Thank you Decider

[mviale]

Militant Islam - isnt just for the poor anymore. However, the BBC is known to be far left.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6267194.stm

[tower912]

Militant islam existed before GWB, it will exist after.   W may be the worst president in history, IMO, but militant Islam was not created by him.

[mviale]

True, but he has definitely encouraged it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

True, but he has definitely encouraged it.

He has "encouraged" militant Islam....good grief.  This is a new low.


As for W being the worst President, I love the hyperbole.  What exactly is being used as a comparison?

Let's just compare Jimmy Carter to Bush.


Unemployment.  Bush 5%   Carter 8.9%

Interest Rates   Bush 6.5%  Carter 21.5%  (the highest in US HISTORY...EVER)

Inflation over 12% when Carter left in 1980....12PERCENT!!!

GDP not even close

Gas lines...those were a blast.

Islamic extremists take American hostages for 444 days and nothing done about it.  Throws Shah of Iran out and puts Khomeni in power...talk about "encouraging Islamic Extremists"...is there another event in the last 100 years in the Middle East that did not encourage and empower Islamic extremism then the way Carter handled the Shah and the American hostages. Iran was a STAUNCH ALLY with the Shah....what a disaster when Carter F'd that up.

Gave away...let me repeat...GAVE AWAY the Panama Canal

US Olympic Boycott in Moscow


It's not even close....I don't know how any rational person can compare the Bush and Carter presidencies and conclude anything differently unless you weren't around to live through that time.  Depressing doesn't even begin to cut it.

Using Carter's OWN MISERY Index it's Carter at 16.27 and Bush at 7.96....less than half what a miserable joke Carter's ONE TERM was.

You guys must be 20 years old for you to forget how low this country got with Carter at the helm...it was the lowest of the lows...the lowest in the 20th century on ALL FRONTS.  There's a reason why an old, California Republican came in and beat him by almost 10 percentage points and an electoral win of 489 to 49...an absolute thrashing.

Carter will hold that mantle for years to come.  He was horrible at home and even worse in foreign relations with ONE exception...Israel and Egypt.  Our status took an enormous hit, our military readiness was a disaster, the policies at home a complete joke.


PS  And who can forget in 1979 when Carter was attacked by a bunny rabbit.  You cannot make this up.

http://www.narsil.org/politics/carter/killer_rabbit.html

[ChicosBailBonds]

Again, I can only assume some of you are in your teens or early 20's....you've never had it so good.  An interesting piece by Craig Smith. He calls Americans what they are....ungrateful BRATS!  He's dead on right.


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

"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?

The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?

Think about it.....are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go

They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way......Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative."

"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

[Murffieus]

"Bush the worst president"-----great economy, no domestic terrorism since the wake up call of 9/11, Medicare D, which cut drug costs in at least half, and shaping the Supreme Court to the right for probably a generation------an outstanding legacy, which will grow as the historians analyze these achievements and others years from now!

[ZiggysFryBoy]

True, but he has definitely encouraged it.

you must have been the guy that I was standing next to at Sendiks on Downer watching 9/11 unfold that said "this never would have happened if Al Gore was elected."   

[Murffieus]

I go to Sendiks, but not on Downer.

Al Gore is delusional----sticks to his global warming theory as man made (emissions) even though scientists say that the surface of Mars is warming as well (lots of cars and smokestacks up there I guess)!

The history of this country has been that the right man comes along at the right time as president-----it was divine providence that Gore lost to Bush!

[Pakuni]

Again, I can only assume some of you are in your teens or early 20's....you've never had it so good.  An interesting piece by Craig Smith. He calls Americans what they are....ungrateful BRATS!  He's dead on right.

Interesting timing on this post.

No doubt roughly 231 years ago there were intelligent, well-to-do, privileged men who stood before a legislative body in Philadelphia and argued that the people of America were ungrateful BRATS. That they just didn't understand how good they had it as part of the world's dominant empire. That they possessed freedoms and riches most of the world could only imagine.

Mr. Smith, it seems, is a Loyalist.

Fortunately, the other side of that debate won out. The other side was full of men who were not content to say, "We've got it good enough: After all 20 percent of white men in this country own a buggy. Thirty percent own a home. Ten percent own at least one slave. Ain't life swell?"
They saw a pretty decent circumstance and decided they wanted something better.

I think the best way to honor those men and those followed them is to strive for what they strived for: a more perfect union. This means always seeking ways to make America more perfect, not resting on our laurels.

If you and Mr. Smith are satisfied with the status quo, so be it. Far be it for me to tell you how to believe. Me, though, I'll be more like our Founding Fathers and believe we can always do better.

