Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Pastrami Budget: How Bush's Killer Budget is really a good thing

Pack it on. What’s another $91 Billion to an already bloated deficit? When you’re just financing it through international banks, I guess you never really feel the pain. It’s analogous to paying your Visa credit card debt with a MasterCard. Even though I didn’t get my MBA at Harvard like the President, this revolutionary public money management plan that the President has consistently promoted during his tenure as Commander and Chief, this ‘spend until you can’t spend anymore’ model of budget restraint has got to come to an end.

What is the real plan?

Is Bush just packing on the debt, like a pastrami sandwich in downtown Manhattan, layer after layer of fat packed processed meat in an effort to clog our arteries and suffer a massive, yet quick, fatal heart attack? Is that the plan? It sure looks that way.

To me it's reminiscent to James Watt's revolutionary approach at managing America's environment as Secretary of the Interior. His model was, 'Yeah… cut down what you want and drill wherever; it doesn't matter. Jesus will come back and all will be good.' And it sure sounds like Bush is using this approach with the public's money.

With the deficit running at over $400 Billion dollars (the largest in America's history), Bush's deficit juggernaut seems destined for greatness. For Bush has single-handedly taken a surplus of $236 Billion and turned it into a $412 Billion deficit; with no real end in sight. It's a classic case of the fox running the hen house.

What about those checks? You know in the checks and balances.

The Senate, that other wonderfully responsible group of supposedly elected representatives, will vote this week on whether to permit the federal debt to grow by $781 Billion dollars to avoid a government default. A government DEFAULT! Their vote will allow the debt to grow to almost $9 TRILLION; that's $3 TRILLION more than when Bush, the MBA President, took office. Nope. I guess there's no real help there either.

But alas, you know, I'm with Watt on this one. Let's just let the government default. Go broke. Go bankrupt. What's the worst that could happen? All hell will break lose, sure. There will be famine, despair and a great depression; sort of like New Orleans, but bigger. The world economy will collapse and it'll be every man for himself. It won't really matter though. For as James Watt once said: "I don't know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns."

For me, I'll just sit back, not pay my credit card debt and wait for the rapture too.

Posted by john trevisani at March 15, 2006 11:32 AM
Comments
Comment #133556

Harvard should take the MBA back and Yale should take a serious look into eliminating all legacies.
Extensive drug use must have come later, if any of those degrees were honestly earned. It looks like you would have to be able to read, write, and speak to get an MBA.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #133557

I really can’t wait to see what the fiscally conservative Republican response to this post is. Ten bucks says the Bushies post there is no debt.

Posted by: Max at March 15, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #133561
I really can’t wait to see what the fiscally conservative Republican response to this post is. Ten bucks says the Bushies post there is no debt.

There are no fiscally conservative Republicans left. They will all try to weasel their way out of the topic by bring up other numbers completely out of context (like debt/gdp), or how much Bush has cut “wasteful” spending (wasteful defined as anything they don’t like), or how Bush’s tax cuts have spurred such “great economic growth.”

There, we’ve covered that, Republicans. Now you can address the DEBT number.

Posted by: bobo at March 15, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #133562

Max,
They will say the deficit and debt are not at historically high levels, are not significantly impacting the economy, and are sustainable.
But they also think Bushies colon smells like flowers and Whittington was at fault when he got shot.

Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #133563

Haven’t you been paying attention?

They will say you are all pessimists - and optimism is more attractive.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 15, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #133564

This debt is part of a calculated plan to not only cripple the ability of the gov. to address problems like health care now but limit its abilities in the future. They are doing this on purpose.It is iresponsible and dangerious but quite in synch with their bonehead every man for themself bonehead ideaology. Every man for themself so long as they have all the aces that is.

Posted by: BillS at March 15, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #133565
This debt is part of a calculated plan to not only cripple the ability of the gov. to address problems like health care now but limit its abilities in the future.

How true. To go back in time just a few years, the Clinton budget surpluses were the savior of Social Security, and that has been wiped away by Bush’s actions.

By running supluses, Clinton set the country on the road of bring the debt to GDP ratio down from about 50% to probably below 20% (I think it was near 40% when he left office).

That would have meant, when it was time to pay the baby boomers retirement, the government could do that (partially) through debt, raising the ratio back up to 50% or so. The economy would be no worse off.

But Bush & the Republicans have thrown that chance away. It would take so much debt that the ratio would probably rise to over 80% to cover Social Security’s needs. That could cause enormous strain on the economy. So when Republicans tell you that “Social Security is not sustainable,” it’s only through their doing! Clinton’s policies made is sustainanble.

Posted by: bobo at March 15, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #133570

Bush created the bird flu.

Posted by: kctim at March 15, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #133571

kctim,

“Bush created the bird flu.”

Very well thought out response. Care to respond to the actual post?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 15, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #133572

I just love how everyone is still putting their faith in social security…it simply isn’t sustainable, due to the fact that it doesn’t stand a chance now that the baby boomers are retiring. It isn’t meant to provide sustainable income for retirees…it is only there to help in a moderate way to help those who were smart enough to save their money and provides a modest amount of supplemental income to those who planned ahead. I am proud to be a “Bushie” and I am also a “Rush Baby”, so now you delusional libs must be laughing…
I won’t dispute the fact that there is a deficit. It was there when I was born and it will be there when I die. Furthermore, the great President Billy Bob didn’t even put a dent in it, so let’s not use him as a great example of fiscal responsibility. I have been conservative all my life because I’d rather live a live of hope and optimism rather than gloom and doom. For god’s sake, get laid, eat a steak and get a hobby that doesn’t involve running down one of the greatest presidents we’ve ever had.

Posted by: Charlie at March 15, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #133573

kctim:


Bush created the bird flu.

Do you have something to offer? Are you saying that when Bush took over he didn’t inherit a surplus and blow the surplus and create the deficit?

If so, please provide the evidence. Thanks.

Posted by: john trevisani at March 15, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #133574

Wow - OK.

1 inane response and
1 completely off-topic/diversion

0 actual discussion of the topic at hand. DEBT!

Bush has his head up his ass - and everyone around him keeps remarking on how limber he is.

Posted by: tony at March 15, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #133578

Schwamp is the winner!

They will say you are all pessimists - and optimism is more attractive. Posted by: Schwamp at March 15, 2006 12:41 PM
I have been conservative all my life because I’d rather live a live of hope and optimism rather than gloom and doom. Posted by: Charlie at March 15, 2006 01:18 PM
Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #133580

Surprisingly, I haven’t seen a republican response to this post. Maybe because “beat them at their own game” Max, bobo and sshwamp already spoke the “sound bites” for the rote responding republicans and now they (the republicans) have to think for themselves and that’s a tough order to fill. By the way, great post John.

Posted by: WHEREDEMBALLS at March 15, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #133582

As a republican I hate to give such good advice, but if the dems could put up someone offering a balanced budget amendment, that would send them on a road to the independent vote. The republicans obviously need to offer a similar candidate.

But we also have to remember, Congress controls the purse strings and adds the ear marks. The President does not have line item veto. If you were President and finally got a piece of legislation passed that you and your administration had been working on for years … but 15% of the bill was pork … would you veto your own bill? Probably not. The heat needs to be more on the legislative rather than the executive for our excessive spending.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 15, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #133583

Damn, easy guys. I was just jumping on the bandwagon. Bush is a druggie. Forged his education. He’s purposely crippling our govt.
“All hell will break lose, sure. There will be famine, despair and a great depression; sort of like New Orleans, but bigger.”
Whats wrong with blaming the bird flu on him and acting like its a fact too?

Respond to the actual post Andre? Ok.
We have a huge deficit. We will have to figure out how to fix it.
I disagree with fixing the numbers to make it look like we had surplus.
I disagree with mocking religious people.
I disagree with trying to use fear mongering as a way to get votes.
But most of all, its just another tired post on the blue side saying you hate Bush and his policies while offering no solutions or any room for honest debate.
These are your opinions, have at them.

Posted by: kctim at March 15, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #133584

Bush 2000 - campaign web site/promises

“The federal government is expected to run a surplus of nearly $5 trillion during the next ten years. Governor Bush has proposed a balanced economic program that will use the surplus to prepare for the future, dedicating: half to saving Social Security by establishing personal retirement accounts and reducing the debt held by the public; one-quarter for pro-growth tax cuts; and the remainder to reform education, strengthen Medicare, and support other priorities. As President, Governor Bush will bring taxes down from their record high level and pay the debt down to a historically low level.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20001109012700/www.georgewbush.com/issues/index.html

Posted by: tony at March 15, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #133586

Great post.

