Matt, while they may make no sense to you, they certainly make sense. I will attempt to clarify for your benefit.
>Your remarks make no sense, Kevin. You're saying that a spending-driven >deficit is ok? OK, if it is a spending-driven deficit, then who's to blame? >The Republican Congress in conjunction with a Republican President are the >first to mind. I agree that spending is out of control. Both political parties are to blame for this. I think we need serious cuts in spending. We'll agree we need to cut spending, we will disagree where. > >"budget surpluses of 1998 through 2001..." >Those are the Clinton years, Kevin. Your comments about Liberal spending >are ancient and you need a new joke. Have you been listening to any of the nine running for the Democratic nomination. Apparently not if you think liberal spending is ancient. According to the Washington Post, Dick Gephardt has proposed 3 trillion in new spending. Dean, Kerry none of them are any different. I was in the Marine Corps in 1995 when >we didn't think we were going to get a pay check because the President >refused to sign an unbalanced budget presented to him by a Republican >Congress. Luckily, arrangements were made to allow for military paychecks. >While it's true that the Military was stretched thin, and I do hold him >accountable for that, it's a fact that his careful tending of the economy >and deficit elimination led to a more prosperous nation. > It's easy to balance the budget and have a surplus when you raise taxes as high as he did. He was also the benefactor of the dot-com craze, which is not the typical economic swing. Brining that surplus even higher. A projected surplus I might add. >I do support lower taxes, but not at the expense of valuable programs that >are needed by our nation (things like welfare - if it were not for welfare, >then you would need to defend your house with a gun to protect things from >being taken by force - think French Revolution), and especially not when the I am not against all social programs. I am against programs that breed dependency on the government. I am all for programs that help people get back to work, get a better job, better education, etc. What I am not for is collecting a monthly check and doing nothing to better yourself. As far as having a gun to defend my home, I already have one. Thanks for the idea though. >spending by the Republican Regime (please notice my choice of words, Bush is >an usurper) reaches epic proportions. Bush personally is partly at fault >for causing the downturn in the economy. An economic depression is partly a >psycological event wherein the residents of a country stop spending money >because they think they need to save it. He campaigned hard on the issue >that he was needed because there was an impending Economic Doom coming our >way and he could stop it. Well, he was partly right - the Economic Doom >came our way but he sure hasn't done much to stop it. Gosh, he's even gone >so far as to spend our money supporting a foreign country. The economy was on a down swing. And if you have been paying any attention at all to economic indicators, the economy is improving. Bush did his job. > >This war in Iraq was nothing more than a sham for him to find ways to steal >oil from a country. Ahh, that tired old rhetoric. So didn't we just have the UN life sanctions and let the oil flow freely from Iraq? I am yet to meet a liberal who can answer that one. W cares not a whit about those people, nor are there >WMDs. Saddam is a bad guy, but he wasn't the worst, nor was he even really >anything more than a nuisance. Yeah, you keep looking at those mass graves and thinking that. If we were so concerned with other people's >rights (in this case) then he would have sent a war effort to Liberia, North >Korea, Angola, and Sierra Leone - in the way that Clinton, who did care >about people's right to happiness, sent people to Bosnia, Haiti, and >continued the effort started in Somailia. Really, this is all about a a way Aside from North Korea, where is our national security risk in any of those nations? We are handling North Korea, we are just handling it differently. It's easy to get words from them, like Clinton did, without backing them up. We see what good Clintons work did with North Korea. >of controlling huge amounts of oil and then finding ways to jack up oil >prices. Look - oil prices are higher right now than ANY TIME IN HISTORY. > Prices go up, movie tickets are higher now than ANY TIME IN HISTORY, cars are higher now than ANY TIME IN HISTORY, houses are higher now than ANY TIME IN HISTORY, the list goes on and on. Besides, most libs love the high oil prices, make us SUV drivers pay more at the pump. It's still cheap here in Iowa, due to the ethanol subsidy, so I really don't see my price go up. Besides, I thought it was all about Cheney and making money for Halliburton? Or was is revenge, cause "He tried to kill my daddy!" Now, its so the Oil companies can make more money off of the oil they sell. You guys flip more than pancakes on reasons for war. Or maybe, Bush feelt there was a genuine threat to our national security, like Clinton and the rest of the Democrats did in 1998. But oh, I forgot in 4 years, without UN inspectors, Sadaam voluntarily disarmed out of the goodness of his heart. >- Matthew Small > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kevin Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:16 AM >Subject: Deficit worse than ever > > >> >From the article: "The CBO's "baseline" deficit projection assumes >emergency wartime spending approved by Congress last year will continue >indefinitely, at a cost of $818 billion through 2013." >> >> Convienently left that one out didn't you Larry. Does anyone believe that >the war will carry on for another 10 years? There's $818 billion right >there. >> >> And a Rep from my great state nailed it: >> "Still, House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) did not try to >minimize the government's deteriorating fiscal fortunes. He laid the blame >not on tax cuts but on federal spending, which has surged by an average of >7.7 percent per year since 1998." >> >> "This is a spending-driven deficit," Nussle said. "This is not rocket >science." >> >> Of course, Larry, as a lib you can't advocate cutting spending. Unless, >of course it's cuts in Defense, which we all know we need right now. >> >> >> >> >The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office blames the Bush Tax Cut and >the >> >War in Iraq >> > >> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46805-2003Aug26.html >> > >> >2004 Deficit to Reach $480 Billion, Report Forecasts >> >By Jonathan Weisman >> >Washington Post Staff Writer >> >Wednesday, August 27, 2003; Page A02 >> > >> > >> >The federal government will post a record $480 billion deficit next year >> >and accumulate nearly $1.4 trillion in new debt over the coming decade >> >before climbing back into the black by 2012, the nonpartisan >Congressional >> >Budget Office said yesterday. >> > >> >But if President Bush succeeds in making his tax cuts permanent, the >> >government will run substantial budget deficits as far as the eye can >see, >> >the forecast made clear. Add the White House's proposed $400 billion >> >prescription drug benefit, and the deficit would total $324 billion in >2013. >> >-- >> > >> >I'd really love to make a comment on this, but its so disgusting how >under >> >the Shrub regime the government went from a multi-billion dollar surplus >to >> >a record deficit in just two years. It seriously makes me wonder on whose >> >side Shrub is really on. Ours or those who want to destroy this nation. >> > >> >larry >> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