Happy Independence Day to all.
Except perhaps Mr. Smith, who may prefer St. George's Day.

[tower912]

I'm in my 40's, and I do remember Carter.   Carter was incompetent.  Bush combines that with the dishonesty of Nixon.   The fact that you can only defend Bush by saying, 'Oh, yeah, what about Carter' speaks volumes.
I would agree that Americans are brats, but for different reasons.   They want clean air, good roads, good schools, police and fire protection, but they don't want to pay for it.  Taxes are not evil, they are the price we pay to participate in society. They want honest politicians, but they won't support them at the grassroots.   They vote against their self interests because demagogues scare them into thinking two men in love is a threat to them.    They want jobs kept in America, but they won't buy American.    They want the biggest cars and the cheapest gas, not realizing the two aren't always compatible.    They want wholesome entertainment, but don't watch wholesome shows or go to family movies.    They want pills to help them get through what is commonly thought of as life.   People in third world nations don't worry about lactose intolerance or whether their chicken is free range.   They want safe boob jobs, a pill to make their penis larger, and to be able to have sex in their 80's.    They want a house in the foothills around L.A, away from everybody else, but they get mad because no one protected their house from a forest/brush fire.    They are absent parents because they are still as narcissistic as teenagers themselves, while complaining about the behavior of other people's kids and naively thinking that their own are perfect despite the fact they are substituting an XBox 360 for actual parenting.    Simultaneously, they are overprotecting their children on sports fields while letting them surf the internet unsupervised.
Yes, Americans are spoiled brats.     Thinking Bush is a lousy president is not what makes them so.

[Murffieus]

Tower----Who is defending GWB by saying "what about Carter"-----I would agree that is a lousy defense.

GWB's record vs terrorism with no attacks here since the 9/11 wake up call (6 years ago)----has decapitated Al Quida and forced them into an internet army/organization unable to train & plan centrally as before---- one of the all time best economies ever(remember the 2003 tax cut?)--------lowered the drug bills of seniors by 50% and put a cap of around $2,500 on out of pocket-----and set a conservative path to the supreme court that will probably last a generation-----all of these are extraordinary achievements!

That's why the liberal media doesn't like him and harps on Iraq-----because he's been so effective in other areas----but the last story of Iraq has yet to be told!

[tower912]

Balanced budget and surplus under Clinton, genius.    Overturning Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade as the highlight legacies of his presidency are hardly reasons to celebrate.   Paying for a war with tax cuts, thereby passing the costs on to our children and grandchildren, also not something to gloat about.   Lying about the costs of his medicare/medicaid bill and bringing it in at 40% above the original costs, smashing!    Attacking a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on us and bogging down our military while simultaneously providing a training ground for generations of terrorists....You are absolutely right as always, Murf.

[Murffieus]

Debt isn't bad as long as it's "manageable debt"----and 3% of GDP (under Bush) is very manageable. IBM borrows money, AT&T borrows money, and so does every other company listed on the NYSE and whats more they hold as much as 50% of their capital structures in long term debt----so why can't the federal government borrow "as needed"! The fact that long term rates are at only 5% in the face of all these corporate leveraged buyouts should tell you that federal borrowing hasn't been excessive!

You borrow in recessions to stimulate the economy (2002-03 tax cuts)-----and pay it back during the good times 2004-2007 & beyond as tax receipts increase.

Taking out Saddam was an essential part of the war on terror (for reasons I've cited here many times)----in time this will in all probability have to be extended to Iran ----unless the Iranians kick out the mullahs!

The only way this is a plus for Al Quida in Iraq is if we allow them to win like you and the Dems want them too----how's that's being patriotic? (referencing your Cal Thomas/Greenberg post)

[Pakuni]

Balanced budget and surplus under Clinton, genius.    Overturning Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade as the highlight legacies of his presidency are hardly reasons to celebrate.   Paying for a war with tax cuts, thereby passing the costs on to our children and grandchildren, also not something to gloat about.   Lying about the costs of his medicare/medicaid bill and bringing it in at 40% above the original costs, smashing!    Attacking a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on us and bogging down our military while simultaneously providing a training ground for generations of terrorists....You are absolutely right as always, Murf.

Brown and Roe were overturned?
Ummm ... when?
If anything, ther latest ruling regarding school segregation stregthens Brown, not weakens it. Afetr all, the intent of Brown was to prevent assigning students to schools on the basis of their race. The new ruling says the same.

[mviale]

The carter distraction is a common defense for regressives.  Regressives are fond of the diversion method when their party breaks the law or will not admit fault.

