Bush is a coward - CEG Archives

Originally posted by daenku32:
The COWARD waited until AFTER the elections to do this. And forced Treasury department to cook their books in the mean time to avoid bankrupty or braking the law.

Nah man,

companies do this all the time. Trust me! Companies manage there recievables and payable to ensure they have enough cash on any given month to not set off there debt covenants.

It's normal course of business, and I'm sure BUSH sent all the Treasury emplyees a personal memo and said "shhhhh, keep this on the down low"

Originally posted by daenku32:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=693&e=1&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/debt_ceiling

Quote:

White House: Debt Ceiling Must Be Raised

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced Wednesday that it will run out of maneuvering room to manage the government's massive borrowing needs in two weeks, putting more pressure on Congress to raise the debt ceiling when it convenes for a special post-election session.
...
The government hit the current debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion on Oct. 14, forcing Treasury to begin a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep financing the government's normal operations without breaching the debt ceiling.

The COWARD waited until AFTER the elections to do this. And forced Treasury department to cook their books in the mean time to avoid bankrupty or braking the law.

Don't you have a pressing appointment at a deathcamp?

Nah, Bush didn't know it was going on. Heck, he didn't even know he owned part of an oil company during the campaigning. He lives on an allowance while mommy and daddy handle his finances... He's just a political puppet without public speaking abilities.

here we go again....

this is like one big thread that has been broken up into several smaller threads.

Yes Bush is a coward and Kerry still LOST!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

And Remember you can get to Canada via Detroit...it should only be a couple hour drive for you!:-)

Originally posted by daenku32:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=693&e=1&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/debt_ceiling

Quote:

White House: Debt Ceiling Must Be Raised

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced Wednesday that it will run out of maneuvering room to manage the government's massive borrowing needs in two weeks, putting more pressure on Congress to raise the debt ceiling when it convenes for a special post-election session.
...
The government hit the current debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion on Oct. 14, forcing Treasury to begin a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep financing the government's normal operations without breaching the debt ceiling.

The COWARD waited until AFTER the elections to do this. And forced Treasury department to cook their books in the mean time to avoid bankrupty or braking the law.

Looks like Bush needs to reign in congress and all their deficit spending. Damn, if Kerry was elected then he could have gotten Teresa to write a check for the whole thing(since she only pays taxes at the 12% rate).

Originally posted by svt4stv:
here we go again.... this is like one big thread that has been broken up into several smaller threads.

we need a break from the common interests forum again.

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by daenku32:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=693&e=1&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/debt_ceiling

Quote:

White House: Debt Ceiling Must Be Raised

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced Wednesday that it will run out of maneuvering room to manage the government's massive borrowing needs in two weeks, putting more pressure on Congress to raise the debt ceiling when it convenes for a special post-election session.
...
The government hit the current debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion on Oct. 14, forcing Treasury to begin a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep financing the government's normal operations without breaching the debt ceiling.

The COWARD waited until AFTER the elections to do this. And forced Treasury department to cook their books in the mean time to avoid bankrupty or braking the law.

Don't you have a pressing appointment at a deathcamp?

Maybe he should change his name to dachau32

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:
Looks like Bush needs to reign in congress and all their deficit spending.

That's quite unlikely since he has NEVER vetoed a single spending bill sent to him by GOP controlled Congress.

And since most spending increases were originated by him.

I'd say, screw him. Do NOT increase debt cap. Let him eat the crap he dealt.

Congress controls spending. Quit repeating Kerry soundbites.

Congress that is controlled by his fellow team mates! He is not going to stop them. But give them some ideas of NEW spending bills though.

ok, wtf are you talking about? fellow team mates? can you be more specific? goalie? center? halfback? im konfuzed.

in this forum, no one is going to listen to a word you say unless you provide names and links. fyi.

I guess democrats wouldn't spend money if they were in power?

