PDA

View Full Version : The next president of the U.S.A. will be a Democrat



Cap'n R an R
01-14-2003, 11:12 AM
All you have to do is listen to the General Electric strikers .....they dont want to pay more for benefits or take a pay cut.....they cite corporate greed and ex chairman Jack Welchs massive pension and perks....this will be the Democrats mantra from here on out.... the Bush family's money and oil background will sink them faster then the Titanic...if or as the economy worsens and layoffs,cutbacks and benefit and pay cuts increase the anger will rise and strikes will spread....

To hell with the war...follow the money...it is ever thus....you heard it hear first....hey I'm wrong once in awhile!!!...but I'd wager a few bucks on this scenario...

[ 01-14-2003, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Cap'n R an R ]

Bruce Hooke
01-14-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Cap'n R an R:
...if or as the economy worsens and layoffs,cutbacks and benefit and pay cuts increase the anger will rise and strikes will spread...I'd say that's the key phrase. If the economy doesn't pick up I think Bush will be in for a tough race. If the economy does pick up then I think he will be hard to beat. Note that by "the economy" I mean not the stock market but the economy as experienced by the man on the street. For example, here in Rhode Island the unemployment rate is fairly low but people who are out of work are having a hard time finding work.

I wouldn't discount the war either. If the war(s) become a quagmire (unlikely I think), and especially if lots of body bags start coming home, that could really hurt Bush. Money is important but I think concerns for the safety of friends and relatives can trump money.

LeeG
01-14-2003, 11:39 AM
Bruce, how could the war and it's aftermath not be a quagmire?

Memphis Mike
01-14-2003, 11:47 AM
I know one thing, if I get a tax break
I'll not spend it. It won't amount
to enough to spend.

I hope Bush is relying on the wealthy
to stimulate the economy because it
won't come from the middle and lower
classes.

BTW, I hope it isn't Lieberman.

[ 01-14-2003, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Memphis Mike ]

Allen Foote
01-14-2003, 05:04 PM
Perhaps the Dems will have a chance after W's second term...but not before it. This country is still united from 911 and will stay that way throughout the disarming of Iraq. The only way the Dems can command any attention is by dividing the population through denouncing the impending military action.....and right now, thats almost considered treason. tongue.gif

Chris Coose
01-14-2003, 05:14 PM
This country is still united from 911 and will stay that way throughout the disarming of Iraq. Which country you talking about?
Check the current approval. He's just begun the skid.

Meerkat
01-14-2003, 05:19 PM
Oh please - Dubya could easily lose in 2004. If (hah!) there's no war in Iraq, he's in deep trouble. If there's a war and there are a lot of casualties, he could be in trouble. If there's a war and there are no WOMD's found, he could be in trouble (gee, maybe it's oil after all). If the economy continues to decline he could be in trouble. If someone uncovers a smoking gun that demonstrates that the administration's primary reason for the Iraq war is oil, he could be in trouble. If N. Korea detonates a nuclear weapon, he's in big trouble. His weak response to the situation in Venezuela that's causing fuel prices to go up in the midwest is already getting him in trouble!

Let's face it, Dubya has a mediocre domestic policy and a one horse foreign policy. If the horse dies on him, he's not going to have a lot to show for 2 years into his term.

Claiming Dubya has support based on polls is laughable. Ever hear of a "push" poll? Those are questions structured to elicit the answers the pollsters (or those paying for the poll) want to hear.

Personally, I'm tired of both parties - how about a green for president (like that's going to happen anytime soon)? Not Nader though.

[ 01-14-2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

John of Phoenix
01-14-2003, 05:53 PM
Purely unscientific, but if this forum, my office, and my clients comments are any indication of Dubya's popularity, he's hurtin' fer certain.

Keith Wilson
01-14-2003, 06:10 PM
Yep. I seem to remember hearing the phrase "It's the economy, stupid" somewhere. A reasonably successful war didn't do much for the re-election of George I. Another major problem for the Republicans is that the party seems to have been hijacked by their far right wing, just like the Democrats in the opposite direction in 1972 - too far from the popular consensus, and you lose. OTOH, I suppose the economy could improve enough before '04, and Gulf War II could go quickly and easily . . . not the way I'd bet, though.

