PDA

View Full Version : National debt



Drop1
03-02-2006, 08:09 PM
For the first time in history America might not be able to meet it's financial obligations. The GOP has to ask Congress for more money,raising the National Debt to 3 trillion dollars. That is forty percent more than all debts owed by the country,since it was founded. Every Republican in office is going to have to explain why they bought the ideas that produced this disaster. And to my Democratic friends,I can only say,your hands are not clean either.

Qtec
03-02-2006, 09:40 PM
web page (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

web page (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/08/BUG7IGJHEI1.DTL&type=business)

Q

DebraLiStarr
03-02-2006, 09:43 PM
The National Debt is an accumulative accomplishment of EVERY Presidential Administration since 1900. Blaming it on Bush can be very easy since it sits on his lap at the moment, but it won't get any smaller when the gov't picks up the tab for programs that need not exist (see LBJ) - Clinton couldn't do much with it at all, and believe me - he tried - yet in 1998 alone he spent over 2 TRILLION dollars. It boggles the mind. That's just Govt spending. You cannot blame it only on the President - the blame goes to all of our elected officials that are tasked with finding a solution -BUT- they always decide to put the debt on the shoulders of the tax payers. Taxation with represntation has turned out to be just as bad as taxation without representation. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Will it ever end? I think Kennedy had the right idea by doing away with the Federal Reserve Act (passed on December 23, 1913 - an early Christmas present from then President Woodrow Wilson (A Democrat)- Wilson also pushed the 16th Amendment through to establish a federal income tax to go along with the federal reserve bank - which was initially designed to be a "central bank" for the United States of America. It consist of 12 banks, which IMHO, shouldnt have anything in them anymore. LOL. Anyway - all it did was establish a way to pass the debt along to the taxpayers - supposedly easing the burden on the Gov't to pay their debts. In other words... they estalished the federal reserve bank (their own bottomless money pit) and wrote checks with yet uncollected tax money. This is how this mess got started. Thank you Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson also brought forth the Espionage Act of 1917, as well as the Sedition Act of 1918... study up and see how this would affect something going on in the political arena today.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
In 1900 the United States was basically debt free, approximatley 2 billion dollars which is an inconsequential figure, even in those days. In 1929 the debt was 16.9 billion and when the Depression began and World War II occurred the United States under Franklin Delano Roosevelt (another democrat) began true deficit spending. All of those New Deal programs were paid for with money we did not really have. The debt in 1940 ran to 42.9 billion and mushroomed to 258 billion as the nation fought World War II. Thank you FDR.

From 1945 through 1961 the debt grew minimally, increasing to only 296 billion in 1961. When one factors in inflation this means the value of the debt declined significantly. Even through the 1960s and 70s which included Vietnam, the space race and the arms race the debt only grew modestly increasing to 789 billion in 1979. This was still a relatively low and manageable amount factoring inflation and growing GNP. Our real debt problems began during the Ronald Reagan administration. In 1981 Reagan passed the Emergency Recovery Tax Act that lowered taxes but increased spending, especially on the military. This basically created an enormous debt. Thank you Ronald Reagan.

Under the Reagan administration the debt grew from 930 billion in 1980 to 2.6 trillion dollars in 1988. This means the debt grew 300% in eight years after only growing about 150% from 1950 to 1979. In 1997 our national debt reached 5.4 trillion and only during the economic boom during the Clinton administration did it slow. It did gradually increase every year of Clinton's presidency - and by 2000, the national debt almost doubled from
$3,665,303,351,697.03 as of 09/30/91
increasing to
$5,674,178,209,886.86 as of 09/30/00
and increase of $2,008,874,858,189.83
(see attached link - these are the actual numbers)

GWB's Numbers are not very good at all... in fact he has surpassed Clinton's numbers in less time:
$5,674,178,209,886.86 as of 09/30/00
$7,932,709,661,723.50 as of 09/30/05
An increase of $2,258,531,451,836.64
(factors are the War in Iraq, 9/11 legislation for Nat'l security - and senseless BS spending that every administration is guilty of)

In 1998 the debt was 5.5 trillion, in 1999 it was 5.6 trillion and was the same in 2000. Since the election of George Bush the debt has begun to rise again. In the four years the Bush has been in office, and again cutting taxes while increasing spending, the debt has risen from 5.8 trillion in 2001 to its current high of over 7 trillion dollars. (all figures available at
National Debt Records (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history))

Now in the other thread I cited other factors within the LBJ administration and the Nixon and Carter adminstrations that dropped the ball on establishing a balanced budget - case in point - JFK had passed legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve - LBJ squashed that - and implemented Welfare programs and Social Security programs with money that was not there. This trickled into the administrations of those that came after him - hindered by stubborn partisan politicking and bickering - nothing was accomplished. That bickering and political posturing still exists today. Hence we have a National Debt of over 7 Trillion dollars.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
03-03-2006, 06:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Every Republican in office is going to have to explain why they bought the ideas that produced this disaster. And to my Democratic friends,I can only say,your hands are not clean either. <hr /></blockquote> Nope, no ones hands are clean and they are all equally dirty. It is Congress and the President that have gotten us into this financial mess. This is why being a moderate does not work. Bush is more a moderate than any of our recent Presidents and he has us in a huge financial mess. QUIT SPENDING AND REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-03-2006, 07:02 AM
This is very true, and while we are being drug all the way back to the turn of the century, LMAO, lets just say it's a given, Bush isn't responsible for the policies which led to existing circumstances when he took office, but he is totally responsible for whatever continued loss of economic power we have endured during his term in office, which according to economists of OUR times, are the result of policies more damaging than anything we have seen in recent times. Trying to persue that issue seems impossible here on this forum, especially with people, so intelligent, that they are contending that Bill Clinton was/is a mass murderrer, LMAO !