I WAS a fiscal conservative republican…and then dropped the “republican” from all of that, which leaves me now as a a rather angry “fiscal conservative”.

If a business were run as the government is run now, it would be bankrupt, or close to at this point. Our current economic growth is almost all based on debt- government spending financed through foreign dollars and personal spending as households have tapped equity in their homes and who have also run up their credit cards. The savings rate is NEGATIVE for the first time since the Great Depression!!! As some have said in the Red column, the economic expansion NOW is relatively healthy, but given the points i just mentioned, we are headed for a rather uncomfortable future.


If anyone wants a well researched perspective on this whole debt issue, i recommend reading Empire of Debt by Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin. It’s entertaining and makes you think a bit.

Posted by: Greg at March 15, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #133587

“These are your opinions, have at them.”

Why do you suggest that your writings are our opinions?

You’re 0-2… can you at least try to discuss the topic? Or does the idea of the insane deficit render you speachless?

Posted by: tony at March 15, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #133589

I agree with you - that the current economic picture masks the extreme economic dandgers we face. We are owned by foreigned entities… they hold our debt… and they will shortly start pulling that “investment” out of our country to less risky/better growth countries.

We bit off more than we can chew. We’re going to have to make some very hard decisions and we will have to pay.

Posted by: tony at March 15, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #133592
I just love how everyone is still putting their faith in social security…it simply isn’t sustainable, due to the fact that it doesn’t stand a chance …

Charlie , you missed the facts entirely. Clinton put it on the path of sustainability. Bush took it off the path. Reread my post and pay attention to the numbers. Then come back with a response that addresses the numbers. Remember how I said Republicans would try to weasel their way out of the issue? Well, that’s exactly what you did here!

Other points:

[Social Security] isn’t meant to provide sustainable income for retirees …

No one has ever said that Social Security should be the be all or end all for retirement income. But it is a floor below which no one should fall. Bush is trying to tear up the floor.

the great President Billy Bob didn’t even put a dent in [the deficit], so let’s not use him as a great example of fiscal responsibility.

I suggest you go back to the numbers again, Charlie. Clinton started his presidency with a deficit and ended it with a surplus.

Posted by: bobo at March 15, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #133594

“We have a huge deficit. We will have to figure out how to fix it.”

There you go tony, I agree the deficit is too large.
Whining about it like you guys are doing won’t make it go away. So it comes down to HOW we fix it.
If John T. would have asked how people thought we could fix it, then there would have been room for debate. Instead, he wanted all of you guys to come up more of the same, tired cliches about Bush.

“Why do you suggest that your writings are our opinions?”

Read my last post slower next time.
I stated my opinions about this post to Andre as he asked.

Your writings on here are nothing but your opinions, have at them.

Posted by: kctim at March 15, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #133598

“But most of all, its just another tired post on the blue side saying you hate Bush and his policies while offering no solutions or any room for honest debate.”

This is Andre’s opinion?

Posted by: tony at March 15, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #133601

You’re right, kctim. It is easy to hate a president who is a complete incompetent. Bush has given the country no leadership, and takes no responsibility for anything.
He has brought every bit of this hatred upon himself.

John,
Good article.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 15, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #133602

There are two ways to fix the deficit:
1. Raise Taxes
2. Reduce Spending

With the current gang in Congress and with the rubber stamp prez, #1 surely is not going to work, as any attempt to let the current tax cuts expire is labled (rather appropriately) as a tax increase.

#2 is also not going to work since any cuts to entitlements is labeled as “hurting the poor” and any cuts to defense is labeled “un-american, for the terrorists, etc.” Lets face it, MOST of government spending is for entitlements and defense.

I will also argue that most Americans either don’t understand or care one way or the other about the financial situation in Washington, thus when they make it to the voting booths, they vote for the same idiots time after time.

IMO, something has to give. Either taxpayers receive less entitlements (read: social security) going forward or they pay higher taxes. Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. Of course, option 3 is an economic crisis…but this is exactly what we are trying to avoid here.

If anyone has a different suggestion on a possible solution please post it, i am interested to see differing viewpoints on how to solve this.

Posted by: Greg at March 15, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #133603

Here’s a timeline:
(rounded numbers)
The federal budget deficits
========================
1982: -$125 Billion
1986: -$221 Billion
1992: -$290 Billion
1997: Balanced
2000: +$236 Billion (surplus)
2004: -$412 Billion (deficit again)

You’re more than welcome to check the numbers; they’re up on the OMB website.

See no (deficit)
Hear no (deficit)
Speak no (deficit)

Posted by: john trevisani at March 15, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #133607

John, great post. Let’s also remember that Iraq is not included in the 412 billion. The real 2004 number is closer to $600 billion.

Scary. Particularly since there isn’t a plan to fix it.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 15, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #133609

Typical Democratic rhetoric: all complaints and no alternative.

Until the Democrats are willing to propose budget cuts (real ones that will leave money for debt repayment) they are just as bad as Bush and the Republicans.

You’d think in an election year somebody in congress would want to at least look fiscally responsible, but I guess that’s too much to ask for.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 15, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #133611

TheTraveler,

nice try, but the GOP dug this hole. Here’s some advice:

stop digging!

Posted by: CPAdams at March 15, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #133613

stop digging!

Here’s some better advice: instead of complaining about the hole, tell the people you’re going to fill it in!

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 15, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #133614

Y’all missed another of the Bush support tactics.
Once fearless leader and his minions in Congress screws things up, and people start having issue with that and understandably have some outrage, all of a sudden Bushies bring up the
“Now now, it is not productive to be negative and accusatory, we need to get past that and work together to FIX IT”

THE POINT IS, IT WOULDN’T HAVE NEEDED FIXING IF THE SCREWUP-IN-CHIEF DIDN’T MEDDLE WITH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE
WHY DO WE NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN FIXING SOMETHING WE DIDN’T BREAK???
EVER HEARD OF “YOU BROKE IT, YOU BOUGHT IT”?
You want suggestions for “fixing” it?
1) Recind the tax breaks
2) Recind the tax breaks
3) Recind the tax breaks
.
.
.
200,000,000,000) Recind the tax breaks
Get the point?
I love how all this money was “returned” to the wealthy because it wasn’t needed, and now “Sacre-Bleu” we don’t have enough money!!!! (Surprize!!!! — not so surprizing for an administration that couldn’t forsee the levy failures) so I guess we CAN’T help out those less fortunate — We just don’t have the money!!
(handy response, especially since they sort of dance around the fact that the money needed to support these things was “returned” to people that are more fortunate than most — let’s just not talk about that little detail, eh?? — a bit embarrassing don’t ya know?)

Posted by: Russ at March 15, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #133617

And if you want to see more ‘dropped balls’:

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (CNN) — Federal prosecutors are considering abandoning their crippled death penalty case against al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, a transcript of a closed-door meeting with the judge reveals.

———-

How can such a high profile, terrorist-related case get so screwed up?

Posted by: tony at March 15, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #133618

You want suggestions for “fixing” it?
1) Recind the tax breaks
2) Recind the tax breaks
3) Recind the tax breaks


That alone without budget cuts will not repay the debt and get us out of bankruptcy.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 15, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #133619

WHY DO WE NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN FIXING SOMETHING WE DIDN’T BREAK???

Because you want votes. You should anyway.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 15, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #133620

This exactly proves my last point

Until the Democrats are willing to propose budget cuts (real ones that will leave money for debt repayment) they are just as bad as Bush and the Republicans.

I love it — Tax cuts and military spending in a war we shouldn’t have started (nor managed so badly) and the corruption in the IRAQ “reconstruction” are sort of the major contributors to this mess we’re in but do the Repubs suggest backtracking on the spending that MADE the mess??
Un-Uh
NOOOOOOOO
Heaven forbid that we go to the wealthy and say, ya know what? That little refund we gave you??? Hmmm, seems as tho that was a mistake, we don’t have any extra money to refund, we need it back.
NOOOOOOO
Much easier to go to people who need some help and kick’m in the ass while they are in the prone position

Ok REd guys
Then cut funds to Katrina relief
cut funds to that stupid bridge in Alaska
cut as much of this crap as you want
and you still won’t make a dent
why?
Hmmmm, have you seen what percentage of the budget is merely Servicing the Debt????
As I recall it is nearly in the same category as the Military part of the pie!!

