Lower deficits, low unemployment and a booming economy are not failures. Making things up again? You've already lost, gworld. Doom and gloom in the presence of continued good news. Ain't that the truth! He got owned trying bitch about America's homeless rate, only to learn his own country is twice as bad
Did you find the URL for department of treasury all by yourself or did Gtech helped you? Do you realize that they have many reports but obviously you can not point to any report because reading those reports is far far far behind the capability of someone like you. Anyway, I have presented all the numbers to support what I have posted and if someone is smart, will look at those numbers and just laugh at you and Gtech postings. I just post this graph that shows how dollar is devalued compare to euro between 2002-2007 and let you think about it.
I found it for you, because you asked, and I am a hell of a nice guy! Never any concrete substance to your posts, only insults. You've presented your own warped interpretation and misrepresentation of facts, nothing more. Just because you say it, does not make it so. Maybe in your world, but not for those of us that do not live in the land of make believe. What you've posted is a graph of exchange rates. Hardly evidence of a "devalued" dollar. You're digging that hole a little deeper.
When ever I think that you can not make a bigger fool of yourself, you succeed to surprise me and do it. What do you think an exchange rate is and what does devaluation means?
But if you look for the years of 02-03 when both the dollar fell and the deficit rised, dramatically, you must agree that the last quarter was better than the medium quarters of 02-03. Or do you have another perspective on that?
Look at the inflation rate in 2006, it accelerated compare to 2004-2005, adjust the revenue to inflation based on 2001 or 2002 dollar (compare apple to apple and orange to orange) and you will get a different view. The government position still is that deficit will be higher than last year when you look at the whole year instead of one quarter. The real test will be around 2017 when the government will run out of money with all the new retired people.
Can you make a numerical calculation with all variables that you think is important? Because I don't think we get to the point by just saying look at this and look at that. I will instead try to see if the calculation make sense or not. In the calculation, include other Q4:s, such as Q4 for 02 and 03 at first place, but mayby only with the space between those years if you want to.
I bet you think the dollar is doing great too You are delluded. Just imagine if Bush was not elected we wouldn't have started a war by mistake. No big deal really? Yes the war will cost the US a few trillion, 3 is about right. The costs will go on for many decades. I guess you didn't know, you seem to have a short sight. hmm you still thinking invading Iraq was in the name of defence. You are really delluded. This thread is about the federal deficit. The war is central to this issue. So is the escalation in general US military expenditure. (how hard it must be for you, living in fear of Iran ) A very cute little example that adds nothing to your point. So what is Bush's solution to the problem, has he solved it already? Do you even know what the problem is? I guess you don't have access to indepth economic news, otherwise you would know. Here is a fresh example today: Fed chairman warns of potential fiscal disaster for United States Senate is told deficits are looming threat Published: January 18, 2007
Even if had access, he can not read it or understand it. Just wait for him and Gtech to come here and claim that Fed chairman is a communist, democrat and terrorist supporter.
From ^^^^^^^ Medicare long-term shortfalls will make this war look like a party--fiscally. Yes, they are of grave concern, but you're not going to get out of these problems just by ending wars. Medicare is functional inept. Congress has continual functioned in a restrictive and destructive manner when it comes to medical care and retirement. Instead of allowing some moderate change to allow for market-driven functions in these critical infrastructures, they've favored a 'few' or subsidized/regulated it. The main concern is: Pussy-ass Republicans. Deal with the leftist bullshit programs, and stop trying to put in dumb-ass legislation. Instead of putting in corrupt shit, actually work to end or moderate some of these programs. Fucking two party system. You get one group of idealists (with their head-up their ass), and you get a bunch of pussy-ass corrupt individuals. Not that they're all that way, but it's enough to make you want to slap someone. excuse my language....but some of these people don't deserve a political seat. ------------------- The problem Bernake's elluding to is: And this is not wholly due to the Bush admin or to one party. It's both of them frankly. But the real problem rests with Medicare deficits in the future. A problem that neither party is properly adressing. This along with retirement problems will cause influxes in spending/investment and so forth. So I would not use this as an anti-Bush arguement.
I agree with you. This is long term institutional issue. I wasn't suggesting the war alone created the problem. Lots of people having babies in the 1950's is the underlying cause of the problem. The lack of any real policy directed at dealing with the issue over the last few years has worsened the problem, by a significant amount. Bush's fiscal policy has been opportunistic and irresponsible. Again, I agree with what you are saying it and with the frustration you say it with. The politicians have got away with murder. The 2 party system doesn't help. Hmm. Whoever has been running the country for the last few years has failed to even begin at looking at the problem. Yes, the country is run by individual politicians who can raise issues and vote on laws accordingly BUT in reality this isn't how the senate and congress function. Whoever has the majority is able to force through their own agenda as long as party members fall in line. The republicans have failed to deal with the problem and thier tax cuts have worsened it. If I was looking back to evaluate the Bush clan then I would use this issue as an anti-bush argument. But we are looking forward now to the 2008 elections and we will actually see some progress in dealing with the real problems of the US. Bush is the past. He is just a regret.
