Bush wants a Balanced Budget! Who Knew!!!

[bevin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070106/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Quote:

"I'm confident that we can find common ground," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "By holding the line on spending and continuing our pro-growth policies, we can balance the budget and address the most urgent needs of our nation."

This from the man whose administration is blowing hundreds of billions on an ill-conceived war, issued no-bid contracts to his cronies companies, built a hugely expensive bridge to now-where, refuses to allow Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies, mis-managed Katrina, and cut taxes while running the national debt to new highs!

George - you had 6 years to get it right. Now all you are doing is getting in front of a parade that left the starting point without you.

/Bevin

[olger]

A balanced budget sounds good, but our federal government may be too large, too proud, and too shortsighted to stick to one.

The wise businessman would fire all of them and start over (I speak as a businessman).

[Gerr]

Yep, what a joke! The party that was labeled as big spender was the last one that balanced the budget, and is now the one that is talking about reining in spending! I wonder what Yale taught Mr. Bush that made him think he could increase spending by a lot and cut taxes by a lot and still balance the budget.

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

The idea that Clinton cut spending is either naive or simply SPIN. First of all, the budget was never really balanced because the federal government still spent more than it took in with general revenues. What that means is they still had to steal from Social Security to pay the bills. They claimed the budget was balanced because after stealing from Social Security to pay the bills, Social Security still had some money left. That is what they called the surplus. However that money is suppose to be set aside for Social Security.

Second, the only reason they didn't have to steal all the money from Social Security and still be lacking is because of the skyrocking tech sector that created so many dot-com millionaires. That resulted in more tax revenues coming in that expected.

Third, Speaker of the House Nwet Gingrich ® had been slowing the growth of spending for a number of years before the "surplus." Those that don't have a selective memory will recall the government shut down twice because the Clinton Administration and the House of Representatives couldn't agree on a budget.

When people use rhetoric like "ill-conceived war," "no-bid contracts," and "cronies" they toss all their credibility to the wind. Such are simply talking-points the extreame left uses to stir up hatred toward the President of the United States. Thinking people use a vocab that consists a little more of repeating the regurgitated hatred of others. In fact, by repeating it they show themselves to be no more than mere puppets being spun around and round.

Upon close examination one will find that President Bush has done an exceptional job with the economy he inheritted and the budget (with the exception of the war). Even with the war, last year's deficit was actually smaller than the previous year. The only reason the US does not currently have a surplus is because of the war.

We can have an honest debate about the war. Wars cost money. During previous wars the people back home had to sacrifice limitted resources like nylon, rubber and steel and buy war bonds. Instead of doing those things today, we are running up a defecit. However, when compared to our GDP, our defecit today still isn't greater than it has been in the past.

So a word of caution about those that want to spin us for their own political purposes. Numbers can be played with and made to say things that are not necesaraly true. The sky is not falling and Bush hasn't done anything worse than any previous President. His goals are honorable and we should support his effort for a balanced budget.

[Neil D]

Shane,

I have sat out of these talks and have listen to the banter back and forth....I have even kept my rebuttals to a minimum...

But when I see VETs, who are not getting the care they need, when I see current vets who r loosing out on benefits because the goverment doesnt have the moneys to spend, when I see our older population, who sacrificed to keep our country in supplies in the wars that they fought, when I see drug companys influence the goverment to FORCE the common man to spend more so as to enrich the single drug companys, when I see cheaper medical goals that would cost the goverment less being thrown to the wayside, and when I see rhetoric that you parrot from the Right, I can not help but shake my head in saddness at the blindness of those who insist that the current President is doing better than other presidents of the past....Sure while the Right throws about the idea that we need to stimulate economy by cutting taxes and thereby recieving more moneys for ourselfs...we have people dying beside us..and we say "oh well, it tain't me." How selfish can the Right be?

Don't reply, Shane...as you will only enflame my opinion....

[John317]

During a war the government can never balance the budget. It's never been done yet. Remember LBJ's "dirty little war"?

You can't fight a war seriously and at the same time concentrate on balancing the budget. Bush can't be blamed for 9/11 and its aftermath, which had to include huge spending. War, let's remember, is often good for an economy, such as it was during WW II, when it brought us out of the biggest depression we ever exerienced.

So a balanced budget can be a good thing but it's not the most important thing in a healthy economy.

Besides, the truth is that the US economy is doing very well. Things can, of course, always be improved but it's better now than it was during the last four months of Clinton's administration.

(Oh you might want to check out the Wall Street Journal from those last few months.)

[Bravus]

Shane - is 'stealing from social security' a less partisan way of phrasing something than 'issuing no-bid contracts to cronies'? Seems like about the same level of loaded language to me.

[Bravus]

...and the goal of doing what has been done to the budget has been clear from the start: put it into such a parlous state that cuts to social programs are seen as necessary.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

is 'stealing from social security' a less partisan way of phrasing something than 'issuing no-bid contracts to cronies'?

I don't think so because both sides use the same language. One of the things Al Gore Jr. promised when he ran for President in 2000 is that he wouldn't steal from Social Security. He planned to create a "trust fund." Hilary Clinton used simular language in her Senate campain in 2000 and promised to create a "lock box." Since both sides use the same language about the process, I don't see that as inflamatory or any kind of SPIN.