We can't discuss the economic issues of the day, We're not allowed to bring up topics such as the fact that Bush is paying for tax cuts by borrowing money from China, or that job gains, reflect jobs filled by Americans who took deep cuts in their income, just to get a job, or that we are seeing wages decline, overall, in America, or that the chasm between the rich and the poor has expandeed more in this presidents tenure, than any other, or the amount of waste and corruption which has contributed to our current economic problems, all sore subjects with republicans, hence the flight back to the turn of the century, LMAO!

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
03-03-2006, 07:36 AM
Debra Would you have the figures on how much Disneyland cost the taxpayers to build. I cannot believe any corp. would build that mammoth enterprise without seeking all the tax funds,tax rebates,no land tax etc.

Every step forward for corporations is a step backwards for
the individual taxpayer, unless you happen to be employed by the offending corp.

I am still hoping that Disney takes over Cape Canaveral you can have that money pit with my blessings.

Debra I am not picking on you I am just showing how Congressmen can run up enormous debts while taking care of their constituents.####

Gayle in MD
03-03-2006, 09:00 AM
While taking care of their crooked Corporate fascist thieves, who got where they are on the sweat of American labor, and then sold them out to the lowest bidder, along with their country. Just the same way Bush sells out our National Security, in the interest of MONEY.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
03-03-2006, 10:44 AM
Dick,
Good point. Here locally, our city is getting ready to take over $200 from every man, woman and child living here in the form of taxes, and give it to one of the richest families in the country, the France family, for the right to build a NASCAR hall of fame. I think the France family has more money than our city revenues for a year....but that is what they do. The city council is about to climax at the thought of getting this hall of fame...but we will never get the benefit...we will be too busy trying to pay for it.
Gotta love the government!!!
Steve

Sid_Vicious
03-03-2006, 10:59 AM
"The National Debt is an accumulative accomplishment of EVERY Presidential Administration since 1900."

So if a president was to have a positive surplus, he'd be collectively better than all the rest put together? The Chimp took a surplus and made it a debt. That fact washes out any logic of accumulated debt from other presidents. Bush is simply put, a dunce.

Good ol' Bill C. for the surplus...sid

Drop1
03-03-2006, 11:17 AM
Sometimes reading some posts,is like listening to a monkey play a violin;a lot of noise,and no music. There seems to be a lack of ability in cognitation,let alone a proposed solution. Can't people understand the aging of America,the dumbing down of students,and the future reliance on immigrant labor,and how the the National debt will be impacted by this,and the ever rising health care costs that will exist to meet the social contract of Social Security. But above all a house divided against itself,will not stand. We need both parties to make America the dream of future generations.

wolfdancer
03-03-2006, 11:50 AM
Gayle, while that may all be true, how about the fact that Clinton lied under oath about Monica? Doesn't that justify all this?
This site is interesting...if only for the counter....
web page (http://ostroyreport.blogspot.com/)

wolfdancer
03-03-2006, 11:59 AM
Debra, with all of our ranta and raves on this topic....you seem to be the only one here, with some factual knowledge.
Interesting stuff, by the way.....and my only comment would be that I think FDR did what he had to do, to bring the economy back at that time. On the other side of the coin, I've also read where it had begun to recover, in the last stages of the Hoover admin....depends on who you choose to believe.
For awhile there, the stock market resembled, the market of the twenties, just before....somehow we avoided the dreaded crash....but I'm not so sure it still isn't overevalued...in the meantime, I take my small profits and run.
I'm thinking of putting it all in tulip futures......

DebraLiStarr
03-03-2006, 12:04 PM
Gayle, unless you have a keen understanding of the history of the national debt, how can you properly comment on it? Blaming it all on Bush is ridiculous. As far as going back to 1900 - you have to go back that far and retrace the steps that got us where we are at now. That is how you learn to solve the problem. Regardless of any measurable surplus, former President Clinton still left the national debt at $5.6 trillion. I'm not saying that is his fault, it isnt. There was legislation from GHWB and Ronald Reagan that was steam rolling the deficit into the stratosphere. I do believe that Clinton did the best that he could. GWB is using the war on terrorism as a reason for high gov't spending - you have disaster relief efforts, etc etc etc - we pay for all of that with taxes... so if taxes are cut, the deficit rises. It is a proverbial double edged sword. If you look at the Omnibus Act of 1993, taxes were increased for th top 2% of taxpayers... many Americans initially were supportive of changes in the tax code to help the economy and lower the deficit (according to public opinion polls taken at the time), by the mid-term elections of 1994 many American voters were galvanized by the Republican charge that the Democratic Party had raised their taxes. It was silly partisan gamesmanship.

Surplus? What surplus? Look at the numbers. LOL. Of course, I believe Clinton tried his best, but when the republicans took charge in 1994, it blew his ass wide open - not Clinton's fault - its the fault of partisan politics. The GOP cried about taxes being raised in the top 2% would impact middle America by raising prices... it was a travesty.. it was total nonsense. It was partisan politics. Case in point - 1993, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, everyone voted along party lines... who had to cast the deciding vote? Algore (our first animatronic vice - president). The GOP decided to stand firmly against one of the best pieces of legislation merely to ensure that it would NOT work in Clinton's favor for re-election in 1996. That didnt work, and we now had a democratic president with a GOP majority in both the house and senate. Instead of taking care of real problems, we chastised the president for getting an extramarital blo job from an intern. That was time and money well spent. It didnt solve any of our problems, it just created attitudes like Gayle's... which is ... you tried to screw our Prez... now watch us undermne and screw yours... how does that help progress or solve anything?