Bush has been bad for our country and we will need to fix his ill policies without the regressives as they cant see beyond flag waving and party.

[Murffieus]

"Bush bad for the country"

Presently one of the very best economic expansions of all time-----five year onging now and counting-----remember the Bush tax cut? Supply side economics!

No terrorist attacks here since the wakeup call of 9/11 (taking the offense in Iraq, afghanistan and Homeland security directly responsible for that----remember the patriot act?)

Medicare D has cut the cost of medical drugs in half for seniors----while capping the cost at $2,500 worst case/year

Bush has set the tone for a conservative supreme court for a generation-----bye, bye, abortion!

"bad for the country", Mvail?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Balanced budget and surplus under Clinton, genius.    Overturning Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade as the highlight legacies of his presidency are hardly reasons to celebrate.   Paying for a war with tax cuts, thereby passing the costs on to our children and grandchildren, also not something to gloat about.   Lying about the costs of his medicare/medicaid bill and bringing it in at 40% above the original costs, smashing!    Attacking a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on us and bogging down our military while simultaneously providing a training ground for generations of terrorists....You are absolutely right as always, Murf.

Brown and Roe were overturned?
Ummm ... when?
If anything, ther latest ruling regarding school segregation stregthens Brown, not weakens it. Afetr all, the intent of Brown was to prevent assigning students to schools on the basis of their race. The new ruling says the same.

In a moment that hasn't happened in a long time, Pakuni and I are on the same page.  When was Roe overturned or Brown?

Good Lord Tower...please get a hold of yourself. 

[mviale]

bad for the country as a whole, not the blind 20% that will follow him thru thick and thin.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Balanced budget and surplus under Clinton, genius.    Overturning Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade as the highlight legacies of his presidency are hardly reasons to celebrate.   Paying for a war with tax cuts, thereby passing the costs on to our children and grandchildren, also not something to gloat about.   Lying about the costs of his medicare/medicaid bill and bringing it in at 40% above the original costs, smashing!    Attacking a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on us and bogging down our military while simultaneously providing a training ground for generations of terrorists....You are absolutely right as always, Murf.

No Tower, I just picked one president very quickly just in the last 2+ decades to put your ridiculous "worst president' BDS moment on ice.  I could compare Bush to others, but what's the point...you've made up your mind.

As for the lying stuff....I've asked time and time and time again...when did Bush lie.  Please provide examples.  You guys keep coming up with Iraq and WMD yet just about every expert in the world said the same thing as did the administration preceding him...were they "all in on the lie".  And if he lied, then why didn't he plant WMD there to continue the lie?  Again, just give me the examples...that's all I'm asking for.

For your other comments, we were in a Recession at the end of Clinton's term...the "surplus" never existed under real accounting practices...only in the US government can you use Social Security trust funds to cover up the actual deficit which is what every President has done of late....there is no surplus and never was one and there have been plenty of articles by people much smarter than you or I combined that have proven this.

And the Lying about the costs of his medicaid...my goodness...wow if I had a nickle for everytime.  Can you name a Republican or Democrat social program in the last 100 years that wasn't about 5X what they projected it to be?  Why in the hell do you think so many conservatives are scared $hitless about your single payer user healthcare system?  Because we all know it's going to be so far over what you guys say it will cost it won't be funny.

Finally....it's really hard for me to get outraged like you apparently are over Iraq without seeing your outrage when we attacked Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, why we were in Mogadishu, why we attacked Korea, and on and on where there have been no attacks on us yet we had no trouble being there.  

Speaking of LIES....please let us now about that overturning of Brown v Board and Roe v Wade...I'm beginning to wonder who is actually doing the lying around here  

[gjreda]

"Bush bad for the country"

Presently one of the very best economic expansions of all time-----five year onging now and counting-----remember the Bush tax cut? Supply side economics!

No terrorist attacks here since the wakeup call of 9/11 (taking the offense in Iraq, afghanistan and Homeland security directly responsible for that----remember the patriot act?)

Medicare D has cut the cost of medical drugs in half for seniors----while capping the cost at $2,500 worst case/year

Bush has set the tone for a conservative supreme court for a generation-----bye, bye, abortion!

"bad for the country", Mvail?

Did you even take economics in college?  Bush's tax cuts are a great thing so long as they are offset by equal cuts in government spending... which obviously has not been the case!  The tax cuts are great in the short run, but in a long run, the deficit has to be taken care of at some point, which is going to result in someone (probably a Dem) increasing taxes.  Wonder why the dollar has been so weak?  The deficit is part of the reason.