Jim H
01-14-2003, 06:24 PM
Posted by Meerkat: His weak response to the situation in Venezuela that's causing fuel prices to go up in the midwest is already getting him in trouble!
If he responded strongly for either side in this conflict he would be accused of doing it for the oil, don'tcha think?? :rolleyes: In light of your opposition to interfering with Iraq, would you advocate meddeling in the internal affairs of Venezuela?


Posted by Meerkat:Claiming Dubya has support based on polls is laughable. Ever hear of a "push" poll? Those are questions structured to elicit the answers the pollsters (or those paying for the poll) want to hear.
The DNC might revoke your membership for that one but don't worry I won't tell. ;) BTW, there is no such thing as an un-biased poll. If GW is still above 50% in a NY Times poll then he is still pretty popular. :D

Meerkat
01-14-2003, 06:38 PM
Neither the DNC or the RNC can revoke something I don't have. I'm an independent.

If Dubya said he was intervening in Venezuela to ensure oil deliveries, that's one thing (and I bet he would find a way to get Venezuela to invite us in). Asserting that Saddam is a clear and present danger to the US as an excuse to go after Iraqi oil is quite another. Whatever Saddam is, I don't think he's a clear and present danger to the US. N. Korea is a lot more so IMO.

Speaking of Venezuela, haven't we deployed a warship or two down that way recently?

BTW, if all polls are biased (only somewhat true), then why is the NY Times poll claimed as so accurate?

Whatever his or her party, the next president of the US is going to be another scheming politician.

[ 01-14-2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

Jim H
01-14-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
Neither the DNC or the RNC can revoke something I don't have. I'm an independent.So am I, both parties treat independants like idiot children.

Actually, Venezuela seems to be doing O.K. so far. Chavez has not yet declared martial law and started killing the opposition. The courts have acted, by what accounts I have read, according to established law and their constitution. The military for the most part is trying not to take sides. The violence has mostly been between civilians on either side. They will eventually have an election and the issue will be decided.

stan v
01-14-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by John Teetsel:
Purely unscientific, but if this forum, my office, and my clients comments are any indication of Dubya's popularity, he's hurtin' fer certain.Had to laugh. Don't you have a senator by the name of McCain? Sir, THAT'S the joke.

Rocky
01-14-2003, 07:59 PM
Bush's people thought they had the election locked because of Desert Storm. They couldn't believe they lost to that joker from Arkansas. The Republicans hit new lows going after him - not everyone will forget. Three weeks after Clinton leaves office the biggest surplus in US history is gone. Everything's back to normal. Gotta sell your house and move out because you can't pay the taxes? Who cares?

Memphis Mike
01-14-2003, 08:34 PM
Because of Lieberman's ties to Al Gore,
he should do the party a favor and back out of this.

We need some new blood folks. New ideas. nothing will come from continued "business
as usual."

That's what we have in office right now.
See what kind of condition our country
is in? And to think it only took a few
short months. Could be a record.

[ 01-14-2003, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Memphis Mike ]

Memphis Mike
01-14-2003, 09:25 PM
BTW, one of the pickets was killed this
morning. Run over by a police car. Isn't
that typical?

John of Phoenix
01-14-2003, 09:29 PM
stan, believe it or not, McCain got sent to his room and pretty much stayed there. Here's the REAL surprise, AZ has a newly elected Democratic Governor. A woman no less! One smart, bi-partisan cookie from what she's shown us so far. The Republican was your kinda guy and lost by only a few thousand votes. It took over a week to count the votes and I don't think he's made a conciliation speech yet. Now remember, this is AuH2O country. The guy who invented "Conservative" ruled this state for most of the last century, and we have a Democrat in the Capitol. Like Arlo Guthrie said, "I think it's a movement ." :D

[ 01-15-2003, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: John Teetsel ]

ishmael
01-14-2003, 09:33 PM
One of which pickets Mike?

Mrleft8
01-14-2003, 10:35 PM
Dubya's a moron. Lieberman's a republican in democratic sheeps wool. Let's hope the next president is a thoughtful, intelligent, caring, person, willing to listen to good advice from wherever it comes. The current regime in the USA is as oppresive as any regime anywhere.

ishmael
01-14-2003, 10:44 PM
I suggest you check out Zimbabwe, or Iran, or the Congo, or Sudan, or Indonesia, or Mexico, or Brazil, or...before casting ****e like that about.

