Charyn,
The deficit is mostly a factor of domestic spending on pork projects "earmarks". Both parties share equal blame in this. I'm sure someone will say it's the result of the war, but this simply isn't the case.
That being said, I only hear of one party getting critized for this.
Am I upset that the Presidents hasn't vetoed some of these spending bills? Absolutely. But I am also upset with member of congress of both spending like drunken sailors.
Republicans hold the slimest majority, and there are reports all the time of how deficit is growing. Does anyone ever ask if these numbers ever inflation adjusted?
If one is going to kick out the party in power because of where are deficit has gone, they should also vote out every politician in the minority who has voted for these spending increases.
Taxes Not High Enough?!
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Joseph Milan
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:45 pm
-
Kenneth Warren
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:17 pm
Here are recent captures of the numbers. Go to the sites for ticker updates.
Below is a running total of the U.S. taxpayer cost of the Iraq War. The number is based on Congressional appropriations.
The War in Iraq Costs
$280,393,404,498
See:
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php ... Itemid=182
So we can let Congressman Kucinich off the hook for this expenditure, right Joe?
And since he ain't bringing home the pork, we give him another pass....
"U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 13 May 2006 at 03:05:09 PM GMT is:
$8,366,042,729,878.41
The estimated population of the United States is 298,701,473
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,008.04.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.93 billion per day since September 30, 2005!"
Source:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Do the Bush administration and the Republican controlled House and Senate bear any responsibility for this?
Of course the ticking continues.
Kenneth Warren
Below is a running total of the U.S. taxpayer cost of the Iraq War. The number is based on Congressional appropriations.
The War in Iraq Costs
$280,393,404,498
See:
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php ... Itemid=182
So we can let Congressman Kucinich off the hook for this expenditure, right Joe?
And since he ain't bringing home the pork, we give him another pass....
"U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 13 May 2006 at 03:05:09 PM GMT is:
$8,366,042,729,878.41
The estimated population of the United States is 298,701,473
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,008.04.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.93 billion per day since September 30, 2005!"
Source:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Do the Bush administration and the Republican controlled House and Senate bear any responsibility for this?
Of course the ticking continues.
Kenneth Warren
-
Stan Austin
- Contributor
- Posts: 2465
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:02 pm
- Contact:
Joe--- When Bush and his crew came into power they had two goals: cut taxes and start a war.
They wanted to cut taxes because they were sure that a flat economy was the cause of Bush I's defeat and they erroneously believed in supply side economics.
They wanted to start a war (they were beating the drums before 9/11) because it's hard to defeat a wartime president.
Because it's been shown that cutting taxes INCREASES defecits, a balanced budget went into debt.
In the first Gulf War because we had a coalition the costs were paid by member nations. This war, since we ruined any coalitions, is being paid for by us. And, since there was no tax surcharge put on to pay for this voluntary war the 280 billion figure will be paid for by future generations.
And, since we have no friends anymore we have to pay other nations to be in our "coalition." Poland, for instance, has gotten quite a few hundred million dollars for the sole purpose of appearing to participate in the war effort.
In my review of American history I can think of no other administration which has so deliberately sabatoged the basic security both economically and militarily of this country as has this crew of rogues.
Stan Austin
They wanted to cut taxes because they were sure that a flat economy was the cause of Bush I's defeat and they erroneously believed in supply side economics.
They wanted to start a war (they were beating the drums before 9/11) because it's hard to defeat a wartime president.
Because it's been shown that cutting taxes INCREASES defecits, a balanced budget went into debt.
In the first Gulf War because we had a coalition the costs were paid by member nations. This war, since we ruined any coalitions, is being paid for by us. And, since there was no tax surcharge put on to pay for this voluntary war the 280 billion figure will be paid for by future generations.
And, since we have no friends anymore we have to pay other nations to be in our "coalition." Poland, for instance, has gotten quite a few hundred million dollars for the sole purpose of appearing to participate in the war effort.
In my review of American history I can think of no other administration which has so deliberately sabatoged the basic security both economically and militarily of this country as has this crew of rogues.