Here are some links to show you exactly how our "elected" representatives voted on Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 -

Senate Roll call vote on Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&amp;session=1&amp;vote =00247)

House Roll Call Vote on Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll406.xml)

The same thing is happening now, that is why our elected officials need to work for the constituents, not the lobbyists. Vote for the best interest of our country, not themselves. Its corrupt on BOTH sides. It goes back to Woodrow Wilson's theories which in effect have not worked, and we are paying the price 80+ years later. As I said, JFK had the greatest idea, which was to get rid of the Federal Reserve - that is taking away their power to spend money that they dont have. LBJ decided to ignore JFK's good judgement and went out to start the welfare, medicare and social security programs that cost tax payers (us) billions of dollars annually. Without having a clear understanding about how we got into this mess, we'll never get out. I don't care what Clinton did, or what he says, the numbers dont lie. He left the U.S. with a bigger debt than what he started, and he can thank all of the republicans that refused to support any finance or tax legislation Clinton came up with.

Dick... I try not to comment about Disney in the forums. I have only been with the company since August 2003. I am not responsible for any of what you brought up - I am merely a managerial accountant/financial analyst for WDW Resorts in Orlando (however I held a similar position at Disneyland in Anaheim in 2003-2004). As long as things run smooth in my small part of the universe, I am a happy person and I support the MOUSE.

wolfdancer
03-03-2006, 12:06 PM
You know what we got here?
Taxation without representation !!!!
This Republican majority congress, this republican admin,
surely do not represent the goals,the hopes of the majority
of the people, as much as they represent the goals of a few
insiders, a few industries, but mostly their own goals and ambitions.
It's time to revolt!!!.....and like Madam Defarge, i'm making up a list....got three names on it already.

DebraLiStarr
03-03-2006, 12:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Debra, with all of our ranta and raves on this topic....you seem to be the only one here, with some factual knowledge.
Interesting stuff, by the way.....and my only comment would be that I think FDR did what he had to do, to bring the economy back at that time. On the other side of the coin, I've also read where it had begun to recover, in the last stages of the Hoover admin....depends on who you choose to believe.
For awhile there, the stock market resembled, the market of the twenties, just before....somehow we avoided the dreaded crash....but I'm not so sure it still isn't overevalued...in the meantime, I take my small profits and run.
I'm thinking of putting it all in tulip futures......
<hr /></blockquote>

Thank you Wolfdancer...

I tend to disagree with your assessment of FDR and his policies. Do a little research on a gentleman named Francis Townsend. Here is a snippett of one source of info I found...


In 1933, Francis Townsend proposed a plan whereby the federal gov't would pay evey person over 60 a $200 monthly pension. Townsend claimed that his "Old Age Revolving Pension Plan" could be financed by a Federal tax on commercial transactions. The plan obtained a great deal of public support and by 1935 his "Townsend Club" had over 5 million members.
In 1935 Townsend handed in to President Franklin D. Roosevelt a petition supporting the Old Age Revolving Pension Plan that had been signed by over 20 million people. In response to the petition, Congress passed the Social Security Act.

It established Old Age and Survivors' Insurance that provided for compulsory savings for wage earners so that benefits may be paid to them on retirement at 65. To finance the scheme, both the employer and employee had to pay a 3% payroll tax. The provisions of the act also encouraged states to deal with social problems. It did this by offering substantial financial help the states provide unemployment benefits, old-age pensions, aid to the disabled, maternity care, public health work and vocational rehabilitation.

Francis Townsend claimed that Roosevelt's social security legislation was completely inadequate and in 1936 joined with Father Edward Coughlin and Gerald L. K. Smith to form the National Union of Social Justice. William Lepke was selected as the party's candidate in the 1936 presidential election but won only 882,479 votes compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt (27,751,597) and Alfred Landon (16,679,583).

Anyway... this IS NOT what we have with Social Security today... and that is FDR's fault even NOW.

Here is another link from the SSA website that goes into superb detail about Townsend's original plans... FDR bastardized Social Security as we know it, LBJ made it worse, and it is spiralling out of control and ready to hit a wall as you are reading this.

The Townsend Plan Movement (http://www.ssa.gov/history/towns5.html)

In regards to increasing the debt, FDR had a war to fight on two fronts. Regardless, he was one of the worst abusers of the bottomless pit known today as the Federal Reserve Bank. JFK cited FDR's abuse in his reasoning to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank.

Here is an interesting link to conspiracy theorists regarding JFK's assassination in regards to this issue.

President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110 (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Federal%20Reserve%20Scam/kennedy_killed_by_bankers.htm)

The music is annoying on the site, but it is a very accurate account of JFK's planning and reasoning to abolish the Federal Reserve by backing the treasury with silver certficates (an ingenious idea, although it took away the federal government's power to spend spend spend) and it would have wiped away the debt - completely. It meant that all the tax money coming in would be used towards the debt, and then what was left over is invested in silver certificates and eventually we would be far out of the red. I believe that Clinton would have tried this also if he had the votes in the house and senate in 1995... but it was not to be.

Back to FDR...

Fact: Roosevelt amassed $40 billion in debt prior to the beginning of the war.

Fact: The number of unemployed rose, after initial declines from 1938-1939, significantly, until the unimaginable figure of 11,300,000 was reached.