What a disengenous approach, limit the discussion to “budget cuts” knowing full well that is not what the problem is.

Posted by: Russ at March 15, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #133622

Traveler
Regarding coming up with a fix rather than complaining about the hole
I get real cranky having to “fix” other peoples mistakes — and I love that this little bit of wisdom comes from the side that is so big on “Personal Responsibility”!!
We were being chastized for being outraged at this incompentent in chief creating such problems —
I guess it is sort of admission on your part (that alone is worth headlines!!) that something needs to be fixed!! — Means something is screwed up!! — admission of a mistake!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! could it be possible??

The point is that we wouldn’t need to worry about fixing if we had a president (and administration) that was competent.
What good is it now to fix anything when the major cause of the problems is still in charge creating new problems to be fixed???

Regarding recinding tax breaks not being adequate
I note that from your side the only thing y’all seem to want to talk about is budget cuts — so I just wanted to put the focus where it belongs.
Let me ask you something
What was added to the budget between 2000 (Surplus)
and 2004 that created the $648 Billion swing in the Budget????

(2000: +$236 Billion (surplus) —- 2004: -$412 Billion (deficit again)))

Hmmm, seems that the biggest single element added to the budget during that time WAS
Drum Roll
TAX CUTS
ouch!!

But when it comes to fixing the budget, y’all seem anxious to cut things that were in the budget back in 2000 (and hence when we had a surplus and hence we could actually afford at that time)
Why is that????

Posted by: Russ at March 15, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #133623

Russ -

To understand their reasoning, just follow the money trail. Makes things really (REALLY) clear.

Posted by: tony at March 15, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #133624

um…Traveler…in case you forgot -

Republican President
Republican Senate
Republican Congress

The GOP can fix the deficit anytime it wants to.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 15, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #133625

Okay, you talk to any republican (I have heard this over and over again during the election time), they will say that the deficit is not their fault. The problem is from Clinton and the Bush administration has nothing to do with the problem. I was too young to understand what Clinton actually did, but he did it right. And it is not right to screw something good up and blame it on the person that fixed the problem that his dad made worse than it actually was. I agree, it needs to be fixed, but it is not going to happen, because we are too busy spending billions of dollers on killing our soliers.

Posted by: Jason at March 15, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #133626
Heres some better advice: instead of complaining about the hole, tell the people you’re going to fill it in!

Democrats can’t fill in anything right now - we don’t have the votes. Right now Democrats can’t promise anything without the votes.

But Republicans promised to maintain the surplus and cut taxes - broke that promise.

Republicans promised that the Iraq War would be financed with oil revenue - broke that promise.

Republicans promised to cut the deficit in half by 2005 - broke that promise.

Republicans promised that the entire Iraq War would cost less than $80 billion - broke that promise too.

About the only people the GOP keeps its promises to are lobbyists and millionaires.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 15, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #133628

One last thing
This whole thing STINKS of hypocrisy by the right.

They yell and scream about personal responsiblity and people need to be responsible, etc (hmmm nothing about accountability)
Sooooo
when hens come home to roost and there are screw ups that this administration needs to accept responsibility for — what happens??
Lets divert criticism and focus on “fixing the problem” (and conveniently forget who is RESPONSIBLE for the problems in the first place)

Part of why there is such strong criticism now that everything is imploding — is that the Right Side (and this administration) were very arrogant about their approaches, policies and decisions.
They did not accept any dissenting viewpoints, and criticized, slandered, demeaned anyone who disagreed with them.
They were RIGHT and anyone who disagreed was not only WRONG, but unpatriotic, among other things
and now you wonder why people react so strongly???
and get a bit testy that now that YOU Screwed things up you want US to help you out?
US??
We’re the lame-brain, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, gay loving, Osama buddies that don’t know our rear end from a hole in the ground. We’re a threat to national security, if we ran things the terrorists would be in charge in less than an HOUR!!
And now you want our HELP?????
Not on your life

You want a REAL suggestion as to what is needed to fix this?
1) Impeach the Prez AND his entire Administration
2) Put the Fear of Diety in Congress so that they represent OUR interests — NOT corporate or other $$$$$ slingers
3) Electorate get more involved in the representation
But of course none of these are going to happen
But
anything else is just rearranging deck chairs

Posted by: Russ at March 15, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #133629

CPAdams, good points. And Russ, I really enjoyed that last post of yours, too.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 15, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #133630

Tony
You said
to understand their motivation I should follow the money

I already KNOW what their motivation is, it is abudantly clear — not much need for subtlety when you control Congress and the White House and you are IN THE RIGHT!!! (hmm Arrogance???)

Posted by: Russ at March 15, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #133631

Russ,

I don’t have a side, I’m an independent.

I want to vote for a candidate who wants to get rid of our $8,000,000,000,000 debt. Neither party is offering.

The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.

The budget needs to be cut because our nation is bankrupt. Merely balancing the budget will not change the fact that we owe trillions to China and many other countries. Cutting it will help. And if you want to raise taxes, I’m with you there IF you do it fairly.


CPAdams,
Democrats can’t fill in anything right now - we don’t have the votes. Right now Democrats can’t promise anything without the votes.

You mean they refuse to promise anything. When I step into the voting booth in November the Democrat (an incumbent who I voted for in the past) will not be any more fiscally responsible than the Republican. Like all the candidates both parties are offering this year, he won’t even pretend to be fiscally responsible. Neither will Senator Clinton and whoever she runs against.

This could be a winning issue for the Democrats in this election. It would certainly get my vote. Then they could do something about it. But the current candidates aren’t willing to do what it takes.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 15, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #133633

The Dems are not offering anything!!

Well since when has anything they offered been even considered by the Right????

I don’t get it
You shoot down anything that is brought up, or patronizingly dismiss it.

Then complain when we quit playing that stupid game.

You have all the answers (that is the impression that you have given over the past 5 years)
You are unwilling to listen to anyone other then yourselves

You fix it.

Posted by: Russ at March 15, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #133634

Russ -

My last post was pretty much rhetorical.

Posted by: tony at March 15, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #133636

I’m not surprised the usual cast of characters have nothing to say about this topic. It’s a “no win” topic.

It’s almost as bad as the GOP leadership having to explain to their own party whether they are actually for or against eliminating abortion and whether their platform is true or a lie.

Oh, and in case we forgot, Iraq is ever closer to that inevitable civil war that many of us said was coming.

I would be happy if everything that is imploding were just an academic exercise. Unfortunately, this is reality.

Our children’s economic futures are being simultaneously torpedoed by runaway deficits and declining national education, courtesy of the governor of the state ranked 48th in education. I’m glad we implemented Texas’(still 48th)education reforms - how about you?

Iraq is a bloodbath and the tragedy of every American life lost in a failed policy is exceeded by the fify Iraqis who have met their end along with GI Joe.

The crushing cost of the war, along with corporate profiteering in Iraq is expense on top of injury.

And we haven’t even gotten to the lighter side of the news - Guantanamo, Wiretapping, the Dubai ports deal, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramhoff, Valerie Plame.

I would rejoice in my GOP opponent’s debacle if not for the pain and suffering it is causing in the process.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 15, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #133637

Rather than deal with the facts, it appears the Republicans have succeeded in turning this conversation into a political debate. I won’t fall into that trap. You want to fix the fiscal crisis? Just repeal Bush’s tax cuts. We’ll be back where we were in 2000. That was a pretty good year, right?

Posted by: bobo at March 15, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #133638

hmmmm -

Iraq/Katrina massive problems for the US =

US - largest debt in history

Oil companies/Halliburton - largest profits

———————-

You can’t really call that fuzzy math. Anyone here see a pattern?

Posted by: tony at March 15, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #133639

The Republican leadership can no more repeal the tax cut than admit that their focus on Roe was only about potraying Democrats as baby killers(not ending abortion).

Someone tell me if they’ve seen this pattern before -

Republican makes a promise they can’t keep (read my lips),

Republican breaks the politically expedient, untenable promise,

American voters responds angrily at the polls,

Republicans blame Democrats for Republican failure to keep promise.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 15, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #133643

Anybody else notice the Red Column gang has stopped defending Bush and reverted to 100% Attack?

No more “Give it time. History will judge.” crap.

Come on, Wingnuts!!! Say “Trust Bush!!!” one more time!!!

Posted by: Aldous at March 15, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #133651

Russ and CP,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the whole point of politics getting yourself into a position of power so you can deal with the problems that are faceing our nation?