Stan Austin
-
Joseph Milan
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:45 pm
Yes, Mr. Warren,
You obviously didn't read my post closely because I said any congressman who keeps running up the spending should be voted out.
I'm looking at your post and thinking, even whit a sliver-thin majority, you're only blaming republicans for this when they all vote for pork projects. I believe Glenn-Lewis just got one and someones going to say what a great thing it is, when just months ago they were laughing at a plan to go to Mars.
But then again, I may just be overgeneralizing
Joe
You obviously didn't read my post closely because I said any congressman who keeps running up the spending should be voted out.
I'm looking at your post and thinking, even whit a sliver-thin majority, you're only blaming republicans for this when they all vote for pork projects. I believe Glenn-Lewis just got one and someones going to say what a great thing it is, when just months ago they were laughing at a plan to go to Mars.
But then again, I may just be overgeneralizing
Joe
-
Charyn Varkonyi
Joe:
While I think that you sometimes come across a bit brusque, I do think that much of what you say does have value.
And yes, I would be just as inclined to vote against a democrat that was foolhardy as I would a republican. In that vein, I am just as annoyed by people that blindly rail in defense of the republicans as I am by people that blindly blame only them.
I kinda wish it were that simple. But in today's economy and global climate - I cannot see where either party has the answer to everything. I can only vote the person and whether or not I think they will execute their duties responsibly and with proper forethought. What party they are in is secondary.
Peace,
~Charyn
While I think that you sometimes come across a bit brusque, I do think that much of what you say does have value.
And yes, I would be just as inclined to vote against a democrat that was foolhardy as I would a republican. In that vein, I am just as annoyed by people that blindly rail in defense of the republicans as I am by people that blindly blame only them.
I kinda wish it were that simple. But in today's economy and global climate - I cannot see where either party has the answer to everything. I can only vote the person and whether or not I think they will execute their duties responsibly and with proper forethought. What party they are in is secondary.
Peace,
~Charyn
-
Kenneth Warren
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:17 pm
Joe:
I did read your post carefully. I can only vote for one Congressman, in the district I live in. Congressman Kucinich looks spotless as a lamb when it come to driving pork back home.
Can you admit that strange fact emerges from the application of your proposition?
Or are you simply setting the plate for us to vote for someone never elected to Congress because they never voted for pork?
I am not as partisan as you think. I was an independent all my life until, Congressman Kucinich running for president, made me feel compelled to register as a democrat.
Congressman Ron Paul from Texas is a Republican I respect.
At this point, I believe a third party movement is in order.
Hillary Clinton is clearly not the answer in my estimation.
Kenneth Warren
I did read your post carefully. I can only vote for one Congressman, in the district I live in. Congressman Kucinich looks spotless as a lamb when it come to driving pork back home.
Can you admit that strange fact emerges from the application of your proposition?
Or are you simply setting the plate for us to vote for someone never elected to Congress because they never voted for pork?
I am not as partisan as you think. I was an independent all my life until, Congressman Kucinich running for president, made me feel compelled to register as a democrat.
Congressman Ron Paul from Texas is a Republican I respect.
At this point, I believe a third party movement is in order.
Hillary Clinton is clearly not the answer in my estimation.
Kenneth Warren
-
Joseph Milan
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:45 pm
Kenneth Warren wrote:Joe:
I did read your post carefully. I can only vote for one Congressman, in the district I live in. Congressman Kucinich looks spotless as a lamb when it come to driving pork back home.
Tell that to Jim O; who apperently didn't thing my serious crique of the congressman was worthy of seeing much daylight. Do you think he's overgeneralizing?
The are a lot of other ways to grow the economy besides pork. But the congressman and many liberals are set to the tune of the government being the only solution, so hand over your money. Once again, there are republicans doing the same thing. The president himself has yet to veto a spending bill. But, I'm sure, if he did, democrats would seize on the opportunity - Much like the way they have done in the past. The republicans, for instance create a budget that has a lower than expected INCREASE in spending. The democrats tell us the GOP is taking food away from kids. Give me a break.