Fact: Roosevelt's policies have failed utterly and many forget the failures of his 3 presidential terms because it is overshadowed by a victory in WWII.

He will go down as one of the Presidents that created the blueprint for our subsequent economic failure. He has a hand in the bankruptcy of our country, yet very few people seem to realize the effect his policies have on the lives of people today.

Gayle in MD
03-04-2006, 11:12 AM
Well, just look what the Republicans did just this week, they blocked the Collins/Leiberman Bill, (I think there were three or so Democrats involved in this too) which would have created an independent committee to oversee ehtics, and lobbying, just Blocked it right out, after all that rhetoric and outrage over cleaning up the Republican corruption in Congress!!! Almost all who voted for blocking it were Republicans. How much our National debt has been increased by incompetence, corruption, and waste would be an interesting figure, wouldn't it.

I don't think Bush supporters are intelligent people. If they were, they would never have put him back in there after it became clear that he not only lied, but he was crooked and stupid! Of course SOME of us knew that before they put him in there the first time. Can you ever remember a time after a President was elected when a News Headline read...."How Can Forty Million People be so dumb?"

Here is the Answer....They Just ARE!!!!

I have no patience for the propositions that we are in this mess, not due to Bush, but due to economic decisions made in the interest of solving the problems which existed for other previous generations. Trying to discuss what is NOW, and current, is task enough. I am only interested in keeping abreast of what this idiot is going to do next! Every week, we are faced with yet another unintelligable, overwhelmingly Stupid Decision!

Economics change according to the pressing issues of the times. Nothing could be dumber than to critisize Roosevelt's genius plan for pulling this country up from the depths.

I don't know how we can clean up the total mess the Republicans have made of things in five years, or how we can manage to stop the messes they continue to make daily, but I certainly don't think we will have to face another corrupt republican majority for a while. SOME of the incredibly dumb referred to in the headline, are beginning to wake up. How can they not, when the F-ups are now weekly headlines. As this year progresses, and the false band-aids on the economy begin to drop off of our gushing economic wounds, we are going to learn once again, lessons we have forgotten, and while Bush, just as every other president, has inhereted pressing American Issues, he has worsened every single issue during his tenure, everything from Debt, to safety, to constitutional rights, to foreign affairs, to leaking borders, to responding to emergencies, to illegal immigration, to even correctly wageing a War, efficiently, and effectively, even if it was a hoax, You name it, he has F**ked it up!

If you ask me, anyone who isn't ranting rageing mad about this administration is deeply burried in either ignorance, of apathy!

Gayle in Md.

We should be focussed on tweaking the issues of this Global Trade Mess, which is dragging our country down because America is disadvantaged by foreign corruption practices, and the destruction of illegal immigration, and the falling wages, good paying jobs, loss of control over our infrastructure, failing education, out of control spending, and the loss of manufacturing.

Cutting taxes in war time is dumb. Bush will continue to Rob Peter to pay Paul until we are rid of him. If we're lucky, no other foreign country will impose a situation that we must respond to militarily from our weakened military and economic position.....left by this total wasted, misguided effort in Iraq. It is absolutely absurd to speak of re-building a country on the other side of the world, when we have a whole city right here, which lay in complete devastation.

wolfdancer
03-04-2006, 12:00 PM
Any chance of the mouse running in the next election?
we don't seem to have a front runner just yet, and another 4 years of another corrupt admin...and I'll do what my friend did....he killed himself by jumping out of a first story window on his head.....I share his fear of heights.

Drop1
03-04-2006, 01:21 PM
Forty million morons can be wrong,and one moron can have the position of leading despite his demonstrated limited ability to capture the most fundamental economic concepts that might stave off the end of Freedom as we know it. People are unmoved by facts,and political parties are now
cults of hate,much like organized Religion. There are people that pull information from sources,off the internet,and throw them out,as though it was Mana for the masses these are the people I find most detestable,because they spread ignorance,and come up with no suggestions,because they are ignorant,and hide within a mass of verbage that has so little to do with the topic of the thread; "the ability of our present President to move this Country forward,and meet future economic obligations,"is the subject I hoped this thread would address,with emphasis on the Nationl Budget. I have not read one post that would indicate the writer had the slightest idea of Economics,or monetary history,accept those written by Gayle,the Republican hater,who once suggested I crawl back under a rock.God love her /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DebraLiStarr
03-04-2006, 02:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Any chance of the mouse running in the next election?
we don't seem to have a front runner just yet, and another 4 years of another corrupt admin...and I'll do what my friend did....he killed himself by jumping out of a first story window on his head.....I share his fear of heights. <hr /></blockquote>

Its actually quite sad. Cheney is not electable (at least I hope not) and electing Hillary would be a disaster. Other names being thrown around are John McCain &amp; Joe Leiberman (c'mon... the Democrats can do better than that). The next candidate has to take the debt seriously while at the same time repairing the poor image we have earned over the last 6 years. We are still subserviant to the oil companies, and with the tide turning for the worse for domestic auto sales and other domestically produced products, demand is way down - which takes away jobs - jobs are needed for taxes - taxes are needed to pay off the debt. Its not like we are just a little bit behind, we are WAY behind Japan in technology, quality, and production. Electing someone based on looks or how they talk on a podium is senseless, but thats how it is set up. As voters we need to take a hard look at the resume of every single candidate and make a wise choice based on qualifications - and the ability to get the job done. Partisan voting is what is killing the effectiveness of the electoral process. BTW... nice knowing you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

wolfdancer
03-04-2006, 02:46 PM
Good post....and ditto on knowing you.As I posted before...you've made the best comments on this thread.
I never hear her name thrown around, but I'm a big fan of DiFi, as we used to call her. A great, gutsy Mayor....and I believe a good Senator.
I also don't think she is electable for the first spot...