[ 01-14-2003, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

Memphis Mike
01-14-2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by John Teetsel:
stan, believe it or not, McCain got sent to his room and pretty much stayed there. Here's the REAL surprise, AZ has a newly elected Democratic Governor. A woman no less! One smart, bi-partisan cookie from what she's shown us so far. The Republican was your kinda guy and lost by only a few thousand votes. It took over a week to count the votes and I don't think he's made a conciliation speech yet. Now remember, this is AuH2O country. The guy who invented "Conservative" ruled this state for most of the last century, and we have a Democrat in the Capital. Like Arlo Guthrie said, "I think it's a movement ." :D Yeah, it's a nationwide movement. Who's the
majority here?

Ish, I heard it on the evil NPR this morning.
I don't know exactly where. Of course, it's
gotten very little press.

[ 01-14-2003, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Memphis Mike ]

Mrleft8
01-14-2003, 10:52 PM
Excuse me ish.... Was that comment directed at me?

Memphis Mike
01-14-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Mrleft8:
Dubya's a moron. Lieberman's a republican in democratic sheeps wool. Let's hope the next president is a thoughtful, intelligent, caring, person, willing to listen to good advice from wherever it comes. The current regime in the USA is as oppresive as any regime anywhere.I disagree Lefty. It's not oppressive to
the wealthy.

Mrleft8
01-14-2003, 10:57 PM
OK.... I was wrong.... It's not oppresive to the wealthy....

ishmael
01-14-2003, 10:58 PM
Either that or I was talking to myself.

I mean, com'on. Iran has recently executed, by beheading, several dissidents whose only crime was calling for democratic reform.

In Zimbabwe, 8 million people are expected to starve, some to death, this year because the agricultural system has been completely disrupted by a land distribution scheme. In Sudan, the government supports groups who crucify Christians, and use starvation as a means of ethnic cleansing.

To say the the U.S. is as repressive as any regime in the world is to either be lost in mirrored halls of narcissism, or to be comepletely daft.

gunnar I am
01-14-2003, 10:59 PM
Check out Howard Dean. His hat's in the ring. I'm only familiar with him, because our public radio carrier broadcasts in Vermont, so for years I've watched him in his role as Gov. of Vermont. He's good. Vermont's a good state. Got the only socialist in congress, Bernie Sanders. Vermonter's don';t mind he can't get on any commitees as a result. They vote on principal. Funny about the Clinton years. If Clinton farted in a real estate office in Little Rock in 73, Damato and Starr, wanted it investigated. Now you got oil men " forming policy " with Enron and co., they won't reveal what they've discussed, raedy to wage war on a big oil producer, want to open Alaska to drilling, won't cahnge status of suv's to passenger or increase the fleet epa... Christ, I can't type fast enough to write it all.

Mrleft8
01-14-2003, 11:11 PM
Gee, Ish.... should I say "KEELHAULED!" to you for attacking me personally then....?

ishmael
01-14-2003, 11:15 PM
If you wish, but I'd rather you looked at the flaws in your statement.

Mrleft8
01-15-2003, 07:37 AM
Introspection is so decadent, and self indulgent. I prefer to admire the flaws in my statements from afar... :D

Cap'n R an R
01-15-2003, 10:17 AM
HEY...Lieberman's mother thinks he should be President!!!

If we are going to go the ethnic route there are several ethnicitys that deserve to be ahead of Lieberman...Native Americans...#1....I dont think we have had an Italian President so Italians #2...after all who discovered America???....we have had an Irish Pres....so Jews #3....some do say America was first discovered by Spaniards...you know St. Augustine was the first settlement in America!!!... so Hispanics #4...I'm not sure our Black population would agree that Hispanics should be ahead of them...so Blacks #5 or possibly #4....Who'd I leave out....Oh yeah ...my choice....Jack Armstrong, the All American Boy...Black,White,Green Yellow or Purple....makes no difference...OOPS!! I forget the Asiatic population....we'll make them #6, however they are probably smart enough to skip right to the top of the list!!!

NormMessinger
01-15-2003, 10:49 AM
Be pessimistic and avoid disappointment....

John of Phoenix
01-15-2003, 11:51 AM
Donn is there a caption to help with that cartoon? <whoosh - over his head> It looks like the Republican elephant is about to step into a pit of chaos. I can't make the words above "chaos" though. Nast was popular around the time of the Civil War, right?

Mrleft8
01-15-2003, 01:04 PM
Cap'n R an R
.
Member # 5687

posted 01-15-2003 10:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY...Lieberman's mother thinks he should be President!!!

If we are going to go the ethnic route there are several ethnicitys that deserve to be ahead of Lieberman...Native Americans...#1....I dont think we have had an Italian President so Italians #2...after all who discovered America???....
Um... I'm sure there are any number of Native Americans who would tell you that, as far as they're concerned, America was already "discovered" when That blood thirsty Italian arrived.

Cap'n R an R
01-15-2003, 01:11 PM
Correction noted....I should have said ..."discovered America was occupied by the Original settlers"

brad9798
01-15-2003, 01:19 PM
Yes, overnight, Bush ruined the country ... is that really a realistic stance?

I have asked this several times over the past two years, and NO ONE answers it ... because they choose to gloss over real life situations.

A lot of folks on this forum categorically campaign about how GW has ruined this nation, seemingly overnight, and that we would have been much better without him.

Again, I'll ask- did your life fall apart when GW was elected (no, I do not want to argue about whether or not he was elected as that point is now moot! tongue.gif ).

Have so many on this forum lives been actually ruined? And the 'rich' folks on this forum been magically transformed to even wealthier, more powerful status? (Here's a news flash, the rich are always better off financially, by definition, and we don't need a Rep. in the White House to notice that, now do we.)

I would like to hear some real examples, seriously.

Shallow statements like- the rich are better off, or this country is oppressive, or GW is part of a good 'ol boys network are copouts from sour folks unhappy with themselves and their own life. Guess what, I doubt that's changed much in the last two years.

Capn R&R- this was not directed to you as the creator of this thread.

Mrleft8 or whoever you are, give me some examples of how this country has become so oppressive in the last two years to you? Are you being oppressed ... kept from pursuing your life?

Perhaps some need to look in the mirror and realize that 99.9% of the time it really doesn't matter whose in the White House.

I can tell you, I haven't risen to further prominence since GW was elected ... but, I did enjoy my $600 'cash advance' tax rebate last year!

Life will go on, and keep arguing, as I find it rather entertaining! ;)

[ 01-15-2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: brad9798 ]

Mrleft8
01-15-2003, 01:33 PM
I'm not arguing. I'm merely stating an opinion.
I don't necessarily think that Dubya ruined the country. I do think that most of the policies that he and his father's cronies have implemented are extremely self serving. I also think that the current administration is more.... Militaristic, than I would like. The kind of ignorant "It's my way or the highway" attitude that comes from the whitehouse these days is even begining to anger Republican senators. By the way, I'm not a Democrat, so don't think that my opinion is based on party rhetoric....

brad9798
01-15-2003, 01:37 PM
That's a fair response, Mrlft8.

Meerkat
01-15-2003, 01:58 PM
Has the US become more repressive/oppressive? I would say, compared to 3 years ago, the answer is yes. The current administration demonstrates a casual disregard for the constitution that's scary. Are the following oppressive?:

* Unlawful search and seizure at airports.
* Detention of citizens upon government whim without access to counsel.
* Reduction/eliminitation of freedom of information by presidential decree contrary to legislation.
* Urging by the government that citizens spy on each other.
* Domestic spy agency: Office of Total Information Awareness - and headed by a felon no less.
* Governmental discrimination on the basis of ethnic or national origin, a violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964.
* While not oppressive or repressive in and of itself, the EO supporting faith based charities may ultimately be so towards unfavored religions.

Banana anyone?

Wild Wassa
01-15-2003, 02:00 PM
The original plan was to take Saddam out. The war that the media wants hasn't started quickly enough for them. That's what has happened to George W.

The moment the first shot is fired George W will be cool again. If he doesn't fire that shot, bad luck George W.

Just wait until his pole driven popularity hits rock bottom. George W knows the strategy that is needed, he is 'A Supreme Commander'.

I find it very hard to believe that the World's most powerful war machine has a Supreme Commander, ... who could be a dill?

Warren.

ps, Looking to change your Supreme Commander?, ... the battle hasn't even started.

[ 01-15-2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

Cap'n R an R
01-15-2003, 03:38 PM
We are in a DOWN cycle in many areas of life and I agree it does not matter who is in the White House or who is in control of Congress......the cycle will express itself to completion and will not end before it has.....observors far wiser then I have known this for some time....there is nothing anyone can do to stop the process...they may take actions that delay the cycle from expressing itself in a timely fashion....but it will completly express itself.....the first recording of this cyclical phenomona was in the Old Testament....the story of Joseph and the Pharoah....you know the story....seven good years then seven bad years......good times then bad times....the human race just has a hard time accepting this.....so most of us are usually unprepared for the bad times.....our politicians are the worst offenders....so it matters not which group of offenders are in power at the moment....bad times will end and good times will reappear along with a new different attitude....actually the same attitude that usually appears at the end of a down cycle....so says Cap'n Ron the non-oracle..knowledge acquired the hard way....

[ 01-15-2003, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Cap'n R an R ]

John of Phoenix
01-15-2003, 03:47 PM
Ruined the country? No, but for some reason he takes me back the Carter days. It seemed hard to feel good about America back then and it just seems that more people are feeling like that these days. From day one of his campaign his message was doom and gloom. “This economy’s in big trouble. If we don’t this tax cut passed we’ll be in bigger trouble.” I don’t know about you, but that was the most incredibly expensive $600 tax break I ever got! What happened to those surpluses we had? Poof!!

I posted this in the “Dreaming of moving to another country” thread, but I’ll repeat it here because I think it’s a real problem with leadership these days. Both parties are included in this blast, btw.

<snip>
The way we’re responding to these difficult times is a disappointment to me. This is, “The land of the free and the home of the brave.” But we’re falling short of that, and to my mind our leaders have turned Pure Politician are REALLY letting us down.

They should be reminding us (and the world) of what this nation has overcome in the past. We gained our independence through great sacrifice and healed ourselves after a terrible Civil War. A Great War and The Great Depression couldn’t keep us down. We struggled to our feet after Pearl Harbor and helped our Allies rid the world of one of its greatest evils. We learned a humbling lesson in Vietnam but eventually won the Cold War. Hell, we even survived Disco and came out better for the experience.

If I were sending the message, it would be, “The United States has been a beacon of freedom since we first fought for it and we will continue to work to spread the rights of self-determination with all the resources we can muster. We have forged a stable and powerful economy driven by innovative, determined and courageous people. We have survived much worse than what we now face and a handful of murderous fanatics CANNOT and WILL NOT diminish our fortitude.”

Instead we hear, “YELLOW ALERT!! YELLOW ALERT!! There is an unspecified threat, of an unspecified nature, against an unspecified target, until further notice.” Apparently, our leaders don’t believe we have “the right stuff” anymore. Or perhaps they want us to think that THEY are the only ones who have it. “Keep us in power and we’ll take care of everything.”

Regardless, I feel shortchanged, badly shortchanged, because we are MUCH better that what we’re getting! But move? Hey, I fought for this country before in many lands, in many ways; I’m not about to forfeit that effort now. I’ll fight this battle at home with the same determination as every other. Just get involved and then VOTE!! The message started gloomy and so it continues. Well, he’s got both houses of congress behind him now. It’s make it or break it time. If things get screwed up, it’s George’s fault.

Like we told his daddy, “It’s the economy stupid.”

John 8:32
01-15-2003, 03:54 PM
Again, I recommend reading today's Wall Street Journal, which has an interesting essay byMilton Friedman.

He indicates that deficits are more the norm for governments in the US.

Additionally, I saw Peter Lynch say that now is when we should have deficit spending, since the economy is recovering from a recession and there is a national crisis/war going on. Now is the time the government should be deficit spending in his view.
;)

John of Phoenix
01-15-2003, 05:14 PM
Donn, that cartoon really puzzled me, so I looked it up.


In 1874, the New York Herald printed an editorial accusing Republican President Ulysses S. Grant of "Caesarism," in the belief that he would attempt to run for an unprecedented third term in 1876. About the same time the Herald concocted a scheme to increase its circulation and printed a fabricated story that the animals had escaped from Central Park Zoo and were roaming the city looking for prey. [A long history of this in the media it seems. :rolleyes: ] Thomas Nast, seeing an opportunity to combine the rumor about Grant with the animal story, created a cartoon for Harper's Weekly. He drew a donkey clothed in a lion's skin (labeled "Caesarism"), scaring away the other animals in the park. Among the animals in the cartoon was an elephant, labeled "The Republican Vote." Nast chose the elephant because it was believed that elephants were clever, steadfast, and easily controlled, but unmanageable when frightened. After the election, Nast drew another cartoon depicting an elephant having walked into a Democratic trap. Soon, other cartoonists began using elephants to represent Republicans, and the elephant came to symbolize the Republican Party.

The words in the pit are, "Southern claims", "Rum" and "Chaos" and the other animals are labeled with the names of various NYC newspapers. Large size picture here. (http://libweb5.princeton.edu/Visual_Materials/gallery/nast/nast1l.html)

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

stan v
01-15-2003, 05:40 PM
Wrong Cap'n R an R, unless you mean the next president after W's 8 years. And I doubt that. And what is this noise some of you are squealing about the deficit? So what? If a government with almost a 10 TRILLION dollar economy can't have a little, ole 200 Billion deficit....come on!!! What a bunch of hand wringers! Most of you wish you had that kind of problem. As far as doom and gloom some of you now experience that W is pres, because of some sort of "feelings" you have, sorry Charlie, you lost. Not stolen white house, you lost. Get over it. Watermelons shouldn't have feelings. :D

Meerkat
01-15-2003, 09:39 PM
What TEN TRILLION DOLLAR ECONOMY??? US GDP about 4-5 trillion (down substantially from 2 years ago) and the US federal debt is SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS or nearly TWICE the GDP. The deficit is merely the rate at which the debt is growing or declining.

Nicholas Carey
01-16-2003, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
And what is this noise some of you are squealing about the deficit? So what? If a government with almost a 10 TRILLION dollar economy can't have a little, ole 200 Billion deficit....come on!!!Because Stan, thanks to the spendthrift polices of Messrs Reagan, Bush pere et fil and the Republican-led Congress of the '90s, debt service -- that's just interest payments it doesn't include payments against principal is no running more more than 330 billion dollars. It is as large (and used to be larger) than the defence budget.

If you and your ilk are so concerned about reducing the cost of government, a good place to start would be to lobby for paying off the National debt.

What could we do with 330 billion dollars per year? Among other options, we could cut your taxes and provide more and better services.

brad9798
01-16-2003, 09:46 AM
Our national debt is a cleaner picture than most personal debt.

How many here carry a debt of ONLY 2x their GHP (gross household product)? NOT MANY.

What's the average national income? $35,000?

Average home value? $60,000?

Cars? Credit Cards, etc.?

I imagine most carry 4-8x their GHP, and get along just fine.

So, 2x doesn't look so bad.

Don't be fooled by raw numbers out of context with the overall equation.

Brad

John of Phoenix
01-16-2003, 10:15 AM
Does anyone know what the surplus and this additional debt was spent on?

NormMessinger
01-16-2003, 10:33 AM
Cover your ears, Stan.

Terry Gross, on NPR is interviewing some dude about tax cuts and the national debt. He just observed the Regan's tax cuts and spending created unthinkabale deficits. He was reelected by landslide and would have been again if not for term limits. George Sr. raised taxes and lost.

Don Olney
01-16-2003, 11:04 AM
Debt should be looked at not in terms of one year's deficit only ("its only 2 or 3 percent of GNP"), but in light of the total national debt burden which is the cumulative total of running a deficit for multiple years.

If you have an income of $50,000/year and you are incurring $1,500 of debt each year for say, 12 years, you now have $18,000 worth of debt, plus compounded interest. Your total debt is now probably more than half your annual income. Is this responsible behavior?

Somewhere around 17% of the federal budget goes toward servicing Reagan/Bush era debt, incurred mostly for military spending. Where cometh the funds to payeth this debt? Taxes.

Sometimes you get less than you pay for, but you still have to pay for it, either now or later, and later is usually much more expensive.

Chris Coose
01-16-2003, 02:53 PM
As Norm M. saged someplace else.

"And we are going to pay for all of this with a tax cut."

You've got to have a PhD (papa has dough) to make sense of this.

Alan D. Hyde
01-16-2003, 03:05 PM
And here's me thinking it was Piled higher and Deeper... (What's piled? Why the B.S. and the More of the Same, of course)...

Alan