Do you even want to see the Democrats back in power? Your party can not win a majority in Congress with a “you broke it you fix it” attitude. Complaining alone is different than actually being an alternative.

I posted in another thread that I would vote for any Democrat (or Republican) who supported debt repayment to the point of fighting for it in Congress or on the campaign trail. Of all the people in this election, not one Democrat (or republican for that matter) supports this.

In ‘04 Senator Kerry did the “Bush lite” thing and mimicked Bush’s stupid plan to balance the budget several years down the road. It didn’t really go over that big, did it? Since neither one of them had a good plan, it turned out to be a non-issue for all intents and purposes. I see that happening again this year.

You can complain all you want about the Republicans and I’ll even agree with you, but don’t start thinking that puts your party on some sort of moral high ground. All the complaining in the world won’t change the fact that your party is no better.

Because neither party is the least bit fiscally responsible, this will not be a big issue this year, just as it was not big in ‘04. Which is a shame, because I truly believe this could swing the election for the party that’s willing to change it’s ways.

Posted by: The Traveler at March 15, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #133654

Traveler, I couldn’t disagree more completely with your characterization.

I can’t think of one Democrat in favor of keeping Bush’s upper income tax cut, including Kerry. This action alone would have gone a long way towards reducing our deficit.

I think getting us out of Iraq along with reversing the tax cut would take us more than half way to reducing the deficit - rather quickly, too.

If you add some of the proposals for preventing American corporations from hiding profits offshore, and I think we are almost home.

Of course you won’t hear candidates talking about raising taxes on the campaign trail (simple matter of survival). Despite your suspect demands of idealism from Democratic candidates, the voting public still does not elect candidates who say they will raise taxes.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 15, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #133655
The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.

No, they’re simply not. The 90s clearly demonstrated that the Democrats are considerably better at reducing deficits and, if the trend line could have been continued, the debt. They simply require some power to make it happen. The Bush Administration, by contrast, shows exactly the opposite. Republicans (think Reagan and now Bush) grow deficits even in good times.

Sorry, Traveler, but your “pox on both sides” sounds fair minded doesn’t hold water, and it doesn’t serve the good of the nation. When one party does better in a certain area, we should say so. It’s the only way people can wind up making the best vote on the issues they care about.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at March 15, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #133660

The 90s clearly demonstrated that the Democrats are considerably better at reducing deficits and, if the trend line could have been continued, the debt.

The ones in or running for Congress this year are not supporting it.

They simply require some power to make it happen.

That’s true. It’s too bad the President and the congressional candidates have no intention of using that power.

When one party does better in a certain area, we should say so.

Yes we should. It’s too bad there’s no one like that we can speak about. There’s not one person in Congress who is fighting to balance the budget and start repaying the debt. Not one from either party.

It’s the only way people can wind up making the best vote on the issues they care about.

Then start running candidates who are going to act on the issue instead of just whining about it! The voters do care about this. The parties don’t.

CP,

You keep talking about “reducing the deficit.”

That’s why both you and Bush both lack credibility. The deficit needs to be eliminated!

Only then can we start paying off the debt which is the bigger problem. Trillions of dollars bigger.

Posted by: The Traveler at March 15, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #133661

///
The Pastrami Budget
Republicans promised to maintain the surplus and cut taxes - broke that promise. Republicans promised that the Iraq War would be financed with oil revenue - broke that promise. Republicans promised to cut the deficit in half by 2005 - broke that promise.
Republicans promised that the entire Iraq War would cost less than $80 billion - broke that promise too. About the only people the GOP keeps its promises to are lobbyists and millionaires. Posted by: CPAdams at March 15, 2006 03:40 PM

Thank you for your clear and concise information. Sometimes we forgot what was said before. The current administration are looters, thieves, and hijackers. They should be exiled to the Cayman Islands, since they like it so much. Spying, imprisonment, and torture are their specialties. What a bunch of f*cked up worthless sacks of sh*t.

The Defense budget should be cut, since too much of it is used for Offense, making trouble for the rest of the people on earth. But at least we will not disturb Iran or North Korea, good models for a theocracy and an insane personality cult. They both resemble Bush goals too much.
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #133662

Traveler
Wasting your breath my friend.
You and I both agreed that the deficit is crazy and needs to be fixed but it wasn’t good enough.
Hell, I even tried the blame Bush for everything route and even that wasn’t good enough.
Can you tell its an election year? LOL

Posted by: kctim at March 15, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #133665

Traveler,

Since it was the Democrats who balanced the budget before Bush, I find your attacks on both parties for fiscal irresponsibility is also suspect.

Your accusation that in five years Deemocrats have gone from the party that balanced the budget to spendthrifts is without substance, specifically because the only change in circumstance was the loss of power.

You sound like a Republican who is claiming to be independent to lend some credibility to your one-sided critiques of Democrats.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 15, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #133666

Traveler
Wasting your breath my friend.

I know, kctim.

They are actually correct when they say the Republicans have no defense on this. It just amazes me that they can write post after whiny post when their own party is not fielding one fiscally responsible candidate.

All the Democrats need to do come out as a party and promise that if they win a majority there will be no deficit in ‘07 and they would start paying down the debt. Hundreds of fiscal conservatives, many of the Republicans, would vote for democrats all of a sudden.

Do you ever get the feeling that the DNC is intentionally trying to loose for some reason?

Posted by: The Traveler at March 15, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #133668

Reed,

sorry if my post sounds like a rehash of yours - walked away from the computer without finishing my post.

kctim,

I’ve laid out what I recommend to eliminate the deficit.

how are you going to fix the deficit?

Posted by: CPAdams at March 15, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #133669

CP,

Since it was the Democrats who balanced the budget before Bush, I find your attacks on both parties for fiscal irresponsibility is also suspect.

I actually do blame everybody. It’s just that I’m responding to the Blue side and I’m pointing out their hypocrisy. Oh, and it was one Democrat who balanced the budget. President Clinton.

Your accusation that in five years Deemocrats have gone from the party that balanced the budget to spendthrifts is without substance, specifically because the only change in circumstance was the loss of power.

No, The loss of power proves my point. Where did the Democrats loose power? In the White House. The Democrats in Congress were never good on this issue. If there was someone like President Clinton today who was willing to fight for a balanced budget, we wouldn’t be having this argument, would we?

Posted by: The Traveler at March 15, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #133672

Traveller,

Your linkage between those posting here who have contempt for Bush and the quality of Democratic leadership is misplaced. One has nothing to do with the other, the proof of which is the lack of slavish devotion that I detect among the anti-Bush faction here for any of the Democratic leadership but that is everpresent on the part of the criminal right for Bush. Stop conflating one factor with the other.

Jim C.

Posted by: Jim Collis at March 15, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #133678

Jim,

I understand that the people posting here don’t represent the Democratic Party or the DNC directly, but the Blue Side articles are written by Democrats and is about Democrats and their viewpoints.

Since this is an issue their party has not taken up, I feel justified in pointing out that complaining about the Republican’s lack of fiscal responsibility is very hypocritical.

I and many others like me are willing to ignore most other issues if one of the parties will start supporting this one.

Posted by: The Traveler at March 15, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #133692

Traveler & Kctim,
“I and many others like me are willing to ignore most other issues if one of the parties will start supporting this one.”

While I might agree, this issue will not generate enough votes to make taking the stand worthwhile until it’s too late. Everyone wants lower taxes, and everyone wants to be the beneficiary of government largesse. Like the city of New Orleans, the country will have to see teh levee break before financial responsibility is addressed. Until then, the Republicans will drive us off the cliff; it’s a long way down to the ocean, no one seems inclined to stop them, and the water is surely very cold.

Yes, this issue is there for the taking, and I hope the Democrats step up. Howard Dean is a deficit hawk. Feingold could be, too. Even someone like Hillary might be willing to address the issue, but only if that’s the way the wind blows. Like I said, disaster will have to be upon us before the deficit & debt can be addressed.

Are you willing to see the US withdraw from Iraq immediately? That could save over $90 billion/year. Are you willing to see tax cuts rolled back to pre-Bush levels? Are you willing to scrap the F-22 fighter and Virginia class nuclear attack submarine? Are you willing to freeze some spending programs?

