Feb 18, 2004--we all owe $23,333.33

**Tock** · 02-19-2004, 03:19 AM

Wow . . . I hear tell the US National Debt just passed the $7,000,000,000 mark. With a 300,000,000 population, that puts each of y'all's share at $23,333.33. And it's growing every day, supposed to keep growing for at least the next 5 years according to GW Bush.

Must be the work of liberals . . . oh, wait . . . they haven't been controlling Congress for quite a while now . . . it must be the, um, who? It's on the tip of my tongue . . .
Cons . . .
Conse . . .
Conserv . . .
Um,
Conservat . . .
Oh yeah, them
Conservatives! I thought they were supposed to be good at handling money. I guess it's just their own . . . not public money . . .

--Tock
(sarcasm button off)

**Elliot** · 02-19-2004, 04:11 AM

Woohooo let me get my checkbook out.. no wait im poor and they dont give my financial aid...

**USfighterFC** · 02-19-2004, 04:25 AM

Isnt the national debt how much the gov't owes us?

**Symian** · 02-19-2004, 04:33 AM

Well wars cost money....a lot of money. Eventually we'll have some democrats in there, whether its congress or the presidency, and they will suck the life out of the military and get the debt back down.

Wasn't the debt like 15 trillion when Clinton took office?

Sym

**Tock** · 02-19-2004, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by USfighterFC

Isnt the national debt how much the gov't owes us?

And just where do you think they're gonna get the $$$?
I don't know about you, but when they pay off that debt, none of it is coming my way.
-Tock

**spywizard** · 02-19-2004, 06:28 AM

Yea... and he dismantled our overseas intel organizations..

and we know the outcome of that.... we can't live with our heads in the sand.

or our asses... or in our interns dresses............

Originally Posted by Symian

Well wars cost money....a lot of money. Eventually we'll have some democrats in there, whether its congress or the presidency, and they will suck the life out of the military and get the debt back down.

Wasn't the debt like 15 trillion when Clinton took office?

Sym

**Red Ketchup** · 02-19-2004, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by USfighterFC

Isnt the national debt how much the gov't owes us?

Actually it's how much the government owes to the people who lent it money... part of it is indeed you the people (when you buy bonds), a larger part of it is major US banks, MOST of it is foreign banks.

It's pretty well the same in most countries... except that the world trend right now is to CUT this debt as much as possible and not to let it grow wildly.

In the end it's the people who end up paying it back with lots of interest.

Of course this is highly simplified, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Red

**tryingtogetbig** · 02-19-2004, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

And just where do you think they're gonna get the $$$?
I don't know about you, but when they pay off that debt, none of it is coming my way.
-Tock

Actually I was able to keep more than $6000 this year in tax breaks

...hmmm....wonder where I'm gonna spend that money at. (sarcasm button on) Of course, all of us saving money and spending it won't help the economy! (sarcasm button off)

peace,

ttgb

**Mighty Joe** · 02-19-2004, 08:46 AM

The War ironically enough has helped pull the economy back to some type of life. Its always been that way, just like there will always be a deficit.

Hey, but if you have a savings account, its insured by the the Federal Gov't (FDIC) Thats comforting knowing they are only Trillions in debt!

MJ

**Tock** · 02-19-2004, 06:13 PM

Another happy thought . . .
If you have a wife and two kids, your share is $93,332. A wife and four kids, $139,998.
Kinda takes all the fun out of polygamy, too . . .
--Tock

**bermich** · 02-19-2004, 06:24 PM

Ah yes. Another political thread about the economies deficit, bla bla bla. **** Bush. He just f u c k s up the country even more every day.
This debt thing is news to me. Ive never heard it brought up before. My eyes are wide open now.

