+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

  1. #1
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    Editorial
    Budget Tough Talk

    When it comes to the federal budget, the Bush administration wants to look both prudent and generous. It’s neither.

    President Bush is threatening to veto spending bills over a $23 billion difference with Congress on proposed spending for 2008. After driving up the debt for six years, he is now insisting on $10 billion in net spending cuts across various federal departments — except the Pentagon. Congress wants $13 billion in new spending. Some of that could go for areas that Mr. Bush has neglected — aid to cities, job training and pollution control. And some could be used for increases in areas for which Mr. Bush has asked for more money, such as for veterans’ health care.

    For all of Mr. Bush’s talk about fiscal prudence, $23 billion is only about 2.5 percent of the discretionary spending proposed by Congress for 2008. When it comes to really big money — for wars and tax cuts — Mr. Bush wants more, not less. He is demanding an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon, bringing the national defense budget to $504 billion — over half of Congress’s total discretionary budget.

    As for the Bush tax cuts, in 2008 they will put some $100 billion into the pockets of the richest Americans. That giveaway will require the government to borrow to make up for the forgone revenue.

    Yet, Mr. Bush calls for no restraint on tax cuts. Just the opposite. His administration’s biggest criticism of Congress’s budget is that it includes a “pay-go” rule requiring future tax cuts to be paid for, either by pairing them with tax increases or with cuts in entitlement spending.

    Unable to brook even the possibility that taxes may someday have to go up, Mr. Bush proposes to offset future new spending on Medicare, Social Security and other big entitlements through cuts in other entitlement programs. That would guarantee deeper cuts than would otherwise be required. The Bush budget strategy boils down to never-ending tax cuts for the rich, big increases for the Pentagon and spending cuts for everything else.

    When it’s suggested that Mr. Bush’s approach is overly harsh, the White House insists that the president has other generous impulses. Last February, they note, he recommended that Congress provide more money in 2008 for such areas as international affairs, veterans’ hospital care, the National Science Foundation and NASA.

    But that brings us back to his veto threat. If he means what he says, Mr. Bush will veto spending by Congress that fails to achieve $10 billion in net cuts, even if those bills include the new money he asked for. The fact remains that Mr. Bush’s misguided war and his misguided tax cuts are what stand in the way of responsible, responsive budgeting.



    .

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    There's just no good,positive way I can think of the view this. It's just a bad thing, I cannot understand how anyone in the middle or lower class supports our president when he is doing them so much harm in so many ways. I'd like to see how some members of scam.com tries to make this look like a good thing.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    Has to be the NY Times again, right Lady mod? I figured it was, because when I got to the third sentence I stopped reading.

    He began his 3rd sentence by writing; "After driving up the debt for six years..." and that's when his credibility (what little he might have had, considering he's an employee of the NYT) went right out the window.

    The author has done one of two things:
    1) Flat out lied to his readers.
    2) Misled his readers into a false belief.

    He flat out lied if he was talking about our Federal Budget Deficit, because since 2004 when it hit $423 billion, it has dramatically been reduced. It was down to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, and has recently been predicted to fall to $177 billion when the 2007 budget year ends this September.

    Now if he was talking about our over all national debt, he is only guilty of misleading his readers. The reason his statement is misleading, is because he implies that the increase in our national debt is either unique to president Bush, or somehow it's much more extreme a rise, than it was say, in the Clinton years. It doesn't matter which perception he intended for his readers to absorb, because both of them are false.

    The fact is, our National Debt has steadily risen nearly every year (in dollar amounts) since back in the late 1960's, so this is not a problem unique to President Bush. Now if the author was implying that our debt under President Bush's far exceeds what other administrations have incurred, he is once again, dead wrong.

    The way you accurately judge our national debt, is by taking into account the country's wealth (the GDP). For example, lets say I was $250,000 in debt with an annual income of $50,000 a year, and my neighbor on the other hand, was in debt $1,000,000, but had an income of $500,000 a year. Even though my neighbor's debt is twice that of mine, I am the one who's in financial trouble, not him. It's what you owe vs. whats coming in that tells the tale

    When you look at our National Debt as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (debt vs. income), you will see that it is virtually identical to where it was during the Clinton administration. During Clinton's 8 years in office, our yearly national debt averaged a little over 65% of the GDP (lowest year 58%, highest 68%). In the 6 years President Bush has been in office, our yearly national debt has averaged just over 63% of the GDP (lowest year 58%, highest 67%). In fact, our national debt as percentage of the GDP has remained unchanged the last 2 years, and today is only about 2 or 3% higher than it was in 2003.

