Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201360.html Darn our presidency! Lowering the deficit like this.... how bad of them
Too true. If only they could create a surplus and reduce a couple trillion or even billion in the debt...
Wait till AGS and Darksat and the rest of the clan of AC's nixon hating republican trashin terrorist loving crew read that...they will need to change their panties...
Good news for America! This is the second year running the deficit has been reduced. The economy is doing great, unemployment down, deficit reductions. If this were the democrats, it would be played non-stop on the news and hailed as "highly successful."
That's the difference between the right and the left... Just as women speak an average of 10,000 words a day to men's 3,000, those of us on the right tend to be busy actually DOING things and ACCOMPLISHING things than ranting about them. I'm glad the media hasn't trumpeted this...
Do any of you actually read these things before starting to post your nonsense? It seems Bush has managed the country, the same way as he manged his private companies. Get a lot of money and then make the country (company) go broke.
The Washinton Post is no more credible than the New York Times when it comes to covering anything related to Bush. They will always find a way to turn good news about the economy under Bush into a negative. The USA has run deficits for more than half of the country's existance. There was no actual surplus when Bush took office because of the way government accounting works. There were projected surpluses, but I never saw a single non-partisan economist who agreed with the projections. You see, the way USA government accounting works, if they set a budget of $4 trillion and the budgeted programs only spend $3.9 trillion, the government claims to have a surpus of $100 billion, even if they already spent it on other programs. That is exactly what occurred under Clinton. The money was spent, and yes, you can blame the Republicans who were in charge of Congress and spending. You can also blame them for getting the budget under control in the 1990s. There were no plans under Clinton to cut spending. His plan was to raise taxes to pay for programs. The government uses baseline accounting, which means that if a program is slated to spend $100 million (the baseline), but only spends $90 million and the next year's budget is then set at $95 million, that is considered to be a cut or a reduction in spending, even though any rational person would call it an increase over what was actually spent. The baseline is never adjusted downward during the course of a budget period. Surpluses are never based upon real cash left over after the bills have been paid. The claims of record surpluses were fluff and the claims of future surpluses were pure fantasy. No one other than a couple of Democrat political economists agreed with the projections. Any business person who tried to run their business accounting the way the US government runs theirs woiuld be tossed into jail. There is so much smoke and mirrors in the budgeting process that no one knows the real numbers. The entire reason for the Bush tax cut was to take the money away from the politicians before they could spend it. If you give politicians a honey-pot, they will alway waste it on non-essential programs. What screwed up the budget was not recless spending policies; it was the enourmous expenses tied to 9/11. Plus, Bush was handed an economy that had been in decline since 1998 and was rapidly heading for a recession. He mentioned that during the 2000 campaign. The quickest way to head-off a recession is to increase government spending, and that is what he did to avoid the enormous negative impact of 9/11. The current Demorat Congress is doing everything they can to assure that the budget does not get balanced under Bush. You can see that with the number of bills that they are trying to pass without any budgeting consideration. Do you think that implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations is cheap? They want to make it look like they are accomplishing something, yet they will blame Bush for reckless spending for every dollar it costs for the programs they are pushing through. You will also notice that they are refusing to give him the line item veto, which was given to Clinton by the Republicans, and they are blocking Republicans from making any changes to the bills they are pushing through. While the Demorats are getting in the press and talking about working together in a bi-partisan manner, they are doing the exact opposite. by the way, gworld, Bush's business practices were completely distorted my Michael Moore's anti-Bush propaganda movie. Bush's oil business was wildcat oil drilling. The way that this works is that multiple companies are set up, each backed by a group of investors, which are frequently the same group of investors. Wildcat drilling is the riskiest business in the USA--and perhaps the world. On average, only 1 in 20 wells produces oil, but that one success more than pays for the 19 non-successful attempts. Michael Moore just conveniently focused on the ones that failed when he talked about "Bush's propensity to drill dry wells." To ill-informed and naive people, it appears that only 5% of his businesses succeeded. He was also very successful with the sports team he bought and resurected and sold for a huge profit. Michael Moore did forget to mention that part. If you want to understand Bush, you need to realize that he is the USA's first president with an MBA. He has run the country like a CEO would run a business, and not the way a politician would run it.
blah, blah,blah... Bush fiscal policies were disaster and now Republican are jumping with joy because the last couple of months is a little less disastrous than the last 5 years.