wolfdancer
03-04-2006, 03:15 PM
I think Debra has some financial acumen, and cited some hisorical events leading up to the present mess.
I have no knowledge of our complicated economic system....and
I bought a book on economics a couple of years ago....they lost me around page 10.
All I do know is that the debt worsens by the minute, and the tax break ploy that Bush used to get elected, only adds to the fiasco.
Well, he was a failed CEO of Harken Energy.....why would we think he would suddenly touch the obelisk, and get a grasp on reality?
It's now way beyond partisan politics. It will evidently take a genious to figure out that ever increasing expenses - a tax break - earnings based tax revenue lost to outsourcing add up to an insurmountable deficit. I think it may be too late already.....
It's obvious GWB has no solution...he may be the War President (what a stupid statement by him)...but he ain't much else.
Did you hear about Clinton lying to congress? It's true, ask Ed, or Steve
You lived under a rock????

Drop1
03-04-2006, 05:10 PM
Well it was a large rock. The problem for me is we are becoming the uninformed electorate. We really have a problem in education,and teaching requires a great deal from teachers. I keep going back to the fact that sixty five percent of all Math,and Science teachers will be up for retirement within 5 years. We don't have the people to replace them. Children on the State level testing, perform far below the Federal testing levels. I think this thread is over,and I can only hope that it raised some questions about the National Debt,and our future. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Gayle in MD
03-04-2006, 07:02 PM
Yeah, I remember, sorry about that, too. Been thinking about that lately reading your posts, I think we are on the same page on a lot of things....Hope you'll forgive the knee jerk reaction in the past. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Just wondering what this week will bring. I don't think even Bush could top these last three weeks of idiocy, do you?


gayle in Md.

Drop1
03-04-2006, 07:56 PM
I had it coming /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gifPals Ok? What Bush can do in the next three weeks,is a throw of the dice. I consider the reaction of China,because they are involved with India in searching for oil,and other ties to solve problems they face,and the visit of Bush to India is a transparent effort to send signals to China. If there is away to f**k it up Bush will find it. He does get help,when no need for a ethics committee to be formed is claimed.

Gayle in MD
03-05-2006, 07:01 AM
Yeah, and this Nuclear Deal with India will go down as the most major F-up in a long time. India doesn't even use oil for their energy anyway, they use coal. He has given them a Blank Check, and you can't find one Nuclear expert that agrees with this move. They say it will cause a cascading effect that will dilute any rational argument to deny China, Iran and North Korea of thier nuclear desires. If China is the threat which Bush hopes to thwart by this India a$$ kissing, then why is Communist China allowed to be involved in our ports???

His statements in India were among the most ignorant and also the most insuloting to America. He blew off the devastation to the American Worker, mostly middle class, of having their jobs exported to India, and said Americans just need to get some more education to fill higher positions...interesting, the Department of Labor lists Nursing assistants, no high school degree required for dumping bed pans, as the top slot to be filled, and next comes Restraurant workers, however, manufacturing data will be affected by Bush's genius Economic advisor, Gregory Mancusie, I think his name is, wants to identify slinging hamburgers as part of manufacturing sector, LMAO!

Bush says those of us who don't like the fact that he can't export our jobs fast enough, are protectionist who want to"Wall off our economy from the world" What a total jerk. Bushworld, has no middle ground, you're either for the war, or you're a treasonist traitor, you're either for globalization, or you're a protectionist, you're either for the ports deal, or you're a bigot, you're either for handing over your rights to privacy, or you are for the terrorists, and Rove has all the little sheep believing in this kind of either or mentality. What will be interesting is how Karl Rove will be able to sell REpublicans as strong on National Security, after Bush has traded Nuclear Rods for mangos, sold our ports contracts to Arabs, neglected to perform the 9/11 commissions instructions for National Security, and allowed our ports to exist as the most unchecked mostly likely path for smuggling a Nuclear Weapon into this country.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
03-05-2006, 11:12 AM
Gayle did you catch the hearing on C-span...where the border sheriffs were taking about the incursions into the U.S. by
well armed Military style groups from Mexico in support of the drug and people smuggling?
We are outgunned...thay have assault rifles.....and the incident with the drug smuggling truck, stalled at the border gate....is proof that the Mexican Gov't isn't going to do anything about it.
Worse part is we have probably trained these people, and we send millions to Mexico for the drug wars....
For that we get murders and rapes in our border towns....13 yr olds are being used as smugglers....it's a mess
No, the worse part is the sheriffs think there are already terrorists cells down there

Drop1
03-05-2006, 12:24 PM
I think someone has had the ear of Bush,about the economic positition we are in regarding the one hundred seventy four thousand containers WalMart brings is each year from China.He wants to play China and India off on a race to the bottom. India already is a Nuclear power,although they never signed the nonproliferation agreement. China has Nuclear power,and a seat on the U.N. Security Council,along with Russia. I wonder if Bush thinks he is dealing with 2.5 Billion morons. The leaves shaking in the trees are from the winds of laughter out of India and China.