**ItalianMuscle** · 02-19-2004, 06:28 PM

that is how much the Gov owe's ? WOW

**Gaylord Focker** · 02-19-2004, 06:50 PM

7 trillion is a lot of money...but some say when compared to the GDP of the US the debt isn't that bad...I still don't like that every year we pay close to 350 billion dollars in intrest on just the debt...350 billion dollars that will support no social progams, but no military equipment, or fund education to any schools...could you imagine the schools with 350 billion extra dollars...schools and education always get the **** end of the deal

***50%Natural*** · 02-19-2004, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

Ah yes. Another political thread about the economies deficit, bla bla bla. **** Bush. He just f u c k s up the country even more every day.
This debt thing is news to me. Ive never heard it brought up before. My eyes are wide open now.

no ****. It's getting really old. Tock, if we had Al Gore as the president he would have had to spend the money on the military anyway too so be quiet. All you do by these repetative posts is make yourself look dumb, like you don't get the point that the national deficit of today was set in place by events long ago. Let's see, where did it all start? We could point to the spending in the 60's on the space program. We could talk of all the money spent in the late 60's and early 70's on the Vietnam war. In all reality, it was Ronald Reagan who jumped up the debt. But why? Because we were in an arms race. We were protecting our ass with weapons not only then but that money spent has saved us since then. Even though no war occured do you recall at all in your 47 year life where the United States was close to going to war with the Soviets? So shut up already with the bashing of conservatives. Yeah it sucks. It sucks real bad that WE are in this position. WE were put in that position LONG AGO. But if you don't like it, move to Mexico or Canada, or some where else. I know you like to display your knowledge when debating but or bringing up points but when you say something like this it makes you look like you don't know anything about the situation. You are just like the next uneducated person in line. You just point your finger where it is easiest to point, where it is most convienent for yourself, where the media tells you to. But hey, get a liberal in there, it will solve all our problems right?

**Gaylord Focker** · 02-19-2004, 07:04 PM

Bush proposes a 500 billion dollar deficet for the next 4 years...at the end of Clintons term he was a running a surplus...so ther is some truth to what Dubbya has done and is doing...he is not saving us any money...nor making any foreign allies...as far as things accoplished some would say GB has not been a good president..

***50%Natural*** · 02-19-2004, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Gaylord Focker

Bush proposes a 500 billion dollar deficet for the next 4 years...at the end of Clintons term he was a running a surplus...so ther is some truth to what Dubbya has done and is doing...he is not saving us any money...nor making any foreign allies...as far as things accoplished some would say GB has not been a good president..

Clinton was running a surplus because he didn't spend **** on the military at the same time the economy was enjoying nice times. I don't totally agree with the war, as it has cost us, but as soon as we pay for that and catch the economy on an upswing we'll enjoy more surpluses. It is not hard for a surplus to occur so long as we aren't financing any military action. Regardless of who is the president in the future, we'll see a surplus, it won't be hard so don't be surprised when it happens and act like the president at the time is the best ever because the economy naturally cycles itself through good and bad times, not the president.

**Tock** · 02-19-2004, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by 50%Natural

1) no ****. It's getting really old. Tock, if we had Al Gore as the president he would have had to spend the money on the military anyway too

2) so be quiet.

3) All you do by these repetative posts is make yourself look dumb, like

4) you don't get the point that the national deficit of today was set in place by events long ago.

5) Let's see, where did it all start? We could point to the spending in the 60's on the space program. We could talk of all the money spent in the late 60's and early 70's on the Vietnam war. In all reality, it was Ronald Reagan who jumped up the debt. But why? Because we were in an arms race. We were protecting our ass with weapons not only then but that money spent has saved us since then.

6) Even though no war occured do you recall at all in your 47 year life

7) where the United States was close to going to war with the Soviets?

8) So shut up already with the bashing of conservatives.

9) Yeah it sucks. It sucks real bad that WE are in this position. WE were put in that position LONG AGO. But if you don't like it, move to Mexico or Canada, or some where else.

10) I know you like to display your knowledge when debating but or bringing up points

11) but when you say something like this it makes you look like you don't know anything about the situation. You are just like the next uneducated person in line. You just point your finger where it is easiest to point, where it is most convienent for yourself, where the media tells you to. But hey, get a liberal in there, it will solve all our problems right?

===========================

1) Gore would not have pissed off the rest of the world with the sort of unilateral foreign policies Bush is responsible for. He would have gotten all of the UN involved in the Iraqi war, assuming it would even have been necessary. He would not have cut taxes for multinational corporations, would not have cut taxes for the richest of the rich, which contributes to the deficit. He would not have gone on a spending spree of the sort that even some stalwart Conservatives object to.
Gore would not have had administration officials who announced crazy BS like "The US is better off by exporting jobs." The people who gave him advice would have common sense.
Gore would have at least read the **** morning paper . . . Bush doesn't read any newspaper, gets all his info from his advisors, so if his advisors tell him one thing and the general press says something completely the opposite, Bush hasn't got a clue . . . which, of course, he doesn't.

