does not take too much effort for the truly rich to pay at a lower marginal rate than the folks with a very modest income when the employment taxes are figured in and the lower rates on dividends and capital gains are considered.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:53 pmA projected reduction in the massive deficit? Does that mean another tax cut for the wealthy is in the works?
July 11th, 2006 at 12:56 pm[...] Think Progress: [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 12:58 pmSeixon,
July 11th, 2006 at 12:59 pmThere was a minor skirmish in the years between 1941 and 1945 that resulted in a mobilization of forces and hardware that was paralleled in history. FDR managed the affair on a shoestring compared to W in Iraq.
#130 –
Actually you are creating “moral responsibilities” where none exist. If you choose to live below sea level or on a peninsula that is regualrly devestated by hurricanes, why should the rest of us be required to fund the rebuilding of your home? The fact that private insurance companies, in the business of assessing and managing risk does not cover some areas should tell you something.
You’re probably right but that doesn’t mean I have to abandon my ideology does it? I wouldn’t expect you to abandon you liberal ideology because “most Americans” don’t want gay marriage.
I’m gonna guess you’re not too versed in this. Wanna revisit that, and if you can, tell me why it’s “B.S.”?
July 11th, 2006 at 1:00 pmThat should be unparalled in #134.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:00 pmExactly, yet Clinton gets credit for the previous period, while the GOP and Bush get credit for the latter. Why is that? Shouldn’t the GOP get “credit†for all of it?
You have to ask yourself what changed between 2000 and 2001. The budget went to hell right after Clinton left office. You can make it an argument against 1-party rule, but the more obvious conclusion is that Clinton was the moderating force. Once the moderating force was removed, Republicans went hog wild all by themselves.
Sure. “I’m Al Gore, and I’d rather that Saddam Hussein was in power.â€
Sounds like a good campaign commercial to me!
Better than “I’m Dubya Bush and I want to get 3,000 of our soldiers killed and spend a half trillion dollars to create al Qaeda in Iraq and give Iran control over another 10% of the world’s energy supply.”
July 11th, 2006 at 1:05 pmActually you are creating “moral responsibilities†where none exist. If you choose to live below sea level or on a peninsula that is regualrly devestated by hurricanes, why should the rest of us be required to fund the rebuilding of your home? The fact that private insurance companies, in the business of assessing and managing risk does not cover some areas should tell you something.
Nice try. But you have made blanket statements about disaster relief without qualifying it in this way. I agree that there is a big problem with building in low lying areas, and that it is obscene when this is subsidized, but that is really a different subject. In fact the people who need the aid the most are the dirt poor and the elderly, many of whom are unable to easily change their circumstances. The people who died in New Orleans didn’t have cars, or were stuck in hospitals and nursing homes, or were mentally incompetent to understand the risks.
Now explain to me again why the Constitutation says that the federal government cannot, or should not, provide disaster relief?
July 11th, 2006 at 1:06 pm296 billion is just a bit over $1,000 of new debt for every man, woman, and child in America today. These guys do want to grow up and be just like their idol President Reagan. I guess in the fantacy land of the MSM this is an achievement and calls for celebration.
WOW !!! Where’s the kool-aid, I can’t take being on the outside of this nightmare anymore.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:06 pmGotta love W’s thought process. What’s bad for America is really good for the American people. Kind of like Iraq.
#1 is exactly right. I personally know of the IRS going after relatives that are a poverty-line family for over $1,000 . They’re just looking for money anywhere they can find it without harming their big business friends. That’s why the deficit is down by a few billion.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
July 11th, 2006 at 1:09 pmW’s failed policy on North Korea – Only on SSA Blog
CHECK IT OUT!
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
#129 I would love to see Thomas Sowell debate Chomsky! That would be amazing!
Yeah, it usually is when a real academic debates a pseudo-academic.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:18 pmTripMaster,
I gave you the chart. You’re ignoring it because, well, it shows that Judd was being deceptive. Unless you are Judd, I would expect you to come to the realization that Cool Breeze did, that Judd’s list is in fact not accurate.
Walt,
Yes, there was WWII back then. Does that change the fact that Judd’s list is deceptive? No.
Kermit,
You have to ask yourself what changed between 2000 and 2001. The budget went to hell right after Clinton left office. You can make it an argument against 1-party rule, but the more obvious conclusion is that Clinton was the moderating force. Once the moderating force was removed, Republicans went hog wild all by themselves.
Many things happened, not just Clinton leaving office. We had the recession, 9/11, all the financial scandals, the dot-com economy of Clinton’s later years showing they were completely fraudulent, war in Afghanistan… war in Iraq… You can’t pretend that only Republicans voted for these spending bills, Democrats did so as well. This is a bipartisan problem, one where both parties load up the pork and pass gargantuan budgets. The simplistic “Clinton here/Clinton not here” is just that, simplistic.
Better than “I’m Dubya Bush and I want to get 3,000 of our soldiers killed and spend a half trillion dollars to create al Qaeda in Iraq and give Iran control over another 10% of the world’s energy supply.â€
OK, so giving the Iraqis a chance to build their own future is worse than Saddam Hussein ruling them? We’re going to have problems with terrorists there for a while, but they will eventually be taken care of like they were in Afghanistan, where they no longer have any training camps or any real presence. As for Iran, until they actually do take over Iraq, you might want to stop acting like you wish that they would to make your argument stronger. Unless the US makes a gigantic blunder, Iran will not be having any control over Iraq.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:18 pmAwwww. Look at the poor sycophants, can’t deal with the fact that Judd deceived them. Poor babies. Later, time to go to the store.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:21 pm#138 –
The problem in NO was the failure of the local and state government to take on the responsibility to evacuate BECAUSE they were waiting and relying on federal assistance.
Nagin should have mobilized the NO Public Schools bus fleet to evacute those who didn’t have personal vehicles. When that was exhaused, he should have contacted the state. The state should never been overwhelmed.
The other problem, the other well documented problem, besides the poor not having vehicles to leave, was the reluctance or refusal by so many to evacuate. You can’t force evacuations. Many that died didn’t want to leave.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:21 pmthings are just going swimmingly in Afghanistan
Taliban Use Beheadings and Beatings to Keep Afghanistan’s Schools Closed
July 11th, 2006 at 1:22 pmChase,
What, you mean Blanco and Nagin are responsible for most of those people dying since they didn’t get them evacuated with all the buses and public transportation they had and didn’t follow their own emergency plans?
Watch out, you’re about to get lynched.
Oh, right, the store. Bye!
July 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pmChase – it just seems to me that you do not possess an ounce of care for humanity. Scary.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:25 pmWhen the baseline has been set so low, anything can sound like an improvement.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:29 pm#147 – No, not the case at all.
I really believe in personal responsibility. The more you rely on your government, the more you are likely to be let down. And as you go from local to state to federal government, each level gets more unresponsive.
For that reason, the first appeal should be made locally. It just makes sense to me.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:32 pm[...] As pointed out by ThinkProgress, Bush came into office facing a $284 billion surplus, but he soon took care of that. (Although at the time, he predicted that in 2006 he would produce a $516 billion surplus. For that to come through, he’s going to have to find $812 billion within the next few months.) [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pmDeep deficits are just one of Bush’s Family Values.
Did Bush The Dumber take Norquist seriously when he heard Government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub?
July 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pmChase,
For that reason, the first appeal should be made locally. It just makes sense to me.
No, no. You don’t get it. Bush is president. That means every tiny problem in the entire country is to be solved by him. The rest of the government is just for show. Nagin and Blanco weren’t elected to actually do anything, they were elected to blame Bush when things go wrong. Dontcha see?? ;)
July 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pmI am curious.
What has the economy actually done since the Bush tax cut was truly enacted? Also, what has federal tax revenue done since the Bush tax cut was actually enacted? I honestly have no clue what the numbers are but it seems unfair to judge whether a tax cut was good or not if you use a starting year that is well before the actually tax cut actually happened. Anyways, could someone provide some insight?
July 11th, 2006 at 1:36 pmCost of War
July 11th, 2006 at 1:37 pmThe War in Iraq Costs
$295,126,488,212
Bush Celebrates Fourth-Largest Deficit In History…
Not surprisingly, all of the top five deficit slots are taken by Bush Presidents — that’s Republican “fiscal responsibility” at work….
July 11th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#152
Gary,
Check out the charts I linked to in post #30 for at least a partial answer to your question (the part about tax revenues).
July 11th, 2006 at 1:43 pmI mean come on people, move to a place where there’s no natural disasters! It’s just obvious, duh. Lemme think. No natural disasters… Where is a place like that again? I know they are everywhere. And I know there are unlimited jobs there too. It just slips my mind at the moment where they are, but i’m sure it’ll come back to me.
And gosh, what are we doing paying taxes to provide any life-essential services for anybody. We should all just save up for our own personal police force, fire rescue, and ambulance services too. I mean it just makes sense. if you can’t afford it, tough! You should have just gotten a better job. I mean all you have to do is just like go out and look for a better job and they magically appear. It’s not like race, economic class, neighborhood, economy, education opportunities, or anything like that actually gets in the way.
And on the subject of education, what are we doing wasting money on free education for everybody too! Again, get a job if you want your kids to go to grade school.
And what’s with this state-run orphanage and foster-home placement crap? If parents don’t want their kids, or if they die before their kids grow up, well shoot. Those kids need to get a darn job already! I mean come on. I’m not going to pay any of my hard earned cash because their parents didn’t have any foresight. It’s a waste of MY money.
ME ME ME ME ME!!!!
July 11th, 2006 at 1:44 pmWhere do your tax dollars go? Thursday, 06 April 2006
This publication shows how the median income family’s income tax dollars are spent for every state and 200 cities, towns and counties.
Cost of Iraq War Rises for Taxpayers
Monday, 20 February 2006
The administration submitted another $72.4 billion request for war-related funding to Congress. NPP analyzes the request and what it means to taxpayers in your state.
The President’s Budget: Impact on the States Wednesday, 08 February 2006
The administration released its budget request for fiscal year 2007 proposing deep cuts to domestic spending. NPP offers an analysis with state-level breakdowns on the impact of this budget proposal.
Local Costs of the Iraq War
July 11th, 2006 at 1:51 pmSunday, 07 May 2006
Find out how much the Iraq War is costing taxpayers in your town, city or county. State and national information is also included.
BS, BS, BS. AND MORE BS!! this punk really thinks that the american folks are stupider than he is. sorry bushwhack nazi, i watched the budget committee on c-span this morning and the d. rep. from n.dakota spilled the beans on what you have tried hard to hide.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:03 pmThanks for the link Realscientist, but that wasn’t the info I wanted. Your charts showed Bush’s entire presidency. I want to know what tax revenue has beed SINCE THE BUSH TAX CUT WAS ENACTED.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:12 pm[...] George W. Bush inherited a $284 Billion surplus, yet today he is celebrating the fourth largest deficit in history. Here are the top five deficits in our Nation’s history (ht-Think Progress):  [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 2:12 pmToday July 10th 2006 the true national debt is;
$8,408,232,930,865.92 as per http://www.pubicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Don’t give him more credit than he deserves!
July 11th, 2006 at 2:13 pmSo let me get this straight …
Judd uses numbers provided by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and Sexion claims Judd is lying … ?