    If you look at the straight dollar figures, the national debt under President Bush is vastly higher than any other presidential administration in our history. What the folks on the left seem to always conveniently overlook though, just as this writer from the Times did, is that our nation has been vastly more wealthy during the Bush administration, than any other administration in U.S. history.

    .
    Last edited by Grim17; 06-03-2007 at 11:32 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    270

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    No Grim, our nation is not vastly more wealthy. A small percentage of those who make over 1 million per year have done extremely well under the Bush regime. Our nation, who before Reagan was the number one creditor nation has now gone to the number one debtor nation. So please don't give me that old clap-trap about how well this country is doing. Apparently you must be living off of a six-figure income but the majority of us are struggling. Tax cuts for the rich in time of war is utterly insane. Corporate welfare and bloated CEO salaries are destroying our nation but then that's what these globalists want. Bankrupt our government and cripple our military then they'll have us right where they want us. We'll be just another third-world country where less than 10% of the rich elite will own over 90% of the wealth.

  5. #5
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    If you look at the straight dollar figures, the national debt under President Bush is vastly higher than any other presidential administration in our history. What the folks on the left seem to always conveniently overlook though, just as this writer from the Times did, is that our nation has been vastly more wealthy during the Bush administration, than any other administration in U.S. history.

    .
    OH GOOD GRIEF! You're too funny, your ignorance is only supersceeded by your vast capacity for blind belief and hot air.

    Spare us the Fox rhetoric next time will you cupcake? The Whitehouse by their own reports is more honest than you are.

    LOL.


    http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefe...ional_debt.htm

    *******************************
    US Gross National Debt As Percent of Gross Domestic Product


    Using data from the Whitehouse, this chart shows gross national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product since 1950. As the highlighted areas show, cumulative debt increased during the Reagan-Bush Administrations and under the current Bush Administration. It is currently more than 65% of GDP.

    .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,682

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...




    Adjusted for wealth:




    One can see why conservatives are so keen on wealth adjusted figures, but it overlooks the disparity between rich and poor that the initial argument was trying to bring up in the first place.

    Please explain to me how I'm supposed to be happy with Bush's economic performance without turning it into a debate about Clinton.
    Last edited by ianmatthews; 06-03-2007 at 05:07 PM.

  7. #7
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    Quote Originally Posted by ianmatthews

    Please explain to me how I'm supposed to be happy with Bush's economic performance without turning it into a debate about Clinton.
    LOL, I can't wait to see if they will even bother to answer that question.
    Wanna lay odds they don't? ;)


    Lady Mod

    .

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The beautiful south!
    Posts
    3,046

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    Quote Originally Posted by ianmatthews



    Adjusted for wealth:




    One can see why conservatives are so keen on wealth adjusted figures, but it overlooks the disparity between rich and poor that the initial argument was trying to bring up in the first place.

    Please explain to me how I'm supposed to be happy with Bush's economic performance without turning it into a debate about Clinton.

    Not to imply that Bush can possibly do anything that I approve of anymore
    nor to defend the lying traitor on any front, BUT, I remember the "March"
    when the tech bubble burst and things started to slide. No matter who did
    it I dont think the evil snake eyed little varmit brought about that one in all
    fairness. Everything else you can lay at his doorstep but I well remember
    the timing on this one issue since we watched our investments slide.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The beautiful south!
    Posts
    3,046

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    And doesnt productiveness have a little something to do with wealth??????
    The "disparity" is not some thing with a life of its own, it is powered by business
    (moslty small business) that creates products and services and employs people.
    Maybe there are people who dont want to work or work enough to have what
    they envy other people having. Enter the mentality of "entitlement" and the element of personal responsibility.