Gayle in MD
03-05-2006, 12:34 PM
Yes, and also, anyone who doesn't make it their business to search and find the text of the whistle blowers tesitmony, is totally in the dark about this lying bunch of neocons. Just wait till you read Specter's Bill on Illegals!!!!! Just think how different things would be right now if our troops had been deployed to protect our own borders, and all this money thrown away in Iraq, had been spent on building up our armed forces, infiltrating global terrorist cells, improving the efficiency of our first responders, the ports, the borders, etc., and using diplomacy to organize international agenda's for peace.

Instead, we have 20,000 casualties, Iraq IS in a Civil war, no doubt, violence between Shiia and Sunni, and a shiite militia, 80% of Iraqis want us out of there, another 45% want to kill us. Iraqis are without water, without electricity, the oil production has remeined below pre occupation levels, Iran and North Korea and bin Laden are thrilled watching us ruin our military, and ground/air equipment into the ground. Re-construction is at a stand still, and companies don't even want contracts for re-construction, because nobody wants to go over there into kaos and get their heads cut off. They still do not have ONE SINGLE INDEPENDENT BRIGADE !!!! There are 50 to 100 people being killed every week, in a civil war, and some weeks more than that, and then we have to listen to this BS that we are winning the war???? This is progress, ROTFLMAO!

And, I have to listen to people trying to say that we have driven the terrorists into hiding??? What a total joke! Every single terrorist expert says this war has grown a younger, more defiant, more militant terrorist movement, across the globe, and particularly in the Middle East, and grown it by the millions.

Then, Bush turns around and gives a nuclear blank check to a country that has blatantly defied Nuclear proliferation regulations. I guess, when he backed Saddam into the corner, over this very same issue, it was because Saddam wasn't doing enough to help Bush to export American Jobs, the way India has, or maybe it was because Saddam didn't offer us any mangos, yeah, that must be it.

Regardless, WE ARE LOSING THIS WAR! BUSH IS EXPANDING OUR DEBT, and the war is a huge part of that. This war was a mistake, period, and all he can offer is STAY THE COURSE....IOW, keep on dying for my stupid, neocon f- up.

$17,000.00 a second, for NOTHING! 20,000 casualties, for NOTHING! IF ONLY CLINTON HADN"T GOTTEN THAT BJ, none of this would be happening.....

Gayle in Md.

Drop1
03-05-2006, 01:06 PM
Wolfdancer there is not a single study on the future of American labor,that does not admit to the fact we are going to need hundreds of thousands of foreign workers,in future years. The majority of those people will cross the Mexican border. The reason is simple enough,when you consider the age of the non immigrant population. Sixty percent of that group should hit sixty in fifteen years. The greatest two proplems we face are health,and education of the second generation latinos,who are way behind every minority group. America is going latin. Mexico in all its history has never kept faith with any agreement it signed,from the deal with Austin,creating a Gabacho Texas,to Nafta. And certainly they could care less about drug enforcement,since drug money is widly distrbuted to politians. Most young people here like some type of drug,and this helps push the price up before it hits the states. Every method to bring drugs accross the border,from little kids,to old women. My younger brother has a doctorate degree in criminology,and is co-author off a book tittled "Police in America" he made an intresting point ninty five percent of violent crimes in New York,are related to drugs. If you search "Paul Bryan Gray",you will meet my other brother who is a Lawyer, author,historian,and visiting professor at University of California Los Angeles. Don't forget the quotation marks. A better source on Mexico is difficult to find.

wolfdancer
03-05-2006, 01:58 PM
I did some research, and it turns out ole GWB is a big Rosemary Clooney fan, and this is his favorite song, which is why he traded nuclear energy, and a week at the Bush ranch, for mangos:
"Mangos, papaya, chestnuts from the fire
In my house of straw I have so much more
Pie from the pigeon I fix in the "Kidgeon"
Each bite is just right for your appetite

Now if you like the way I cook
And if you like the way I look
Then step inside my shady nook
And you'll find mangos and papayas
Anything your heart desires

Mangos, papaya, chestnuts from the fire
The food is so good you will wanna stay
Eat up and drink up and maybe you think up
The day when we say "Preacher Man, OK!"

Bush is "Preacher Man' ?????

DebraLiStarr
03-05-2006, 04:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> I think someone has had the ear of Bush,about the economic positition we are in regarding the one hundred seventy four thousand containers WalMart brings is each year from China.He wants to play China and India off on a race to the bottom. India already is a Nuclear power,although they never signed the nonproliferation agreement. China has Nuclear power,and a seat on the U.N. Security Council,along with Russia. I wonder if Bush thinks he is dealing with 2.5 Billion morons. The leaves shaking in the trees are from the winds of laughter out of India and China. <hr /></blockquote>

I believe what is ore appalling than the outsourcing of our jobs, is the outsourcing of our education.

About Outsourcing Education to India - Interesting Web site about outsourcing (http://www.enterblog.com/200503150134.html)

In reference to China, we should worry more about their links to Vicente Fox.

U.S. National Security Concerns and Mexican Oil

As if its efforts to secure Canadian oil, natural gas and mineral deposits wasn’t bad enough, China’s expanded involvement in Mexico with one of America’s major oil suppliers has raised red flags within the Bush administration. But for some observers, China’s increased presence in the Western Hemisphere is a natural progression for an emerging economic power attempting to gain global influence. “China has always accepted that Latin America is part of America’s backyard, that it cannot intrude,” said Minxin Pei, director of the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Many within the Bush administration, however, see Beijing’s economic and diplomatic actions as a direct threat to U.S. national security interests in the Western Hemisphere. Recent actions taken by Beijing have made it clear that its traditional “hands-off” policy concerning the Western Hemisphere is being dramatically revised. One of the main catalysts for this revised strategy has been China’s enormous energy needs which are forcing the country to identify and secure resources all over the globe.