Bush was once Governor of Texas. Wanna see what his tenure here did to my favorite Texas gov't agency (the barber board)? Check this out:
w w w . s a o . s t a t e .t x . u s / R e p o r t s / r e p o r t . c f m / r e p o r t / 0 4 - 0 0 6
The Tex as Sun set Com mission recommended 12 years ago they be put out of their misery. They're recommending the same thing, and I sure hope the Texas Legislature does it this time. And there's a lot of other T e x a s State Agencies that deserve to die; these bureaucrats down here are a plague on the state, and leeches and tapeworms on the State Treasury. A Pox on them all!

Ugh . . .

And when Bush first took office, he appointed the head of the Houston School District to Dept of Education, because he supposedly did a tremendous job with the district. A few years later, it turns up (after local Republicans started asking questions) all he did was "cook the numbers" until they looked good. Didn't do a **** thing in Texas, and still ain't doing a **** thing for the country.

It's all Smoke and Mirrors.

2) lol . . .

3) Repetitive posts makes a fellow look dumb?
If so, you'd best spread the word around . . . there's lot's of 'em on this board. Even your constant apologetics for Bush are repetitive . . . well, you may have a point there, after all . . .

4) This deficit happened on Bush's watch. The Republicans slammed Jimmy Carter hard for his deficit, which was the direct consequence of the Arab Oil Embargos. Can't help for all prices to go up when the cost of a barrell of oil quintuples, and when the folks that have it won't sell ya any.
So they set the policy back then, and they can live with it today. If financial problems happen on your watch, it's a legitimate issue, and it's YOUR fault. That's the way it works. Complain to Ronald Reagan if you don't like it.

5) Oh, blarney. Communism is a lousy economic system. They would have gone bankrupt sooner or later, it sure didn't take an arms race to do them in. Sure, it sped up the process, but how much $$$ did it cost taxpayers? And for what? A jillion super-toxic bombs no one really wants.
It would have been cheaper to turn the defense budget into a Peace budget and build hospitals and schools all over the planet. Eliminated a few diseases, generated all sorts of goodwill, etc. Instead, the lobbyists for what Eisenhower called the "Military Industrial Complex" got the money, and we've been bullying the rest of the planet since, instead of helping them.

6) Make that 48. The odometer recently flipped over. Gonna see a doc about flipping it back a few notches . . . don't snicker, you'll be where I am sooner than you think . . .

7) Yah, back in 1963, during the Cuban Missle crisis. The whole country was scared ****less. All through the 50's and 60's kids in school had to practice something that was called "Duck and Cover." When the Civil Defense authorities thought the Soviets were about to do something awful, we were supposed to jump under our desks and cover our heads with our arms. That was supposed to protect us from Atomic Bombs, lol. If you drive around the midwest (and other areas, too) you'll see old bomb shelters scattered here and there. These piddly concrete structures were supposed to house an entire family for however long it took for the radiation from nuclear bombs to dissipate. Crazy.
So . . . all that $$$ never really did make anyone safe. All it did was make big profits for munitions companies.

8) Never. With my last breath, I promise you I will revile the memory, with drool and slobber, of Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and his little shrub, Bush II. Ford was a 'publican, but he was ok.

9) Pay for my travel and immigration expenses to Canada, and I'll go.
Keep in mind, I'll still be posting from up there . . . they do have telephones in Toronto, you know . . .

10) I can't help it . . . you bring out the best in me . . .

11) Well, I guess we just came to different conclusions from looking at the same stuff. We can agree to disagree, but luckily, we don't have to be disagreeable.
Actually, I agree with hardcore conservatives about as often as hardcore liberals, which is "sometimes." No one is 100% wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you check out the libertarian and Green political philosophies, you'll probaby find stuff that you agree with there. You oughta check it out . . . might be surprised at what you find . . .

Best,
--Tock

-----------------------------------------------------
"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential
nature, is not contrary to the natural and divine law,
and there can be several just titles of slavery and
these are referred to by approved theologians and
commentators of the sacred canons. ...

