Accountability

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Pennsylvania Jim, Nov 12, 2003.

  1. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Ridiculous, reckless, and completely out of control, that's the only way to describe the Bush administration's irresponsible handling of our indebtedness and our future finances.



    In fiscal 2003, we went $555 billion further in debt. In the first month of the new fiscal year, October, we went another $89.4 billion in debt. That's borrowing at the rate of three billion ($2,880 million) a day, weekends included.

    It was just six months ago that Congress raised the national debt limit a trillion dollars ($984 billion) and, at the rate we're going, we will hit the new limit of $7.4 trillion by May of 2004.

    After years of discussion and debate, it was in November of 1997, with a great deal of fanfare and hoopla, that Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act. This new law specifically stated that the federal government would be able to live within its means (tax receipts) by the year 2003. Isn't that a kick?

    Instead, we've gone $1.37 trillion deeper in debt during the last five years and the Bush administration will double that figure before the end of the next calendar year.

    Are we supposed to let this slide off our backs like other lies from the government? Are we supposed to believe that the richest nation in the world can borrow itself into victory and prosperity? Are we supposed to sit back and except the fact that our children and grandchildren will owe their souls to the company store?

    Worst of all, are we supposed to accept the idea that an elusive caveman who needs constant dialysis treatment can direct activities that put the world's most technically advanced nation into an economic tailspin? Are we that vulnerable and gullible, especially when he is probably after our mean and misguided leadership, the New World Odor, and not the people or symbols of this once great nation? Is this what the "age of information" has taught us?"

    From: http://etherzone.com/2003/henr111203.shtml
     
  2. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought we had gone into surpluses by the end of 2000, ahead of schedule. Was that just an accounting trick?

    Besides the immediate devastation caused by 9/11, NY State and its municipalities spent a ton of money for security and even more for the appearance of security.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it was. The actual deficit was hidden by using the yearly Social Security surplus.

    Just look at the actual yearly deficit since this 1997 law was passed:

    09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
    09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
    09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
    09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
    09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34


    -
    Source
     
  4. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    As silence settles over the Bush supporters...close our eyes...close our ears...close our minds...repeat after me...he's better than Clinton...he's better than Clinton...he's better than Clinton...

    But, not actually if you look at the numbers.
     
  5. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    The plan is to loot the treasury and then loot the future treasuries by deficit spending.

    Bush will be out of office and long gone when the bills come due.
     
  6. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    The plan is to loot the treasury and then loot the future treasuries by deficit spending.

    Bush will be out of office and long gone when the bills come due.

    If we had been conquered and pillaged, we'd have been better off; pillagers can only steal what you have presently.
     
  7. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    The numbers are astounding. How can anyone, especially Christians, support this?
     
  8. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    You act like this is something new when it has gone on year after year since 1932. You constantly blame Bush, but never say a bad word against the liberals in Congress who actually are the ones who spent the money.

    And what is your solution? Vote in the Democrats again. The GOP only had total control of both houses and the White House in 1952 to 1954 under Eisenhower. Now the margin is paper thin and there are too many liberal Republicans who will doublecross the party in a heartbeat for pork.

    And are you one of those who call Bush and the conservatives "cut-throats" like the terrorists who started the bloodbath in the French Revolution that led to the dictatorship of Napoleon? Do you think that the GOP is a bunch of murderers?
     
  9. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, I'll cooperate with you on your first point: The Republican congress are a bunch of big-spending liberals who are out-spending the Democrats like drunken sailors, to borrow a term from the Gipper. They never saw a pork-barrel program that they didn't adore, and are increasing social spending and foreign aid at blinding speed. Spending us into oblivion. The legitimacy of the Iraq war is for another thread, but they are giving us probably at least a TRILLION dollar bill for this before it's over. If that's what Republicans stand for, maybe we were better off with Democrats.

    Bush just urges them on and tries to get them to spend more.

    I'm a Republican. I don't like cradle-to-grave socialism, and I don't like big government. The Democratic party does, and that's what they campaign for. I disagree with them.

    So, why should I be surprised when the Democrats promote the policies that I don't like? That's what they stand for. Why should we not be MORE concerned when there is no opposition from our own party, who is SUPPOSED to stand for what we believe in?

    When, in fact, OUR party promotes the Democratic agenda BETTER than the Democrats?

    Don't you think we need to clean our own house before we can criticize someone else's?

    Who is looking out for OUR interests?
     
  10. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was under the impression that quite a bit of the Bush deficit spending was deliberate in order to force social spending cuts. No matter who comes into office in 2004, they will have to deal with it, most likely by cutting services. I think it will be a bad time to be poor.
     
  11. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island needs to be defeated. He is an example of an eastern liberal Republican who votes with the Democrats most of the time. If the party would purge liberals like Chaffee and support more conservatives, then maybe spending could be brought under control. The Indiana Republican delegation is conservative. They stick with the party for the most part. The bulk of the problem for as long as I can remember is eastern Republicans. The East has three characteristics: crowded, dirty, and expensive.
     
  12. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    And of course, Chaffee is kept in power by Republican voters who will tell you that they are voting for the lesser evil.

    But the party machinery from Bush on down will do whatever it takes to keep him in.

    In PA we have the ultra-liberal Arlen Specter (R), who is pretty much the same as Chaffee. He is being challenged by Pat Toomey (R), who has at least a moderately conservative record as a congressman.

    Guess which one Bush supports?
     
  13. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    In a way, Bush is sort of an eastern Republican. His family has been around so long that they probably know everyone. That is the problem with being part of the rich establishment. I like the Grandfather and the Father. I especially like Bush 41 except for his failure to keep his promise not to raise taxes. Bush 41 is so intelligent and did so much for this country! The Democrats have never had a man to compare with Bush 41, who dedicated his life to public service and had brains without character defects. Of course, Reagan is champion for good-nature and political thought. Ike was good to for middle-of-the road. They are trying to smear Ike with extra-marital affairs but no one can prove it as far as I know.
     
  14. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I'd have to disagree with you on Bush I. He was a statist socialist just like his son. And did nothing to stop abortion, just like Junior.

    When he ran for re-elcction, he (or maybe it was a campaign official) was asked about the problem that the Right was unhappy with him. The arrogant reply was "they have nowhere else to go".

    Wonder where they went? [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  15. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pa. JIm,
    What you have to keep in mind, is that at this time in history our country does not look to Christians views, not even in alot of churches, or in the family.

    What we see in the home, at work, at church and where ever else we go will tell us that most of the people don't care as long as they get what they want. Look how fast the family breaks up, look at how many people live off the goverment, by getting goverment aid or working for the goverment. Most people wants something from the goverment, they look to the goverment for help and guidance and politicians, not God!!!!

    Guestion? How many today would vote for George Washington or other one of the Adams just for a few?

    I was very active in the Republican Party here in Florida and in my county most are liberals from up in your part of the country, Pa. NJ, NY and New England. The Republicans today are about where the Democrats were in the 60's and 70's. Why? Liberals have taken over most of the education in this country. It isn't our founding fathers any more it's our framers and the list goes on and on.

    I like Bush better than Gore or Clinton but all 3 are liberals.
     
  16. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to us liberals, they're not.
     
  17. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    To most of the liberals of today JFK might not be called a liberal, but to me he was very liberal.
     
  18. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would. I'd bet that you would. Many here and in our churches would vote for him if he were a Republican, and crucify him if he were a Democrat. That's what's so sad.
     
  20. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would. I'd bet that you would. Many here and in our churches would vote for him if he were a Republican, and crucify him if he were a Democrat. That's what's so sad. </font>[/QUOTE]So true, Jim.
     

Share This Page

Loading...