You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
White House: Deficit Plummeting to $333B
- Thread starter trader99
- Start date
Quote from BSAM:
How do you figure Kerry to be a "total loser"? Where does that put Little George Bush?
i did all the calculations while listening to kerry. the sum total of what he said and his history = total loser.
bush it turns out is not much better. had the dems put up a better person i may have voted for him.
Quote from trader99:
"These numbers indicate that we're going to cut the deficit in half faster than the year 2009 -- so long as Congress holds the line on spending," Bush said following a Cabinet meeting.
What is he, a spectator in the budget process? Who can veto the budget passed by Congress (to be fair, he's not yet demonstrated that he's aware of his veto power), whose party controls both the Senate and the House, along with their respective budget committee chairmanships?
Quote from JangoFolly:
What is he, a spectator in the budget process? Who can veto the budget passed by Congress (to be fair, he's not yet demonstrated that he's aware of his veto power), whose party controls both the Senate and the House, along with their respective budget committee chairmanships?
that would be republicans. i am a republican and my whole life i have heard republicans bash democrats for being big spenders. so what happens when republicans get total power? they are the biggest spenders in the history of this country. i cant abide hypocrits on either side.
I'm a conservative Democrat, but I think the country does best when government does as little as possible. As much as I would like to chalk up credit for the 90's economy to Bill Clinton (one of the few quality Dems), I believe it was the equilibrium of relative inaction that's achieved when the Executive and Legislative branches are held by opposing parties. I was extremely disappointed to have John Kerry as my party's candidate (not that there were any better nominees during the last primary season); however, I voted for him because with a Republican Congress he wouldn't have gotten anything accomplished as President. Having the Executive and Legislative branches both controlled by the same party (Republican or Democratic) is a blank check to partisan special interests who will demand pay back for their fanatical support. Between two rotten candidates (which we continually have), I will always take the one whose potential for mayhem is more limited.
Quote from JangoFolly:
I'm a conservative Democrat,.....
Wow, you and Joe Lieberman! (I'm not counting Zell Miller, 'cause he's really a Republican.) Thanks for having the courage to speak up. Good thing we use nicknames here, because if your party leaders heard your description of yourself, you'd be hunted down and.....:eek: .....
I think the mods deleted the other thread but I share some of the concerns with people here.
Bush is an ass for spending too much. He has never said no to congress, and the things he does spend money on is all in the wrong things. I believe he should cut farm subsidies and a bunch of other BS govt programs this year so he can at least blance the budget and maybe even run a small surplus before he leaves office.
Overall it's a good news for the Bush whitehouse, I'm just pissed off that Bush does not cut programs and reign in pork barrel spending.
Having said ths, John Kerry would have been a total loser. He would of increased taxes, implmented Canadian-style Healthcare (which causes rations in healthcare and people to die. Canadian Supreme Court - http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/09/newscoc-health050609.html) and restored the pay-as-you-go Social Security System. Which means bascially the govt will continue to raid the "surplus" without ever putting any money back into the system, ever. In the end the retirement age would have increased significantly along with a rise in the SS tax and other cuts in benefits. John Kerry was just basically saying anything the people wanted to hear in order to get elected. But the people were smart than that and realized what he was proposing was too close to socialism and would have destoryed the country.
Bush is an ass for spending too much. He has never said no to congress, and the things he does spend money on is all in the wrong things. I believe he should cut farm subsidies and a bunch of other BS govt programs this year so he can at least blance the budget and maybe even run a small surplus before he leaves office.
Overall it's a good news for the Bush whitehouse, I'm just pissed off that Bush does not cut programs and reign in pork barrel spending.
Having said ths, John Kerry would have been a total loser. He would of increased taxes, implmented Canadian-style Healthcare (which causes rations in healthcare and people to die. Canadian Supreme Court - http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/09/newscoc-health050609.html) and restored the pay-as-you-go Social Security System. Which means bascially the govt will continue to raid the "surplus" without ever putting any money back into the system, ever. In the end the retirement age would have increased significantly along with a rise in the SS tax and other cuts in benefits. John Kerry was just basically saying anything the people wanted to hear in order to get elected. But the people were smart than that and realized what he was proposing was too close to socialism and would have destoryed the country.
Quote from The Kin:
John Kerry would have ... implmented Canadian-style Healthcare (which causes rations in healthcare and people to die.
82,000,000 Americans were uninsured for some period of time in 2002-2003. At least 18,000 people lose their lives for lack of health insurance annually.
http://www.healthcare-consulting.com/USHealthcarePublicPolicyAnalysis.html