Reply With Quote
What the are you complaining about? Your side wants to tax and spend us into oblivion. Bush hasn't been the most fiscally conservative but get a ing clue already you little numbnut.
web page
US President George Bush's administration has weathered a pre-election mauling by announcing emergency measures to skirt a $7.38-trillion debt limit.
Treasury Secretary John Snow said he would use pension money to keep the government running.
In a letter to US Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Snow said he was immediately suspending payments to a federal employees' retirement scheme, the Government Securities Investment Fund (G-Fund).
The missing money would be repaid in full later, with no net effect on the fund or retirees, he promised.
The treasury secretary said he was forced to take the emergency accounting step because congress had not acted on his 2 August request for the government's legal debt limit to be raised.
Any move by congress to raise the debt limit could be politically embarrassing.
Reaction
Bush, Kerry are in a statistical tie
before the 2 November elections
Democrats pounced on the news as evidence of fiscal mismanagement by the administration, less than three weeks before Bush faces Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry in the 2 November presidential election.
"George Bush continues to make history for all the wrong reasons: He's the first president to go without creating a new job since the Great Depression and now he's run up more debt in [a] shorter period of time than all the presidents combined in the 200 years from Washington through Reagan," said Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer.
"On top of that, this is the third time he's broken his promise not to raise the debt ceiling. His fiscal mismanagement is taking its toll on America and it's time for a fresh start," he said in a statement.
Failure
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi described Snow's manoeuvre as "a shameful admission" that the administration's economic policies had failed the American people.
"His [Bush's] fiscal mismanagement is taking its toll on America and it's time for a fresh start"
Phil Singer,
Kerry campaign spokesman
The overall US debt - the total ac ulated financial liabilities of the country - now amounted to $7.38 trillion, she said.
"The Republican leadership knew that the debt limit would be reached this month but did not want an embarrassing vote on raising the debt ceiling until after next month's election so Republicans are now resorting to extraordinary accounting measures to avoid that vote."
In the year before Bush came to office, his predecessor Bill Clinton produced a $236-billion annual budget surplus.
In fiscal 2004, ended 30 September, Bush's team is estimated to have incurred a record annual budget deficit of $415 billion, according to the bipartisan congressional budget office.
The official 2004 budget figures, showing the gap between annual government spending and income, are due this week.
AFP
AND SOME CALL KERRY A BIG SPENDER?
What the are you complaining about? Your side wants to tax and spend us into oblivion. Bush hasn't been the most fiscally conservative but get a ing clue already you little numbnut.
You cry about Kerry wanting to spend but sit back while Dubya has broken all previous spending records?
Who is the real numbnut?
How much of that is due to social spending programs and population growth? If you think that Bush is primarily responsible for that then you are dumber than I thought.
You do realize that the general criticism levelled at the GOP from the Demos is that there is not enough social spending?
Get a ing clue already monkey . I can respect those who post reasoned critiques from the left in this forum but you certainly do not fall into that category.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-19-2004 at 12:40 PM.
I don't have a clue as to what category you fall under but that may be because you have your head so far up Bush's ass.
Your making up stories about liberals wanting more spending just shows how pathetic you really are. Go tell it to someone who really cares.
Oh man.Your making up stories about liberals wanting more spendingPriceless.
Awwww...is somebody mad?Go tell it to someone who really cares.
Your making up stories about liberals wanting more spending just shows how pathetic you really are.
Do you know anything about Democrat ideology at all? That's pretty damn funny.
whats funny is when the GOP talking points dont fit the facts
What are those "talking points"?
that democrats do nothing but spend spend spend for one
That's reality, kiddo.
really? is that why big spender clinton left office with a huge surplus and fiscally responsible bush has never vetoed a spending bill and has run up the largest deficit in history? <<awaits coming spin from matt>>
Who pushed for the creation of Social Security, Medicare, and virtually every other federal social program around?
As for Clinton, he was forced into restraining spending growth thanks to a GOP controlled Congress. You are probably too young to remember Clinton's attempts to nationalize the US health care industry early in his presidency. No doubt that would have been a fiscally conservative move. And a "huge surplus" was directly the result of higher tax rates as well as some significant capital gains tax collections during the height of the unsustainable equity bubble of the late 1990s.
I haven't exactly been a fan of Bush's fiscal policy but in case you haven't been paying attention, the criticism from the left has been that he hasn't spent enough on social programs and those comprise a significant majority of federal spending levels and federal spending growth.
You obviously are not familiar with the ideology of the candidate who you support for president. I suggest you learn a little bit more before you think that liberal Democrats stand for restraining federal spending.
so why isnt bush forced into restrained spending with a GOP controlled congress? once again, your argument holds no weightAs for Clinton, he was forced into restraining spending growth thanks to a GOP controlled Congress
You are probably too young to remember Clinton's attempts to nationalize the US health care industry early in his presidency.
ah ok, so its only alright to spend like crazy like Bush as long as it isnt on social programs...got itI haven't exactly been a fan of Bush's fiscal policy but in case you haven't been paying attention, the criticism from the left has been that he hasn't spent enough on social programs and those comprise a significant majority of federal spending levels and federal spending growth.
you mean the one who broke away from his party and supported a balanced budget and pay-as-you-go in the 90's?You obviously are not familiar with the ideology of the candidate who you support for president
My argument holds plenty of weight. The GOP congress certainly worked on restraining spending growth when they took over in 1994. Do you not recall Clinton accusing them of cutting too deeply in the 1990s?so why isnt bush forced into restrained spending with a GOP controlled congress? once again, your argument holds no weight
As for the GOP Congress v Bush, the biggest problem has been that they haven't resisted Bush's desire to increase spending.
That still does not mean that he wanted to spend more than liberal Dems.
Well, if you are my age then clearly you haven't been paying attention to politics over the last decade.and you are how old?
No, never said that. I've been quite clear in this forum that I don't like what Bush has done because he has spent more than I would care for. But again, that doesn't mean that the Demos would have spent less. Take a look at the Medicare drugs bill. The Demo complaint is that it wasn't big enough. Look at Kerry's health insurance plan. How exactly is that going to reduce spending?ah ok, so its only alright to spend like crazy like Bush as long as it isnt on social programs...got it
Ha. Clinton was forced to deal with a GOP controlled Congress that was inclined to oppose him.you mean the one who broke away from his party and supported a balanced budget and pay-as-you-go in the 90's?
But you just admitted that the credo of Clinton's party was to spend more than the GOP. Oops.
To recap, since you are obviously struggling to understand: I'm not happy about Bush's fiscal policy and neither is the Democrat party. I don't like it because he's spent too much. The Demos don't like it because he hasn't spent enough.
If you think otherwise, you obviously are ignorant of the basic difference between the two parties.
my facts are no match for yourspin
So you have no response. Not surprising, kiddo.
Accusing me of "spin" is quite rich considering that you are attempting to paint the Democrat party as in favor of restrained federal spending. Get a ing clue already.
how old are you again?
Apparently older and wiser than you.
And before I forget:
...does not necessarily mean limiting federal spending.balanced budget and pay-as-you-go
wussing out of the question?
I've been to a GTG genius.
Pardon me, but I don't really have the urge to meet men in person from an internet forum. Perhaps you are. Too each his own, I suppose.
no response? not surprising kiddo
Respond to what? That you want to meet me in person because you have no answer to my arguments in an online forum?
its cool man, i know you would rather stay at home with your computer and 5 finger discount than going out and socializing with others from this forum...no biggie, have fun
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
