Well, maybe not a big shocker, but Bush was not surprisingly wrong in his budget estimates. As recently as a few weeks ago, he continued to insist that his budget would not borrow money from the Soc Security surplus. Of course, he was wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/27/bush.budget/index.html Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress now admit that this year's budget will draw from the Soc Security surplus. So much for our Balanced Budget -- it was nice for a couple of years under the fiscally responsible Democrats, though.
You mean fiscally responsible Republican Congress. Put a Democratic Senate in place, and it's back to deficits again.
Geez, this pisses me off so much. Bush knew that this would happen and he still didn't listen. All that work for 8 years going down the pipes. Back to good ole Reaganomics. Gore is smiling somewhere right about now and saying I told you so.
Buget surplus, budget defecit...blah, blah, blah. It matters little most of the time. What I find terribly strange about Bush, however, is the fact that he so often says and does things that are SO off base. He gave money back in a tax cut assuming it would make people happy and stimulate the economy and, as many economists predicted, it did the opposite. People looked at their checks, bought groceries and did what most Americans do, looked back to the president and said, "Is that it?" He said that American's understood his need to vacation and that they were accepting of his going to the heartland of America. Of course, he pissed off so many people on the east and west coasts, he had to specify that "heartland" meant "outside of Washington. Now, polls have shown that no one understands why an acting president would take a month off and talk so incessantly about how he is homesick for Texas when his job is in Washington, DC. I mean, getting his white house staff to go out on his ranch and clear brush, forcing the secret service to set up operations on his ranch, that couldn't have been cheap. Maybe Bush isn't to blame as much as his advisors for suggesting or going along with it. But, he looks bad so often, someone needs to get fired.
Is that a cigarette in Bush's hand? No wonder all politicians run more than I do. They live harder than I do (at least that's my excuse). Did you guys not find it hilarious that we dealt w/ the tax cut (nice $35 million mailing, btw) before we dealt w/ the budget? Hell, that's how I do things. That's why I purchased a few properties up in Idaho off of the Henry's before I won the powerball. ****ing Powerball didn't call my name, but what the hell are you going to do?
1. It's rather unfortunate that Congress cannot restrain spending. That goes for members of both parties. 2. It's also rather unfortunate that tax cuts or rebates are considered to be "gifts". I suppose it is a "gift" if it is other people's money that you want. 3. I don't care if the tax rebate was $1 or $300. That is still my cash. Does anyone truly believe that federal spending cannot be trimmed down significantly and yet "essential" services could still be fully funded? Overall, I fault the voting public. We only have morons in office because we have morons visiting the voting booth once every 2 years. Why must every worker be forced into a retirement plan that is going to generate a negative real return for those in their 20s and 30s today? Just for some poor elderly folk? Means-test social security, and just have a tax to pay for those who truly need it. I can handle living without the "nanny-state" and I'm not a member of the 'evil' top 1% of income earners that Gore, HClinton, and Trotsky so despise. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want to grow federal spending at 7% a year and Republicans want to grow it at 6.5%.
If you will recall, the Democrats were also looking for ways to spend the surplus before it was in the coffers. They only differed on what they wanted to spend it on. I knew they were all asking for trouble. As for the tax rebate, I never wanted any money back and I don't want anyone else to get any money back either. Couldn't they come up with anything better to do with that money than give it away?
Ah yes...the government "gave the money away" by giving taxpayers some of their money back. Why is it bad for the government to have less money, but not bad for taxpayers to have less money?
Correct. It is both. It may be our money but it is also part of our decision to pay for government services. I TOTALLY agree that it could be bugeted better but that all depends on what you consider "better." I think that the fact that more money is spent every 15 seconds on national defense than is spent in AN ENTIRE YEAR on education in America is an absolute travesty. If the return we got for our spending (free QUALITY education right through college, universal healthcare, crime prevention and basic infrastructure issues - roads, etc - are on my list for example) was equal to what we paid, I would have no problem paying. We don't pay a lot in taxes compared to most of the rest of the world but we don't get much in return either.
MrSpur, Many (most?) of us agree the government is poorly run. Many of us agree there is ridiculous waste in the government. Congressman represent districts, and by extension the industries in those districts. There is oodles of pork at all levels in the government, and caused by both parties. The argument though that a) the federal deficit should be payed down to keep interest rates down or b) social security should be shored up or c) there's no tax revenue to even pay for the core services (do you drive on roads? do you live under a safe military blanket?) are all separate arguments than the intuitive, rational argument that pork should be done away with. As it stands, congress people from both parties authorized a $35 million dollar mailing for some stupid ****ing reason, and gave me back $600.00, $350 of which I spent on Powerball and fishing Henry's Fork this weekend. Luckily (this is for you RR), I put half of my tax return back into the system (yeah right) for education. This, all the while, no budget was in place. Excuse me, but what exactly is the rationale for curtailing incoming revenue before you know what exactly your expenses are? Do most people do this? I don't remember ever cutting back on any projects, before I knew how much my mortgage and food expenses were. Unfortunately (imo), the republican led tax cut took your intuition... limit themselves and cut down on the pork... when there's no real reason to think that they're actually going to cut down on the pork. The Environment, Agriculture, etc. are going to suffer. Noone's going to stop Arizona from having shrimp farms (wtf???). Noone's going to stop redundant military weaponry from being fashioned. No congressman has the balls to tell his constituents that their employers are full of ****. Pork is here to stay. The infrastructure will suffer though. And a nation that considers itself 'Christian' will starve people b/c of fiscal policies based on the protestant work ethic and the notion of "deserving" and hence getting one's rewards in the afterlife. Cheerio.
The sad thing is, CNN ran a poll, and 15 percent of the polled blamed this situation on the democrats. Right.
Considering the fact that the internet demographics are still heavily skewed towards the right and the upper middle class, I'd say that should be even more of an indication to the Bush team that they need to re-evaluate.
I believe the question asked in the poll ZRB is referring to is the following: QUESTION: As you may know, the federal government currently has a budget surplus, which means the government takes in more money than it spends. Recent reports indicate that the size of the federal budget surplus has decreased by more than $100 billion since April of this year. Please tell me whether you think each of the following is -- very responsible, somewhat responsible, not very responsible, or not responsible at all -- for the decrease in the budget surplus. (A) George W. Bush (B) The Republicans in Congress (C) The Democrats in Congress. Combined results, 'Very Responsible' and 'Somewhat Responsible:' Bush 72% Republicans in Congress 71% Democrats in Congress 61% -- Very responsible: Bush 33% Republicans in Congress 24% Democrats in Congress 15% ZRB, do you think the democrats in congress should accept 0% responsibility? There are democrats that voted for Bush's plan. Daschle (D) is the majority leader in the senate. Why is it sad that a small sample of folks hold the democrats "very responsible"? As Jeff implied, I'm surprised the number isn't larger.
