Thank you Decider

[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