The tax cut is going to be problematic in the long run.  Brad DeLong, an economist at UC-Berkeley seems to agree as well and so do several other well known economists, including members of our own Marquette faculty.

And setting a conservative bias on the Supreme Court is a good thing?  I thought it was supposed to focus on the interpretation of the law from an unbiased point of view?

[ChicosBailBonds]

"Bush bad for the country"

Presently one of the very best economic expansions of all time-----five year onging now and counting-----remember the Bush tax cut? Supply side economics!

No terrorist attacks here since the wakeup call of 9/11 (taking the offense in Iraq, afghanistan and Homeland security directly responsible for that----remember the patriot act?)

Medicare D has cut the cost of medical drugs in half for seniors----while capping the cost at $2,500 worst case/year

Bush has set the tone for a conservative supreme court for a generation-----bye, bye, abortion!

"bad for the country", Mvail?

Did you even take economics in college?  Bush's tax cuts are a great thing so long as they are offset by equal cuts in government spending... which obviously has not been the case!  The tax cuts are great in the short run, but in a long run, the deficit has to be taken care of at some point, which is going to result in someone (probably a Dem) increasing taxes.  Wonder why the dollar has been so weak?  The deficit is part of the reason.

The tax cut is going to be problematic in the long run.  Brad DeLong, an economist at UC-Berkeley seems to agree as well and so do several other well known economists, including members of our own Marquette faculty.

And setting a conservative bias on the Supreme Court is a good thing?  I thought it was supposed to focus on the interpretation of the law from an unbiased point of view?

And there are plenty of economists from Stanford, Harvard, etc that disagree Eagle.   Tax cuts create growth and capital investment because people have liquidity.  I totally agree with you about the spending...which is again reason number 2342384237423947234 why Bush is no conservative.  How about we cut spending...something most Democrats abhor.

[gjreda]

"Bush bad for the country"

Presently one of the very best economic expansions of all time-----five year onging now and counting-----remember the Bush tax cut? Supply side economics!

No terrorist attacks here since the wakeup call of 9/11 (taking the offense in Iraq, afghanistan and Homeland security directly responsible for that----remember the patriot act?)

Medicare D has cut the cost of medical drugs in half for seniors----while capping the cost at $2,500 worst case/year

Bush has set the tone for a conservative supreme court for a generation-----bye, bye, abortion!

"bad for the country", Mvail?

Did you even take economics in college?  Bush's tax cuts are a great thing so long as they are offset by equal cuts in government spending... which obviously has not been the case!  The tax cuts are great in the short run, but in a long run, the deficit has to be taken care of at some point, which is going to result in someone (probably a Dem) increasing taxes.  Wonder why the dollar has been so weak?  The deficit is part of the reason.

The tax cut is going to be problematic in the long run.  Brad DeLong, an economist at UC-Berkeley seems to agree as well and so do several other well known economists, including members of our own Marquette faculty.

And setting a conservative bias on the Supreme Court is a good thing?  I thought it was supposed to focus on the interpretation of the law from an unbiased point of view?

And there are plenty of economists from Stanford, Harvard, etc that disagree Eagle.   Tax cuts create growth and capital investment because people have liquidity.  I totally agree with you about the spending...which is again reason number 2342384237423947234 why Bush is no conservative.  How about we cut spending...something most Democrats abhor.

At least we agree on something Chico's.  I read something earlier today (I believe it was actually in Brad DeLong's blog, but I'm not sure) that there are two parties in this country.  The Tax and Spend party and the No Tax and Spend party.  No politician is ever concerned about budgets.

But the tax cuts create liquidity which creates growth in the short run.  Eventually, something needs to be done to rid the deficit and that will be either taxation or inflation will take place (simply a subtle form of taxation).  His tax cuts were great to take away the mini recession that was brought about by 9/11, but many see trouble in the coming years.

[jutaw22mu]

Bush has been bad for our country and we will need to fix his ill policies without the regressives as they cant see beyond flag waving and party.

BLIND HATRED.  bush has not been bad for this country...  some of you need to get a grip and be a little more open-minded instead of a parrot who repeats everything you hear from rosie o'donnells lips.

this country is in great shape.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Ironically...or certainly coincidentally, two articles today about the Bush economy ranking near or at the top compared to other administrations past.


http://newsbusters.org/node/13925

[Pakuni]

Ironically...or certainly coincidentally, two articles today about the Bush economy ranking near or at the top compared to other administrations past.


http://newsbusters.org/node/13925

I'm a little suspicious of an index that tells me Carter's economy was better than Reagan's.
That said, these indices don't exactly tell the whole story. Improving business conditions, while certainly an important measure of the economy, doesn't mean people are better off. If anything, most of the data out there indicates the opposite.
The housing market is in decline.
Real wages are in decline.
The CPI - fueled largely by gas prices (pun intended) - is way up.
So, for the average person, the value of their largest investment is declining, and their pay isn't keeping up with the cost of living. Hooray!