Better than it has. 2006 was one of our best years yet. No doom and gloom here. No, we'd all be reading the Koran and blowing things up. Will? Or has? You said it "has", not that it "will". Nice back peddling, as usual. Nope, not short sighted. I'm ever the optimist. I like to think postively, unlike yourself. No, we invaded Iraq because of a UN Resolution. Look it up. Americans don't live in fear. If you have not figured that out by now, I can't help you. It should be pretty obvious by now. What is your solution? Bush provides answers to questions, and all you and other moonbats do is bitch about problems. Why not offer up your solution. I believe Bush has even asked the demos point blank the same question. No, you'll just take the cowards route, the easy way out; bitch about the problem rather than work towards a solution.
I just perceived that link as a bad counter-arguement. Yes, I do believe Bush spend unwisely...rather he's not strict enough on his own republican congress. I'd say he's far too compliant...and in some situations he's perhaps opportunistic. It's a long-term thing, and it disturbs me how bad both parties have been. We have to face the truth of retirement and medical care. And I'm afraid we'll go in the complete opposite direction...ie further regulation, favors, and socialist-like activity. It's actually really sad to me, because this is a structural degrading process of America. It's not like a 'bad' war where we can somehow try to work things out. This is a willful chose to ignore our problems. It will end-up bitting us like a non-violent civil war....hopefully I'm wrong. I agree, but to some level I think neither party has the courage to deal with this issue, till it actually pinches us. By principle the right should come-up with free-market solutions (but they come-up with odd ideas), while the left almost doesn't want to do anything. That's not always possible. Pelosi realized that she had to make concessions to win certain seats. An indentifibly left agenda will be limited to certain issues, because she allowed that sort of flexibility in her party. Same with the right to a degree. That's why certain agendas have a problem. The parties consist of conflicting interests. The republican parties leadership in congress was horrendous. Especially in the senate. I personally think the president and his congress were not on the same page. They should have been bolder and did more cuts for the agenda they were seeking.
Probably one of the most well thought posts I've seen on DP in a LONG, LONG time! That about sums it up. One of the things mistermix, gworld and others like them seem to forget is that the problems the fed is talking about existed prior to Bush. Like you said, with or without a war, these problems still exist and are still sorely lacking in attention. It is however convienent that the war happens to provide the perfect scape goat for generations of do nothing politicians in Washington, and the moonbats that follow them.
Half brain republicans new theory: problems are created by bing bang and the fact that Bush has not done anything to solve the problems, and worsened these problems by increasing the deficit is irrelevant.
We reserve those terms for people who actually are terrorist supporters. Like people that start threads to seek sympathy and support for al qaida terrorists. Oops, that would be you, right gword? What? Something that isn't directly Bush's fault? but, but, but earlier your doom and gloom was all about being the fault of Bush. Back pedalling now? There's always something looming. The deficit is reducing, the economy is booming and unemployment is at all time lows. You can add up any number of issues that "if not dealt with" or "dealt with and don't exist" that can affect things down the road. In your case, gworld, this is about your hatred for America and nothing else. Just like the thread you started about the homeless in America, until you discovered your own country, Canada, was far worse.
Sure you are. Not true. Our system of government has checks and balances. The majority, while there was slim at best. Hence not everything makes it through. With a senate majority as small as it was/is, it's hardly a majority at all. If you would just take some time to read the Treasury Report, or if you actually owned a business and employed people you would see the complete opposite. The tax custs Bush enacted allowed us to hire another employee and give our others raises. We were never able to do that under the previous adminstration. It was to penal. The tax cuts have increased tax revenues, lowered unemployment, brought more workers (tax payers) to the table, and have allowed corporations like mine to invest in other areas of the economy, including (and I cannot say this enough) HIRING PEOPLE!!! I cannot understand why you choose to ignore this fact. And that progress is in motion , and has been for several years now. It's all happening right before your eyes. What are you hoping for? Another Clinton to take credit for a Bush's work? Whose regret? Are you saying you regret voting for him.
The deficit has gone DOWN, not up. Even with half a brain, anyone can see that. What is this, opposite day? Grow up.