Don’t demand the end until you’re ready to support the means.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #133697

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, rollback tax cuts, and crap F22 and submarine program, YES to all that, and lets do something about recovering assets from criminals who hide assets offshore. Money keeps disappearing, but some folks never get poorer. Income taxes should be estimated, based on assets and expenditures.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #133701

PHX8,
Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, rollback tax cuts, and crap F22 and submarine program, YES to all that, and lets do something about recovering assets from criminals who hide assets offshore. Money keeps disappearing, but some folks never get poorer. Income taxes should be estimated, based on assets and expenditures.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #133702

PHX8,
Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, rollback tax cuts, and crap F22 and submarine program, YES to all that, and lets do something about recovering assets from criminals who hide assets offshore. Money keeps disappearing, but some folks never get poorer. Income taxes should be estimated, based on assets and expenditures.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #133703

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, rollback tax cuts, and crap F22 and submarine program, YES to all that, and lets do something about recovering assets from criminals who hide assets offshore. Money keeps disappearing, but some folks never get poorer. Income taxes should be estimated, based on assets and expenditures.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 15, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #133705

Traveler,

You are being disingenuous, sir. There are no shortage of good ideas from the left—
* Tax the wealthy at an appropriate rate — they are wealthy because of our system fosters wealth building; it’s only fair they pay their share to support that system. The wealthy in this country seems to think it has the right to set the agenda but not pony up its share. (And I don’t want to hear about the “hard work” that got them there. Come spend the day with me and I’ll show ‘em some “hard work”)
* Tie tariffs to wages. As other nations’ wages come up, our tariffs go down (wasn’t this how the government was supposed fund itself? where the heck did i put that Constitution?)
* Stop allowing U.S. companies to reimport goods they manufacture elsewhere tariff-free; and make sure they realize that when China nationalizes their factories, we’re not going to go to war over it for them. (But we will capitulate short of war… See: Honshu Island early in Bush’s first term)

All the right has to offer is the same trickle-down theory that Bush 41 called “voodoo economics” back in 79. Recent history has shown that the wealthy won’t reinvest that money in America but will buy expensive foreign toys and invest in overseas operations instead.

Posted by: Jim Collis at March 15, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #133733

john trevisani,

I thought I’d already let you in on this, but evidently you were inadvertantly dropped from the A-list. So I’ll tell you now as long as you promise to keep this a secret.

We really do have a plan. Mad cow disease is much more wide spread than anyone thought. The funny part is that we’ve been able to fool the public. It’s a real hoot, premium cut steaks present no problem. Only the poor will be effected because they eat all those damn hamburgers.
***
US plans to scale down mad-cow testing: officials
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060315/us_nm/madcow_usa_dc_1
***
Shoot, folks are talking about building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, ha-ha! We only need start serving tacos de sesos at the border. It’s simple man. Less people = more money for you and me!
***
Buy ‘em Both. And oil!
http://news.goldseek.com/RichardDaughty/1142438580.php
***
Party down:
“The uncomfortable vote to increase the debt is the fourth since President Bush took office”!
“The debt limit bill is the fourth such measure required since Bush took office five years ago. If approved, the latest version would mean that the debt had grown over that span from about $6 trillion to $9 trillion _ about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.”
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060316/ap/d8gccfo01.html

Just promise to keep this a secret.
KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at March 15, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #133747

Traveler -
It just so happens that there is a democrat in the Senate who is talking about the debt. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is saying that “the debt is the threat”.
See this article from ABC for the reference. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1721636&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
His goal is to bring down the debt, and is saying that it is the most important problem we face. Even though the article I reference doesn’t go into detail about this democract, he has been on record with plans to resolve this problem. He is someone in the Senate, now, who is taking up this cause. And there are others who support him.
So the blanket statement that there is “not one” democrat who has a plan is incorrect. You may not agree with his ideas, but he does have them.

Posted by: Cole at March 15, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #133796

phx8, excellent post.

You wrote:

Are you willing to see the US withdraw from Iraq immediately? That could save over $90 billion/year. Are you willing to see tax cuts rolled back to pre-Bush levels? Are you willing to scrap the F-22 fighter and Virginia class nuclear attack submarine? Are you willing to freeze some spending programs?

Exactly.
Are they still throwing a lot of money at that Star Wars crap? That can definitely be scrapped. In fact, since the country is about to go bankrupt, isn’t it time for our government to start demanding that every branch of the military begin to get a handle on how to control and keep track of all of their spending? They are/have been notorious for being the biggest wasters of our taxdollars.
And how about cutting funding for NASA way back? Isn’t now the time to focus on Earth rather than Space?
Can any of you others think of expensive-but-wasteful spending programs we might clamp down on? There must be tons of things we could go after before we’d have to begin eliminating programs that people need.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #133803

Star Wars is such a joke. In Carters time, there were these small companies doing good in the laser business, probably all started by former researchers from Martin Marietta. When Reagan announced Star Wars, they were all bought out by Litton Industries, to get the government contracts.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 16, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #133805

Adrienne,
Now, you know I’m a huge proponent of NASA and space exploration, but I’ll let it go (with a quiet sob). A major point here is that a lot of people will see their oxen gored, and I suppose that will include me!

I’d like to see the health care issue addressed by nationalizing health care, limiting lawsuits & malpractice liability, and placing limitations on the extent of the health care available. That would mean taking on Big Pharma, the big supporters of Democrats among the trial lawyers, insurance, and the AMA.

This, too, will require a crisis before we’re ready to collectively face up to the problem.

I hope Feingold can get somewhere with this. Sometimes I think about running for office, but it seems so quixotic, and then I see someone like Senator Nichols talk on a pseudo news program, and I think, there’s no way I would demean myself by associating with someone like Nichols. Like a lot of people, I just hope a jackass like that will somehow go away…

Posted by: phx8 at March 16, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #133816

Earth to Adrienne! Earth to Adrienne!!

“isn’t it time for our government to start demanding that every branch of the military begin to get a handle on how to control and keep track of all of their spending? They are/have been notorious for being the biggest wasters of our taxdollars”

YGBFSM Adrienne!! Really?? That’s really your point of view. I was in the military for 14 years and after 5 years could’ve easily made twice what I made for the next 9 years. PHX 8 was military, ask him if he got a pay raise or pay deduction after the military. I know nothing about him except he was ex-military but I bet a lot of money he got a pay raise when he left the military!! And don’t tell me you weren’t talking about wages, wages are one of if not thee top expense for the military. Military hospitals, meager to adequate. Military housing: usually well below par considering the communities which surround them. Equipment … yes, when I was in Somalia I flew in a CH-46 that still had holes in it from Vietnam … IS THAT THRIFTY ENOUGH FOR YA???!!!!

Ignorami like you make me sick. People busting their ass for much less than what they could be making on the outside world and they do it all for jack asses like you who say “Ewww, they waste so much money …..”. What did you want to take out of MY F/A-18? My air-to-air radar? My air to ground radar? My radar warning receiver alerting me of an impending launch against me? Did you want to give me smaller engines so that I crept into a lethal area? Maybe I didn’t need an ejection seat? Or hell, the flashlight in my survival vest, that cost money, let’s get rid of that too!!! I’m so sorry I slept in leaky tents 300 yards from a runway in Aviano listening to jets take off in afterburner 24 hours a day fighting our unprovoked war in Bosnia. My $3.95 a day in per diem when I was living it up in Japan …woohoo, the times I had with those 4 bucks!!!

Adrienne, you really should know more when you lambaste an organization of over a million people. If you want to bring up certain programs you think are wasteful, that’s fine, I can name several military programs where the money could’ve been spent better elsewhere. But don’t damn the whole organization. You obviously don’t know squat about it. And you make it sound like the military orders its greenbacks from Congress. They do have their wishlist but Congress issues the budget to the military, not the other way around.

There’s extremist liberals and there’s the ones who don’t deserve the label “extremist liberal” because they couldn’t find their own asshole with a map and a flashlight. I’ll file you into the latter category.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 16, 2006 4:21 AM
Comment #133822

Hey, where’s Jack? Isn’t it about time for another post about unemployment going up 0.001% or some other such nonsense. Start a thread that points out the rediculous deficit numbers, old paid for by the Rediculous Right Jack is nowhere to be found. Oh, Ken C., I’ve read and enjoyed Adrienne’s posts and any clear thinking person could tell that she wouldn’t need a map or a flashlight.

Posted by: ray at March 16, 2006 5:29 AM
Comment #133835

CP
“how are you going to fix the deficit?”