[gjreda]

Ironically...or certainly coincidentally, two articles today about the Bush economy ranking near or at the top compared to other administrations past.


http://newsbusters.org/node/13925

I, personally, am not criticizing the economy now.  In pains me to say it, but currently, the economy is in decent shape (although I would say much of that has to do with the excellent job Bernanke has been doing so far and the reputation he is already earning).  I can't stand Bush.  At all.  But the economy has been doing extremely well.  That being said, I think the point many are making, myself in particular, is that he is leaving the economy in bad shape for others.  I actually wrote a paper about the budget for my Intermediate Macro class this semester and the problem is that Bush is taking the mentality that, come 2008, the budget is no longer his problem.  It's pretty much the samething you guys have been saying about his handling of the Libby commution.  Dems hate him.  The media hates him.  The center hates him.  The only people sticking by him are the far right, and because of that, Bush is pretty much giving everyone else the middle finger.  I believe it was Murff who mentioned that Bush has fallen so far from grace with so many that he might as well just commute Libby because things can't get worse with everyone else and doing so will win praise from the right.  I think it is the samething with the budget.  He has cut taxes and shown no signs of concern whatsoever towards the budget because, well, everyone else hates him, so why not make the right like him more?  I just feel that we are going to run into the problems in the coming years when Bush will be out of office, and then everything is going to get blamed on the President at the time.  Bush has left the budget in complete disarry to whoever comes in to handle it and we will see the effects in the coming decade.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni, I think the reason why Carter's ranks that way is that we're only talking about manufacturing in this instance and as you will recall (we all do), the first two years under Reagan things were still really tough going. 


Note the last bullet point as well  "Carter's very good manufacturing index average masks a disasterous 1980 where the index's reading at one point (May of that year) fell to an all-time near-death low of 29.4"

[ChicosBailBonds]

 Bush has left the budget in complete disarry to whoever comes in to handle it and we will see the effects in the coming decade.

Not to be picky, but a budget is a yearly process.  It's also approved by the Congress, which is currently controlled by Democrats.  When the President comes in, they will submit their own annual budget.

Again, how about CUTTING SPENDING.  That takes courage, something in very short supply.

[gjreda]

 Bush has left the budget in complete disarry to whoever comes in to handle it and we will see the effects in the coming decade.

Not to be picky, but a budget is a yearly process.  It's also approved by the Congress, which is currently controlled by Democrats.  When the President comes in, they will submit their own annual budget.

Again, how about CUTTING SPENDING.  That takes courage, something in very short supply.

Sorry, I meant the deficit there.

But I couldn't agree with you more about cutting spending.  Some conservative economists have even argued that was the true point of the tax cuts... to create a slight force to cut spending in the future, but as we have seen from politicians of both sides, that simply does not happen often.

And you are also essentially arguing what I have been arguing from the beginning.  Tax cuts are meant to be offset by spending cuts... not increased spending as Bush has done.  If he wanted the tax cuts, he should have nixed some of his spending.

Edit:  I need to learn to start proof reading my posts.

[Pakuni]

Again, how about CUTTING SPENDING.  That takes courage, something in very short supply.

Tough to cut spending when you're shelling out something in the neighborhood of $465 million a day for a war halfway around the world.

[Murffieus]

Eaglewarrior----please don't lecture me on economics----i made a damn good living in the investment biz for 30 years.

Supply side economics is built around concept that you reduce taxes in recessions (Bush 2002-03) tp stimulate the economy-----at first significant deficits result, but as the economy recovers more money comes into the treasury in the form of taxes (more people have jobs, spend more, invest more) which pays down the deficit.

What's important is not the nominal amount of debt, but the debt/deficit as a percentage of GNP----got up to 3.5% in 2005 before it started coming down.

IBM borrows money, AT&T borrows money, just about all corporations borrow money (some as much as 50% of their capital structures)-----so why can't government? Debt is not a bad thing----excessive debt is-----and 3.5 percent of GNP isn't anywhere near excessive!

Three times in my lifetime taxes were reduced significantly (Kennedy 1960, Reagan 1984, Bush 2003)----and each time the economy boomed with out inflation resulting!