Pemex, Mexico’s giant oil and gas monopoly could be a target for future Chinese investment, if existing constitutional barriers which explicitly prohibit the government from entering into production-sharing contracts with foreign energy conglomerates are removed. The company produced record amounts of crude oil and natural gas in 2004, averaging 3.8 million bpd. High oil prices have helped propel infrastructure development by Pemex that has topped $10 billion per year; however, there is still need for additional investment for exploration and development projects.

Even with increased domestic investment, Mexico’s oil industry faces severe problems. Most of the country’s oil comes from one field, Cantarell in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, the country lacks diversification and is vulnerable to sudden fluctuations in production. Moreover, some experts have predicted that without further discoveries, oil will run out in approximately 11 years. Making matters more urgent, the Mexican government relies heavily on energy revenues to drive the national economy.

Looking Ahead

As the U.S. tries to maintain a foothold in Central Asia and the Middle East, China is making tremendous progress in the Western Hemisphere. Along with Venezuela and Cuba, China has made Mexico an important part of coordinated Latin American strategy sending an unmistakable signal to Washington that it plans to set up shop in America’s backyard. Washington should be concerned about the possibility that Mexico may one day perceive China as an ally comparable to the U.S. As events unfold, it would be wise to remember the words of Russian communist leader Vladimir Lenin who stated, “The road to America is through Mexico.”

Only time will tell if this is a good thing for America, Mexico and the Western Hemisphere.

- from an Article By Frederick W. Stakelbeck Jr.
FrontPageMagazine.com October 18, 2005

Complete Article (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19857)

Here is another very well written article - it is a 3 part article that goes in depth to what China's energy plans are for the future, and how they are planning to set up shop right across the border in Mexico, with Vicente Fox's approval. This is what we get for fighting for oil that we don't need in the first place. It is an excellent, well written article - read parts 1 &amp; 2 if you get a chance, it breaks it all down very well.

China: Hungry for Power (Part 3) (http://www.energybulletin.net/115.html)

pooltchr
03-05-2006, 05:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> 80% of Iraqis want us out of there, another 45% want to kill us.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

I guess I probably fall into that "moron/idiot" catagory you are so fond of assigning to everyone who disagrees with you, but even I understand that 80% plus another 45% somehow just doesn't add up.

New Math?????

Steve

wolfdancer
03-05-2006, 06:54 PM
It's the same math Bush uses to support his economic theories....it's like when there are more votes then voters in Fla...it's called the theory of imaginary numbers? Similiar to the laws of probability....used to predict the probable odds of your vote in Fla. being tabulated correctly......

pooltchr
03-05-2006, 07:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> It's the same math Bush uses to support his economic theories....it's like when there are more votes then voters in Fla...it's called the theory of imaginary numbers? Similiar to the laws of probability....used to predict the probable odds of your vote in Fla. being tabulated correctly...... <hr /></blockquote>

Cool! So in actuality, what you are saying is Bush beat Kerry by 66% to 59%. I think I'm getting the hang of this now! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve

wolfdancer
03-05-2006, 08:28 PM
you're quick on the uptake, fer one a dem Carolina boys

pooltchr
03-06-2006, 06:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> you're quick on the uptake, fer one a dem Carolina boys <hr /></blockquote>

I should be...I dun gradiated from the 3rd grade! Only took 7 years too!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve

eg8r
03-06-2006, 06:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Bush supporters are intelligent people. If they were, they would never have put him back in there after it became clear that he not only lied, but he was crooked and stupid! Of course SOME of us knew that before they put him in there the first time. <hr /></blockquote> Here is this intelligence crap again. Once again, it is coming from the party that is too dumb to win something as simple as an election and they still talk themselves into believing they are more intelligent.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-06-2006, 06:28 AM
I think you know what I meant, unless you're even worse off than I thought. Just keep on knit picking, Steve, you have no effect on me.

pooltchr
03-06-2006, 07:57 AM
If you can't say what you mean, be prepared to be mis-understood.
Steve

wolfdancer
03-06-2006, 11:56 AM
Ed, maybe too dumb to win the last two elections, but if we didn't win some of them, we'd all be goose stepping, and you would be a plantation owner

wolfdancer
03-06-2006, 11:58 AM
Steve, didn't you mean to post this as a reply to Ed?
he's terribly misunderstood.....poor guy

Deeman3
03-06-2006, 12:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> and you would be a plantation owner <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">

Wait, now, wasn't Lincoln a "gulp" Republican? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Deeman

wolfdancer
03-06-2006, 12:30 PM
Actually you are right, but the party of Lincoln, as I remember, lost favor over their decision NOT to go to war with england in 1812...and this is NOT Lincoln's party that we now have.....
Actually the original Party was established, according to Wiki, by a coalition of northern democrats and free-soilers.
And the Democratic party,was originally called the Republican Party, then changed to the Democratic-Republican Party...then
so it's all very clear now....the Republican party was founded by Democrats, and the Democratic Party begun by Republicans.....and you still can't tell them apart

Deeman3
03-06-2006, 01:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Actually you are right, but the party of Lincoln, as I remember, lost favor over their decision NOT to go to war with england in 1812...and this is NOT Lincoln's party that we now have.....
Actually the original Party was established, according to Wiki, by a coalition of northern democrats and free-soilers.
And the Democratic party,was originally called the Republican Party, then changed to the Democratic-Republican Party...then
so it's all very clear now....the Republican party was founded by Democrats, and the Democratic Party begun by Republicans.....and you still can't tell them apart <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">