CP, I think this is a fair question, but one we will disagree on.
First thing I would do is stop ALL American tax dollars from going to other country’s.
I would redo social security so that it is an entirely voluntary thing.
I would scrutinize every govt job and cut those that are not needed.
I would streamline ALL social programs and cut waste.
I would try to get politican pay more in line with that of the average American.
I would level the trade playing field, so that companies would be encouraged to stay in the states.
No more pork add ons.

Thanks for asking a real question.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #133836

Trav
“Do you ever get the feeling that the DNC is intentionally trying to loose for some reason?”

Yes. IMO, there is a power struggle within the party between the Dems and the libs.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #133840

Ken C. What a thought filled post. Instead of commenting on what Adrienne wrote you attck her at a personel level. Well Rookie I was in the military for over twenty (20) years and the waste that is there is beyond belief. Yes pay and benifits are low when compaired to the civilian sector, but no where did I see Adrienne’s post say cut pay and benies. (unlike the current administration) But when it comes to weapons platforms, oh boy is there waste there. It is not the “flashlight” that is the issue but the costs associated with it. Sweet contracts with the defense industry push the price of a flashlight from the $3.00 or that is paid at WalMart up to $25.00 because of “MilSpecs” that are laid out by the contractor. Often the military states it does not need a system or item, but because it is in Trent Lott’s district it is forced upon them.

You post is just another example of the current mindset that is “either you are with us or against us” that defies any discussion. To question military expenditures is now said to be aiding the enemy. Well I personally question many if not most of the military’s budget items and do not dare question my love for this country or my loyality to it. I get sick to my stomach when people like our draft evading Vice-Pres. question anyones loyality to this country.

So you all what ideas to cut the defict, a great place to start is the military-industrial complex as they contribute nothing but spending to our country. Many if not most programs could survive a close look, but the programs in the military could stand some very strong examination. Why are there unfettered contracts awarded to certain companies, why is no one looking at the ongoing and huge “cost overuns” and how the taxpayer is getting screwed by the “cronies” of this administration with the price gouging for the costs of this “war.”

So Ken, mr. I’ve been there and know more that you, leave your tired ass excuses for your liked minded chums at your local health club and off a blog that is attemping to look at ways of saving the taxpayer a few bucks. Rookie.

Michael M.

Posted by: Michael M. at March 16, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #133847

The Democrat Plan

Every day the Republicans run America
brings the Dems more voters.

Don’t reveal Dem plan to early
Republicans are known crooks and
will steal any plan you have and
call it there own.
(they win elections by SOUNDING
more Dem than Dems do)

Dems have no power to stop the
train wreck the Repubs are
determined to make.

But we are the only party who
can clean it up as Clinton
has proven.

Now to Dems demand a fresh
Dem Face as President with
a Hillary Vice Pres if you
must have a Clinton.

Posted by: Honey P at March 16, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #133848

Michael M.
If you served 20, then you know this problem did not start in the year 2000.
The biggest problem with getting this fixed is the people. They only care about whats going on when the “other side” is in power.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #133850

“Don’t reveal Dem plan to early
Republicans are known crooks and
will steal any plan you have and
call it there own”

Then how will the people whose votes you want, know what the hell you have in mind?

“(they win elections by SOUNDING
more Dem than Dems do)”

Thats because the Dems of today are liberals and the people have shown that they would rather have Reps or Conservatives over liberals.

“But we are the only party who
can clean it up as Clinton
has proven.”

ROTFLMAO!!! Let me know when your going to be in Kansas City. I love improv comedy.

“Now to Dems demand a fresh
Dem Face as President with
a Hillary Vice Pres if you
must have a Clinton.”

I agree. Get a DEM face, not another liberal.
But please, don’t put hillary anywhere near the top of your ticket. Doing that will probably mean things will not change all that much.


Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #133855

“Ignorami like you make me sick.”

“There’s extremist liberals and there’s the ones who don’t deserve the label “extremist liberal” because they couldn’t find their own asshole with a map and a flashlight. I’ll file you into the latter category.”

Wow. You are completely offbase with your comments, but atleast your aggressive about it. Take a deep breath and get over your own issues in life. Try to see what’s being discussed here.

Here’s a big shocker for you: THE MILITARY WASTES MONEY!!! Ask me how, I can show you the receipts. I’ve done videos on projects that could be covered with a post card… and I was the 8th level contracted in the job - AND I CONTRACTED people below me. I’ve trained soldiers to produce “in house” videos, only to train new soldiers every 2 years… ongoing.

There’s a ton of fat in our military expense, and people/wages are not part of that. Trust me, I spent a week shooting military base schools - to help get funding, and it’s a desperate situation there.

Posted by: tony at March 16, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #133864

phx8,
“Now, you know I’m a huge proponent of NASA and space exploration, but I’ll let it go (with a quiet sob). A major point here is that a lot of people will see their oxen gored, and I suppose that will include me!”

Well, I said cut NASA funding way back, not eliminate it entirely. When things improve economically (whenever that is), we could resume former funding levels.

“I’d like to see the health care issue addressed by nationalizing health care, limiting lawsuits & malpractice liability, and placing limitations on the extent of the health care available. That would mean taking on Big Pharma, the big supporters of Democrats among the trial lawyers, insurance, and the AMA.”

Yes. I agree with all that too.

“This, too, will require a crisis before we’re ready to collectively face up to the problem.”

I’m a business owner. I look at where we are economically, and I think we’re already in a crisis.

“I hope Feingold can get somewhere with this. Sometimes I think about running for office, but it seems so quixotic, and then I see someone like Senator Nichols talk on a pseudo news program, and I think, there’s no way I would demean myself by associating with someone like Nichols. Like a lot of people, I just hope a jackass like that will somehow go away…”

You SHOULD run for office, 8! I think you’re more than intelligent enough to a great job. I’d vote for you in a second.

Michael M.
The kind of outrageously wasteful military spending you described in your post was exactly the kind I was referring to in my own. Wages and benefits for our military men and women is something that I’d like to actually see increased rather than decreased.
Of course, Ken C might have asked me about that before attacking me personally, but after reading his posts for a while on this blog, I’m really not all that surprised.

ray:
“I’ve read and enjoyed Adrienne’s posts and any clear thinking person could tell that she wouldn’t need a map or a flashlight.”

:^) Thanks, ray!

kctim:
“you know this problem did not start in the year 2000.
The biggest problem with getting this fixed is the people. They only care about whats going on when the “other side” is in power.”

It doesn’t matter when the problem began. This nation is about to go bankrupt. We need the military to immediately begin trying to control their wasteful their spending NOW.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #133866

Traveler
I agree that the debt must be payed down
Everyone here should look at the interest payments on the debt to understand the ticking time bomb we have — remember interest rates are at historic lows, consider what would happen should the interest rates rise!
Suddenly we will have even less money to spend on the rest of the budget.

When Bush started promoting Tax Cuts because we had a “surplus” I just about (no actually I DID lose it)
We were FINALLY getting ahead of the game, and Clinton DID start paying down the debt.
AND here came this Texas A-hole with his BS line about all this extra money, and it should go “Back” to the taxpayer (actually only his wealthy buddies)
What surplus?? We still had this HUGE debt to pay off, — a debt incurred by those same taxpayers (all of us) — so what is this about “returning OUR money”??? We have a bill to pay, that surplus was not extra money that belonged to us — that was a partial payment for the bill we had rung up.
YES WE — WE ARE LETTING OUR REPRESENTATIVES BLOW ALL THAT MONEY ON STUPID BRIDGES, FANCY LIBRARIES, TAX SUBSIDIES TO EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES, ETC — AND ITS OK CAUSE IT IS “OUR GUY” DOING IT FOR “US”

To start with we need to restore the budget that was in place in 2000 and then have a look at it from there — it was working (we will have to account for money to get the heck out of Iraq without allowing a civil war there, get Murtha in on that plan) but after 5 years of screw ups by these Neo-(Compassionate?) Cons the budget will need some adjustments from what worked in 2000.
(I love that — how profectic — Neo CONS!! — got that last half right in both senses
Con — con man — running schemes, lying and stealing from “Marks” (the electorate)
Con — Ex (not yet) Convict — we are putting a few in the hopper — and they will be “ex-” Cons in a few years!!)

Posted by: Russ at March 16, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #133868

The Bush administration has shown repeatedly that it has the administrative and economic know-how of a Bulgarian shoe-factory worker (and I apologize to the Bulgarian shoe-factory workers out there for the unfair comparison).