Seems to me there was no deception — just a look at the raw numbers. Sexion’s claim also obfuscates the FACT that this administration and this Congress are to fiscal responsibility what Paris Hilton is to intellectual advancement.
I realize that the Norwegian Hall Monitor has a need to stir up crap and always be right (even when he’s proven time and again to be wrong) but damn … is he really this stupid?
July 11th, 2006 at 2:15 pmGary–
Can’t you find out when the tax cuts were passed and then do the math?
It’s called “Google.” It’s a Web site that lets you search for stuff. Try using it.
:-p
July 11th, 2006 at 2:18 pmGo #69….I was thinking that same thing! I’m sick of republicans saying their policies made for democratic surplus years….BS to them!
July 11th, 2006 at 2:19 pmCome on Judd. I have never ever agreed with anything I’ve ever read by Seixon, but he’s partially right here. I agree with you that Bush’s $296 billion debt is piss poor and sets a dangerously low bar, but it’s still not as bad as his father’s debt, which was twice as high as percentage of GDP and as a percentage of tax revenues. You used a common conservative deceptive trick. We don’t need to lower ourselves like that.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#161 I realize that the Norwegian Hall Monitor has a need to stir up crap and always be right (even when he’s proven time and again to be wrong) but damn … is he really this stupid?
The keyword here is willful stupid.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:19 pmWow Seixon, you’ve really struck a nerve with these guys! I just want to know what is so great about a budget surplus? Doesn’t that mean you are getting taxed too much? What you’ll never hear a liberal admit to is that the economy was going sour before he left office, leaving Bush with a recession on his hands to contend with. By the time the Bush tax cuts went into effect, it well into 2002 and our economy has been on a clip ever since. I am willing to contend that our deficit would be a lot less without the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at the same time, another 9/11 would be again totally devastating to our economy.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:20 pmEvil Spaniard–
July 11th, 2006 at 2:21 pmConsidering Sexion’s political leanings, I’d called it “doublethink.”
#167 Um… let’s check the dictionary…
dou·ble·think ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dbl-thngk)
n.
Thought marked by the acceptance of gross contradictions and falsehoods, especially when used as a technique of self-indoctrination: “Doublethink… is a vast system of mental cheating†(George Orwell).
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Unholy Moses, both elegant and accurate definition.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:26 pm“#73 I guess it is George’s fault that we were attacked on 9/11, that Katrina hit, that he inherited a falling stock market from Clinton.
I guess since 5% of tax payers pay 50% of the taxes and 50% of the taxpayers pay no taxes shows that he is socking it to the poor.
Comment by Robin — July 11, 2006 @ 11:45 am ”
Well Yes to All You Said….it is bush’s fault that 9-11 occurred…ignoring data, firing experts and replacing the with buddies, cheney conveniently scheduling exercises so the hijacked plans could do their job, bush making the zippy visas available in March of 2001 for the hijackers to attain visas without going to the embassies in person…we could go on and on…yes it’s their fault.
As for Katrina…bush cut budgets for the repairs 50% per year since entering office and increase coal plants in the USA, yes it’s his fault. The handling of all US emergencies by non-expert due to cronyism is his fault. So yes the deficit is his fault.
As for the stock market….look at the trends it began to fall when bush won the GOP primary…a sign of fear …yes. So Clinton turned over a market in shock that a moron was to take over, enough to destroy any market. The money people all knew that bankrupt George was coming… the man that destroyed everything he had touched all his life…instead of Goldfinger he’s Shit-finger!
July 11th, 2006 at 2:28 pm#166 Wow Seixon, you’ve really struck a nerve with these guys! I just want to know what is so great about a budget surplus? Doesn’t that mean you are getting taxed too much? – Randy
Wow, I’m shocked and awed by your wit!
So,
a) you think that we are upset at Seixon because he is a luminescent savant on economy (and everything else, specially Global Warming related science), and we can’t stand it and we hate him therefore. Just envious. Yeah, right. In your dreams.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:34 pmb) you see nothing good in not having a budget surplus. Well, you know, when you have a debt, this means that there is someone, the one who holds the debt who is billing the debt’s interests to the one owing the debt… in this case the USA. Ask Argentina if there is any great difference in having surplus or deficit…
c) taxed too much… this part talks for itself…
That statement almost caused me to shoot Diet Mountain Dew out of my nose!
You’ll start hearing for lower taxes from liberals when we pay off our debt. What a concept! Completely foreign, I know, to conservatives. Which is odd considering they are supposed to be fiscally responsible or something. Who started that rumor???
So what’s so bad about a budget deficient? I mean geesh, it’s not like our generation will have to pay for it. That’s all the counts, right Randy?
It must be something to go through life only caring about yourself. How do you repubs do it? How do you just NOT care about other people?
July 11th, 2006 at 2:34 pmI realize that the Norwegian Hall Monitor has a need to stir up crap and always be right (even when he’s proven time and again to be wrong) but damn … is he really this stupid?
Comment by Unholy Moses
I’m just so surprised and pleased that my nickname for the Norwegian is catching on so quickly!
But no, I don’t think he’s stupid — he just ALWAYS must be right to the nth degree, and if he’s not, then we’re stupid. It comes from being 23-24 years of age…
July 11th, 2006 at 2:35 pmGeorge W. Bush inherited a down-turning economy from Clinton after he was done riding the dot com wave of the nineties. No matter who was president during 2001 and 2002, there was going to be a huge deficit. Clinton did NOT leave an outstanding economy when he left office.
After Bush’s economic policies, namely tax cuts, went into effect, the budget deficit was cut in half and there will soon be a surplus if the tax cuts stay in place. Studies have shown that after Bush’s tax cuts, most of the extra money collected in taxes came not from the poor, but from the wealthy citizens of the nation. This is because they are the ones who engaged in more economic activity after getting some of their money back.
Liberals have no idea how to collect taxes. Higher taxes do not lead to more tax revenue. Lower taxes do. I wonder what you people are going to complain about in 2008, after the war is won, unemployment is at the best level it coule be, and the economy is the best in all history. I’m sure you’ll find something.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:36 pmMeaning no offense to 23-24 year olds in general, of course. ;)
July 11th, 2006 at 2:36 pmGeorge W. Bush inherited a down-turning economy from Clinton after he was done riding the dot com wave of the nineties.
Comment by John #173
“It ain’t easy pimping dumbass who*es like John. In fact, it get’s downright expensive.”
-George W. Bush-
July 11th, 2006 at 2:40 pm#170 Ugh, a little mistake…
b) you see nothing good in not having a budget surplus. Well, you know, when you have a debt, this means that there is someone, the one who holds the debt who is billing the debt’s interests to the one owing the debt… in this case the USA. Ask Argentina if there is any great difference in having surplus or deficit…
Must be read bad…
July 11th, 2006 at 2:41 pm#170 – by that logic, if we do not tax at all, we’ll have an infinite amount of tax revenue. man, why didn’t I think of that!!!!???
July 11th, 2006 at 2:44 pmCorrection, I was respondign to post #173, not #170. Slip of the wrist. :-)
July 11th, 2006 at 2:45 pmOf course this is something to celebrate…remember folks, we fell down a rabbit hole in 2000…
July 11th, 2006 at 2:45 pmSeixon Think: Who holds the house of Congress? The Republicans do. They also hold the senate and the presidency. So, who gets to take responsibility for the Bush Administration’s massive spending? The Democrats.
Who gets to take responsibility for the fact that Congress cut funding for the NO levies, after a record year for hurricanes? The Democrats.
Who gets to take responsibility for FEMA failing after being put under the control of a Bush crony? The Democrats.
That aside though:
Seixon, no administration has ever existed that had it easy. Look at the history honestly, and you will see what I mean, not a single one of the presidents had it easy, not even Clinton, and none of them have been given quarter, so why are we expected to be nice to Mr Bush, when it is clear that he can’t handle the job? Bush isn’t the first president to have faced a massive natural disaster, he isn’t the first to have been embroiled in a war, and hell his two wars together aren’t even the biggest America has ever had to deal with.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:49 pmCome on Judd. I have never ever agreed with anything I’ve ever read by Seixon, but he’s partially right here. I agree with you that Bush’s $296 billion debt is piss poor and sets a dangerously low bar, but it’s still not as bad as his father’s debt, which was twice as high as percentage of GDP and as a percentage of tax revenues. You used a common conservative deceptive trick. We don’t need to lower ourselves like that.
Uh oh! The wheels are coming off the Judd Wagon!
Unholy Moses,
Seems to me there was no deception — just a look at the raw numbers. Sexion’s claim also obfuscates the FACT that this administration and this Congress are to fiscal responsibility what Paris Hilton is to intellectual advancement.
Ah, so you can’t deceive with raw numbers? Yes, you can, and Judd just did.
I realize that the Norwegian Hall Monitor has a need to stir up crap and always be right (even when he’s proven time and again to be wrong) but damn … is he really this stupid?
No one has challenged what I said to this point. In fact, the dishonest smear squad is realizing that I was right, and Judd did indeed deceive.
RealScientist, TripMaster, and all the rest have yet to comment on the FACT that Judd’s top 5 list is deceptive because it doesn’t account for inflation.
As I stated from the very beginning, we can’t have an honest debate when Judd’s premise is deceptive.
Now we can see that Think Progress is filled with utter sycophants, almost none willing to admit that their Emperor Judd has no clothes.
blank did it. Come on folks, it’s not hard. You can do it. Judd deceived all of you.
Now you can continue, as RealScientist and other sycophants, to pretend that I’m becoming unhinged or some other fantasy bullshit, or you can hold Judd accountable.
Choice is yours, but if you don’t, you’ll be proven as the partisan whackjob sycophants you are.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:50 pm#177 – Thank you for helping to prove my point that liberals know nothing about how to raise taxes. Also, I know that you were trying to be funny, but you were actually on to something with your comment. If there was no federal income tax and we had, instead, some kind of consumption tax like the Fair Tax idea, the government would have huge amounts of revenue and you’d see businesses expanding into America instead of China.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:00 pmLet’s see now Seixon, what’s worse 1) Judd reprints figures put out by the government, or 2) Bush and friends ignore real intelligence and put forth dodgey and KNOWN false intelligence to ingage in a war againt Iraq in the name of the war on terror.
Tell me Seixon, why do you have your shorts in a knot over item number 1 and gleefully accept the consequences of item number 2?
July 11th, 2006 at 3:01 pmBruce,
The only reason people died in New Orleans is because they weren’t evacuated. The levies (which were underfunded for decades, while money allotted for them was spent frivolously by the corrupt politicians in Louisiana) don’t matter, nor do FEMA’s actions, when it comes to why those people died. They died because they were not evacuated, and that falls squarely on the shoulders of those who were responsible for evacuation plans: Nagin and Blanco. It wouldn’t have mattered if Katrina were 10 times stronger than it was, no one would have died if they had just been evacuated according to the plans that were already in place.
Try and wiggle your way out of that FACT if you want. You can continue to ignore the FACT that the levies were poorly constructed decades ago, and that’s why they failed, not because more money wasn’t thrown at them. You’re a hopeless brainwashed fool, the Democratic media put the focus squarely on Bush and suppressed all evidence to the contrary.
How many times did you read about the complete failure by Nagin and Blanco to evacuate people with all the buses they had? How many times did you read about Blanco not asking for federal troops until 2 days after Katrina hit?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. I’m so sick and tired of this BS that stems from the biased media. We can’t discuss any issue honestly when half the population is completely brainwashed beyond recognition.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:03 pmSexion–
Actually, several people have challenged your point. Go re-read the comments.