Who knows. All we DO know is that Congress controlled by GOP (aka Republicans) which coincidentally are the SAME party that the President is a party-line member of, and this group of people have NOT limited any spending.

I don't see ANY cutting or balancing of the budget during his next term.

I just don't believe how people can continue to parrot the line that Bush (or the GOP) is for fiscal conservatism or lesser government. The last four years have proven that they are just the opposite.

This news was out at least a month ago. Stop pouting because your boy lost.

Originally posted by daenku32:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=693&e=1&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/debt_ceiling

Quote:

White House: Debt Ceiling Must Be Raised

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced Wednesday that it will run out of maneuvering room to manage the government's massive borrowing needs in two weeks, putting more pressure on Congress to raise the debt ceiling when it convenes for a special post-election session.
...
The government hit the current debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion on Oct. 14, forcing Treasury to begin a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep financing the government's normal operations without breaching the debt ceiling.

The COWARD waited until AFTER the elections to do this. And forced Treasury department to cook their books in the mean time to avoid bankrupty or braking the law.

Actually, this was no big secret. Kerry has stumped on this fact for the last two months periodically if you were listening. So long as we're deficit spending, of course we're going to periodically need to up the debt limits.

Personally I'm a BIG believer in very limited gov't and fiscal conservatism so I have a BIG problem with deficit spending on anything outside of national defense during wartime and believe very much in a balanced budget amendment, but it wasn't passed on Clinton's watch, much as he tried (blocked by the Republican congress). I don't want my children to have to bear the burden of high taxes to pay off government debt.

Those that believe that spending money we don't have will not negatively affect our long term positive outlook, are quite frankly not thinking clearly. Go out and spend 100k on credit cards and see how much of a burden it puts on your family on a mini-economic scale. Scale that to the macro-economic scale of the gov't, and the burdens, limitations, debilitating consequences, and lessons learned are the same. There is strength in financial liquidity, just look at any corporation, like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, GE, etc., that have large cash reserves. Even small companies that have great financials are much better positioned to survive than debt ridden organizations, especially during economic downturns. The gov't is no exception to these general financial principles.

Yes, I voted for GW, because he lines up with my faith principles and I feel that moral issues were the most important in this election, especially with the supreme court up in the air. I, quite frankly, do not see much of a difference between republicans and democrats from a spending perspective (not talking ideology here). In this respect, I'm more liberterian than anything else.

Anyways, to each his own...

I have a hard time believing they just spent every dime they could. Maybe they only made bills they felt necessary and passed these. Maybe democrats would have spent more. And one thing I do know, to make money you gotta spend money. To get economy back on track they have to spend money on some things and pay this stuff back after a while. They have to do something to correct what Clinton messed up.
To me it's a VERY stupid point to try arguing. Money obviously has to be spent, you don't know what democrats would have done, and you probably don't even understand the whole process (I know I don't).

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:
Congress controls spending.

My point is congress(Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarian, etc.) control spending and they ALL have problems spending. Until the president has the Line Item veto, he has no power other to sign or veto the bill. There is soo much BS pork attached by the time he gets a bill to sign.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And one thing I do know, to make money you gotta spend money. To get economy back on track they have to spend money on some things and pay this stuff back after a while

If you know any basic economics, you know that when you increase taxes and overall spending at the same time, it provides a boost to the economy in the short run, but causes a depression in the long run. Bush did exactly this. He lowered taxes and then spent a shitload of money on the war. Now all we have to do is wait for the depression.

Originally posted by Nate S:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And one thing I do know, to make money you gotta spend money. To get economy back on track they have to spend money on some things and pay this stuff back after a while

If you know any basic economics, you know that when you increase taxes and overall spending at the same time, it provides a boost to the economy in the short run, but causes a depression in the long run. Bush did exactly this. Now all we have to do is wait for the depression.

Let me guess, you read that from you notes in a Economics class

Perhaps he missed the part about how discretionary spending was actually lowered during Bush's term in office, and that the spending actually went towards National Security initiatives, such as creating the Dept of Homeland Security and fighting the War on Terror. I just love one-sided facts.