Obviously you didn't read his post, the same way that you and your friends didn't read the original article. Can you tell us what "fact" are you referring to? It was just another smoke screen to hide the failures and declaring a less disastrous result as "major" victory.
Thanks GTech. I have an MBA myself, so I've studied and understand these things much better than the average opinionated liberal. Let there be no doubt that if the exact same things were hapening under Clinton, the New York Times and Washington Post would be making excuses and defending Clinton against any accusations of mishandling of the economy. They would not be looking for ways to inject any negatives into the story. I'm not even a Republican. I'm more of a Libertarian. I just get tired of seeing the deeply deceptive nature of the way things are portrayed in the overwhelmingly liberal media--and believed by the deeply naive and uninformed.
A refreshing view point and very well presented. gworld only went to collage (long story, but a funny one!). Very much so. I remember when unemployment hit 5.4% in the Clinton administration, it was hailed as a huge success. Yet when it hits 4.7% under Bush, it's hardly (or not even) mentioned. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2004/jobs_study/sr20041014.asp http://newsbusters.org/node/3899 It's just another prime example of how the media sets the tone. Whether it's the economy, deficit, unemployment, war in Iraq or whatever, if it's positive for America, they perceive it as positive for Bush, and they won't have that. There are quite a few Libertarians here. Always making good, solid points. So much so, it's encouraged me to learn more about the party.
You know, I have also checked out this party...Neil Boortz is a Libertarian, and I agree with him more than I agree with any republican...
Hehe. AGS and a few other libs hit me with reds. At least AGS has the kahonies to leave his name as a calling card. I will wear it as a badge of honor, my friend. Logic must be getting under your skin and it's irritating you! It never ceases to amaze me how vicious peace-loving liberals get whenever somoneone has a viewpoint that is different from their own. It must be because the real facts blow their misguided beliefs out of the water. I think someone else here on DP posted the mantra of the rightious liberal disbelievers as quoted by their Illuminati representative, Homer Simpson: "Facts are meaningless. They can be used to prove anything."
I'm not sure about supporting the big 'L' Libertarian party, although I have in the past. I must say that for every libertarian-minded person I'v met, I've met dozens of party-line Republicans whom do less justice to the right. The difference (I believe) is in that most libertarian-minded folks arrive at their opinion by multiple means, while people that adopt a party-line view want a simple answer. I think the media has always been used as a political tool (since our founding). I personally think that it's better to watch the politicians in Congress, and use common sense...than to get ones full opinion from articles. One will continuely be deceived if they depend on the opinion of others.
I said vicious, not violent. You didn't see the comments they left IMHO, most Independents and Libertarians have gone that route because they get tired of mainstream politics. I think the Repulicans were on the right track with Newt Gingrich--until he dropped out after the Demorats hit him hard with those trumped-up charges regarding a history course that he taught using grant money. The fact is that thousands of teachers are in violation of that same rule every year and they are never prosecuted. The Rebublicans got off track with pursuing Clinton's impeachment. They were off-track because they started acting like Demorats. They knew they couldn't win, but they kept pursuing it, which was foolish. The real smoking gun was Chinagate and all of the illegal campaign contributions, plus Clinton approving the sale of missle guidance technology. That would never have been approved even by a Demorat Senate and Congress. I don't see where the Demorats have ever been on track. They are currently revelling with their victory in the last election. There isn't much doubt that the election was not a vote for Demorat ideas for solving problems--because they don't have any solutions. The election was a vote against the situation in Iraq. That I can understand. Just keep watching the way the Demorats say one thing publicly, but do the exact opposite with the way they push their programs through the Congress and Senate. Bipartisanship. He He.
here we go with people pretending they are libertarians because bush sucks so much MBA .... BFD half the people on this forum have successful real life businesses bu .. buu ... but clinton ....