The Bush League got us into this mess. They have a majority in BOTH houses of Congress. THEY are the ones who have to get us out of it. But are they taking responsibility for their actions? Are they coming up with solutions to the mess they’ve created? Nope - they and their supporters are trying to distract everyone with their usual slimy tactic of making the Dems the issue by blaming them for not offering solutions.

What a bunch of bovine byproduct. No wonder support for the Bush League is draining like water out of a toilet. We need to flush the turds.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 16, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #133897

“It doesn’t matter when the problem began. This nation is about to go bankrupt. We need the military to immediately begin trying to control their wasteful their spending NOW”

Thats fine Adrienne. But as long as people keep ignoring the problem when its their side in power, nothing will ever get done.
Who will the reps listen too, half the people or all the people?
Take Elliot and Russ, they blame EVERYTHING on Bush now and come 08, they will stick their heads back in the sand just as alot of Republicans are doing now.

I think its great that you guys sound just like the Republicans, that the left ignored, during the 90’s, but until EVERYBODY feels that way, ALL the time, nothing is going to get done to fix what is wrong with our country.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #133902

Ken C.

You have been leaving comments here for at least a week, ample time and opportunity to have seen our policy at the top of each column. Due to your name calling and flame baiting in your comment to Adrienne above, your comments are no longer welcome here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at March 16, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #133906

kctim,

Take Elliot and Russ, they blame EVERYTHING on Bush now and come 08, they will stick their heads back in the sand just as alot of Republicans are doing now.
Wrong. If the Dems had been in power for the last 5+ years and had done the same things the Bush League has done, I’d be saying EXACTLY the same things that I’m saying now. you don’t know me so quit trying to put words in my mouth.

During the Clinton administration, the shoe was on the other foot:

Take Elliot and Russ kctim and the right, they blame EVERYTHING on Bush Clinton now and come 08 2000, they will stick their heads back in the sand just as alot of Republicans Dems are doing now.”
now THAT would have been a prescient comment.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 16, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #133912

“Wrong. If the Dems had been in power for the last 5+ years and had done the same things the Bush League has done, I’d be saying EXACTLY the same things that I’m saying now.”

blah-blah-blah. IF that were true, then you would see the comparisons between the last two administrations and blame the corrupt govt for our problems. Instead, you whine on and on about how its all a Bush thing.

“During the Clinton administration, the shoe was on the other foot”

Well, at least you understood that part of my post. Seeing how I said only half the country pays attention at one time because of which party they agree with.

I see the wrongs with this administration as I saw the wrongs with the previous one.
The difference is that I won’t go back to sleep in 08 when the Dems win, as you no doubt will.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #133928

kctm
You wrote
“Take Elliot and Russ, they blame EVERYTHING on Bush now and come 08, they will stick their heads back in the sand just as alot of Republicans are doing now.”

Yep
You got me nailed
Aides
HIV
Gay marriage
The Yankees losing the world series, you name it and I’m going to pin it on Bush

What a lame response and again diverting attention

Let’s review
2000 — Surplus (finally, after years with both parties having a chance at it)
2006 — RECORD DEFICITS — not just loss of surplus, not just deficits — RECORD deficits
Hmmmmm whom to blame?? whom to look to as far as to understand how we got in this mess such that we might have a chance to correcting it?

NOW, according to kctm, Mr. Bush is off-limits — because blaming him only proves that it is ONLY about BUSH hating — not because — gosh he might have actually had something to do with it???
HEAVENS NO!! That would be taking personal responsiblity and we KNOW that Mr. BUSH NEVER does THAT.

KCTM — You are right
I HATE BUSH — he is an idiot and an embarrasement to this country
However
If we did not have RECORD deficits
IF Mr. Bush did not conduct business in a “MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY” mode (Remember the number of bills/policies he proposed to congress with the admonition that they were “perfect” and he would VETO any bill that differed from his proposal)
If BUSH had not lied about
WMD
Torture
Valarie Plame
Compassionate Conservative
Uniter
etc
Then we might not have much to work with
However, Mr. Bush is VERY obliging in providing us with TONS of material with which to be critical.
Incompetence
Cronism
crooks that got caught

I love it when the right WHINES about “BUSH HATERS”
I remember seeing the following bumper sticker months BEFORE Bill Clinton was even inagurated
“IMPEACH BILL CLINTON”
and it NEVER let up over 8 years!!!
so BACK OFF

Further more
I voted for Nixon (my bad, but too late to worry about that now)
however
I can honestly say that I have no problem recognizing that he was a crook, and many of his actions were reprehensible
HOWEVER I am also willing to give him credit for those things that he did well, and those things that actually helped this country.

Regarding Bill Clinton
I voted for him, and I view his private actions as having been reprehensible, stupid (to say the least) and unbecoming of a president
did they warrant impeachment?? no
Were they on the same scale as Nixon? — NO
but still bad stuff.
Also there are other things that I might have disagreed with, or disappointed that he might have compromised.
However I am also willing to give him credit for those things he did right.

Jimmy Carter — I don’t think he was cut out to be president — he got eaten alive by the political system — but I have the highest respect for him — of all our past presidents.

Bushie
unfortunately I cannot think of one thing he has done that I could give him “credit” for.
This administration is the worst, most crooked, corrupt of any since the 1800’s
The most incompetent, arrogant, the most WRONG, having the least regard for the electorate/citizenry.
If Mr. Bush ever does anything worth praising, I will give him his due credit.
Perhaps you have a few suggestions that I might be unaware of.
Thanks

Posted by: Russ at March 16, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #133933

Russ -

Hey, he can always serve as a bad example.

(Wow, that was completely trite and pointless… but just had to post it.)

Posted by: tony at March 16, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #133936

Hey Russ, I’ve got to be a Bush supporter for stuff like that to get to me.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #133941

kctim,

blah blah blah
What a witty comeback! I stopped letting my son get away with comments like that when he was ten. Thanks for making a ten-year-old look mature.
you whine on and on about how its all a Bush thing
Just who is it that’s in power now? Who? Oh, yeah, that’s right. It’s the Bush League. They’re the ones who turned a surplus into a record-breaking deficit. And they are the only ones who can do anything about it. The Dems aren’t the issue because they aren’t in power.

but you’re desperately trying to make the Dems into the issue. It’s so funny to watch you folks on the wrong wing twisting, dodging, squirming and doing everything you can to distract from the fact that the Bush League has seriously f*cked up the federal budget (among other things), and as a result is losing the support of the American people as fast as a leaky balloon. You folks on the wrong wing are the ones who always say that people should take responsibility for their actions. Yet you desperately try to blame the Dems. Talk about hypocritical.

As for your “going back to sleep” statement: I have been politically active for the 37 years since I first registered to vote and will remain so for (hopefully) another 37 years. I wasn’t asleep before, and won’t be going “back to sleep” any time soon. I don’t know you well enough to predict what you will do in the future - please don’t be so presumptuous as to predict what I will do.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 16, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #133952

EB
“Thanks for making a ten-year-old look mature”

Your welcome.
Your also welcome to prove me wrong in the years following 08.

Why don’t you show me where I said the deficit is the Dems fault?
Shouldnt the Dems willingly take responsibility for some of our country’s troubles? They are afterall, the party who SAYS they believe we all should shoulder each others problems. Talk about being hypocritical.

You guys rant about the evil christians trying to take over, wrong wing this and that and then still try to claim you wont be partisan when its your guy in the hotseat. BS!
The 90s were your chance to stand up and act, but, as history shows, you chose to make excuses and ignore. Why should the people believe you will act any differently the next time your side is in power?

“please don’t be so presumptuous as to predict what I will do”

I call them as I see them and I do as I please.
Prove me wrong and I will concede.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #133962

Tony
“Hey, he can always serve as a bad example”

“(Wow, that was completely trite and pointless… but just had to post it.)”

I don’t think it was.
If he can serve as a bad example, maybe the right people will take notice.
And if the next leftist serves as a bad example, again, maybe the right people will take notice of that.
Then, if BOTH sides start seeing what is REALLY going on, maybe things to better our country will finally get done.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #133963

Russ, you voted for Nixon? Go outside, turn around 3 times, and spit and curse. I voted for McGovern in 72, then McCarthy on 3rd party in 76, then Carter in 80, then Mondale in 84, 3rd party in 88, Clinton in 92 and 96, rained out in 2000, then Kerry in 2004.

