Bush Budget a Bust

was anyone in a position to remember the rockin' 401k mutual funds and stock options? no fool could do worse than 30%!

clinton was, for all his faults, a truly emotionaly inspiring leader, he conveyed enthusiasm and represented hope for those in need. what we have now is a tight lipped grimace in comparison...for we are told there can be no smiling after 9-11, esp when it comes to anything remotely to do with the national state of affairs, remember, there is a war on.

ah, there were those who blamed the bush economy on a backlash effect from clinton and his (to some) repulsive lustful behaviours, but now that we are treated to a 2nd term this rings hollow...

anyway, we should stop our whinin' ways or give our tax cuts back, so we are told by "those what knows" what is best for us.

poweredbysweat said:

Here's some figures vs the Clinton years:

US National Debt: 1996 thru 2000 --> 5.2 Trillion to 5.6 Trillion
2002 thru 2006 --> 6.3 Trillion to 8.3 Trillion

Budget Deficit: 2000 ---> Budget surplus of 526 Billion
2004 ---> Budget deficit of 445 Billion

Trade Deficit: 2000 ---> 271 Billion
2005 --> 725 Billion

Clinton's administration whittled away at the Budget deficit for years, and finally had us at a surplus in 2000, which would have been a nice start to reducing our debt. If we ran our household economy like Bush runs our National economy, we'd all be bankrupt. It would cost each American $27,685 to get rid of our debt. Could somebody pay that amount for me, since I didn't vote for the guy?

poweredbysweat said:

Here's some figures vs the Clinton years:

US National Debt: 1996 thru 2000 --> 5.2 Trillion to 5.6 Trillion
2002 thru 2006 --> 6.3 Trillion to 8.3 Trillion

Budget Deficit: 2000 ---> Budget surplus of 526 Billion
2004 ---> Budget deficit of 445 Billion

Trade Deficit: 2000 ---> 271 Billion
2005 --> 725 Billion

Clinton's administration whittled away at the Budget deficit for years, and finally had us at a surplus in 2000, which would have been a nice start to reducing our debt. If we ran our household economy like Bush runs our National economy, we'd all be bankrupt. It would cost each American $27,685 to get rid of our debt. Could somebody pay that amount for me, since I didn't vote for the guy?

Your country's fiscal position has been destroyed by Bush : and it can only get worse given the fact that he seems intent on meddling in other countries affairs - that costs lives and money.
Not even during the height of the cold war did your country experience what it's now experiencing.

If you look at what Clinton inherited - the US economy had budget deficits and trade deficits too under Bush 1.

Over an eight year period - Clinton managed to turn the trade deficit in to a surplus and his turned the budget deficit in to a surplus.
It's mindboggling to look at how a large budget surplus, has become a deficit so quickly. (it's been in deficit since early 2003).

It's a self inflicted wound - you guys re-elected him in 2004.

[font=Comic Sans MS]None of that had to with Clinton. It was a Republican House/Senate that controlled the spending. Every important bill that had to do with the budget was from the Republican side. Clinton had no backing as far as real power goes. He was a Republicans dream .
That is why he alienated the left of the Democratic Party.
Bush is not really well recieved by the conservatives in both houses. He is better then Kerry would have been , or Gore. Gore and Clinton hated each other. Clinton made a point of not wanting Gore on Air Force one when he was on board.
Bush was not the choice canidate for the Republican conservatives. The man from Arizona , who will be the next President was.
Understanding American politics is understanding where the power comes from. And that is the sad thing about Americans..... They get all worked up over their President, but do not pay enough attention to who is actually representing them. And they tend to completeley ignore the state level.......
[/font]

wolfix said:

[font=Comic Sans MS]None of that had to with Clinton. It was a Republican House/Senate that controlled the spending. Every important bill that had to do with the budget was from the Republican side. Clinton had no backing as far as real power goes. He was a Republicans dream .
That is why he alienated the left of the Democratic Party.
Bush is not really well recieved by the conservatives in both houses. He is better then Kerry would have been , or Gore. Gore and Clinton hated each other. Clinton made a point of not wanting Gore on Air Force one when he was on board.
Bush was not the choice canidate for the Republican conservatives. The man from Arizona , who will be the next President was.
Understanding American politics is understanding where the power comes from. And that is the sad thing about Americans..... They get all worked up over their President, but do not pay enough attention to who is actually representing them. And they tend to completeley ignore the state level.......
[/font]

I hear what you're saying - but how do you explain what has happened to your country's finances?
Bush has not been good for the USA in a fiscal sense.
Yes, Sept 11th happened but this isn't a sufficient reason to explain away how your country's financial position has crumbled in recent years.

I take your point about state level having a bearing.

American finances never have done well when a President of a certain party has a Congress/Senate behind him. 9/11 is part of the problem but the main thing is that both parties are spend crazy.
If Clinton had Democratic backing , we would have been in trouble too. What has happened in this country is the left [liberals, and it is rare that a Democrat voter is a liberal.} and the far right [ and most Republican s do not fit in this catagory} have gotten way too much power.
In the past , it has been the Republicans who wanted small , unintrusive government, and the Democrats who wanted a intrusive government and big spending on social programs that do not work. But ...... both parties think it is a lottery. Spend , spend, spend.......
This country does have a form of checks and balances though..... It's called 2 terms. The country gets tired of one party after 2 terms and votes the other one in..... Then that administration takes the country in the other direction.....

wolfix said:

American finances never have done well when a President of a certain party has a Congress/Senate behind him. 9/11 is part of the problem but the main thing is that both parties are spend crazy.
If Clinton had Democratic backing , we would have been in trouble too. What has happened in this country is the left [liberals, and it is rare that a Democrat voter is a liberal.} and the far right [ and most Republican s do not fit in this catagory} have gotten way too much power.
In the past , it has been the Republicans who wanted small , unintrusive government, and the Democrats who wanted a intrusive government and big spending on social programs that do not work. But ...... both parties think it is a lottery. Spend , spend, spend.......
This country does have a form of checks and balances though..... It's called 2 terms. The country gets tired of one party after 2 terms and votes the other one in..... Then that administration takes the country in the other direction.....

Is the check and balance to have a President from one party - and have Congress/Senate controlled by the other party?

It seems to me - from what I read - that goverment spending has increased
but real services (social services/hospitals/schools etc) have actually been cut.

[font=Comic Sans MS]That can be a part of the checks and balances....... Another part is that the President must have approval of the Sen/Con before any major bill or action.......
I haven't seen any services cut. Except in the field of University education. And that tends to be more of a state issue.
We are becoming a country of "entitlement." People have come to believe that they are "entitled" to a lifestyle of certain means when they are capable of carrying their own weight. This goes all the way from the guy who simply does not want to work all the way to the CEO who demands excessive salaries and stock options.
What I see going on is this ....... If someone comes along and states.... "We have a problem. The way we have attempted to solve this has not worked and is a waste of money. We need a more efficient way to solve this problem. " When you come from that angle , the liberals scream that you are a racists, capitolist, and other things.
The working guy has lost his power in this country. He represents the majority, but he is not really active in politics. We are becoming a country of extremists from both sides.
[/font]

wolfix said:

[font=Comic Sans MS]That can be a part of the checks and balances....... Another part is that the President must have approval of the Sen/Con before any major bill or action.......
I haven't seen any services cut. Except in the field of University education. And that tends to be more of a state issue.
We are becoming a country of "entitlement." People have come to believe that they are "entitled" to a lifestyle of certain means when they are capable of carrying their own weight. This goes all the way from the guy who simply does not want to work all the way to the CEO who demands excessive salaries and stock options.
What I see going on is this ....... If someone comes along and states.... "We have a problem. The way we have attempted to solve this has not worked and is a waste of money. We need a more efficient way to solve this problem. " When you come from that angle , the liberals scream that you are a racists, capitolist, and other things.
The working guy has lost his power in this country. He represents the majority, but he is not really active in politics. We are becoming a country of extremists from both sides.
[/font]

We are also becoming a country separated by political idealism,not realism, which is fueled and incited by the media.

Accountability is the key word. It works its way up the chain in successful corporations. The worker on the floor is accountable for his area, his manager is also responsible for this same area, and on up the ladder all the way to the CEO who is responsible for the same small business area.

The leaders of our country (and many of the scandal-ridden US corporations) have not lived up to this responsiblity. That includes our President. He and his advisors have made many very poor decisions that have put us in this mess.

You mentioned a historical reference to the Republicans failing at balancing the budget because of the control of all 3 Legislative branches. This is nonsense. This is the first time in US history that this had happened! If they can't succeed with that kind of power, then undoubtedly, their political principles are faulty.

Yes, we in the middle class all got our token tax cut a few years back, while the wealthy received the same tax cut with more zeroes behind the figure. There are no excuses for the weakening of our economy and our country that this Administration has laid upon the American people.

wolfix said:

[font=Comic Sans MS]That can be a part of the checks and balances....... Another part is that the President must have approval of the Sen/Con before any major bill or action.......
I haven't seen any services cut. Except in the field of University education. And that tends to be more of a state issue.
We are becoming a country of "entitlement." People have come to believe that they are "entitled" to a lifestyle of certain means when they are capable of carrying their own weight. This goes all the way from the guy who simply does not want to work all the way to the CEO who demands excessive salaries and stock options.
What I see going on is this ....... If someone comes along and states.... "We have a problem. The way we have attempted to solve this has not worked and is a waste of money. We need a more efficient way to solve this problem. " When you come from that angle , the liberals scream that you are a racists, capitolist, and other things.
The working guy has lost his power in this country. He represents the majority, but he is not really active in politics. We are becoming a country of extremists from both sides.
[/font]

as for this ducking of the accountability, hey, it worked for ronnie reagan, aka the teflon man.
he was able to duck accountability by virtue of his charisma, while bush avoids the consequences (so far) of his philanderings by exploiting the fear aspect, the same fear mongering that is wearing thin and ragged as a convenient rationale for his war agenda...and concurrently ignoring the state of affairs at home in the usa.

"it's the economy, stupid"
-popular observation on electoral results

poweredbysweat said:

Accountability is the key word. It works its way up the chain in successful corporations. The worker on the floor is accountable for his area, his manager is also responsible for this same area, and on up the ladder all the way to the CEO who is responsible for the same small business area.

The leaders of our country (and many of the scandal-ridden US corporations) have not lived up to this responsiblity. That includes our President. He and his advisors have made many very poor decisions that have put us in this mess.

You mentioned a historical reference to the Republicans failing at balancing the budget because of the control of all 3 Legislative branches. This is nonsense. This is the first time in US history that this had happened! If they can't succeed with that kind of power, then undoubtedly, their political principles are faulty.

Yes, we in the middle class all got our token tax cut a few years back, while the wealthy received the same tax cut with more zeroes behind the figure. There are no excuses for the weakening of our economy and our country that this Administration has laid upon the American people.

wolfix said:

[font=Comic Sans MS]That can be a part of the checks and balances....... Another part is that the President must have approval of the Sen/Con before any major bill or action.......
I haven't seen any services cut. Except in the field of University education. And that tends to be more of a state issue.
We are becoming a country of "entitlement." People have come to believe that they are "entitled" to a lifestyle of certain means when they are capable of carrying their own weight. This goes all the way from the guy who simply does not want to work all the way to the CEO who demands excessive salaries and stock options.
What I see going on is this ....... If someone comes along and states.... "We have a problem. The way we have attempted to solve this has not worked and is a waste of money. We need a more efficient way to solve this problem. " When you come from that angle , the liberals scream that you are a racists, capitolist, and other things.
The working guy has lost his power in this country. He represents the majority, but he is not really active in politics. We are becoming a country of extremists from both sides.
[/font]

Save your breath...start learning Mandarin...
😄

stevebaby said:

Save your breath...start learning Mandarin...
😄

Or Hindi...the non proliferation treaty means zot...Yes?
🙄