The point is, however, that once again you have managed to distort an issue rather than addressing the issues at hand:
1. The amazing lack of fiscal responsibility of this administration and this Congress.
2. The fact that a $296 billion deficit isn’t exactly great news.
3. The fact that deficits under Bush and the GOP Congress, even with inflation, are the 4th and 5th highest of all time.
I would willingly call Judd out if I thought he was wrong — trust me. I’m never one to pull punches no matter the ideology.
But in this case I think the point of the thread is still dead on.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:05 pmGood point, Seixon. I did hear about Nagin’s failure to utilize his buses, though… on Fox.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:06 pmI thought you were a moderate living in Norway? Why would you care about the media in America?
July 11th, 2006 at 3:08 pmIt appears that most of liberals posting here are mind-numbed robots not capable of thinking for themselves and do nothing bash Bush at every chance. Its a fact that people vote their pocketbook and when the economy is good (as it is today and there is no denying that), its usually good for the party in charge. So for once, try not to defeat Bush again and come up with an actual agenda on where you want to take this country. The reality is you can’t because that means proposing a tax increase, which will actually decrease tax revenues by the way.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:08 pmYikes,
Let’s see now Seixon, what’s worse 1) Judd reprints figures put out by the government, or 2) Bush and friends ignore real intelligence and put forth dodgey and KNOWN false intelligence to ingage in a war againt Iraq in the name of the war on terror.
There’s really no helping you dupes is there? You can deceive using facts, just like Fahrenheit 9/11 did. Judd presented numbers in a misleading way, which even liberals on here are slowly starting to agree with. Did the government publish a list just like Judd did, claiming that those were the largest deficits of all time? Nope. They only gave the raw numbers. Judd used them to publish something that is deceptive and inaccurate.
As for Bush and intelligence, most honest folks know that the only thing left to debate is whether or not Bush selectively used intelligence and hyped things that should not have been. It is no longer a matter of Bush “lying” or making things up, or relying on things they knew were fake. Go read the Democrats’ additions to the SSCI report if you don’t believe me. You’re just spouting off the talking points that Think Progress has learned you from the day Democrats started lying about the intelligence once Saddam was taken down.
Tell me Seixon, why do you have your shorts in a knot over item number 1 and gleefully accept the consequences of item number 2?
Because #1 shows Judd deceiving as a proven fact, and #2 is not. Also because I agree with the decision to dethrone Saddam Hussein, regardless of whether Bush lied or not. My support for the war has nothing to do with Bush, but everything to do with taking out that son of a bitch Saddam Hussein.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:09 pmAnyone have any pull over at DailyKOS?
Ever since Seixon got banned from there he has been spending more time here. Think we can get him unbanned over there so he isn’t ruining the scroll wheels on everyone’s mice over here?
July 11th, 2006 at 3:13 pmHey Sexion … Lie much?
You know, I really thought that one could have a reasoned debate with you.
But you’re a liar, a partisan hack, and are unable to admit when you’re wrong while accusing others of being the same, thus making you a hypocrite as well.
Buh bye …
July 11th, 2006 at 3:18 pmSeixon you are hopeless.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:19 pmUnholy Moses,
Actually, several people have challenged your point. Go re-read the comments.
No, they haven’t. TripMaster and RealScientist kept asking me for “numbers” while I provided them with a chart long ago. None of them have commented on that chart. The only one I see to do so was Cool Breeze, who admitted that I was right, that the list Judd created is not accurate.
The point is, however, that once again you have managed to distort an issue rather than addressing the issues at hand:
Addressing those issues will be done once Judd corrects his distorted list. We can’t have an honest debate when the premise is all wrong.
I would willingly call Judd out if I thought he was wrong — trust me. I’m never one to pull punches no matter the ideology.
So why don’t you? His list is wrong.
But in this case I think the point of the thread is still dead on.
I thought you were a moderate living in Norway? Why would you care about the media in America?
How many times am I going to hear this pathetic attempt at trying to push me out of a debate? If you moved to Canada, would you stop caring about the American media? I mean, where’s the logic? I’m an American, I care about what happens in America.
See, you know that, you realize that, you are just looking for an excuse to push me out of the debate. This is hypocritical and a double standard as other liberal posters here are not even US citizens, yet you and others never ask them why they are interested in American politics. You don’t care – since you agree with them. Only the ones you disagree with are the ones targetted with the feeble “you don’t even live here, get lost!” bullshit.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:19 pmSEIXON
It is much better to NOT touch your keyboard and let people THINK you are a fool – than to touch your keyboard and let them KNOW you are a fool.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:24 pmunbelievable,
Ever since Seixon got banned from there he has been spending more time here. Think we can get him unbanned over there so he isn’t ruining the scroll wheels on everyone’s mice over here?
Never done lying are you? This link proves I haven’t been banned from there, only that I have no comment abilities because mindless trolls like you troll-rated everything I said because they disagreed. Just like you want me to leave here because you don’t agree with me and can’t deal with reality.
Why don’t you stop lying and start debating? Oh, right, because you can’t. You want to be in your bubble where no one can harm your fragile mind.
Yikes,
Seixon you are hopeless.
Translation: Damn, I have no clue how to respond to what you just said.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:24 pmUnholy Moses,
Hey Sexion … Lie much?
That isn’t even about the same issue. Nice try though.
But you’re a liar, a partisan hack, and are unable to admit when you’re wrong while accusing others of being the same, thus making you a hypocrite as well.
The only dishonest person here is one who posts up a link to an entirely different issue than the one I was talking about and implying that I lied.
Blanco didn’t ask for troops until August 31. It is caught on video.
Oh well, I bet a bunch of the dupes here will fall for your bait and switch.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:29 pmTranslation: Damn, I have no clue how to respond to what you just said.
Comment by Seixon — July 11, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
Not real easy to respond to mindless ranting. I will do what I do in real life.
:::nod and agree, nod and agree, smile and back away slowly.:::
July 11th, 2006 at 3:30 pm#195
So you believe in limiting speech when someone has a different opinion than your own and may I add one that makes infinite more sense than all of the dribble posted here? This is how liberals treat others different ideas? So I should only comment when I agree with you?
July 11th, 2006 at 3:30 pmSexion–
Wow … so you’re now a mind reader as well as a liar?
I’d parse your other comments and blow them away, but at this point it’s useless. No matter what anyone throws at you, you’re nowhere near man enough to admit when you’re wrong.
Every … single … comment I’ve read from you proves that to be true. When someone refutes your point, you change the topic. When someone proves your logical fallacy, you just create a new one. When someone asks you a question, you refuse to answer.
It’s like being on a merry-go-round and seeing the same puddle of vomit with each revolution.
You truly are the Sultan of Sophistry. No wonder you’ve been banned throughout the blogosphere.
And with that, I say, “Good day, sir!” I’m done wasting my time with you.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:34 pmKrazny,
More personal attacks. Lovely. Keep on, keep on. It’s all you’ve got. Judd is debunked, and no one is there to pick up the pieces. Poor suckers. Only blank has been honest. The rest of you are riding the Judd Wagon right into the ditch.
Grandpa Seth,
You don’t even know. These freaks have been trying to suppress, stifle, intimidate, smear, and attack me ever since I started commenting here regularly. They don’t want dissenting opinions. They want to live in their own little bubble, just as they accuse Bush of doing. They’re a gang of hypocrites. They even went to the step of digging up information on me, calling my family in the USA, and divulging details about me here to try and intimidate me.
They have no morals, no ethics, and no patience for facts and opinions that conflict their their worldview.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:39 pmJuly 11th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Seixon you are hopeless.
Translation: Damn, I have no clue how to respond to what you just said.
Comment by Seixon
That’s exactly right. How do you respond to someone as hopelessly dillusional as yourself. Most honest people can clearly see that “Bush selectively used intelligence and hyped things that should not have been”. The debat on that is the same as the debat regarding human impact on global warming- no debat is necessary.
“I agree with the decision to dethrone Saddam Hussein, regardless of whether Bush lied or not.” So now you admit that Bush may have lied! good start. Saddam is long gone now so I guess you are for pulling out of Iraq?
“My support for the war has nothing to do with Bush, but everything to do with taking out that son of a bitch Saddam Hussein.” Wow strong language. Saddam was a son of a bitch, we can agree with that. Is he the only son of a bitch running a country? Why not go in to all the countries run by a son of a bitch? Maybe it’s not done that way because the other sons of a bitches aren’t sitting on a shitload of oil. Maybe Saddam was the weakest son of a bitch out there. And again Seixon, that son of a bitch is gone so do you still support the war in Iraq?
July 11th, 2006 at 3:43 pmUnholy Moses,
Wow … so you’re now a mind reader as well as a liar?
Huh?
I’d parse your other comments and blow them away, but at this point it’s useless. No matter what anyone throws at you, you’re nowhere near man enough to admit when you’re wrong.
Translation: Damn, you caught my bait and switch, now I’m shit out of luck.
Every … single … comment I’ve read from you proves that to be true. When someone refutes your point, you change the topic. When someone proves your logical fallacy, you just create a new one. When someone asks you a question, you refuse to answer.
Demonstrate once that this happened. Thanks.
It’s like being on a merry-go-round and seeing the same puddle of vomit with each revolution.
Yes, I agree, but not because of what you’re saying.
You truly are the Sultan of Sophistry. No wonder you’ve been banned throughout the blogosphere.
Heh. I’ve been banned from Firedoglake merely for debunking Jane Hamsher. That’s all. DailyKos commenters have troll-rated me into not being able to comment. They disagreed with me, so they troll-voted my comments. Tolerance of opinions and facts doesn’t seem to be the strong suit of these partisans.
And with that, I say, “Good day, sir!†I’m done wasting my time with you.
Good, that means I can spend less time debunking your dishonest tactics.
Your link was about Blanco calling for a federal emergency – not calling in for troops. In her request for a an emergency, she asked for no troops. On CNN she was caught before she went on talking to her aide, on August 31st, saying that maybe she should call for some troops…
I’ve got the video.
See, you know this, and that’s why you’re putting on this act of “ah, can’t be bothered” instead of just admitting that you were wrong.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:44 pmSeixon,
I have made several moderate posts, on a couple of threads. No ad hominem attacks, or name calling etc. you have ignored them. When you post a rant don’t expect to be taken seriously.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:45 pmI found it. Basically, ever since the Bush Tax cut was enacted, we have seen Federal tax revenue SOAR! It went from just under $1.8 trillion in 2003 to $2.15 trillion in 2005 with projections coming out that we will have yet another large increase in tax revenue in 2006. Basically, the Bush Tax cut put tons of extra money in the Federal coffers. I guess the Dems can back down as they like the Fed’s getting more moeny. Bush’s tax cut gave us the Fed’s roughly 20% more tax revenues to play with. So, I guess you can argue that Bush did poorly in 2001 and 02′, but he hadn’t even enacted any serious economic policy at that point anyways. He was probably too busy with that Sept. 11th thing.
BTW,
Here is the cart showing the great tax revenue growth from Bush’s tax cut:
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg
July 11th, 2006 at 3:47 pmFor those that are wondering, post #202 came from here.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:48 pmUnholy Moses,
On August 31, “Blanco called Bush at 2:20 p.m. to say she wanted a federal troop mobilization ‘today’ and asked that someone communicate to her when the soldiers would arrive.â€
Wow, that’s exactly what I said! How about that. She never asked for troops before that, not even in her written request. Spin it if you want.