Clinton is the only presidential candidate I ever voted for who won, and he won twice. He was a winner. I feel very good about him. I want Hillary to run so I can vote for him again.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 16, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #133966
I want Hillary to run so I can vote for him again.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 16, 2006 04:47 PM

Oh really! Don’t you know who wears the pants in that family?

Posted by: Dave at March 16, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #133967

kctim,

show me where I said the deficit is the Dems fault
I never made that claim.
Shouldnt the Dems willingly take responsibility for some of our country’s troubles?
If the Dems had a majority in EITHER house of Congress then I would agree. But they don’t.
[you] claim you wont be partisan when its your guy in the hotseat.
I never said that either.
The 90s were your chance to stand up and act, but, as history shows, you chose to make excuses and ignore.
As has been pointed out to you several times in this column, by several people, the outgoing Clinton administration left the Bush League a budget surplus and a shrinking deficit. I wouldn’t exactly call that “making excuses and ignor[ing]”.

Despite your best attempts, the Dems are not the issue.


Posted by: ElliottBay at March 16, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #133976

EB
As I have said, there IS a huge deficit. I don’t deny that. Republicans are in the lead and it will be seen that the huge deficit happened on their watch. I don’t deny that either.
I DO disagree with the surplus fantasy though. Numbers can be fudged to show whatever.

“Despite your best attempts, the Dems are not the issue”

Sigh. Again, I did not say Dems were totally at fault for the deficit.
You guys act like all this corruption, greed, rights violations etc… all started in 2000. I am saying that unless you are willing to acknowledge it didn’t, then things are never going to get fixed.
And yes, the same goes for the right too. If they don’t acknowledge all that crap didn’t stop in 2000, we will have the same results.

During the last two administrations, the govt just thumbed its nose at the side demanding justice. Why? Because only half the people cared.
Can you imagine what the govt would HAVE to do if ALL of the people cared at the same time?

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #133984

“Tony
“Hey, he can always serve as a bad example”

“(Wow, that was completely trite and pointless�€� but just had to post it.)”

I don’t think it was.
If he can serve as a bad example, maybe the right people will take notice.
And if the next leftist serves as a bad example, again, maybe the right people will take notice of that.
Then, if BOTH sides start seeing what is REALLY going on, maybe things to better our country will finally get done.”

——

Yes. I agree with you. Emphatically.


That’s not one of the 7 signs is it??? :)

Posted by: tony at March 16, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #134042

Michael M.

I attacked her personally? Really. I think I mentioned quite clearly how pay and benefits were a huge part of the military’s expenditure if not the biggest part. I then quite clearly mentioned several examples of other-than-pay issues where the military is pinching pennies where they can. If you’ll re-read my post you’ll see that, or you can focus on one small part of my post and say that’s all I wrote. I regret any name-calling, but that doesn’t mean it’s not deserved.

Your comments on Bush cutting military pay are wholly inaccurate. Bush drastically raised military pay his 1st 2 years in office. Each of those percentage raises was more than Clinton ever did during any of his 8 opportunities.

Is there waste in the military? yes. Is there waste in Starbucks, or Hollywood, or the NY Times . . yes. We apparently had different experiences because I was very accustom to “the lowest bidder” with many of the situations I had to work with.

Regarding the problem you have with “your with us or against us”. That phrase is in regards to terrorism and I simply don’t have a problem with it. Perhaps you don’t mind if other people or countries are wishy washy on the subject.

And I also quite clearly told Adrienne that discussing specific military programs was more than okay, but just not to damn the entire military. Apparently you think my comment idiotic and prefer the entire organization to be lambasted as she does. Please re-read her quote in my last post and then try to tell me she was trying for a thoughtful discussion on the matter. I think, if you’re honest with yourself, you’ll agree she swatted at the ENTIRE military with her mindless bull whip.

But anyway, you’re being a good liberal, seeking out the military for your first efforts at cost reduction. Carter was another “know it all” vet who loved that idea. But then you’re probably the first one to cheer Clinton for reducing our Army divisions from 18 to 10, among thousands of other cut personnel, ships, squadrons, etc. AND THEN you’re the first one to complain that today’s military is too overwhelmed with one main AOR and one relatively small AOR. I know it doesn’t to you, but that sounds funny to me.

So, your “been everywhere, done everything” rookie name-calling attitude is laughable from someone who just doesn’t make much sense. But thanks for your service anyway. It’s too bad you got so jaded you support UNqualified damnations of the entire organization.


Posted by: Ken C at March 17, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #134046

Watch Blog Managing Editor,

You were apparently on vacation when I was called much more vulgar names than anything at all in this current thread.

But I agree that name calling makes the name caller look bad as much as anyone. I still have many friends overseas, not only in harm’s way, but spending a painfully long time away from family and friends. I let my emotions get a bit out of control by stooping to the level of personal name calling and I regret that.

The vast majority of my post was not name calling but rather what I view as a succinct rebuttal to Adrienne’s awful comment by offering a few exact details. My post before the one in question is hardly extreme as well.

If you want me to go however, I certainly will. Reading some of these senseless, extreme, self-loathing American BLOG posts is like watching someone trying to fix a body scrape with battery acid.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 17, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #134075

Charlie was either out of the country during the Clinton era or was born in 2001. My question to him-does the gov’t take out social security from your paycheck..it does. Yesterday, I went to a UAW meeting (I am a surviving spouse with a minor child also cancer survivor) and the meeting was about the benefits the retirees are going to have to lose. I am 53 and felt like a teenager. Out of the 38 folks there, I’d predict 7 of us will be alive 10 years from now. The rest will be gone in 1 to 5 years. Ford Motor is still showing a profit. I can see changes for present workers as they still have time to put their money in a 401 or some other savings for retirement..but not for those folks I saw yesterday. They didn’t make the $20 plus per hour..they made $10 and some may have made $15..and in lieu of wages they took the proposed benefit packages Ford offered. Now they are going to lose those benefits..shame on Bill Ford. I have sworn I will never buy another car from this company, I will not let anyone use my Z plan. If some of us have to go down the tubes it may as well be everybody including the CEO’s and Ford himself. Bush is an idiot. If congress gives him the money he’s asking they are fools. We need to help this country..and he had better wake up pretty soon..because one day it will look like the Middle East here. The money he has spent so far could have supplied social security until 2075. You may think your job is secure..it might be until one of your managers wants to hire his nephew for your job. If Bill Clinton ran against GW Bush today, Clinton would win. In the new book “Cobra II”, Saddam was telling Iran he had WMD to keep Iran at bay and stupid jumped in where he did not belong because he had a grudge with Saddam. He found no WMD’s. He hasn’t got the foresight to stop spending-yesterday the tally is for every man, woman and child it will cost $30,000 for what we have already spent in this war. The Taliban is back and recruiting in Afghanistan and Bush wants to go into Iran now. He really needs to step down, as does his whole administration. They are war mongers..and it is fact that long wars do not fair well with the stock market. By the way, what happened to Mission Accomplished?? Duh. Yes at 53 I have to train for a new job, due to disabilities from my cancer surgery (I cannot do my old job as I have no back)..no I don’t count on social security..in fact, I will be moving in to my mother’s house so I can take over her bills as that big $600 check she receives from social security will not support her. I am glad to see how the polls are running right now, and I also see a lot of distancing of republicans from this president..I feel this is indicative of what will happen in 2008. This administration is blind to the plight of the working poor, and fact is the further south you go the less money you make. I am not talking about those who are trying to cheat to get welfare, I am talking about those who go without and are trying to survive. Katrina pretty much showed me where we stand with Bush. His only interest is money and tax cuts to keep his. It’s simply not right. And yes, I believe there is a God..He has been there for me in some very rough times. For the administration and Ford Motor I would refer them to Exodus 22:22-24. Amen.

Posted by: J Van Dyke at March 17, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #134076

Tony
“That’s not one of the 7 signs is it??? :)”

Nah, I bet we agree on alot of things.

Posted by: kctim at March 17, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #134217

Government Master Plan: The Rapture. What a concept!! (See opening letter.)

This appears to be much along the lines of “Allah Will Provide” — the master plan followed by all Middle Eastern governments’ since about the time of all that unpleasant business with the Crusaders.

Well, heck, if it’s worked all those centuries for the Arabs (look at all they have achieved!), why not for us?

Now I know why the Bush Administration’s record approximates the same scenario had a bunch of ganja-stoking stoners (who also happened to be backsliding holy-rolling graduates of Bob Jones University) been running things.

Posted by: Martin at March 17, 2006 6:26 PM
Post a comment