E1

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:
Congress controls spending.

My point is congress(Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarian, etc.) control spending and they ALL have problems spending. Until the president has the Line Item veto, he has no power other to sign or veto the bill. There is soo much BS pork attached by the time he gets a bill to sign.

TR, agree with you, Congress is the stop gap. The problem here is that the process is corrupted. Congress needs to be the initiator of fiscal discipline, not a pork barrel processing plant sold out to various special interests and with a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of limited gov't at the federal level. The myriad social programs that the gov't is now paying for only distract from the primary purpose of any federal gov't institution, which is protection of life, from threats foreign and domestic.

I thought line item veto was a reality these days? Was it never passed?

Originally posted by EternalOne:
Perhaps he missed the part about how discretionary spending was actually lowered during Bush's term in office, and that the spending actually went towards National Security initiatives, such as creating the Dept of Homeland Security and fighting the War on Terror. I just love one-sided facts.
E1

uh, no discretionary spending was RAISED during bush's term in office, what are you talking about?!?
"Following increases of 13 percent and 12 percent during the previous two years, 2004 would mark the third consecutive year of massive discretionary spending growth."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm385.cfm

and as far as where the spending went, yes it went to a [censored] war. this isn't all money that is "protecting national security." give me a break. if it had all been dumped into securing our airports (which are currently a joke compared to secure countries like israel...israel's airports are perhaps some of the most secure in the world) then i might be able to understand...

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:

Let me guess, you read that from you notes in a Economics class

Um...I took an economics class about 2 years ago. Is there a problem with that? Unfortunately, no, I do not have my notes anymore.

Originally posted by Nate S:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And one thing I do know, to make money you gotta spend money. To get economy back on track they have to spend money on some things and pay this stuff back after a while

If you know any basic economics, you know that when you increase taxes and overall spending at the same time, it provides a boost to the economy in the short run, but causes a depression in the long run. Bush did exactly this. He lowered taxes and then spent a shitload of money on the war. Now all we have to do is wait for the depression.

Actually, it's the opposite is it not? If you decrease gov't taxes and increase private sector spending, the economy benefits. The economy never benefits from redistribution of wealth, which is exactly what gov't spending is in reality. In fact, the founding fathers were fundamentally against wealth redistribution from gov't institutions which is why they went to such lengths to force limited gov't especially at the federal levels. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution promoted the ideal of individual wealth and individual ownership, at the micro and macro economic levels. The Federal gov't is in reality a large bookie organization. Money comes in, is redistributed (partially based upon special interests these days), and goes back out. Wealth redistribution at it's core has socialistic tendencies. It's all about "the greater good", with no respect or admonition for the individual and his/her ability to make the same decisions (such as being charitable with our monies).

We need to be very careful about where we head from here. We're on the verge of giving up our cherished values of freedom and liberty for the values of safety and security. To some extent these values are mutually exclusive. We cannot be 100% "safe" and be 100% "free". We have to choose which is more valuable to us as a country, and legislate with that choice in mind. This is why I usually vote Republican, because I see Republicans embracing the "freedom" ideology moreso than the Democrats, who seem to value safety and security. (whether it be jobs, finances, rights, etc.)

Gov't is fundamentally about force. This is why gov't should primarily be concerned with national defense. Go against the gov't on any one thing and, in the end, eventually, men with guns will show up at your doorstep because of it (with a warrant for your arrest issued by the gov't). We must be careful what control we give to our governing institutions, very careful.

Originally posted by daenku32:

The COWARD waited until AFTER the elections to do this. And forced Treasury department to cook their books in the mean time to avoid bankrupty or braking the law.

You really do want to go to "deathcamp"..

Cmmon..be a uniter not a divider.

PS. This bankrupsy story really was beaten to death a month ago.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

Originally posted by Nate S:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And one thing I do know, to make money you gotta spend money. To get economy back on track they have to spend money on some things and pay this stuff back after a while

If you know any basic economics, you know that when you increase taxes and overall spending at the same time, it provides a boost to the economy in the short run, but causes a depression in the long run. Bush did exactly this. He lowered taxes and then spent a shitload of money on the war. Now all we have to do is wait for the depression.

Actually, it's the opposite is it not?

no, it isnt.

Originally posted by Nate S:

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

Originally posted by Nate S:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And one thing I do know, to make money you gotta spend money. To get economy back on track they have to spend money on some things and pay this stuff back after a while

If you know any basic economics, you know that when you increase taxes and overall spending at the same time, it provides a boost to the economy in the short run, but causes a depression in the long run. Bush did exactly this. He lowered taxes and then spent a shitload of money on the war. Now all we have to do is wait for the depression.

Actually, it's the opposite is it not?

no, it isnt.

Yes it is.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I guess democrats wouldn't spend money if they were in power?

Sure they would.

They would just give all our taxpayer money for BS like wellfare, free needles to drug users, digital cable and nicer accomodations for prisoners, more frivolous lawsuits, spending tax cuts on made up programs, etc, etc.

You know, all the bleeding heart liberal bullsh~t that should be abolished.

It's not that I am a "staunch" Republican or conservative. I'm more centered with conservative economic thinking.
I just figure that I would rather control my own money then let liberals make up programs to give it all away.

Originally posted by daenku32:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=693&e=1&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/debt_ceiling

Quote:

White House: Debt Ceiling Must Be Raised

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced Wednesday that it will run out of maneuvering room to manage the government's massive borrowing needs in two weeks, putting more pressure on Congress to raise the debt ceiling when it convenes for a special post-election session.
...
The government hit the current debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion on Oct. 14, forcing Treasury to begin a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep financing the government's normal operations without breaching the debt ceiling.

The COWARD waited until AFTER the elections to do this. And forced Treasury department to cook their books in the mean
time to avoid bankrupty or braking the law.

Bwaaaaaahahahahahaha....Hey, dude, the election's over. YOU LOST!!!!! Let's get back to talking about Contours now......

P.S., Say hi to your buddies Soros, Moore and Franken from whom you obviously are getting your talking points. Bwaaaaahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Originally posted by Nate S:

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

Originally posted by Nate S:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And one thing I do know, to make money you gotta spend money. To get economy back on track they have to spend money on some things and pay this stuff back after a while

If you know any basic economics, you know that when you increase taxes and overall spending at the same time, it provides a boost to the economy in the short run, but causes a depression in the long run. Bush did exactly this. He lowered taxes and then spent a shitload of money on the war. Now all we have to do is wait for the depression.

Actually, it's the opposite is it not?

no, it isnt.

Well, in all fairness, not the opposite, but different. If you increase taxes, meaning more gov't spending and more wealth redistribution, and increase spending, when you've got less money to spend because of increased taxes, that means more deficit spending, whether by the gov't or individually. That can and will cause a depression if we don't grab ahold of the fiscal irresponsibility and get back into positive numbers. Sooner or later the bubble will burst.

What I meant in regard to opposite was, that decreasing taxes, which increases personal wealth, will benefit the economy long term. Increasing taxes never benefits any economy in the long term. This is why we've got to be very careful about deficit spending and the existing federal debt, because if we have to raise taxes considerably at some point in the future to pay for debt, it will negatively affect our economy for a much longer period of time than if we take it seriously now. It's like with heart disease, even if you get healthy later in life, but your arteries are already clogged and damaged, you still have heart disease, and you still need treatment, even if you're doing everything right from that point forward, and it takes a LONG time to reverse heart disease without surgery, though it can be done over a period of years of strict diet and exercise, but life sure sucks while you're getting better. Unfortunately, there's no magic surgery for debt problems, because the federal gov't can't go bankrupt without serious consequences to the world.

Originally posted by DemonSVT:
I just figure that I would rather control my own money then let liberals make up programs to give it all away.