    Its the extremems on all fronts that cause problems. Too powerful a corporate
    lobby is bad. Too many government handouts to able bodied people is bad.
    I see each one equally evil.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,682

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    Quote Originally Posted by goodwitchofthesouth
    And doesnt productiveness have a little something to do with wealth??????
    The "disparity" is not some thing with a life of its own, it is powered by business
    (moslty small business) that creates products and services and employs people.
    Maybe there are people who dont want to work or work enough to have what
    they envy other people having. Enter the mentality of "entitlement" and the element of personal responsibility.

    Its the extremems on all fronts that cause problems. Too powerful a corporate
    lobby is bad. Too many government handouts to able bodied people is bad.
    I see each one equally evil.
    You see corporations having a direct line to Congress in order to bribe them to get deregulatory legislation as equally evil as welfare?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The beautiful south!
    Posts
    3,046

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    Absolutely! Of course, its the extremes of each side that is hurting everyone.
    The politicians should answer only to us but they have been bought and paid
    for by the lobbies. At the same time I dont think anyone should be "given"
    anyone elses money if they are not old, crippled, or sick. No able bodied/
    minded person should receive anyone elses money. They should.....work!!!
    Like the rest of us.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,682

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    Quote Originally Posted by goodwitchofthesouth
    Absolutely! Of course, its the extremes of each side that is hurting everyone.
    The politicians should answer only to us but they have been bought and paid
    for by the lobbies. At the same time I dont think anyone should be "given"
    anyone elses money if they are not old, crippled, or sick. No able bodied/
    minded person should receive anyone elses money. They should.....work!!!
    Like the rest of us.
    So, by your definition they are not equally evil. You see one as completely needing to be done away with: corrupt lobbyists and the increasing coporate power in our govt. Then, you see the other as perfectly legitimate as long as it meets certain conditions: welfare for the infirmed, elderly, etc.

  13. #13
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    Quote Originally Posted by ianmatthews
    So, by your definition they are not equally evil. You see one as completely needing to be done away with: corrupt lobbyists and the increasing coporate power in our govt. Then, you see the other as perfectly legitimate as long as it meets certain conditions: welfare for the infirmed, elderly, etc.
    Be careful now. Grim or Pwrone will come along and tell you what you mean by what you are saying. LOL. You know how the like to "spin" things. :)


    Lady Mod

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Protect the Rich at the expense of everyone else...

    Quote Originally Posted by goodwitchofthesouth
    Absolutely! Of course, its the extremes of each side that is hurting everyone.
    The politicians should answer only to us but they have been bought and paid
    for by the lobbies. At the same time I dont think anyone should be "given"
    anyone elses money if they are not old, crippled, or sick. No able bodied/
    minded person should receive anyone elses money. They should.....work!!!
    Like the rest of us.
    I like the idea we have here (It's not necessarily implemented well, but the concept is a good one). It's very simple, in order to receive welfare you have to work. There are various community projects and such that government sets up, in essence they are creating jobs for the unemployed instead of just giving them money. From what I understand of the system it doesn't work very well, but it's mostly a beaurocratic problem (isn't it always with government departments).

    On the other hand, the system here is set up in such a way that you receive little reward for getting a real job. As soon as you start earning a wage your welfare payments are cut back 50 cents for every dollar you earn. I receive money for the government while I study, and because that money gets cut back, and because of the extra tax I pay, I end up actually receiving like 30-40% of my wage. (Before you jump on my back for being on welfare, I get around this by working 70 hour weeks during the holidays and not working at all during semester. It saves me a lot of money in the long run, but not everyone can be as flexible with their working hours as I can).

Similar Threads

  1. securus final expense insurance
    By gregfla in forum Insurance Scams
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 12:46 PM
  2. MLM Average Expense Estimate From Chris Doyle
    By BoxAlarm126 in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-02-2014, 11:42 AM
  3. Elected Officials Expense Accounts Scam
    By Administrator in forum Government Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-10-2014, 07:40 AM
  4. Al Qaida Funny Expense Reports
    By Administrator in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-31-2013, 02:47 PM
  5. Brain Cramps....Humor at the expense of others.
    By RegulationE in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-15-2005, 08:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •