Bush Celebrates Fourth Largest Deficit In History
Filed Under: Budget
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.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
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