The dishonesty about talking about no-bid contracts is that in time of war no-bid contracts are common place. Those that try to paint President Bush in a disfavorable light forget those details. What is especially dishonest is when they talk about no-bid contracts and Haliburton and conviently forget to mention that President Clinton gave no-bid contracts to Haliburton for the Coration War. Furthermore, the only competitor to Haliburton for the work they were doing in Iraq was a French firm and the US was not about to award a giant contract to a French firm when they refused to support the war in the first place.

Yet most left-wingers that toss around such langage are not fully informed on the issues and are simply repeating the SPIN they heard from someone else. They are not intentionally trying to mislead others. They have been spun themselves and are still spinning so fast they can't give a straight opinion.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

During a war the government can never balance the budget.

Actually [whispering softly] 1969 had a balanced budget - Nixion's first year as President (obviously not a result of him).

[Neil D]

Quote:

The dishonesty about talking about no-bid contracts is that in time of war no-bid contracts are common place. Those that try to paint President Bush in a disfavorable light forget those details. What is especially dishonest is when they talk about no-bid contracts and Haliburton and conviently forget to mention that President Clinton gave no-bid contracts to Haliburton for the Coration War

Sigh....

Re: President Clinton gave no-bid contracts to Haliburton.

Two points:

A]Just because a past president does it, doesn't make it right.

B] President Clinton didn't have a vice president who sat on the board of Haliburton who is currently making defered moneys. We call that a "conflict of interest". And even the appearance of this conflict of interest looks bad.

RE:No bid contracts in time of war

Can we actually say that we are "at war"? War is defined as

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

What nation are we at war with? You may say that we are at war with Iraq, but that is not true. Currently, Iraq is a nation that is in the midst of a civil war, and we are there supporting the current goverment. Same is true of Afghanistan...Since we are, in reality, NOT at war, we have awarded no-bid contracts to a company and have bypassed the PROCESS of awarding govermental contracts. By bypassing the process, the administration sends contracts to favored lobbied interests..again it looks to be a conflict of interests...

RE: left-wingers that toss around such langage

Can anyone who uses these inflamatory terms be considered as unbiased? Why would anyone of us WANT to listen to such rhetoric that enflames and colors our viewpoints, beit 'right wing' or 'left wing'? Such language is to draw attention to oneself, as some popular news castors, and to make one self a supposed authority on the subject...Any wise and discrimatory reader will weigh such terms and discount the value of any information given by said 'expert(s)'.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Just because a past president does it, doesn't make it right.

However if we are going to honestly criticize a President for doing something that other Presidents have also done we need to place it in that context. Note that when Clinton did it, no one criticized him for doing so.

Quote:

We call that a "conflict of interest".

This accusation is all hot air. Those that repeat it are just trying to "stir the pot." I'll make my case. Now that the Democrats control all the committees, if there is any truth to this accusation we can expect to see a Congressional committee investigate the matter. If there is no Congressional investigation then we know there wasn't even the appearance of a conflict of interest. If there is such an investigation, we shall see what the results are and what the truth is.

[Neil D]

Quote:

However if we are going to honestly criticize a President for doing something that other Presidents have also done we need to place it in that context. Note that when Clinton did it, no one criticized him for doing so.

No one was vice president of the US, getting deferred salaries from companys they used to chair either....

And why is it concidered 'honest' to look back over 6 years ago when the current president should have had it right within the first 2 years of his presidency? To my way of thinking, current morality doesn't allow the past to color the present...

Quote:

This accusation is all hot air. Those that repeat it are just trying to "stir the pot." I'll make my case. Now that the Democrats control all the committees, if there is any truth to this accusation we can expect to see a Congressional committee investigate the matter. If there is no Congressional investigation then we know there wasn't even the appearance of a conflict of interest. If there is such an investigation, we shall see what the results are and what the truth is.

Your dependance upon congress of some possible future action does not constitute a "case", nor evidence that our current conflict is not a war....And it is poor reasoning at best.

If this accusation is more than "hot air", then there needs to be an investigation...The trouble is, if the upper managment is convicted of leading our nation into trouble for profits or gain in fortune or fame, then my opinion is that the whole administrtion should be put on trial for crimes against humanity and again for lying to the American people... I also suspect that they need to execute them, but I tend to think that this is "a left wing idea" rather extreme....But it might be effective aginst the managment of CEO corporations and the like who want to run this country for gain and profit for themselves. But, oh, excuse me, I spouting off radical 'left wing ideas' again..Sorry...

[Dr. Shane]

Congress will not investigate the matter because everything was transparent. Only Micheal Moore and his cronies see a conspiracy. Nancy Peloci already said there will be no investigations of the Bush Administration.

[Gerr]

No president in my lifetime to my recollection has ever CUT spending. Gov't spending keeps going up because of demands on services. But it was Clinton who last had a surplus and a balanced budget.

Republicans who want to paint themselves as fiscal conservatives have grown the deficit by trillions! What a joke!

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

While Nwet Gingrich was demonized for cutting social programs, what he actually did was slow the rate of growth of the programs - he didn't actually reduce the amount of money any of the programs got.

President Clinton did however cut military and intelligence spending. So there we have a President that cut spending.

[Gerr]

I am talking about total spending, not just cutting spending on particular portions of the budget.

Gerry