Yikes,
That’s exactly right. How do you respond to someone as hopelessly dillusional as yourself. Most honest people can clearly see that “Bush selectively used intelligence and hyped things that should not have beenâ€. The debat on that is the same as the debat regarding human impact on global warming- no debat is necessary.
I love the way you debate. Instead of actually making an argument, you appeal to some sort of consensus, one that doesn’t exist. It’s the “everyone knows” argument. Cheap, pathetic, and hollow. Learn how to spell debate. Mk?
“I agree with the decision to dethrone Saddam Hussein, regardless of whether Bush lied or not.†So now you admit that Bush may have lied! good start. Saddam is long gone now so I guess you are for pulling out of Iraq?
Talk about delusional. I admitted nothing, but you just invent it as you go along. What I’m saying, if you understood English, is that there is every possibility that Bush did lie. That doesn’t mean that he did. See, I’m not a partisan goon. I wait for evidence. I wait for proof. I have still not seen any proof that Bush told a lie about WMDs. Rumsfeld has said something things that can be argued to have been lies, and I think he should have been fired long ago.
Pulling out of Iraq would be a giant mistake, as about 95% of the Senate agrees with.
“My support for the war has nothing to do with Bush, but everything to do with taking out that son of a bitch Saddam Hussein.†Wow strong language. Saddam was a son of a bitch, we can agree with that. Is he the only son of a bitch running a country? Why not go in to all the countries run by a son of a bitch? Maybe it’s not done that way because the other sons of a bitches aren’t sitting on a shitload of oil. Maybe Saddam was the weakest son of a bitch out there. And again Seixon, that son of a bitch is gone so do you still support the war in Iraq?
This is one of those things I see often, people who don’t understand why we went after Iraq and not other countries. You conveniently leave out the entire history at the UN with Iraq. You conveniently leave out all of Iraq’s attacks on American planes. You leave out Iraq scamming the Oil for Food program. You leave out the fact that he’s the only one out of those bastards you will mention that was both a threat to peace and also violated loads of Chapter VII UN resolutions.
Oil had a part in the decision to go after Iraq, but it was because Saddam could use the oil to bribe and buy people all over the world, not to mention use it as a private ATM to fund all sorts of things. North Korea has had to counterfeit money in order to try and pay for things they want. Saddam sat on his mound of black gold and bribed UN officials, French, Russian, and Chinese politicians (plus Galloway of course, and a load of others) so that he would get things how he wanted.
In addition to that, as you said, Iraq was weaker than both Iran and North Korea. The Bush administration will not invade either of the latter two because it will not work. Obviously the smartest strategy is to knock off the Taliban, then Saddam surrounding Iran, and then trying to squeeze the Iranians into knocking off their despot or something similar.
If you tried looking at the Big Picture, you’d realize why we are doing things the way we have. It’s all part of a larger strategy.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:55 pmKrazny,
I have made several moderate posts, on a couple of threads. No ad hominem attacks, or name calling etc. you have ignored them. When you post a rant don’t expect to be taken seriously.
Due to the sheer amount of attacks on me, sometimes I miss posts. Point them out to me, and I will address them. If you remain civil, so will I.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:02 pmThe last democrat that actually understood that lowering taxes increased revenues was Kennedy. Ever since then, their party has had this class warfare thing going on trying to take from the rich and give to the poor. They never seem to realize how stupid this strategy is by looking how poor the socialist economies in Western Europe that have historically high taxes and many government supported programs like national healthcare.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:02 pmSeixon
First off: Blanco only called for troops on the 31st.
Outright lie. Not just a lie, a outright lie. Purest lie. Which of course is your view of reasonably debate.
Friday August 26, not 31 you scumbag, August 26 Blanco declared a state of emergency and the gulf states (yep this includes Blanco) asked for military help. Further, that is the same day as when the gulf coast states asked for help from the military. Look it up on this site, you frigging liar.
That she had to beg until the 31 of August is a real tribute to your wonderful republican congress isn’t it?
Further, you lying piece of feces, did you know that prior to Katrina the state of Louisiana submitted plans to congress in order to get federal funding to upgrade the levies, a fairly standard thing to do with a project of that scale? No? Well do you know what happened? Congress cut the funding to those levies, even after 2004 was a record year for hurricanes.
And who appointed Mike Brown? Was it a democrat? Nooo, though to your mind every single thing that the Republicans do wrong should be blamed on the Democrats, it was a Republican named George. A republican, who during this crisis was busy enjoying a vacation and keeping well uninformed. You yap and yammer on about the Democrats, when are you going to hold the Republicans responsible for anything?
July 11th, 2006 at 4:04 pm“It’s all part of a larger strategy.”
Sorry Seixon, but this larger strategy is a failing strategy and if you looked at the Big Picture you would see it. Oil has been the world’s “Currency” for a hundred odd years and hopefully one day soon people in power will see that the new “Currency” is Technology. Yes, the need for Oil will not go away any time soon but the Technology is there to be less dependent on the Oil.
Anyway Seixon. If your in Norway, you should be outside enjoying a great Scandinavian sunset right about now. Take care and I’ll disagree with you another time.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:07 pmBruce,
Friday August 26, not 31 you scumbag, August 26 Blanco declared a state of emergency and the gulf states (yep this includes Blanco) asked for military help. Further, that is the same day as when the gulf coast states asked for help from the military. Look it up on this site, you frigging liar.
Her request for federal aid contained absolutely no request for troops. I’m a scumbag for telling you the inconvenient truth? Go check it yourself. Blanco admitted on August 31 at CNN that she hadn’t asked for troops yet.
Watch it and weep yourself to sleep.
That she had to beg until the 31 of August is a real tribute to your wonderful republican congress isn’t it?
Watch the video, dupe. She didn’t want the military there because of the “poor people” in Louisiana that might get arrested or killed for looting. Watch the video.
The rest of your comment is trying to evade the fact that the only reason most of the people died was due to the incompetence of Blanco and Nagin in evacuating their people out of harms way.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:09 pmGrandpa Seth,
You’re right, and I believe that the left’s “socialistic” attitudes are a big part of why their party is falling apart. I think if the left wants to survive in this millenium, they need to get back to traditional liberalism, like Zell Miller.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:11 pmYikes,
Sorry Seixon, but this larger strategy is a failing strategy and if you looked at the Big Picture you would see it.
How can a long-term strategy be failing before it has even barely gotten started? You a psychic or something? We have Iran surrounded right now. If we play our cards right, Iraq will become a prospering Muslim/Arab state with democracy, which will make Iranians want the same thing and revolt. There is already unrest in Iran. You’re basically admitting that you’d rather that we fail so you can blame Bush than we actually succeed. Typical partisan whore.
Anyway Seixon. If your in Norway, you should be outside enjoying a great Scandinavian sunset right about now. Take care and I’ll disagree with you another time.
Yeah, but it’s too wet outside, it’s been raining. Plus I can almost see the sunset from where I’m sitting anyways.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:12 pm[...] What these folks failed to mention of course is what Think Progress so appropriately notes is the fact the it is still the 4th highest deficit in US history, placing only behind 2004, 2003, and 2005 (anyone notice a trend here?). Another fact that they fail to mention is that when Bush took office in 2001, he started with a $284 billion dollar surplus (pdf alert) and predicted that we would have a $516 billion dollar surplus in 2006. [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 4:14 pmI don’t feel as bad as you guys do for those stranded in New Orleans. They had every chance to leave as there government declared an evacuation days in advance. You would have to be a moron not to leave. Basically, much of the blame is the people’s own fault. Of course, there is still the chance that there local government failed them by not providing enough transportation. Either way, none of that is the Federal government’s fault one bit. And don’t argue that all those left behind where cripples or old people. We all saw the video’s which showed mostly middle age and younger people that could clearly walk (and even complain for some reason). You really can’t even say they couldn’t leave because they were poor since they had days to hitch a ride or walk. These “poor” should also have transportation lined up through there local government.
Did Bush mess up and not come soon enough? Probably, but I don’t blame him. He probably was figuring that people are smart and had left before the storm. Why people think the Feds should be prepared for morons to fail to move there ass’ out of a danger zone is beyond me. Why the Fed’s should be prepared at a moments notice for a situation where a local government completely failed to provide transportation to the morons that didn’t leave is beyond me.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:14 pm- Seixon:
TripMaster and RealScientist kept asking me for “numbers†while I provided them with a chart long ago. None of them have commented on that chart.
Sorry, Seixon, but I’ve been busy (not all of us are lucky enough to be paid shills, you know…some of us have to work for a living).
So, I took a good look at the graph you provided (guess that’s the closest we’re going to see to ‘your own work’), and two things stood out:
1) Yes, with numbers adjusted for inflation, Dubya now comes in 4th and 5th. What’s interesting is that the only three years that beat him are 1943, 1944, and 1945. Now, why are those years familiar…..
Oh yeah. WWII.
2) The 4th and 5th worst deficits (Dubya’s) come right on the heels of the biggest surplus on the graph (Clinton’s). Funny how you’re so silent regarding that…and amazing how Dubya could put our economy in the toilet so quickly. I seeem to recall that pre-1940 (not shown on your graph), we were running at a deficit, so that makes Dubya’s fiscal irresponsibility truly remarkable.
So, in conclusion, you’ve shown:
Hey, Seixon, Rove called. He wants you to stop helping him.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:23 pmSexion–
Before I put you on mental ignore for good, I do have to apologize — I didn’t notice the “federal” part of your comment (seriously … I just missed it). My fault.
It doesn’t change my view of you as a troll who never really addresses the issues, lobs broad-stroked insults at people and then complain when you are insulted in response, and lies about being a moderate, but thought I’d at least show you what being a man and admitting when you screw up is all about.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:25 pm“You’re basically admitting that you’d rather that we fail so you can blame Bush than we actually succeed.”
Come on now Seixon you are pissing me off now. I have never wanted or indicated I wanted to see failure. What I am seeing IS failure. A prosperous Muslim/Arab state with democracy is a pipedream sold by the neocons to justify thier “strategy”.
” Typical partisan whore.” That comment is totally unwarrented and shows immaturity that stiffles any debate. You have no clue as to my political allegence. Right now, Bush is in charge and right now the country is going down the shitter.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:25 pmThis is how liberals treat others different ideas? So I should only comment when I agree with you?
Comment by Grandpa Seth #199
Grandpuke Sepsis,
I sincerely hope that whatever inbred offspring you may have inadvertently had a biological influence on creating…
…have miraculously acquired the good sense to severely limit (if not prevent altogether) any contact you might have with THEIR offspring…
…but then again, you ignorant, TREASONOUS Bush worshipping inbred cultists are pretty isolated and insulated from the REAL world…
…how you’ve managed to survive (as long as your moniker implies)…
…as dumb as you appear to be (judging from your posts)…
…is a first rate Darwinian mystery…
July 11th, 2006 at 4:26 pmSeixon
I’m not going to argue with a liar. There is no benefit to it. While I will argue with other conservatives, I won’t argue with you. You tell lies, your opinnion isn’t worth the respect it takes to argue with it. Read the site highlights.