That does it. I'm voting with the Wiggs this time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Deeman </font color>

eg8r
03-06-2006, 01:55 PM
Well, you can say what you want and be as funny as you think you are, but in the end this intelligent party crap is ridiculous.

eg8r

wolfdancer
03-06-2006, 02:41 PM
Ed, do you honestly think one party is so much more intelligent then the other? Give me a f***g break!!!
the tone of your posts alway read like you think you are so much smarter then most people.....so why don't you go find some people that you can have a "My diiner with Andre" type conversation with....and stay the f*** away from replying to my posts, because no matter how **** smart you think you are, I think you are a F***** J***
Just what the **** are you trying to prove? that you're more intelligent then I am?....conceded
That you elected GWB?....you and how many other deluded voters...conceded.
why don't you post something positive once in awhile?
I'm really tired of your negative BS.....and wouldn't mind discussing it like gentlemen, face to face in the back alley someplace.

DebraLiStarr
03-06-2006, 02:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>
Just what the **** are you trying to prove? that you're more intelligent then I am?....conceded
<hr /></blockquote>

Just for the record, Wolfdancer... I think you are very intelligent. I really do think you'd be able to think your way out of a paper bag, but I think you'd have trouble doing it in the dark. j/k
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
03-07-2006, 06:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, do you honestly think one party is so much more intelligent then the other? <hr /></blockquote> No, that is why I call Gayle on it every time she says it, directly or indirectly.

[ QUOTE ]
and stay the f*** away from replying to my posts <hr /></blockquote> LOL, are you having another one of those bad days?

[ QUOTE ]
why don't you post something positive once in awhile? <hr /></blockquote> The left has just dragged us down into their doom and gloom. The world is falling and it is all W's fault.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really tired of your negative BS.....and wouldn't mind discussing it like gentlemen, face to face in the back alley someplace.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, that does not sound like gentlemen, it sounds like a couple hood rats who could not work it out like adults. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-07-2006, 07:03 AM
Like I said before...his goal is to twist, turn, insult, re-arrange, whatever we say into into an opportunity to get into a mud slinging affair. OVER and OVER, I have stated that I am not a party person, just wasn't dumb enough to vote for George Bush. Since he is the one calling the shots at present, he is at fault for his present failed policies. I'm no Clinton lover, either, just don't think he did as poor a job as Bush has done so far, in fact no president has. That's my opinion. Some here only want to argue, degrade, attack and otherwise convolute our posts, and ourselves, for the sole purpose of a mud slinging party. I refuse to answer any future posts which smack of sarcasm, are degrading, or blatantly argumentative.

"Never get into a mud slinging match with a pig. When it's over, you're both covered with mud, and the pig is happy."

After all the "HA HA HA, our guy won, you're guy lost" rhetoric we had to put up with, the facts of the day are too painful for those who for five years consistantly supported this nincompoop. No wonder they have become more and more insulting as time goes by. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Ed's arguments are never pertinent to anything, nor do they offer any value to any discussion, of any kind. When I ignore certain posts, it is always for that reason, or because the poster is sarcastic and insulting towards me, personally. My TOTAL IGNORE LIST, seems to grow as the failure of Bush's policies continue to become more evident, lol. If he were a Democrat, doing the same things, I'd still be just as furious about it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
03-07-2006, 08:25 AM
Wolfdancer our local paper endorsed GWB for his second term because we should not change Presidents in War Time. The paper fell right in line with GWB thinking when he started the War.Just a reelection ploy.####

wolfdancer
03-07-2006, 12:27 PM
Gayle, from now on, I don't f**** care what kind of f****
crap, he f**** writes here....I'm through reading any more.
I was telling a friend about his "style"....even sent a couple of the posts along to show what the problem is.
He said they call these people.....internet bullies, small, vindicitive people that use the internet to, well, to try to intimidate people.
I'll send you a pm, and tell you the rest of the story.
In the meantime, one less "mean" post to read.
Don't let him get to you, because that's all he is trying to do.....he knows you are well versed on politics, that you watch C-span alot, that you count politicians among your friends, that you visit Veteran's hospitals, etc....he can only counter that with personal attacks, or dredge up Bill Clinton.
And when he tries to paint one party as morally, ethically, intellectually superior, over the other....that's the dumbest statement that he's made so far.

hondo
03-07-2006, 01:11 PM
Here is this intelligence crap again. Once again, it is coming from the party that is too dumb to win something as simple as an election and they still talk themselves into believing they are more intelligent.

You must be right, egg. It can't possibly be because
the American people are just plain stupid that they
voted for Bush. There has to be another explanation.
Doesn't there?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Sid_Vicious
03-07-2006, 01:57 PM
I quit reading many of these posters except in the billiard related forum. What good does it do to even open their posts anymore, just upsets you and nothing more? It's kind of like looking back in the toilet at your daily excretion and expecting to change it, SOS, and both are putrid to the end. You'll have a better chance of turning your "prize in the bowl" into a fragrant flower before you ever make a dent in these hardheads. Turn'em off,,,I do. sid

eg8r
03-07-2006, 02:00 PM
Whatever you say hondo.

eg8r

eg8r
03-07-2006, 02:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And when he tries to paint one party as morally, ethically, intellectually superior, over the other....that's the dumbest statement that he's made so far.
<hr /></blockquote> I believe it is you and your buddy that have been trying real hard the past couple years to paint your party as the intelligent one. Each time I read it I reply that it is BS and you both know it.

eg8r