It is not contrary to the natural
and divine law for a slave to be
sold, bought, and exchanged or given."
Pope Pius IX
--------------------------------------------

**hoss827** · 02-19-2004, 08:32 PM

HAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!! I dont owe SHIAT!!!!!

**bermich** · 02-19-2004, 08:39 PM

GOOD FOR US. WE OWE. Its the american way. Lets start 10 more threads about it.

Find all the info on how many countries owe the US. Its not a one way street. Every country owes every other country. Its all about foreign contracts and such. You guys dont see the big picture. You just read your newspaper articles that someone else wrote and take that into account as being the main picture and what you base your assumptions on. What else do you base these on other than newspapers?
Do you have a buddy who works for the financial US person who actually knows about it.
Do you know how to actually run the finances of an entire country???
Its getting old. All this crap after a news report comes out all these people think they have it figured out on whats going on because CNN did an hour long report on it.

**bermich** · 02-19-2004, 08:40 PM

All I can say is. The debt doesnt affect me ONE BIT in my eyes. Taxes go up every year regardless of debt or not. If the debt is 40 trillion, taxes will still go up. If the debt is 2 dollars, taxes will still go up.

Let my kids pay it. I dont care.....

***50%Natural*** · 02-19-2004, 08:45 PM

oh tock, you're a riot. I actually am conservative on issues, as I believe money is better spent on our country's defense rather that social issues. However, if the president does his job fairly, then I won't complain. I thought Bill Clinton, even though he was lucky and caught the economy in good times, did a good job running the country. I don't have a problem what party runs the nation so long as he does well. I consider this leadership. I think bush did a good job in pulling us through 9/11. I think he did a good job building back our military. Of course, it came at a price. I think Bill Clinton did an okay job while in, the only thing I wish he wouldn't have done was drop the military spending so bush wouldn't have needed to pick up so much slack. I will defend any party if things are blamed on them they are not in control with. I support bush because people are always outraged at this and that of his administration but yet fail to mention how we as a nation got to that point in the first place. You mention the debt, but the debt was never ever lowered during the past 35 years. It's called inflation, it won't go away. A liberal past has enforced so many bad spending habbits on social programs that the government is forced to support those bills along with other things. Like I said, I don't have a problem with either party, I just don't like people saying this is bush's fault or that is when it very likely could be blamed on Bill Clinton. Yeah, Bush signed the bill, but how did we get there in the first place?

**Tock** · 02-19-2004, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by 50%Natural

1) You mention the debt, but the debt was never ever lowered during the past 35 years.

2) It's called inflation, it won't go away.

3) A liberal past has enforced so many bad spending habbits on social programs that the government is forced to support those bills along with other things.

4) Like I said, I don't have a problem with either party, I just don't like people saying this is bush's fault or that is when it very likely could be blamed on Bill Clinton. Yeah, Bush signed the bill, but how did we get there in the first place?

1) You were doing just fine until you got to this point.
Oy vey . . . the National Debt has gone up and down quite radically over the past 35 years. I remember when it hit 500 million. That was quite a thing. Clinton had it down to 1 or 2 Trillion. Today it's 7, and it'll likely double again in another 4 years. When that happens, the gov't will have to borrow lots of money, and as the investors begin to run short of money to lend, competition for the remaining bucks will lead to higher interest rates, which will make it harder for businesses to borrow to run their businesses, which will cut back on jobs, and all sorts of other ills will happen, and the earth will spin off its axis and everyone will look like Michael Jackson. Not a pretty thought.

2) Inflation is something entirely different. I'm not gonna get into this, I gotta go to the gym, but check "Inflation" out elsewhere on the web.