[gjreda]

Eaglewarrior----please don't lecture me on economics----i made a damn good living in the investment biz for 30 years.

Supply side economics is built around concept that you reduce taxes in recessions (Bush 2002-03) tp stimulate the economy-----at first significant deficits result, but as the economy recovers more money comes into the treasury in the form of taxes (more people have jobs, spend more, invest more) which pays down the deficit.

What's important is not the nominal amount of debt, but the debt/deficit as a percentage of GNP----got up to 3.5% in 2005 before it started coming down.

IBM borrows money, AT&T borrows money, just about all corporations borrow money (some as much as 50% of their capital structures)-----so why can't government? Debt is not a bad thing----excessive debt is-----and 3.5 percent of GNP isn't anywhere near excessive!

Three times in my lifetime taxes were reduced significantly (Kennedy 1960, Reagan 1984, Bush 2003)----and each time the economy boomed with out inflation resulting!

Sorry Murff, but in all honesty I don't care about the living you've made.  I'll trust my Marquette economics background as well as what the experts in the field have to say in regards to the subject.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1143

And don't lecture me about supply-side economics.

[Murffieus]

Eagle----well tell that to jack Kennedy (1960 tax cut)----tell that to Ronald Reagan (1984 tax cut)----no spending cuts there and spawned two of the greatest economic expansions of all time!

Don't listen to those left wing doom & gloom professors at MU or otherwise----they don't know the price of a loaf of bread!
 

[gjreda]

Murff, what I have been arguing for this whole time is that Bush needed to cut some spending somewhere at least in an attempt to do something about the deficit that he is only worsening with the war.  I've been saying this whole time that the tax cuts have been a great thing because we were in a mini recession and things could have gotten worse, but the tax cuts saved us.  However, at some point, you have to cut spending.  At some point someone needs to start caring about the deficit.  Bush had talked about how he was going to cut spending around the tax cuts and never did.  Instead, he spent more!  The cuts were great, but the deficit is not.

It seems that Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw seems to share a relatively similar view.  Oh yea, he was Bush's economic advisor at the time of the tax cuts.

Of course, the expansionary effects of the tax cuts will be offset to some degree by the effects of the budget deficits that arise from lower revenues. Deficits can raise interest rates and crowd out of investment, although I should note that the magnitude of this effect is much debated in the economics literature. The main problem now facing the U.S. economy is not high interest rates, but at some point continued deficits would matter and could impede growth. This is why, as the President has said, spending restraint is so vital.

The Administration would prefer not to have deficits, but deficit reduction is only one of many goals. Reversing the tax cuts today, as some have suggested, would depress growth and job creation. This is a matter of priorities: In the face of a shrinking or barely growing economy, an investment slowdown, and continued job losses, the President made growth and jobs his number one economic priority. There are others who think he should make deficit management the top priority – but the Administration does not share that point of view. Deficits are worrisome, but not as worrisome as an economy that is not growing and is rapidly shedding jobs.

It is also important to be aware of how these deficits arose. About half of the change in the fiscal outlook since the President took office is attributable to the weak economy, including the stock market. About a quarter is due to higher expenditures, mainly on homeland security and defense. The last quarter is due to reduced revenue from the tax cuts. And these estimates are based on static scoring, so they surely overstate the role of the tax cuts.

What is important is to have a plan under which the deficits shrink over time relative to the size of the economy. This is the case under the President’s policies. The deficit as a share of GDP is projected to diminish by more than half over the next five years.

The most important fiscal challenge facing the United States is not the current short-term deficits, which will shrink, but instead the looming long-term deficits associated with the rise in entitlement spending as the baby boom generation retires. This challenge is simply the march of demographic destiny combined with our pay-as-you-go entitlement system. It is not a new challenge, and it was not created by tax cuts or solved by previous tax increases. The President’s Budget has correctly called this issue “the real fiscal danger.”


http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html

Four years later and spending has only increased.  All I am saying is that he should have attempted to cut spending as he said he would.  The economy is no longer in a recession and things are going rather well.  How about some spending cuts now?

[mviale]

Thankfully - Generation X has 401ks - Murf did you plan on social security?

[Murffieus]

Eagle---congress spends the money-----GWB has vetoed sveral appropriation bills of late. Of course spending has to be kept in check.

Mviail-----401ks started in the early 1980s (IRAs before that)----so us depression babies were taken care of!

[gjreda]

Eagle---congress spends the money-----GWB has vetoed sveral appropriation bills of late. Of course spending has to be kept in check.

Mviail-----401ks started in the early 1980s (IRAs before that)----so us depression babies were taken care of!