Well documented, well recorded.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:28 pmI think what Katrina really exposed and what the left really doesn’t want you to know about although we do anyway, is what a disaster the war on poverty has been for the last 40 years. Gary, these able-bodied people didn’t want to leave New Orleans because they were afraid they’d lose their welfare checks. Wouldn’t it be better to not rebuild New Orleans and spend our money educating and training these folks so they could earn a decent wage somewhere else?
July 11th, 2006 at 4:28 pmTripMaster,
I love how Judd, who gets paid to do this, doesn’t have to do research, but I have to do it for him. I love it. You of course offset this by repeating the lie all you whackjobs have been saying that I am paid to post here.
See, Judd is an actual paid shill. He gets paid to do this. That’s his job. Yet you project that onto me, and then ask me to do Judd’s work for him even though he gets paid to do this. Simply astounding. You’re such a sycophant of Judd that one could wonder whether you’re just Judd using a sock puppet. I think it’s very clear that Judd and other Think Progress people do use sock puppets. It’s not a question of if they do, but of who the sock puppets are.
In the end, you evaded admitting the only thing I sought out to show: that Judd’s list was deceptive. Instead of just admitting that I was right, you spun it into stuff about WWII.
Can’t you just stop being a sycophant and admit that Judd’s use of numbers was misleading?
Hey, Seixon, Rove called. He wants you to stop helping him.
Hey TripMaster, Judd needs his left ball licked some more. Chop chop.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:30 pmUnholy Moses,
Blanco didn’t ask for troops until August 31. Deal with it. Don’t lash out at me because you’re too brainwashed to know your ass from your face. You guys always start the insults, and I’m not one to let that go without a fight. Peace.
Yikes,
Come on now Seixon you are pissing me off now. I have never wanted or indicated I wanted to see failure. What I am seeing IS failure. A prosperous Muslim/Arab state with democracy is a pipedream sold by the neocons to justify thier “strategyâ€.
You see what you want to see. That’s my point.
Bruce,
Where does it say that she asked for troops? It doesn’t. Meanwhile, we have Blanco on video, on August 31, saying “maybe I should ask for troops”. Come on buddy, I’m trying to help you recover from the massive brainwashing you have endured.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:34 pm#221
I don’t believe in Darwin.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:34 pmWhy the Fed’s should be prepared at a moments notice for a situation where a local government completely failed to provide transportation to the morons that didn’t leave is beyond me.
Comment by Gary #217
Gargoyle,
…the people who didn’t evacuate were those who were too poor, too sick, too old, and had had many years of experience with hurricanes (thus did not believe that Katrina was the horror that it turned out to be)…
…but MORONS like YOU and your racist inbred ilk are loathe to recall the “video” of your TREASONOUS, corrupt, incompetent god Bushiva…
…posturing in his “situation room” and crowing about being “ready” for any eventuality…
…had that sorry, fumbling-bumbling, al CRACKER mofo not been playing air guitar at an inbred fundraiser…
…he might have taken the opportunity to- for ONCE- look presidential…
…I now return your head back to you, and give you permission to continue to fellate your coward-in-chief…
…you TRAITOROUS, Bush a*slicking, pigfu*king MORON…
July 11th, 2006 at 4:35 pmJudd,
Where are you? Why can’t you just answer Seixon yourself? Put down that Starbucks and start typing.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:36 pmDo we have to reply to the comments by Seixon? He manages to highjack every thread, and we end up far afield.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:38 pmCan we must ignore him and his stupid comments and ignorant opinions? Please!!
#221
I don’t believe in Darwin.
Comment by Grandpa Seth #226
I know, it’s hard for you to believe in anything…
…that isn’t a liquid asset…
…or have the name Bush attached to it…
July 11th, 2006 at 4:38 pm“You see what you want to see. That’s my point.”
That’s retarded. You see what THEY want you to see. Your an ignorant bastard. Bye bye
July 11th, 2006 at 4:39 pm#228 – Grandpa Seth, see #28 above.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:43 pmJudd: “I don’t take research orders. The inflation numbers are publicly available. Anyone can use them and make whatever point they wish.”
Translation: I don’t take research orders from anyone other than former Clinton administration officials, and even though I get paid to do research, you should do my research for me because I want to leave up my deceptive and inaccurate post.
Grandpha Seth,
Why would Judd respond in his own name when he can just use a sock puppet and attack me?
July 11th, 2006 at 4:44 pmSeth, here is what Judd said:
Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time.
No where did he say that he adjusted for inflation. He wasn’t telling a lie, it is indeed the 4th biggest deficit in American history.
If you adjust for Inflation, Bush still gets 2 years in the worst 5, and neither year was when a major disaster struck so you can’t argue 9/11 (2001) or Katrina (2005) over it. He doesn’t get 4th and 5th though, he gets 3rd and fifth. In short, he beats 1944.
This is not something to be proud of if you are coming straight off of a huge surplus, and certainly no grounds for celebration.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:44 pmBruce,
2006 is not the “4th biggest deficit in American history”. Numbers without adjusting for inflation are meaningless when you are arranging them in a list that is affected by history.
Yet once again, we see that no one other than blank will take the courageous step in admitting that Judd deceived with his list.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:48 pmMarie (#229)–
As one of the people responsible, I apologize. To be honest, I really was trying to have a conversation with the guy at one point (and even admitted I was wrong on one of my counterarguments, thus proving I’m a human being).
But it’s like trying to explain particle physics to a cocker spaniel puppy. Of course, he’s obviously a mind reader, since he magically knows that I never, ever, disagree with the Democratic party and knew exactly why I asked why someone who doesn’t live in America would care about American media.
But I’ve learned my lesson — DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!
July 11th, 2006 at 4:51 pm- Seixon:
My my….the wheels are coming off rather catastrophically today, aren’t they? A post consisting almost completely of ad homenim insults, and the only thing not an insult was an outright lie:
In the end, you evaded admitting the only thing I sought out to show: that Judd’s list was deceptive.
From my previous post:
Of course, I’d expect you to miss that, as it conflicts with your ’sycophant’ natterings.
Instead of just admitting that I was right, you spun it into stuff about WWII.
I’m terribly sorry if I pointed out something inconvenient to you, Seixon, but you were the one who supplied the chart, after all..I work with what I’ve got.
Yet you project that onto me, and then ask me to do Judd’s work for him even though he gets paid to do this.
At the risk of sounding like a past Republican president, “There you go again”. Judd was under no obligation whatsoever to post the inflation-adjusted numbers you demanded so haughtily, and I for one am glad he didn’t acquiesce to your childish demands. After whining about it for several posts, you went out and, by coming back with a link to a chart someone else made, proved what Judd was saying all along (that those numbers were available to anyone who wanted to take the time to look), and proved what I was saying all along (that you’re incapable of doing your own homework).
You could have just started out with posting the graph, but that wouldn’t have caused nearly as large a speed-bump to the thread, and it wouldn’t have satisified you swollen ego in any case.
So, you post your chart, and crow about how it proves your point, and when someone moseys along and points out that chart you found actually portrays your darling Dubya in a worse light than he started out in, you abandon all pretext of a rational debate and resort to solid, wall-to-wall insults.
Congrats, Seixon….with this latest idiocy, you’ve successfully become a parody of yourself. Once again, we thinking beings are grateful to you for your efforts to support our cause by showcasing the sheer lunacy of the opposition.
Keep up the bad work.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:52 pmSeixon, if I was Judd I would log your IP and ban you. Once a poster has started getting personally abusive with a member of admin there is very little hope of getting a civilised discussion out of that poster. If I went onto Free Republic and called the admin shills for the administration, no matter how much I believe them to be so, I would expect nothing less then banning, and I would agree with my banning.
I see no reason why Judd shouldn’t treat you the same way.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:56 pmWhere does it say that she asked for troops? It doesn’t. Meanwhile, we have Blanco on video, on August 31, saying “maybe I should ask for troopsâ€. Come on buddy, I’m trying to help you recover from the massive brainwashing you have endured.
Comment by Seixon #225
Septicshock,
What’s all the freaking hubub about…
…Blanco misinterpreted the lying coward Bushiva’s assurances (from his Crawford situation room pre-Katrina landfall photo-op)…
…where he assured her and everyone on that video-conference call that the situation was well in hand…
…But let’s say for argument’s sake that you Sexedupsepsistrash are correct…
…Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin were both derelict in their emergency plan execution…
…Shouldn’t FEMA (Brownie, and Bushiva) have been right there with federal help as soon as the levies were breached?
…especially when they were forewarned that the levies could be “topped” (which mean’t that flooding could occur)?
…there’s NO excuse for FEMA”s derelict response, nor the TRAITOR Bushiva’s infuriatingly feeble response (especially the insulting “Brownie’s doin’ a great job” gaffe)…
Septicswill, you and ALL of the TREASONOUS Bush worshippers on this planet would kill your children for Bushiva and L’il dick’s greater glory…
…this makes you subhuman, and totally non-credible…
…bi*ch you have NO argument!
I stand corrected on calling you a “TRAITOR” Sexedstarvedsepsis…
…as you aren’t even an American…
…but don’t feel bad though…
…with sh*thead Bushite TRAITORS like Grandpuke, Gargoyle and Bush’s trick John…
…you’ve got plenty of company…
July 11th, 2006 at 4:57 pmIf ONLY Bushiva and L’il Dick loved America like Richard Nixon…
…or Al Gore…
July 11th, 2006 at 4:58 pmI don’t believe in Darwin.
Comment by Grandpa Seth — July 11, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
You don’t “believe in” a well documented human being who lived a couple centuries ago? Lemme guess you prefer the unprovable realm of make-believe idols? Figures. Darwin is provable. God is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
July 11th, 2006 at 4:59 pmA search of wikipedia yielded only one Charles Darwin, but many gods:
Conceptions of God can vary widely, despite the use of the same term for them all. Theologians and philosophers have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization. The God of monotheism, pantheism or panentheism, or the supreme deity of henotheistic religions, may be conceived of in various degrees of abstraction.
The gathered conceptions come from different fields as:
Religion, focusing upon the three monotheist Abrahamic religions and the main Eastern ones, sourced in their Sacred writings and theological derived processes
July 11th, 2006 at 5:00 pmAbrahamic conceptions of God
Biblical definition of God
Kabbalistic definition of God
Negative theology
God as unity or trinity
Binitarianism
God in Sikhism
Conceptions of God in Hinduism
God in Buddhism;
Esotericism, focusing upon esoteric-mystic and hermeticist views which conceive the whole cosmos as a living and evolving embodiement of higher spiritual reality
The All
The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception;
Metaphysics and Philosophy, focusing upon abstract thought based in intellectual logics, as an attempt to harmonize conceptions
Aristotelian view of God
The Ultimate;
Modern views, which range from applying deep theological studies to approaches of experiencing through more mystic or transcendent views
Process theology and Open theism
Posthuman God
God as an extraterrestrial
Phenomenological definition of God.
Yikes-
Learn to grow a sense of humor. I was only kidding. I believe in Darwin and his theory of evolution but I also believe in intelligent design as well. You guys think you are all so smart and that you are better than the rest of us hicks. Your refusal to listen to a differing opinion has made you close minded and out of touch with the mainstream.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:05 pmWhen you’re trying to make the country go broke, you have every reason to celebrate your successes. Duh.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:05 pm- Bruce Gorton:
Seixon, if I was Judd I would log your IP and ban you.