3) I agree. Excessive spending is not solely the province of liberals, however.
Republican political campaigns over the past 25 years have done a pretty good job of demonizing the word "liberal," which is unfortunate. Liberals have done a lot of good things, like put an end to child labor. Created Social Security (it's gotten a bit out of hand lately, but only because politicans won't accept responsibility to pay only for what taxpayers can afford). Kept the USA from becoming a socialist country in the 1930's. Ended Slavery. Worked to give women and blacks the right to vote. Put restrictions on how much pollution can be dumped into the environment. Lots of good stuff, including the US Bill of Rights, which the ACLU and other liberals use to make sure we can buy stuff on Sunday if we want to, and don't send black kids to run-down school buildings while the white kids have fancy new everything.
But some liberals took things a bit too far. Like OSHA did when they shut down some companies because their stepladders didn't have their official sticker. Made Welfare entitlements a way of life for some folks. Other stuff like that.
I like some of the stuff the Libertarian Party has to say on spending. There's a lot of stuff the gov't does that it doesn't have to do anymore. In my opinion, the $268,000 they spend to have the US Senate Chaplian do a prayer 4 times a week is something they can cut out with no problem. God knows that with all the hot air they've got, they can find a volunteer amongst themselves to do it, save the taxpayers some bucks. But they don't, even though they've been asked (sued, in fact). It's blatant waste of tax money. They keep on doing it with chaplains for the same reason they do it with lots of other programs--they really don't care.
We need politicians who do care, who can tell what social AND military programs are worthwhile and which ones are BS, who do know how to balance a checkbook, who know the value of a dollar, who can make a penny cry before spending it.
So why don't y'all just nominate me for president and I'll fix everything right up, make AS legal (if not mandatory), and we can all go back to bonking our sweeties and spending our $$$ on sensible things like Winnebagos instead of giving it to the gov't in crazy taxes!!

4) I wholeheartedly agree.
Political campaigns don't tell the whole truth . . . like the Bush campaign's ad pointing out that Kerry got lots and lots of special interest money, when it turns out, Bush got a heckuva lot more special interest money than Kerry . . .
It's all so stupid.
90% of the US media is controlled by 4 (or is it 6?) big multinational corporations, and if they've got legislation sitting in Congress they need to make more $$$, they aren't going to let their news organizations bad mouth whichever political party is going to get it passed . . . back scratching, I beleive it's called.
Liberals, by the way, have been dead set against this collectivization of news outlets, Conservatives have been for it. Not to bash conservatives, but only to show that every time Liberals do something, they aren't acting as agents of Satan Himself.
Yah, the country is in a bad place right now. A lousy war, too much social spending, AS users turned into criminals. And just how DID we get here?
Good question . . . but I ain't gonna answer it here . . . time for the gym . . .
--Tock
ps--you're a hoot too . . .

**Tock** · 02-19-2004, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

All I can say is. The debt doesnt affect me ONE BIT in my eyes. Taxes go up every year regardless of debt or not. If the debt is 40 trillion, taxes will still go up. If the debt is 2 dollars, taxes will still go up.

Let my kids pay it. I dont care.....

Put your kids at the keyboard . . . I'd like to get their opinion on this . . .
--Tock

**bermich** · 02-19-2004, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Put your kids at the keyboard . . . I'd like to get their opinion on this . . .
--Tock

I dont have any kids. Im paying for my parents debt. My kids can pay for mine and then theirs for theirs. The country will NEVER be out of debt so whats the difference?

**Warrior** · 02-19-2004, 10:10 PM

I think they stopped backing 100 percent of printed currency to gold quite a few years ago... need more money? Make it!

**Gaylord Focker** · 02-19-2004, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

The country will NEVER be out of debt so whats the difference?

But it could be...the United States can generate more money than GOD...and with the appropriate budgeting...the debt could be turned around...but GB and his necessary wars keep things like this from happening...you will NEVER decrease the debt spending as much as Bush does on Military...not to mention he lowered taxes...you can't lower taxes increase spending and not get yourself in trouble...Clinton cut military spending and kept taxes and things worked out good...now I like having a strong military but WTF who are we fighting anymore(Iraq

this could have been easily avoided)...hello there is no more Cold War...we are in an arms race with nobody so why do we keep spending like we are?

**markas214** · 02-19-2004, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by 50%Natural

Clinton was running a surplus because he didn't spend **** on the military at the same time the economy was enjoying nice times. I don't totally agree with the war, as it has cost us, but as soon as we pay for that and catch the economy on an upswing we'll enjoy more surpluses. It is not hard for a surplus to occur so long as we aren't financing any military action. Regardless of who is the president in the future, we'll see a surplus, it won't be hard so don't be surprised when it happens and act like the president at the time is the best ever because the economy naturally cycles itself through good and bad times, not the president.