Several is a bit of an exaggeration.  He has used his veto power THREE times in nearly 7 years.  And two of them were for embryonic stem cell research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#George_W._Bush

He would have only used his veto twice had it not been for the withdrawl date on the Iraq Accountability Act.

I understand that congress spends the money, but he didn't feel like vetoing anything when the "conservatives" were in control.  Both sides need to use discretion when spending, but Bush's goal was to "dimish the deficit by more than half over the next five years."  Instead, he has increased it greatly.

[Murffieus]

Excessive spending is the least of our worries right now----much bigger threat is radical islam. Going to take plenty of money to eliminate or even control that threat----just like it took plenty of money to prevail in World War II!

Korean War spending at a 13% of GNP level-----Vietnam 12 % of GNP level-----in World War ll, 27% of GNP level spending----or 3.5 trillion per year in todays dollars-----and guess what----the country is still thriving 60 years later!!

[mviale]

Murf - good for you and I hope we will have social security for those americans that didnt have enough savings to invest.

[Murffieus]

Social Security will ALWAYS be here----if the Dems would go along with GWB's privatization plan and invest some SS monies in stocks-----everyone would have their equivilant of a 401k or IRA!

The Dems are guaranteeing a low level financial retirement for the lower economic class!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Murf - good for you and I hope we will have social security for those americans that didnt have enough savings to invest.

Or the ones that weren't responsible enough to save or blew all their money knowing Uncle Sam would be there to bail them out...again.  Hey mviale?   

[mviale]

I believe the republican congress squashed GWB's SS plan - that was another failed Bush initiative prior to 2006.

This Guy is not the decider, but the failure.  At least Carter made peace.

[mviale]

Chicos - see pension robberies by Big Business - not all poor people are stupid and lazy.

[Murffieus]

mviale----you're wrong Republicans were overwhelmingly for it----there were even some Dems for privatizing SS----but the Republicans couldn't muster the necessary 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

You sound like Neville Chamberlin in 1938----"peace in our time"----and at any cost!

[mviale]

You mean Bush had both houses and he could not beat a filibuster? Where is the leadership?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

You mean Bush had both houses and he could not beat a filibuster? Where is the leadership?

Beating a filibuster requires 60 votes in the Senate.  The GOP had, what, 52 Senators at most?

[mviale]

I guess reaching across the aisle is not an option for GWB. He needed 8 votes

[Pakuni]

Beating a filibuster requires 60 votes in the Senate.  The GOP had, what, 52 Senators at most?

55.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos - see pension robberies by Big Business - not all poor people are stupid and lazy.

Mviale...yes there have been some gross actions by some big businesses and those people are sitting in jail right now, as they should be.  But also see pension "robberies" by Big Unions where they have forced companies literally into bankruptcy because of what they are demanding (and the companies are stupid enough to cave in).

It will be a MIRACLE if GM's employees in their 20's today see their pension in 45 years.  Something has to give. 

Government can't be there to wipe your nose and put on the diapers from cradle to grave..nor should it. 


It's like every time I see these IRS commercials where you pay pennies on the dollar or the bankruptcy binge of the 1990's.  We became a do-over society, which in theory is compassionate and fine but in the meantime what message are you sending to everyone else that is paying their tax liabilities IN FULL and is scraping by not buying the boat, etc and forced into bankruptcy.  People that aren't playing the game and doing things on the up and up are damn pissed off.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You mean Bush had both houses and he could not beat a filibuster? Where is the leadership?

The leadership is that he tried....however wrong the tact was.  Instead, our great "leaders" in both houses just punt it along down the road.  Because Lord knows one side certainly wouldn't do any advertising and political harranguing saying Grandma's check would arrive in the mail under some scare tactic....nah, only one side uses scare tactics.   

[mviale]

chicos - I understand your POV, but I dont like seeing old people asking me for a dollar.

It aint american!

[ChicosBailBonds]

chicos - I understand your POV, but I dont like seeing old people asking me for a dollar.

It aint american!

I don't disagree with you.  So why aren't we trying to fix a program NOW we know will be underfunded down the road instead of waiting for it to get worse?  I don't get it.  Bush had some ideas but said he was welcome to all ideas.  In the end, the special interest groups said NO to any changes. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Mviale...I'm not calling for the elimination of SS, I'm calling for the betterment of it.

[mviale]

In the end, bush has lost all legitimacy and can no longer govern.  We have a lameduck president and a congress divided.  Time for non-partisan leadership - Barak Obama

[Murffieus]

You always have a "lame duck" president in his second term, which is good as GWB doesn't have to look at the polls to decide what to do-----he doesn't have to listen to the public who isn't anywhere near as informed on the war on terror or other issues as he is.

