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.
"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. 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. 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 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. This war in Iraq was nothing more than a sham for him to find ways to steal oil from a country. 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. 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 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. - 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