No! The poster boy for idiot fascism Seixon is the best thing ever to happen to liberalism!
Besides which, he’s so darned fun to argue with! This is what little Dubya must have felt like when he blew up frogs with firecrackers. ^_^
July 11th, 2006 at 5:07 pmSince the 2003 Bush Tax cut, tax revenues have Soared roughly 20%. The tax cut was a very good thing if you like the government to have more tax revenue. What we should all be pissed about is the fact that government spending is out of control and is truly to blame for the deficit. So, the Tax cut helped the Fed’s in a HUGE WAY while the congress screwed us by spending to much.
Seems simple enough to me and probably the biggest issue I have with the Repugs currently. Personally, if the Dem’s come out and proclaim that they will reduce the Budget by a good amount, I will be voting Democrat. If they will not come out and say they want to reduce the budget, they really should stop complaining about the Budget deficit as that just looks foolish.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:10 pm[...] This $296 billion deficit now, it’s not so bad. It’s only the fourth largest deficit we’ve ever had. Think Progress lists the all-time top five: 1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion 2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion 3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion 4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected) 5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 5:10 pmTripMaster,
Point out where you said Judd’s list was wrong. You didn’t, you just slithered away with “Yes, with numbers adjusted for inflation, Dubya now comes in 4th and 5th.” Just say that Judd’s list was wrong, then apologize for all your stupid comments demanding me to do Judd’s job for him.
Judd was under no obligation whatsoever to post the inflation-adjusted numbers you demanded so haughtily, and I for one am glad he didn’t acquiesce to your childish demands. After whining about it for several posts, you went out and, by coming back with a link to a chart someone else made, proved what Judd was saying all along (that those numbers were available to anyone who wanted to take the time to look), and proved what I was saying all along (that you’re incapable of doing your own homework).
OK, so Judd, who gets paid to do research, is not obligated to do correct research, but I, some random poster here, has to do the research for him to show that he’s deceiving everyone? Wow. And then you claim I can’t do my homework? I did, and showed Judd’s list was wrong. Jesus.
You could have just started out with posting the graph, but that wouldn’t have caused nearly as large a speed-bump to the thread, and it wouldn’t have satisified you swollen ego in any case.
I pointed out that the numbers were not adjusted for inflation, meaning that if they had been adjusted, the list would not be the same. Instead of saying “gee Seixon, you’re probably right, we should get right on that” you attacked me, insulted me, and demanded that I do Judd’s job for him. You were too busy being a sycophant to actually wanting to find the truth.
So, you post your chart, and crow about how it proves your point, and when someone moseys along and points out that chart you found actually portrays your darling Dubya in a worse light than he started out in, you abandon all pretext of a rational debate and resort to solid, wall-to-wall insults.
LOL. Who started with the insults? You guys did! I pointed out a fact, that Judd’s numbers were not adjusted for inflation, and for the “sin” of pointing out Judd’s obvious lacking research, I was smeared and sought undermined. Hilarious!
Now you are spinning that the truth I came up with shows Bush even worse off than before. How is that?
Judd’s list has Bush at #1-4, with Bush Sr. at #5. The true list has Bush at #3 and #5. How is that worse? Well, it’s not, but that’s the way you are spinning it because you simply can’t stand that I was right all along.
I don’t give a damn where Bush ends up on that list, I only sought to show that Judd was tricking everyone without adjusting for inflation. In the end, I was right, and you along with many others should be ashamed of all the harassing you did instead of just acknowledging it.
Congrats, Seixon….with this latest idiocy, you’ve successfully become a parody of yourself. Once again, we thinking beings are grateful to you for your efforts to support our cause by showcasing the sheer lunacy of the opposition.
LOL. I’m a parody? I brought up a valid point in the 7th comment of this thread. Instead of admitting that I had a valid point, Judd, you and many others went on the attack. After all is said and done, now you’re faced with having to admit that, yes, I did have a point, and I was right. Talk about a parody.
Bruce,
Seixon, if I was Judd I would log your IP and ban you.
Yes, because most of you partisan whackjobs can’t stand to be faced with opposition. Thanks for revealing your fascist tendencies.
Once a poster has started getting personally abusive with a member of admin there is very little hope of getting a civilised discussion out of that poster.
I pointed out that Judd was deceiving, and that was true as you are all having to admit now. You attacked me for pointing that out. You attack me, I attack back. Think about it until next time.
If I went onto Free Republic and called the admin shills for the administration, no matter how much I believe them to be so, I would expect nothing less then banning, and I would agree with my banning.
The only difference, of course, is that Judd is actually paid by a former Clinton administration official to post half-truths and nonsense to defend said administration from any criticism. Free Republic is not in the same position. If Free Republic admins can’t deal with having their posts shown to be fraudulent, then they would be shameful.
I see no reason why Judd shouldn’t treat you the same way.
You can at least give Judd credit for not banning me, I’ll give him that. However, it’s very clear that he and other Think Progress people are attacking me and trying to undermine me through sock puppets. If he banned me, he would have become his own worst enemy.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:10 pmTripMaster,
No! The poster boy for idiot fascism Seixon is the best thing ever to happen to liberalism!
Idiot fascism? Can you name a single way that anything I have done is “fascist”? Can you name anything I have done that substantiates calling me an “idiot”?
Who’s the one who made a factual statement in comment #7, then was harassed for hundreds of comments, only to have been shown to be correct?
Oh, that’s me. Thanks.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:17 pmSeixon it was a pity your lie about the Iraq war contribution to the deficit at the end of post 15 undermined your credibility. That aside I don’t support the use of your personal data to intimidate you.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:31 pmSince the 2003 Bush Tax cut, tax revenues have Soared roughly 20%. The tax cut was a very good thing if you like the government to have more tax revenue. What we should all be pissed about is the fact that government spending is out of control and is truly to blame for the deficit.
Comment by Gary #247
Gargoyle,
Every expert who doesn’t fellate or pray to Bush daily realizes that the Bushite numbers are sexed up…
…these numbers are inflated by military industrial complex and energy company profits…
…that are NOT getting back into the pockets of working class Americans…
…I SO hope your family (and those of all the other sh*t-for-brains Bush worshipping TRAITORS) are bankrupted when the bill comes due…
…for this illegal OCCUPATION of Iraq, and all of the other theft being perpetrated by the TREASONOUS, criminal Bushite junta…
…unless you’re in that top 5%…
…you’re a dumba*s piece of sh*t to come on this board touting Bushiva’s bogus economic numbers…
…what do you get for carrying his water, you poor dumb basta*d?
July 11th, 2006 at 5:32 pmTerry,
I wasn’t a lie, I was wrong about the degree of the weight the Iraq war had in the budget. I think someone pointed out that it was $50 billion? If you take that off the books, the deficit would be cut by about 20%, right? There’s no doubt that the war is juicing up the deficit, which was my point.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:39 pmTerry,
That aside I don’t support the use of your personal data to intimidate you.
Apparently Judd doesn’t share your concern.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:41 pmSeixon:
Please point to the post in which I said your comment #7 was untrue.
In the event that you can’t (because it doesn’t exist), stop beating your breast about it.
I never disputed your contention that the list was not adjusted for inflation. I did ask you for inflation-adjusted numbers, to show that you weren’t using the inflation-adjustment argument as another one of your pointless speed-bumps in the thread. That was in post #24. It wasn’t until post #88 that you relented and did your own research, proving my point nicely.
(I also called you on an obvious lie regarding whether or not the costs of Iraq were included, but that seems to have fallen mysteriously by the wayside…)
So you post this graph showing inflation-adjusted deficit figures, and it’s all very nice and informative….pity you couldn’t have posted it earlier. Among other things, it shows:
With inflation adjusted, Dubya is third and fifth on the list, first, second, and fourth place being the worst world war this planet has ever seen.
(By the way, in my last post, I erred and said ‘fourth and fifth’….funny how you failed to correct that, isn’t it?)
– and –
Dubya is responsible for the greatest net change from surplus to deficit in the shortest amount of time in the history of this country.
Have an issue with the above points? Then be a man and debate me on them, instead of slinging insults and tantrums.
The only harassment I’m guilty of is a) wanting you to do your own research, and b) pointing out just how badly your more accurate numbers make our administration look.
Can you name a single way that anything I have done is “fascist� Can you name anything I have done that substantiates calling me an “idiot�
We’ve been over this. I’ve pointed out examples countless times, but you’re incapable of recognizing them. Fortunately, I’m not looking to convince you….I’m looking to convince the other readers of this site…and from the other comments, it looks like I’ve been largely successful.
Thanks, and keep up the bad work.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:42 pmCan you name anything I have done that substantiates calling me an “idiot�
Comment by Seixon #250
Septicshock,
…Our country is hemmorhaging money, treasure, and patriotism…
…and you bring your punk bi*ch a*s on here and try to turn an insignificant slip…
…(Bushiva is STILL a thief, mass murderer, and incompetent TRAITOR no matter WHERE he is on that fu*king list)…
… into some MONUMENTAL ideological victory…
…for your own egotistical gratification…
…you’re an idiot because you’ve walked into a den of hungry wolves with pork chop drawers on…
…and with each keystroke we’re all going to continue to attack you ’til we devour your dumb a*s…
…you’re sport…sport…
…so don’t take yourself so seriously…
…we certainly don’t…
July 11th, 2006 at 5:44 pmBig Papa,
I am not even sure what you are talking about. Federal Tax Revenue numbers are available to everyone and they can’t be “spiced” up as they simply report what they get in tax receipts. If you want to suggest that the Fed’s are lying about what they are, please provide some proof as even this site has never gone that far. Actually, I have never seen anyone actually claim that the IRS is posting the wrong tax revenue info.
Anyways, we have seen a huge increae in tax revenue since the Bush tax cut actually went into effect. Here’s a chart to get you started. Also, what’s up with the name calling?
Chart:
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg
July 11th, 2006 at 5:49 pmGary,
I think you need to study the numbers some more. Your claim that tax revenues “soared 20%” after the Bush tax cuts is simply false. See this chart:
http://www.heritage.org/ research/ features/ BudgetChartBook/ charts_C/ c1.cfm
July 11th, 2006 at 5:53 pmLearn to grow a sense of humor. I was only kidding.
Take you own advice… so was I.
I believe in Darwin and his theory of evolution but I also believe in intelligent design as well.
Okay then, explain the Intelligent Design of the human appendix. A worthless and occasionally fatal organ. When you’re done, I’d love to hear all about the intelligence of the pseudogenes we share with chimpanzees. You know, genes that exist but don’t actually do anything. The same exact ones that chimpanzees have. And, after that, you could tell me how intelligent the human eye is (the optic nerve runs in front of the retina and not behind it like in other animals), the engineering nightmare of teh human skeletal system, and for a closer, you could tell us why you have nipples (you actually have defunct mammory glands as well).
You guys think you are all so smart and that you are better than the rest of us hicks.
We are smart. We choose to educate ourselves with information and usuful knowledge while you’ve decided not to.
But we’ve never claimed to be better. We just fear what your choice to be willfully ignorant is doing to our planet and our lives.
Your refusal to listen to a differing opinion has made you close minded and out of touch with the mainstream.
Comment by Grandpa Seth — July 11, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
We listen to differing opinions. I grew up in a conservative Christian home. It was by listening to differing opinions that I converted to the other side. Liberals and Atheists have the argument that is most logical and most realistic.