"Bush can't govern" ----that's garbage-----do you see riots in the streets? I don't even see any demonstrations organized to get out of Iraq as in there was during Vietnam war (every weekend)----he's governing just fine----holding steadfast to what he thinks is the correct thing to do-----which is stay the course in Iraq!

Meanwhile one of the greatest economies in the history of the country continues!

[gjreda]

Meanwhile one of the greatest economies in the history of the country continues!

Until people start to understand the massive deficits he has caused at which point growth will severely slow and taxes or inflation will increase.  However, W will be out of office and we can just blame it on whoever is in office at the time.  Typical.

[Murffieus]

Eagle----please understand the politics here----the first term of any president is marked with higher spending because he wants his ducks in order for the next election-----however in the a 2nd term they contain spending and undo the excessive spending of the first term (especially true the first term if they inherit a recession)-----this has been going on for as long as the Republic!

The highest peace time deficit in my memeory took place in G Bush Sr's term (got close to 6% of GNP as I recall)------Clinton came in and spent as normal for a first term president (remember Hillary's stab at National Healthcare?)----but then in his 2nd term restrained his spending and in fact initiated a tax increase and balanced the budget.

Please note that the deficit from domestic spending is closing sharply and ahead of schedule in GWB's 2nd term as well. The congress is now trying to spend and GWB answers with veteos!

[tower912]

Nice revisonist history again, Murf.   Spending caps were put in place prior to the 94 election.   Deficit reduction was a priority.

[gjreda]

Eagle----please understand the politics here----the first term of any president is marked with higher spending because he wants his ducks in order for the next election-----however in the a 2nd term they contain spending and undo the excessive spending of the first term (especially true the first term if they inherit a recession)-----this has been going on for as long as the Republic!

The highest peace time deficit in my memeory took place in G Bush Sr's term (got close to 6% of GNP as I recall)------Clinton came in and spent as normal for a first term president (remember Hillary's stab at National Healthcare?)----but then in his 2nd term restrained his spending and in fact initiated a tax increase and balanced the budget.

Please note that the deficit from domestic spending is closing sharply and ahead of schedule in GWB's 2nd term as well. The congress is now trying to spend and GWB answers with veteos!

What vetoes?  I already showed you he has only used three vetoes his whole term in office.  Two were for embryonic stem cell research and the other was because the Iraq bill had a withdrawl plan on it.  He's rarely used his veto at all.

And did you even read what you wrote?  "Clinton came in and spent as normal for a first term president... but then in his 2nd term restrained his spending and in fact initiated a tax increase and balanced the budget."   - Where is W's spending restraint?  As far as I know, there have been no tax increases in his plans (which is exactly what I said is going to happen in the future).  It doesn't even seem as if you read my post.  Bush has not increased taxes... he spends more and never increases taxes and inflation has been rather tame, thus, since Bush isn't taking care of the deficit by increasing taxes, someone else will - that or inflation will get out of hand.  Clinton took care of the deficit he caused.  You said so yourself.  He taxed.  Bush doesn't, simply causing an increase in the deficit.  The next president is going to increase taxes to recover from Bush's out of control spending, and then you people are going to complain and say he/she is a horrible president because of their ridiculous taxes or the economic downturn that will result in the future from the currently ludicris deficit.

You just keep going around in circles Murff, never supplying evidence of the facts you claim.  You say not to listen to the liberal economists of Berkeley and Marquette and that plenty of Harvard economists disagree with them... I then show you what Bush's own former Chief Economic Advisor said in regards to the deficit and you then say that it is Congress's fault and that Bush is the one vetoing all the spending increases.  I then show you the THREE vetoes Bush has used - two of which were for the samething and the other was because of the Iraq withdrawl date.  You now say that Presidents always spend a ton in their first term, then moderate spending and increase taxes in their second term as Clinton did.  Where are Bush's tax increases?

Bush is leaving the economy in a bad position for the future, but then again, he doesn't care because he will be gone.  This has been what I have been saying all along.  He will make it someone else's problem and then you people will complain about the resulting economic problems.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Nice revisonist history again, Murf.   Spending caps were put in place prior to the 94 election.   Deficit reduction was a priority.

So explain to me how the deficit (which was lowered again to $205 billion yesterday) will get smaller with $3.1 trillion in new programs the Dems are proposing?

[ChicosBailBonds]

In the end, bush has lost all legitimacy and can no longer govern.  We have a lameduck president and a congress divided.  Time for non-partisan leadership - Barak Obama