Absolutely wrong. The Clinton surplus was 200 billion/year which is around the price of the Bush War and increases in national security. So at the very least we could be at a perfectly balanced budget. Just as the US demilitarized some of it's forces following WWII Clinton and congress were able to save on defense as the Cold War had ended (hey I'll even give Reagan credit for this and understand the debt he rung up as needed to win that war after 40 years of stalemate). Military action is not the biggest contributor to our financial defecits. Bush has been spending a hell of a lot more on social programs than military. Prescription drugs for seniors, 22 billion to the energy industry. This guy will make any true financial conservative cringe. The inheritence tax exemption is another fiasco. Now keep in mind there is an already high amount of inhereitence that is exempt from taxes, at least a million but he wants to give people fortunes taxfree for doing nothing but being born to a wealthy parent while the rest of us bust our asses and pay all kinds of taxes including federal income tax, social security, state, etc. The these wealthy heirs can invest in stock and with the Bush plan to exempt dividends and capital gains pay zero on all their investment income. Of course their servents will be taxed so they will be contributing indirectly.

**markas214** · 02-19-2004, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by bermich

I dont have any kids. ?

Do you plan on having any? Do you want them and your grandchildren to have a lower standard of living so you can live without regard to the future.

**Carlos_E** · 02-19-2004, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

Do you plan on having any? Do you want them and your grandchildren to have a lower standard of living so you can live without regard to the future.

Apparently. He said he didn't care.

**Gaylord Focker** · 02-19-2004, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by markas214

Absolutely wrong. The Clinton surplus was 200 billion/year which is around the price of the Bush War and increases in national security. So at the very least we could be at a perfectly balanced budget. Just as the US demilitarized some of it's forces following WWII Clinton and congress were able to save on defense as the Cold War had ended (hey I'll even give Reagan credit for this and understand the debt he rung up as needed to win that war after 40 years of stalemate). Military action is not the biggest contributor to our financial defecits. Bush has been spending a hell of a lot more on social programs than military. Prescription drugs for seniors, 22 billion to the energy industry. This guy will make any true financial conservative cringe. The inheritence tax exemption is another fiasco. Now keep in mind there is an already high amount of inhereitence that is exempt from taxes, at least a million but he wants to give people fortunes taxfree for doing nothing but being born to a wealthy parent while the rest of us bust our asses and pay all kinds of taxes including federal income tax, social security, state, etc. The these wealthy heirs can invest in stock and with the Bush plan to exempt dividends and capital gains pay zero on all their investment income. Of course their servents will be taxed so they will be contributing indirectly.

Bush spends spends spends...and cuts taxes...brilliant...but hey he is up for a noble peace prize...for starting a ****ing war

Also could someone point out any of the things he has done that have significantly helped the middle/lower class...seems to me all his help seems to go the people who need it the least...and the elderly...but I understand that they are the ones who consistantly vote...

**bermich** · 02-19-2004, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

Apparently. He said he didn't care.

lmao. Thank you Carlos.

A lower standard of living?? How is that?? Is the national debt gonna take away my kids nice houses that I will leave them when I die??

**Carlos_E** · 02-19-2004, 11:31 PM

Tock, your political threads crack me up. Everyone gets so pissy like you've just insulted their mother.

**bermich** · 02-20-2004, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

Tock, your political threads crack me up. Everyone gets so pissy like you've just insulted their mother.

The funny thing is, the people say the same things in each political thread. Its the same thing as moving the EXACT SAME PEOPLE into a different room. Sure the room is different but the people are the same and talking about the same thing.

Bring up one thing and it always leads to BUSH and the IRAQi war. It NEVER fails anymore.
Like a funnel. You can pour the liquid anywhere on the funnel but it will always drip down to the same spot and into the same thing.