But, you aren’t here to offer a differing opinion. You’re here to be RIGHT. It is actually you who is close minded to what we have to say. Otherwise, you’d be in a liberal blog asking questions and not making insulting statements.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:54 pmTripMaster,
I pointed out that the numbers were not adjusted, and you basically said “so what?” Judd said he wouldn’t do research, even though that’s what he’s paid to do, and then I had to go find the data myself since no one was actually interested in starting the debate with some actual real facts.
If you had all just taken my advice and corrected the list right from the start, we wouldn’t have had to waste 200 comments nattering about it.
Dubya is responsible for the greatest net change from surplus to deficit in the shortest amount of time in the history of this country.
What about Congress? It’s tiresome when everything is “Bush” when we all know that Congress is the one who passes the budgets. You can fault Bush for not vetoing, but that’s just about it.
The only harassment I’m guilty of is a) wanting you to do your own research, and b) pointing out just how badly your more accurate numbers make our administration look.
Why is it on me to do Judd’s research for him? He gets paid to do it. I don’t. The revised list shows Bush not as worse off as Judd’s list, which was part of the point. Often Bush’s detractors are largely right, but then they make the mistake of exaggerating or overselling what they’re saying.
We’ve been over this. I’ve pointed out examples countless times, but you’re incapable of recognizing them. Fortunately, I’m not looking to convince you….I’m looking to convince the other readers of this site…and from the other comments, it looks like I’ve been largely successful.
Yes, because I’m so sure it takes a lot to make Think Progress sheep believe that someone they disagree with is a fascist… You haven’t pointed out examples, that’s the thing. I have asked you a million times to do it, then you respond with “well, I can’t be bothered showing all the examples” even though I only ask you for ONE.
The tactics employed by many here are to call everyone they disagree fascists and similar things, which results in a mob-like atmosphere where everyone who doesn’t know what’s going on or what has been said just believes in the charges.
Just like at DailyKos and TPMCafe, the mob here just hangs people for disagreeing with them and smears them so no one will listen to them. That’s closer to fascism than anything I have done.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:57 pmRealScientist,
Your link is broken. Either way, I am not sure how you can dispute the Fed’s own number on the Dept. of Treasury website itself. Afterall, if those numbers are wrong, how would the Heritage site ever get correct numbers as they would still need to get them from the feds as well?
Anyways, I wasn’t posting an opinion, Federal tax revenue is a fact.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pmGary,
That link didn’t get copied correctly. Here it is again
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C/c1.cfm
As for your link to the Treasury chart, you are being bamboozled. Most of the Bush tax cuts did not come in this phony “Jobs and Growth Act”. Massive tax cuts were instituted in 2001 and 2002. The first tax cut was even retroactive to the first day of 2001, before Bush was even inaugurated. And look at the chart. Revenues declined a lot. Futhermore, Bush’s new Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, just said to the press that tax cuts do not lead to revenue increases. Also, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office earlier issued a report saying that the deficit could not be closed without either raising taxes or cutting spending. Supply side economics simply doesn’t work when tax levels are already this low.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pmGary,
Try actually studying the charts. They are consistent. You need to look at the axis labels, and relate the position on the chart to the years in which tax cuts were enacted.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:03 pmunbelievable,
We listen to differing opinions.
Ha, no you don’t. You told us just a few days ago that you wanted us to leave you alone to your opinions. You are a poor liar.
I grew up in a conservative Christian home. It was by listening to differing opinions that I converted to the other side. Liberals and Atheists have the argument that is most logical and most realistic.
Interesting. My home wasn’t all that religious, but I think I figured out there was no such thing as God by middle school. I did that by myself though, not through listening to anyone.
But, you aren’t here to offer a differing opinion. You’re here to be RIGHT.
Heh. That’s funny, because you want people to leave so that you can never be proven WRONG, in other words, you are here to be RIGHT yourself. Everyone wants to be right. Only cowards seek to lock themselves in a bubble to prevent being proven wrong though. Those who are courageous seek out differing opinions to make sure that they are right.
It is actually you who is close minded to what we have to say. Otherwise, you’d be in a liberal blog asking questions and not making insulting statements.
Rocks. Glass house. Yadda, yadda.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:04 pm#253 – er whether or not the budget has $50b in it or not in the wapo April 24th, the csr reported that iraq/afghanistan operations will exceed $100b in 2006…. Sorry but that budget deficit at the top of the page is not telling the whole truth. Wonder when the rise in interest rates is going to cancel out the extra tax revenues?
July 11th, 2006 at 6:15 pmAnyways, we have seen a huge increae in tax revenue since the Bush tax cut actually went into effect. Here’s a chart to get you started. Also, what’s up with the name calling?
Comment by Gary #257
Gargoyle,
…what good are increased tax revenues doing any of us taxpayers when they’re being spent in a foreign country…
…making already wealthy people even wealthier…
…while making working class people poorer…
…the bill for Bushiva is going to come due AFTER he leaves office…
…and guess what’s going to happen to tax revenues then?
…as for the name calling…
…I DESPISE ANYONE who supports, defends, or regurgitates ANY position the TREASONOUS criminal Bushite junta takes on ANY issue…
…they’re ALL demons and liars…
…you’ve obviously flashed some dumb a*s hypocritical-conservative tendencies…
…thus, I DESPISE YOU!
July 11th, 2006 at 6:16 pm- Seixon:
I pointed out that the numbers were not adjusted, and you basically said “so what?â€
LIAR. I never said anything of the sort. Find and link to the relevant post, or admit getting caught in YET ANOTHER LIE.
Judd said he wouldn’t do research, even though that’s what he’s paid to do
Well, then, you’re entitled to a refund. Oh, wait…
then I had to go find the data myself since no one was actually interested in starting the debate with some actual real facts.
Pauvre bébé. You actually had to do your own legwork (for once), and you still haven’t got over the shock. How will you ever manage?
If you had all just taken my advice and corrected the list right from the start, we wouldn’t have had to waste 200 comments nattering about it.
If you had just taken my advice and done your own homework when initailly asked, we wouldn’t have had to waste 200 comments nattering about it…but promoting a more informed discussion wasn’t really your aim, now was it?
What about Congress? It’s tiresome when everything is “Bush†when we all know that Congress is the one who passes the budgets. You can fault Bush for not vetoing, but that’s just about it.
Congress? You mean the rubber-stamp Congress that have basically made the legislative branch subsidiary to the executive? Yes, I agree that they have their share of the blame, for mindlessly following Dubya & Company’s lead, but for them to follow, Dubya & Company had to lead, now didn’t they?
Here’s a homework assignment for you (don’t worry…it’s easy).
Google “The buck stops here”. Be prepred for a short quiz at the end of the week.
Why is it on me to do Judd’s research for him?
Because it’s not his research, dolt. It’s yours.
He gets paid to do it. I don’t.
As I’ve said, you’re entitled to a full refund.
The revised list shows Bush not as worse off as Judd’s list, which was part of the point.
That’s untrue, and you know it. The graph shows farmore elequoently than the ‘top five list’ just how bad it’s become in this country with Chimpy at the tiller…and for that, we thank you.
Yes, because I’m so sure it takes a lot to make Think Progress sheep…
Bonus points for again proving yourself wrong in another thread. God, you really do make it too easy.
The tactics employed by many here are to call everyone they disagree fascists and similar things
Egads! Name-calling? You mean like this post?
I especially like this excerpt:
Charming. It must have been scintillating discourse like this that got your commenting abilities revoked at DailyKOS.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: you’re a parody of yourself.
Keep up the bad work.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:25 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 6:26 pmWhat amazes me is that there is a hidden cost in the Iraqi cakewalk that few refer to. In the process of playing cowboy, BushCo is using up equipment that was created over the prior 20-25 years. The piper will come due very soon. In addition, military people are not re-upping at traditional rates because of extended tours.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:01 pmThis exhausting of personnel and equipment will inflate future budget, but is being swept under the rug. These expenses are not reflected in total in past and current budgets during the W administration. The equivalent is having your un-insured house being taken out by a natural disaster and ignoring the effects on your net worth.
Jeez! The trolls have really hijacked this thread.
Reminds me of Huffington Post.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:41 pm#269 – My post,
July 11th, 2006 at 7:46 pmHere is the tip of the iceberg.
#270 – Steve53,
July 11th, 2006 at 9:12 pmIt looks like they found their rock.
As someone who has spent considerable time overseas, I don’t think it’s quite right to question Seixon’s interest in the US while living in Norway. What the US does has a lot of effect on the rest of the world, so it is a matter of interest to people in other countries–particularly to those who still hold US citizenship.
July 11th, 2006 at 9:40 pmAs for the rest of what Seixon writes, I have no defense. I think it’s best to ignore him.
Celebrating bad news…
Today, President Bush …
July 11th, 2006 at 9:49 pmI saw your chart. That was pretty clever. Why not use this chart from the same site?
It compares deficit based on a percentage of the GDP. very telling. Using a percentage of the GDP as well as adjusting for inflation allows you to adjust for both time and the relative strength of the economy. right now our deficit is hovering around 63% of our Gross Domestic Product.
The page where Sexion got his numbers is here
July 11th, 2006 at 9:57 pm#275 – PoxCulture,
July 11th, 2006 at 11:08 pmI found another chart that goes back to 1920 and the war years (WWII) are a bit more forceful. I don’t remember how far Seixon’s chart went back and don’t want to inflate his ego as I have yet to find the year-by-year deficit numbers. I did find the inflation numbers, but do not know how factually they fit reality. The number Iwrote down for a sanity test says that what I bought today for $1.00 would cost me 8.1 cents in 1942. That is close for a candy bar but going forward to 1945 when a 6 to 8 inch (15-20 cm.) black and whites set went for about $1,500.00 (and weighed as much as a 16 cubic foot refrigerator, then), one has to careful. But, then, $1500.00 is like $165.00 today. Current price on a set that size is about $60.00 and a three year old can carry it.
What a joke!!! Is anyone actually buying this garbage? The economy is a mess and they are celebrating a “reduced” DEFICIT? America, I hope you are happy with what you voted for!!!
July 12th, 2006 at 1:33 am#277 – ElGuapo,
July 12th, 2006 at 2:05 amI agree wholly. The economy is in worse shape then I can ever remember. I believed that we were in for a reprieve during the Clinton years, but then the circus came to town. Someone said “Bring on the clowns.” and that is exactly what occurred.
Oh, and it is not funny!
July 12th, 2006 at 2:07 amPlease examine this report about the effects of tax cuts on revenue:
Further, has anyone considered the vulnerability caused by the huge US deficit? What happens if creditors begin to consider the US debt a less attractive investment? I see only three possibilities: higher interest rates, tax increases, or a default on some portion of the existing debt. All of these would negatively impact the economy and those who worship it.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:38 am- ElGuapo:
What a joke!!! Is anyone actually buying this garbage? The economy is a mess and they are celebrating a “reduced†DEFICIT?
Agreed. Even Seixon, the most vehement neocon apologist who trolls this site, couldn’t do better that a weak argument about how, if you adjust the numbers for inflation, Dubya isn’t that bad. Never mind that with the numbers adjusted, the only years that beat out the Dubya years are the years of the worst world war in the history of the planet. Never mind that that world war started out with a defecit anyway, while Dubya started with the biggest surplus in U.S. history.