Ahhhh, the one program from the republicans I can agree with.

Originally posted by bnoon:

Originally posted by DemonSVT:
I just figure that I would rather control my own money then let liberals make up programs to give it all away.

Ahhhh, the one program from the republicans I can agree with.

Iowa went BUSH...

neener neener...

I'm still laughing over that one...

So's the wife. She's from Iowa.

I'm from Minnesota and that's a Democrat stronghold still.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

Originally posted by Nate S:

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

Originally posted by Nate S:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And one thing I do know, to make money you gotta spend money. To get economy back on track they have to spend money on some things and pay this stuff back after a while

If you know any basic economics, you know that when you increase taxes and overall spending at the same time, it provides a boost to the economy in the short run, but causes a depression in the long run. Bush did exactly this. He lowered taxes and then spent a shitload of money on the war. Now all we have to do is wait for the depression.

Actually, it's the opposite is it not?

no, it isnt.

Well, in all fairness, not the opposite, but different. If you increase taxes, meaning more gov't spending and more wealth redistribution, and increase spending, when you've got less money to spend because of increased taxes, that means more deficit spending, whether by the gov't or individually. That can and will cause a depression if we don't grab ahold of the fiscal irresponsibility and get back into positive numbers. Sooner or later the bubble will burst.

What I meant in regard to opposite was, that decreasing taxes, which increases personal wealth, will benefit the economy long term. Increasing taxes never benefits any economy in the long term. This is why we've got to be very careful about deficit spending and the existing federal debt, because if we have to raise taxes considerably at some point in the future to pay for debt, it will negatively affect our economy for a much longer period of time than if we take it seriously now. It's like with heart disease, even if you get healthy later in life, but your arteries are already clogged and damaged, you still have heart disease, and you still need treatment, even if you're doing everything right from that point forward, and it takes a LONG time to reverse heart disease without surgery, though it can be done over a period of years of strict diet and exercise, but life sure sucks while you're getting better. Unfortunately, there's no magic surgery for debt problems, because the federal gov't can't go bankrupt without serious consequences to the world.

we hold slightly different economic positions, but yeah, youre exactly right in your respect. however, this is why im extremely worried right now...and the next 4 years will show how well (or badly, for that matter) bush's economic plan worked.

Originally posted by EternalOne:
Perhaps he missed the part about how discretionary spending was actually lowered during Bush's term in office, and that the spending actually went towards National Security initiatives, such as creating the Dept of Homeland Security and fighting the War on Terror. I just love one-sided facts.

E1

In case you didn't learn enough from the previous posts then here is a little more reading.

"Spending has increased twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton. From 2001 to 2003 total spending grew by 16 percent. Certainly the terror attacks of 9/11 placed additional demands on spending for homeland security, a strong defense, and rebuilding New York. However, this accounts for less than half of the new spending that has occurred since 9/11 ."

"Presidents Roosevelt and Truman signed budgets during World War II and the Korean War which actually decreased non-defense spending. However, we saw no such balancing of our fiscal checkbook after 9/11. Instead we saw a spending spree in Washington where budgets written by Congress and signed by the President during the War on Terror actually grew non-defense spending by 11 percent during this period."

the link:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm398.cfm

Originally posted by mikey boy:

Originally posted by svt4stv:
here we go again.... this is like one big thread that has been broken up into several smaller threads.

we need a break from the common interests forum again.

I second that

Searching for discretionary spending and quoting the first article that comes up doesn't count as proof in my book. After hearing a few claims from people on TV (prior to the election) I ran around the White House budget website, and calc'd out some numbers. Then I found out some very interesting information, such as the Dept of Homeland Security actually gets most of its money by funneling through different agencies! This artifically inflates their numbers. So, here's a good breakdown of the numbers, now granted not everything is "peachy", but its definately NOT quite what the left was stating, either.

http://www.deadparrots.net/archives/economics/0410bushs_record_on_discretionary_spending.html

E1