**jammergsxr** · 02-20-2004, 01:32 AM

I just dont get some of you guys,the deficit is what we owe ourselves,the U.S. has no reason to borrow from another country.On the flip side most countries do owe us very large debts and haven't even bothered to start to pay the interest on any of it.
If these countries would pay this would get rid of alot of our deficit.
As far as G.bush goes,Like it or not he is our President,His welcome to office was a terrorist attack and several other negatives and did what he thought was best.
Did we go to war?**** right,if we didn't attacks would have been a yearly event.
G.W. doesn't take any ****,it's about time we had a man like that in office,He's a get it done type not a lets talk this out for a few years type.If Gore was in office right now we would be neck deep in suicide bombers and the economy would be gone.
We will end up with G.W. for the next four years,I stand behind him 100%

**bermich** · 02-20-2004, 01:43 AM

Very true about the deficit JAMM. Many countries owe us so much money and we dont even worry about it. KNOW WHY. ITS CALLED FOREIGN RELATIONS. They owe us and when we ACTUALLY NEED something they have, we just pull out the IOU from our pocket.
People dont realize this and just go off of what their favorite radio news guy tells them. They get 40 percent of the picture and think it is the whole **** photo album.

Id say a bunch of kids are arguing the case but Tock is like 40 or 50 and so are most of the others.

***50%Natural*** · 02-20-2004, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by markas214

Absolutely wrong. The Clinton surplus was 200 billion/year which is around the price of the Bush War and increases in national security. So at the very least we could be at a perfectly balanced budget. Just as the US demilitarized some of it's forces following WWII Clinton and congress were able to save on defense as the Cold War had ended (hey I'll even give Reagan credit for this and understand the debt he rung up as needed to win that war after 40 years of stalemate). Military action is not the biggest contributor to our financial defecits. Bush has been spending a hell of a lot more on social programs than military. Prescription drugs for seniors, 22 billion to the energy industry. This guy will make any true financial conservative cringe. The inheritence tax exemption is another fiasco. Now keep in mind there is an already high amount of inhereitence that is exempt from taxes, at least a million but he wants to give people fortunes taxfree for doing nothing but being born to a wealthy parent while the rest of us bust our asses and pay all kinds of taxes including federal income tax, social security, state, etc. The these wealthy heirs can invest in stock and with the Bush plan to exempt dividends and capital gains pay zero on all their investment income. Of course their servents will be taxed so they will be contributing indirectly.

Explain please markus, what i'm wrong in thinking please. I don't have a problem at all discussing politics with you as you look like a scmuck everytime you go at it...bring it on, I love discussing anything that would require something above an 11th grade education with you. Simple area to address would be the prescription drug bull**** you speak of. Lets analyze that for a sec. Who implementated these policies in the first place? Look at the party who felt the need to jump into the lives of the average citizen in the first place...

***50%Natural*** · 02-20-2004, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

Tock, your political threads crack me up. Everyone gets so pissy like you've just insulted their mother.

Yet your inability to contribute speaks volumes...laugh on the side because you know what? You weren't picked to join the team. Just hang out, it's cool.

**Tock** · 02-20-2004, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

Tock, your political threads crack me up. Everyone gets so pissy like you've just insulted their mother.

I've noticed that . . . which is why it's a good thing no one's mom is in politics . . .

Odd thing is that some folks mistake me for a Democrat. Yah, I was a Democrat precinct char for a while, but that just showed me how unsavory the whole election system is (at least, here in Texas).
I suppose my leanings are more Democrat than Republican (after reading the Texas Republican Party Platform, anyone in their right mind would be), but my distaste for excessive government gives me an appreciation for some of the Libertarian ideals.
I suppose all that is neither here nor there (I had a friend who used to say that all the time, dunno why), but despite being regularly accused of not being all here, at least I am somewhere.
-Tock

--Tock

**Symian** · 02-20-2004, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by Carlos_E

Tock, your political threads crack me up. Everyone gets so pissy like you've just insulted their mother.

Just about

. Exteme right-wingers always light a fire under me!

Sym

**Symian** · 02-20-2004, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

I've noticed that . . . which is why it's a good thing no one's mom is in politics . . .

Odd thing is that some folks mistake me for a Democrat. Yah, I was a Democrat precinct char for a while, but that just showed me how unsavory the whole election system is (at least, here in Texas).
I suppose my leanings are more Democrat than Republican (after reading the Texas Republican Party Platform, anyone in their right mind would be), but my distaste for excessive government gives me an appreciation for some of the Libertarian ideals.
I suppose all that is neither here nor there (I had a friend who used to say that all the time, dunno why), but despite being regularly accused of not being all here, at least I am somewhere.
-Tock

Were you ever in the military, Tock?