The phrase ‘damning with faint praise’ comes to mind.
America, I hope you are happy with what you voted for!!!
We’re not….but then again, we didn’t vote for him. Dubya and his thugs successfully stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, and are laying the groundwork to steal 2008. They tried the ssame thing in Mexico to get their puppet Calderón into power, but fortunately, the Mexicans aren’t nearly as spineless as the Americans, and López Obrador hasn’t given up yet.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:41 amI apologize for the link boo-boo in #280. This is the first time I have participated in such a forum.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:57 amThat’s retarded logic, if for no other reason than that BushCo have never shown the slightest interest in limiting government and in fact have expanded the government more and faster than any administration in history — even more so than the previous record holder, Bush Sr.
You don’t fight $trillion wars when you’re trying to cut the government. BushCo are all about growing the government – in ways to enrich themselves.
The Grover Norquists of the world talk a good game, but at the end of the day they don’t really want to limit the government but to expand it in their own ways. 12 years of Reagan/Bush Sr. and five years of Bush Jr. apparently teach some thick skulled people nothing.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:25 amTP, I like the view of the back of Bush’s head in that shot. Much preferable to look at him from this angle :)
July 12th, 2006 at 8:15 am#277 – ElGuapo,
I agree wholly. The economy is in worse shape then I can ever remember. I believed that we were in for a reprieve during the Clinton years, but then the circus came to town. Someone said “Bring on the clowns.†and that is exactly what occurred.
Comment by WaltTheMan
July 12th, 2006 at 10:11 am==============
Scary clowns.
TP, I like the view of the back of Bush’s head in that shot. Much preferable to look at him from this angle :)
Comment by unbelievable
July 12th, 2006 at 10:15 am===============
I can’t/won’t watch any member of the criminal Bush administration.
I can’t wait to see W’s back. 922 days to go, if he is not impeached first.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:21 pm[...] Yesterday, the White House released its FY2007 mid-session budget review with great fanfare, celebrating its projection that the deficit will be nearly $300 billion this year. [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 1:17 pmthe soft bigotry of low expectations
July 12th, 2006 at 8:49 pmIn re Seixon’s comments:
I am just trying to understand this.
First, GW’s administration projects a $516 Billion surplus for 2006 (Savings). Then it announces a 296 Billion deficit (Debt).
THIS IS A $812 BILLION SWING. AM I WRONG?
Now we all know why “King George” was an abject failure in business.
July 13th, 2006 at 2:54 pmDoes the $296 billion dollar deficit this hyear include money borrowed from the Social Security and other trust funds, the off-budget funding of the Iraq/Afghan war, and other off-budget funds? If so, the budget is somewhere around $500-600 billion. In fact, Government budget deficits are projected at $600 billion or so for several years. I assume this is money borrowed from all sources.
I appreciate comments from others.
Also, how much of the growth in our economy is due to reduced interest rates rather than tax cuts? The housing boom and large purchases because of lower interest rates has probably had more to do with low interest rates. I would not have purchased a new car recently if interest rates had not been 5-6%. My family has not benefited to any significant degree from the Bush tax cuts. I calculated $340 per year. Other increases, such as gasoline dwarf tax cuts. And it is ironic that the low tax rate were initiated because the economy was in such bad shape early in the Bush administration.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:39 pmTo the braniac that claimed that the poor and middle class are being shaken down, resulting in better deficit numbers, how stupid can you be? Poor folks don’t pay taxes; I fail to see how anyone could shake them down for something they don’t owe.
The liberal mantra is that every tax cut is a “tax cut for the rich.” Well, yeah. We don’t require poor folks to pay taxes (in fact we subsidize them with all manner of entitlement moneys), and the middle class pay marginal rates. It’s the rich that traditionally get soaked, and the rich that always have the most to gain from any tax cut. The rich are also the folks that are creating jobs and taking the risks that create additional taxable income. Quit the whine-fest.
July 15th, 2006 at 1:13 pm[...] [Cross-posted at Firedoglake on July 15, 2006] Earlier this week, the Republicans celebrated a reduction of the federal deficit to $296 billion (as opposed to the $400 billion projection in February) for the upcoming fiscal year. (ed. note: What a surprise. They botched an estimation. Business as usual in the Bush White House.) While members of the GOP did endzone dances in celebration of the fourth highest deficit — ever — there were some interesting developments this week with government spending on Bush’s misadventure in Iraq and the underworld of war profiteering. [...]
July 16th, 2006 at 6:36 am[...] When I was a wee little one, my Mum would tell us boys to “Turn it down!†This could have been the volume of any activity that made noise (TV, Stereo, beating me up). My older brothers (see beating me up reference) taught me the trick of turning UP the volume prior to turning back to its current level so it seemed like we were Turning it down. Over at Firedoglake "Earlier this week, the Republicans celebrated a reduction of the federal deficit to $296 billion (as opposed to the $400 billion projection in February) for the upcoming fiscal year. (ed. note: What a surprise. They botched an estimation. Business as usual in the Bush White House.) While members of the GOP did endzone dances in celebration of the fourth highest deficit — ever". I was struck with how little things change. Oh by the way, Mom would bust us if she was too distracted, but of a mother of four morally challenge boys…. What’s the Main Stream Media excuse….oh right gay marriage. [...]
July 16th, 2006 at 3:45 pmPost 292, Quinn Clark, get educated! Under Bush tax cuts an income of $100k got $406 while a millionaire rec’d $42,000. Uh??? Let’s see, 406 X 10 = $4060, NOT $42,000 back under buddy Bush tax cuts!!!
August 15th, 2006 at 2:46 pmThis is a pretty huge thread and I have only skimmed it. However, there are several things I did not run across that might add to the discussion:
a) Rather than adjusting for inflation, I claim the most meaningful statistics come by considering federal budgets and suplus/deficits as a % of GDP. This is the measurement that is usually used, and gives a much more useful and meaningful analysis. If you make $100,000 per year, and run a $10,000 deficit in a bad year, it isn’t a disaster… but if I make $30,000 and run a $10,000 deficit, I’m pretty screwed.
One limitation in this method is that GDP is evaluated on a calendar year basis, and federal budgets on a fiscal year basis, so there is always some skew factor.
b) The reason the Bush Administration is running large deficits, even if you adjust for being in “wartime”, is that they have abandoned the conservative value of small government. Conservatives accuse Bush of being Big Government, and “spending like a drunken sailor.” but Bush’s “neocon” supporters prefer to use the word “strong government”, and claim that, in reality, Americans are not truly interested in reducing government — that they have given in on wanting to cut programs they don’t like, in exchange for getting funding for the programs they do. This dealmaking is what makes the government go around. Try to get a bill passed to support a program you think is important, without having to cave in and give somebody else money for something you think is BS.
c) It has been stated in this thread that George Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” have shifted the tax burden towards the poor. Actually, the statistics are just the opposite. While the “rich” are paying tax at a lower rate than before, they are paying much more tax. Always remember that wealth is not a zero-sum game — it helps no one to “take down the rich”, but more important to “lift up the poor”.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:06 pmPhp Ip Hit Counter…
Thanks for short yet informative article. It covers most of things I wanted to know on this topic…
September 7th, 2006 at 7:23 am[...] You can’t have a substantial increase in government outlay without a corresponding increase in government receipts. Well, I guess you can, but then you are left celebrating the fourth largest deficit in history as a “good day for American taxpayers”. [...]
September 13th, 2006 at 8:43 amDubya ought to have Rummy ram an F-15 up all of your arses. I’ve never seen so much democratic illogic posted in one sight as I have here. You all have no concept of true financial analysis and taking things in context and historical perspective.
Anytime (which is often) the Bush administration does something right, you pinhead kook aid drinkers on the left fail to see it, and when anyone on any random website posts a comment in support of W, you have to attack them personally. That’s the liberalidiot mentality and MO.
You’re all as thin as the paper I wipe my arse with.
REAL men and women vote REPUBLICAN.
Schmucks
October 7th, 2006 at 11:28 pm[...] It’s the largest deficit in history if you don’t adjust for inflation and the 4th largest if you do. Kudos Bush. The FY 2006 Deficit Was $248 Billion, Down $71 Billion From FY 2005. (William L. Watts, “Treasury: U.S. Deficit Fell To $248 Billion In ‘06,†MarketWatch, 10/11/06) [...]
October 25th, 2006 at 9:59 pmYou have no concept of finance and how a treasury department runs. When the country grows, as the USA has, it is OK for debt to increase as a percent of GDP. We do not have a very high debt as a percent of GDP. This, NOT absolute dollars, is the smart measure of debt level. You cannot just compare this deficit level to the level of the past. That is completely ignorant of growth factors and has no relative context, such as percentage of GDP.
The real shame is liberals who have saddled this country with legions of stupid entitlement programs that obviously have failed to produce results after decades of spending billions upon billions of dollars. You CANNOT legislate morality, it must be taught. We spend more on these failed entitlement programs than on our own defense and that is rediculous to say the least.
Any of you liberals out there who claim to be fair minded should start thinking about things in a logical manner. Too many of you think with your hearts and they lead you astray from reality and the truth. You may be well intentioned and have a good heart but you don’t know jack squat about running the world’s largest capatilistic economy.
Kool aid sippers such as the idiot who tried to make hay out of the deficit levels we have, will never achieve that deeper understanding of how this country actually works. Yes, that sorry person, and any other liberal idiots will keep viewing deficits like you view balancing your check book. What a classical uneducated error and lack of financial understanding.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:01 pm[...] wants high-fives all around for yet another massive budget deficit. Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 am[...] wants high-fives all around for yet another massive budget deficit. Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:51 am[...] wants high-fives all around for yet another massive budget deficit. Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:11 pm[...] wants high-fives all around for yet another massive budget deficit. Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmforeign currency chart
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:04 pmWeight Loss Low Carbohydrate Diet The Zone Diet
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 12:34 amInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 8:45 amEric
Thanks for write this article
March 19th, 2008 at 12:38 amAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 6:56 amBusiness Credit Collections
Small Business Lines Of Credit
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:09 amCracks House
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 amPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 amFunction Of Hearing Aid
Found your blog on yahoo – thanks for the article but i still don’t get it.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:31 amNutritional Supplements Weight Loss Weight Loss
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 6:49 amCash Advance Fast
If someone you know is plain on bill paying money just effortlessly apply for an online cash advance loan that is super, untroublesome, and express today!
March 31st, 2008 at 11:21 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 8:48 pmBest Usa Vacation Spots
Recently I took a trip to the Bahamas and used some of your advice. Cheers.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:08 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 pmJack
To all the uninitiated out there – read this and take heed. This is good stuff. Thanks.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:29 am[...] Now in 2006 our child-like emperor projected a $296b deficit for the year, heralding it as a “Good Day for the American Taxpayer” and a vindication of his economic policy. In reality it was a good day for anyone stupid enough to accept the Bush line of bullshit without the obligatory research. As a matter of fact, only overspending our revenue by $296b is a pretty good year for Bush; ranking 4th since the beginning of his presidency. Unfortunately an annual deficit of $296b ranks fourth since the beginning of our country; right behind 2004, 2003 and 2005 ($413b, $378b and $318b, respectively) (Source) [...]
April 8th, 2008 at 11:38 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 4:07 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 6:30 pmPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:52 amMy Cracks and Serials
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 12:24 amWeight Loss Pill Identifier Pills
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 10:16 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm