America is Bankrupt

[Bob]

Listen up. Right or left -- Americans will be dealing with this -- not just Donkeys and Elephants. I got this info from right and left, and neutral sites -- so it is what it is. If you guys know better, and can shoot the FACTS down -- please do, because the math holding up this house of cards is not good. The US Comptroller General (I never even knew existed) was on the Glenn Beck TV program yesterday. His name is David Walker, and he heads the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and is in effect the USA's chief accountability officer. (Walker was voted in by congress for a 15 year term) unanimously under Reagan, and later under Clinton.)

Walker has compared the present-day United States with the Roman Empire in its decline, saying the U.S. government is "on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare under funding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon. (like ten years ago.)

On the Glenn Beck program yesterday, he said that the debt of the USA (on social security and Medicare) plus others is rounded up to $56 TRILLION. With $2 TRILLION USD ADDED EVERY YEAR!! Yes, much higher than some stats we usually see -- but look below at the USA Today. There are three books that are used in terms of reporting American debt.

This info was on USA Today:

Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.
Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.
This hidden debt is the amount taxpayers would have to pay immediately to cover government's financial obligations. Like a mortgage, it will cost more to repay the debt over time. Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to do so in 75 years.


BALANCE DUE

The cost per U.S. household of unfunded promises made by federal, state and local government:

Medicare $255,280


Social Security $144,251


Federal debt $43,380


Military benefits $25,863


State and local debt $17,537


Federal civil- servant benefits $14,374


State and local retiree benefits $13,114


Other federal obligations $2,548


Total $516,348


Source: USA TODAY research; numbers


Although I don’t agree with many of his views Ron Paul is one of the few that has the balls to say some of this stuff. We are bankrupt – some us just don’t realize it yet. The above stuff appears to be undoctored facts -- so what do you do? We send our troops everywhere, and we promise more medical bennefits? Yeah, that's smart.

[SoCalBronco]

That's my No.1 issue, that's why I'm voting for McCain.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well, one of the things that people need to stop doing is electing people like Bush who promised not to "borrow" SS funds, does it and then turns around and enacts one of biggest Medicare fraud programs in history (trillions of dollars) on the American people.

[tsiguy96]

That's my No.1 issue, that's why I'm voting for McCain.



LOL

[Rohirrim]

If we don't outlaw earmarks, no president will be able to fix it. It's like asking which pig will be the first to voluntarily back away from the trough.

[broncos loveI]

Just put the other Clinton in the office and the deficit will decrease, like the last time. Then Jeb Bush will win in 2012 and we will be screwed like the present. Maybe, Chelesa can run after that.

[Bob]

If we don't outlaw earmarks, no president will be able to fix it. It's like asking which pig will be the first to voluntarily back away from the trough.

Yup...

I think it will take much, much more, that getting rid of earmarks -- but hey its a start. I would settle for breaking even a few years -- but one problem with a democracy is that when politicians learned (many years ago) that they can get votes by making promises of various free items, or “bringing home the bacon” for their districts it began a spiral of diminishing returns. It is depressing for me actually, as when you begin to get your head around the numbers and its implications, and what it would take to fix the problem -- and our collective lack of discipline. Politicians wont fix this -- that's suicide – to fix it will take more than pulling all troops back, and holding spending to zero increases to Medicaid and Medicare – it will take actual cuts to these and other programs. The problem will fix itself regardless what we do (if we stay on the same path) through the massive devalue of the dollar.

People sometimes want to jump on this kind of stuff to say -- Hey look at Bush's war, or Hey look what Obama will spend in Healthcare, when instead when you look at the numbers of over $30,000 per year per family for the next 75 years? to get back to zero? That is not possible, nor realistic. The dollar will be collapsed (I am not sure if it will be intentional or not) and we will issue a new currency --- in fact people will beg for it -- and greater sovernty will be lost.

[Bob]

More depressing news -- from Glenn Beck, so take in context...

One week ago today the first baby boomers became eligible for early retirement under Social Security. And over the next 20 years, another 78 million Americans will join them. The result is that every single household in America essentially now owes over four hundred thousand dollars each, just to finance Social Security and Medicare. Don't have four hundred thousand in cash sitting around? Well you're not alone -- and that's exactly the problem...our country is technically bankrupt.

Politicians try to confuse you with all sorts of complicated numbers and formulas about our financial future, but it's actually very simple: our government has promised far more money than it actually has or probably will ever have. USA Today calculated that we would need to stash away $58 TRILLION -- yes, trillion -- dollars RIGHT NOW in order to generate enough interest to pay for our future obligations. You may or may not have heard that are current investments total approximately zero dollars because, unlike Al Gore's stump speech, there is no "lockbox."

Now, I'm probably a lot like you when it comes to this stuff; it puts me to sleep too, but what really woke me up is something called the "menu of delayed pain." This basically shows the options that we have to pay for our future debts. For example, if we acted back in 2003, we could've fixed everything by raising payroll taxes by 95%. Not pretty, but now in 2008, because of compounding interest, we'd have to raise them by 103%! And the other options you see there in the right hand column aren't much better -- unless you happen to enjoy paying 74% more in federal income tax.

Unfortunately, the American people never got to see those numbers because they were pulled out of the 2004 budget just a few days after then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- who had ordered the analysis -- was fired. And why were they pulled? It's simple; because our leaders in both parties believe that we can't handle the truth. Well they're wrong. What we can't handle are leaders who refuse to tell the truth. So tonight, I want to introduce you to someone different; someone who has no political stake in the game. He's not about left or right, he's about right and wrong. He's the head of the Government Accountability Office -- the GAO-- which makes him our nation's top accountant, and while it's not typical for someone in his position to speak out, he's now saying enough is enough and he's bringing his wake-up call directly to the American people.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But Bob:

According to Lone Bolt and W*GS, you and your sources are just "doomsters" and "fear mongers" and the economy is really coming up roses.

;)

[Bob]

Well, they are ignorant on this issue, or pumping before the implosion. More likely however, I think many just think -- well "they" have been saying this forever, so somehow think that we will be spared somehow by a tax cut or two.

What will piss me off is listening to a bunch of party-line folks, and politicians running around like cockroaches when it happens, and blaming each other while Rome burns. Blame only matters to those who are not suffering.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/long-week.jpg

[baja]

Yup...

I think it will take much, much more, that getting rid of earmarks -- but hey its a start. I would settle for breaking even a few years -- but one problem with a democracy is that when politicians learned (many years ago) that they can get votes by making promises of various free items, or “bringing home the bacon” for their districts it began a spiral of diminishing returns. It is depressing for me actually, as when you begin to get your head around the numbers and its implications, and what it would take to fix the problem -- and our collective lack of discipline. Politicians wont fix this -- that's suicide – to fix it will take more than pulling all troops back, and holding spending to zero increases to Medicaid and Medicare – it will take actual cuts to these and other programs. The problem will fix itself regardless what we do (if we stay on the same path) through the massive devalue of the dollar.

People sometimes want to jump on this kind of stuff to say -- Hey look at Bush's war, or Hey look what Obama will spend in Healthcare, when instead when you look at the numbers of over $30,000 per year per family for the next 75 years? to get back to zero? That is not possible, nor realistic. The dollar will be collapsed (I am not sure if it will be intentional or not) and we will issue a new currency --- in fact people will beg for it -- and greater sovernty will be lost.

I have been seeing this coming for many years now. The system, it's broken folks. It's a run away train. Due to the colossal greed of the last several years on every level the global economic system will fall into a heap of bad debt. Some times you can just retool but this is not one of those times. The only way it can be "fixed" is for it to completely fail and only than can a new system evolve that will work. It's a huge lesson we are all about to learn, there really is no other way.

I know many of you think I am nuts but if you just step back and take a good common sense look at all the related problems than put it all together and what you will see is a perfect storm brewing.

The veneer of society is thin, very very thin.

Guys like W*AGS are in for a big surprise.

[Meck77]

Do what you've always done.....You get what you've always gotten......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Do what you've always done.....You get what you've always gotten......

In other words:

"Friends don't let friends vote Republican."

:D

[W*GS]

I have been seeing this coming for many years now. The system, it's broken folks. It's a run away train. Due to the colossal greed of the last several years on every level the global economic system will fall into a heap of bad debt.

Nope.

Guys like W*AGS are in for a big surprise.

Uh-hunh. Thus sayeth the guy in his hidey-hole in Mexico, which is silly considering the relative economic and political health of Mexico compared to the US, over the short- and long-term.

[defenseman]

That's my No.1 issue, that's why I'm voting for McCain.

McCain, by self admission I might add, states unequivocably that he does NOT understand economics well enough. He said it, not me. In fact, at age 72, if you haven't learned it yet, you aren't going to learn. Romney's knowledge of the economy and the american dollar, let alone foreign dollar, is outstanding. if you are worried about the economy, while McCain will attack spending, overall he doesn't hold a candle to romney's level of knowledge. In addition, romney has stated the same as McCain, we need to cut spending now....dman

[defenseman]

If we don't outlaw earmarks, no president will be able to fix it. It's like asking which pig will be the first to voluntarily back away from the trough.

FULLY agree with you. And how do most earmarks come about? Special interests and lobbyist of course. Each state needs to tighten up their purse strings also and NOT expect so much from the federal government. That INCLUDES those who openly defy the government on the issue of law. They should expect any federal funding for their state to be cut if they can't abide by key federal laws, such as, illegal immigration...dman

*I would love to see San Fran and Gov. Arnold in california squirm for a bit. Send a message to the whole country, enforce the immigration law or suffer the consequences.

[defenseman]

But Bob:

According to Lone Bolt and W*GS, you and your sources are just "doomsters" and "fear mongers" and the economy is really coming up roses.

;)

In some cases, these supposed "doomsters" are hitting the nail squarely on the head. I agree with you. I'm just getting ready to retire from the military and adjusting my investments accordingly. Watching the economy very closely. There will be major issues within a year or so IF we do not address spending RIGHT NOW...dman

[Crushaholic]

In other words:

"Friends don't let friends vote career politicians."

:D

I fixed your post. Right or left, people who spend their whole life in politics are interested in more power and what kind of bacon they can bring home.

[W*GS]

Just as I've been saying for years, and as the data shows, it's the entitlement programs (Medicare/Medicaid/SS) that are driving the US into the ground financially.

Unless we get a handle on those, all the other government spending is in the noise and doesn't matter.

[Bob]

In other words:

"Friends don't let friends vote Republican."

:D

Being cute -- that’s fine, but both parties have spent like crazy, and will spend like drunken sailors until there is nothing left. Any body talking about spending less that you believe? There are no politicians on the Dem side that will, and only a few on the Repub side that would even try. This is one subject, where one needs to be as intellectually honest as possible.

Fact: Republicans spend a whole lot of money while in office -- GW has been one of the worst. Reagan spent allot too ... as he built up our military. I think that in his case, part of the plan was to bankrupt the USSR --well, that worked (in the short term) but they reconfigured their economy, and are now plush with oil money from us. Others are playing this same card on us to bankrupt us (including Osama) -- and unless we can stop being pigs, and curb our new ridiculous entitlement framed as "needs" including healthcare "rights." We will fall into the same hole. In 1928 the policians had a slogan of: “a Chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” Back then having a car was turning from a want and was reframed into a right. We are doing the same thing with healthcare.

Fact: The Dems will likely cut our expenses over-seas if someone like Obama gets in and takes the troops back home. So from a fiscal standpoint that saves billions -- but, our biggest commitments in terms of money are to healthcare related expenses. We can not afford to pay for our current commitments in healthcare, but will add more debt to the system? It may "feel" good now, but it will put us further into a hole -- eventually meaning we will all have much, much poorer support from the government. People think France is a great healthcare system, well -- I cant speak to the quality, but I do know that their birthrate in France is1.75 nationally per couple (it would be less if you took out Muslim birthrates) they have a much less sustainable healthcare system due to an aging population whose healthcare system is in deep debt. The math doesn’t work now, but in several years that system will fail and be replaced. Don’t look at the surface guys to see the pretty grass elsewhere – and assume it must be better then the bad old USA. The Dems are not known for spending less either -- so shove the club mentality up your collective butts (That goes for Dems and Repubs) and while your at it pull your head out as well.

In terms of spending I would rank them as follows:
1. Ron Paul would be the best (I think.) He is a hypocrite on pork spending for his district, but I still think he would make the most drastic cuts because he would slash military and domestic federal spending.
2. Giuliani has a good track record of cutting
3. Romney is not bad either

Now, we all have to weigh out everything before voting, but if we truly have double digit inflation over several years, which I think will gradually build over the next few years, and gain momentum (actually I think this is the best of the crappy scenarios before us) kiss your retirement goodbye, our ability to defend ourselves effectively from our enemies both foreign and domestic, and our very nice lifestyle (when compared to most of the world.) have a nice day.

[Bob]

I fixed your post. Right or left, people who spend their whole life in politics are interested in more power and what kind of bacon they can bring home.

And when they bring home bacon we reward them, by thinking -- "hey great he got us our peice of the pie." I voted for Max Baucus (D) last time around and I was on his email list -- he got alot of money for Montana, and his email read "Bringing home the Bacon for Montana" and he braged about all of the goodies he brought home from DC. I emailed him, and asked to be taken off his email list and told them why (I know no one is going to read it, but it made me feel better) he is moderate on some issues, and I wanted to reward him for playing nice with conservatives at times -- but I guess he does not understand that when he steals Spider's money or LA's money, and brags about it it does not help the collective district I belong (That would be the the USA.)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Just as I've been saying for years, and as the data shows, it's the entitlement programs (Medicare/Medicaid/SS) that are driving the US into the ground financially.

Unless we get a handle on those, all the other government spending is in the noise and doesn't matter.Defense spending is out of control to the same tune (trillions and trillions). All 3 need to be addressed.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I fixed your post. Right or left, people who spend their whole life in politics are interested in more power and what kind of bacon they can bring home.

Can't deny the truth in this, but America was still in much better shape under Clinton. Hence, the Dems have the better recent track record for leadership, stewardship of the economy, etc.

[baja]

Ya but it is not being spent on defense pre say it is being spent on open ended contracts to halaburton.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ya but it is not being spent on defense pre say it is being spent on open ended contracts to halaburton.

That is correct.

Billions down the profiteering hole, (or gone "missing") and not one word of protest from the Bush faithful about this brazen theft of their tax dollars.

But if some liberal asks for some chump change for children's health care....look out!

[Taco John]

Here is the video referenced in the original post...

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I-16u9x3tfE&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I-16u9x3tfE&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ya but it is not being spent on defense pre say it is being spent on open ended contracts to halaburton.It absolutely is.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Military Budget for 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States)


By Title

The federally budgeted (see below) military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense) for fiscal year 2007 is:
<table id="sortable_table_id_0" class="wikitable sortable"> <tbody><tr class="even"> <td>Total Funding http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#)</td> <td>$439.3 Billion http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#)</td> <td>+6.9% http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#)</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Operations and maintenance</td> <td>$152.2 Bil.</td> <td>+6.6%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Military Personnel</td> <td>$110.8 Bil.</td> <td>+3.7%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Procurement</td> <td>$84.2 Bil.</td> <td>+10.5%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation</td> <td>$73.2 Bil.</td> <td>+3.1%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Military Construction</td> <td>$12.6 Bil.</td> <td>+57.5%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Family Housing</td> <td>$4.1 Bil.</td> <td>+2.5%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Working Capital Funds</td> <td>$2.4 Bil.</td> <td>+9.1%</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Not included in the DoD budget is $23.4 billion to be spent by the Department of Energy to develop and maintain nuclear warheads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warheads).<sup id="_ref-4" class="reference">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#_note-4)</sup>

By Service

<table id="sortable_table_id_1" class="wikitable sortable"> <tbody><tr class="even"> <td>Service http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#)</td> <td>2007 Budget request http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#)</td> <td>Percentage of Total http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#)</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Army</td> <td>$110.3 Bil.</td> <td>25.1%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Navy/Marine Corps</td> <td>$127.1 Bil.</td> <td>28.8%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Air Force</td> <td>$130.2 Bil.</td> <td>29.5%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Defense Wide</td> <td>$73.4 Bil.</td> <td>16.6%</td></tr></tbody></table>
This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (~$9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Administration) budget), Veterans Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs)(~$33 .2 billion) or the wars in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War)Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29) (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, ~$170 billion in 2007) and .<sup id="_ref-1" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#_note-1)</sup> Conversely, the military budget does allocate money for dual-use items, such as the development of infrastructure surrounding U.S. military bases. Altogether, military-related expenses totaled approximately $626.1 billion.

[baja]

Gee Slug that is mere billions that you list, the real money is spent paying private contractors, to the tune of over a TRILLION dollars in Iraq alone.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Gee Slug that is mere billions that you list, the real money is spent paying private contractors, to the tune of over a TRILLION dollars in Iraq alone.This is every year Baja. We aren't spending trillions on private contractors in Iraq. The 2006 total (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WOWII/) for all contractors was 25 billion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How about the trillions that went "missing" from the Pentagon right before 9/11?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

How about the trillions that went "missing" from the Pentagon right before 9/11?What trillions are those?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What trillions are those?

The War On Waste

Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds — $2.3 Trillion

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

Rumsfeld Sept 10, 2001: The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 TRILLION

http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/national/pentagon_missing_trillions

[W*GS]

As a corrective to the troofer crap...

http://911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

[W*GS]

Defense spending is out of control to the same tune (trillions and trillions). All 3 need to be addressed.

Go back to the numbers Bob posted:

The cost per U.S. household of unfunded promises made by federal, state and local government:


Medicare $255,280
Social Security $144,251
Federal debt $ 43,380
Military benefits $ 25,863
State and local debt $ 17,537
Federal civil- servant benefits $ 14,374
State and local retiree benefits $ 13,114
Other federal obligations $ 2,548
Total $516,348


Medicare and SS make up more than 3/4ths of the total debt load. Attacking the 1/4th and leaving Medicare and SS untouched will not create financial solvency.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL @ W*GS thinking the link he posted somehow disconfirms the CBS story.

W*GS would have us believe the CBS network is part of his "troofer" contingent.

Anything to cover BushCo's flank, eh?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMAO @ W*GS' allegation that the story about the trillions missing from the Pentagon is nothing but a conspiracy theory or a "troofer" claim when, in fact, it comes directly from the Pentagon's own auditors:

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

[W*GS]

LOL @ W*GS thinking the link he posted somehow disconfirms the CBS story.

W*GS would have us believe the CBS network is part of his "troofer" contingent.

Anything to cover BushCo's flank, eh?

You never hit the target. Considering that those trillions went AWOL on Clinton's watch...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

What trillions?

I thought that was just a "troofer" claim?

Now W*GS is in full-on "throw sh*t against the wall and hope something sticks" mode:

When in doubt, blame Clinton.

[W*GS]

The Bush administration can certainly waste taxpayer dollars - but not $2.3 trillion in less than 8 months.

Seeing as how you don't know how long it took to get to that number, and that it doesn't really represent "lost" money, your whole deflection just falls apart.

Let's get back to the fact that Medicare and SS alone will consume 3/4ths of that $58 trillion dollar shortfall. What do you propose to correct that? Raise taxes for those two?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

First you try to claim that the story re: the missing trillions is nothing but a "troofer" conspiracy theory.

Then, backing away from that claim, you state that I don't know "how long it took to get to that number" while suggesting you do!

That is, you claimed "those trillions went AWOL on Clinton's watch" (a claim which you decline to substantiate with sources or data.)

Clearly you are just making it up as you go along here.

:laugh:

[W*GS]

Read the article I linked, dope.

But enough of your deflection - what's your plan to help us avoid the ~$45 trillion sinkhole Medicare and SS have opened up?

[Chupacabra]

McCain, by self admission I might add, states unequivocably that he does NOT understand economics well enough. He said it, not me. In fact, at age 72, if you haven't learned it yet, you aren't going to learn. Romney's knowledge of the economy and the american dollar, let alone foreign dollar, is outstanding. if you are worried about the economy, while McCain will attack spending, overall he doesn't hold a candle to romney's level of knowledge. In addition, romney has stated the same as McCain, we need to cut spending now....dman

I'm voting for Fred McGiuliomney.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My deflection?

Pssst!

W*GS!

You just completely dodged the content of my last post and changed the subject from the missing trillions at the Pentagon to SS and Medicare.

:laugh:

[W*GS]

I'll clue you in - the "missing" (not the same as "lost" or "stolen") DoD funds are a drop in the bucket compared to the drivers of the upcoming $58 trillion shortfall, and, as I've proven, those are Medicare and SS.

Since the article is about that $58 trillion, let's focus on the why, and any ideas you may have on how to fix it. Perhaps there's a bartcop jpg you can put up, in lieu of anything substantive.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Transaltion:

"LABF challenged my lies (the story about the trillions missing from the Pentagon is just a "troofer" conspiracy theory) and unsubstantiated cliams, (those trillions went missing on Clinton's watch) so I guess my only recourse is to do what I always do: change the subject."

BTW, if you must change the subject, then why change it to Social Security with no mention of Bush's handling of the surplus he inherited?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The War On Waste
Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds — $2.3 Trillion
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
Rumsfeld Sept 10, 2001: The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 TRILLION
http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/national/pentagon_missing_trillions
These are monies over decades that aren't papered properly and accurately. No one denies the military wastes money but they aren't allocated "trillions" annually.


Medicare and SS make up more than 3/4ths of the total debt load. Attacking the 1/4th and leaving Medicare and SS untouched will not create financial solvency.Who said anything about leaving Medicare or SS untouched? And I've shown you numbers that military spending as a percentage of the annual budget are closer to 50%.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

These are monies over decades that aren't papered properly and accurately. No one denies the military wastes money but they aren't allocated "trillions" annually.

The quotes from the Pentagon auditors and Rumsfeld don't say anything about "decades" (or give any particular timeline, for that matter.)

In any event, the issue of when the money was allocated is not as important as who was keeping the books when it went missing.

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

If the $2.3 trillion figure represented 'decades' worth of bad accounting practices then Rumsfeld and everyone else in the Bush administration would use the same argument to cover their collective ass.

You probably would have heard them blame Clinton.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The quotes from the Pentagon auditors and Rumsfeld don't say anything about "decades" (or give any particular timeline, for that matter.)

In any event, the issue of when the money was allocated is not as important as who was keeping the books when it went missing.

If the $2.3 trillion figure represented 'decades' worth of bad accounting practices then Rumsfeld and everyone else in the Bush administration would use the same argument to cover their collective ass.

You probably would have heard them blame Clinton.The unaccounted/miscounted monies are over a large span of time with most of it comprising the Clinton and Bush administrations.

The story is dated Jan. 2002 you linked so I doubt it is all bad accounting by Bush.

But we need to halve, at least, our military waste and spending.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The unaccounted/miscounted monies are over a large span of time with most of it comprising the Clinton and Bush administrations.

The story is dated Jan. 2009 you linked so I doubt it is all bad accounting by Bush.


In order to know for sure, we would need to see hard data re: how much was allocated, when it was allocated, and when the accounting "lapses" occurred.

I find it odd that neither Rummy nor anyone else in the administration tried to point the finger at Clinton (as they normally would under such circumstances.)

Oh well - W*GS just informed me that the entire $2.3 trillion went missing on Clinton's watch, so I guess that settles it. ;)

[W*GS]

Transaltion:

"LABF challenged my lies (the story about the trillions missing from the Pentagon is just a "troofer" conspiracy theory) and unsubstantiated cliams, (those trillions went missing on Clinton's watch) so I guess my only recourse is to do what I always do: change the subject."

You changed the subject (Medicare and SS are driving the US' financial problems) to your favorite bugaboo - a connection between Rumsfeld and 9/11. You're just not very clever when it comes to getting caught.

BTW, if you must change the subject, then why change it to Social Security with no mention of Bush's handling of the surplus he inherited?

Did you read the figures presented? Obviously not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The subject is "America is bankrupt."

Various contributing factors have been discussed.

Bottom line: You and I were arguing about the money missing from the Pentagon.

When I backed you into a corner re: your lies and unsubstantiated claims, you responded by changing the subject to Social Security.

[W*GS]

When I backed you into a corner re: your lies and unsubstantiated claims, you responded by changing the subject to Social Security.

Beerslug is lying too, then.

You're so desperate to accuse me of lying, you lie yourself when you do so.

[Bronco Bob]

The Bush administration can certainly waste taxpayer dollars - but not $2.3 trillion in less than 8 months.

Seeing as how you don't know how long it took to get to that number, and that it doesn't really represent "lost" money, your whole deflection just falls apart.

Let's get back to the fact that Medicare and SS alone will consume 3/4ths of that $58 trillion dollar shortfall. What do you propose to correct that? Raise taxes for those two?

Separate SS and Medicare from the general revenue. SS is supposed to
pay retirement to seniors and Medicare to take care of health needs.
Not to pay Blackwater goons in Iraq.
Put the paycheck deductions for SS and Medicare in a "lockbox"
where they can earn interest and use that interest as a way to
help cover the payouts.

[W*GS]

Separate SS and Medicare from the general revenue. SS is supposed to pay retirement to seniors and Medicare to take care of health needs.

What to do with the unfunded IOUs to SS, and the explosive growth in Medicare costs?

I'd like to see all levels of government forced to use generally accepted accounting practices, none of this off-budget crap. We need to see exactly where we stand, no bookkeeping nonsense.

Put the paycheck deductions for SS and Medicare in a "lockbox" where they can earn interest and use that interest as a way to help cover the payouts.

Instead of futilely attempting to keep politicians' hands off huge pots of money, deny them the money in the first place.

[baja]

What to do with the unfunded IOUs to SS, and the explosive growth in Medicare costs?

I'd like to see all levels of government forced to use generally accepted accounting practices, none of this off-budget crap. We need to see exactly where we stand, no bookkeeping nonsense.





Instead of futilely attempting to keep politicians' hands off huge pots of money, deny them the money in the first place.

Wow good post W*GS, I'm surprised you are not a Ron Paul supporter.

[Rohirrim]

I wonder how much of Medicare costs are the result of fraud?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wonder how much of Medicare costs are the result of fraud?

Exactly.

I wonder why righties like W*GS criticize programs like Medicare, but never complain about things like Medicare prescription drug programs that waste hundreds of billions on drug companies and private insurers.

When the government awards a billion dollars in sweetheart mercenary contracts to a wealthy Republican family in Michigan, that’s “private enterprise.” But when the government helps a struggling middle-class family in Maryland to send its children to the doctor, that’s creeping socialism.

http://www.observer.com/2007/right-wing-health-care-mythology

[W*GS]

I wonder why righties like W*GS criticize programs like Medicare, but never complain about things like Medicare prescription drug programs that waste hundreds of billions on drug companies and private insurers.

That's a lie. Look for any article of mine with the word "prescription" in it, and you'll find that I'm quite critical of Bush's program.

But the facts have never stopped you from smearing me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Link?

[Spider]

never stopped you from smearing me.

That just sounds so nasty on so many levels

[Bob]

See how it always turns into one club vs another -- it is like two captains of the Titanic auguing about who is more to blame as the ship sinks...

Who will actually cut into the over-all budget? Anyone have the politiocal courage to say NO. I do not think there is anyone who is leading in the polls that will. So that means that our dollar will implode, and inflation will go up significantly. And petty, small folks will blame each other, but to what gain? IF people from both sides told their party leaders to CUT spending (over-all) and significantly that would be a good first step. Instead we talk about building the military, and adding more expenses to healthcare -- neither one we can afford long term. I dont know when this will come home to roost, but I think it will be sooner rather than later. You have to be blind not to see it, but many are blind as bats. The Dems will try to convince us all that it is big bad GW's fault, and they will be right, the Repubs will demonize teh Dems and say it is the big bad Dems and they will be right -- the rest of us on the Titanic will die in the water.

[Arkie]

America is Bankrupt

No we're not. We'll just print more money. We are lowering rates by 1/4 to 1/2 a point at the end of this month. I think the rate will be down to 3.0 by the end of the year. I'm just playing. We've been "bankrupt" for decades. We're getting creative in postponing the next depression. The longer it takes, the worst it will be. It's like tension building up in an earthquake.

[Cito Pelon]

Modern US economics can be traced to "The Reagan Revolution". Reagan was a man for his time, but his time was passed long ago. That was a whole different world. The Republican Party still adheres to Reaganomics. That's obsolete.

The US Congress has balanced the General Fund with the profits from the Social Security fund for decades. We're in trouble financially. Gotta raise taxes. Nail the wealthy, and nail them hard. They'll leave the country, great Americans that they are (ha-ha), and that will leave room for others that love America to take their place and aren't scared of paying taxes.

[Taco John]

That's insane. Class warfare isn't going to solve our problems.

Shrink government, and allow competing currencies. The middle class will grow, and class warfare won't be necessary.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Asian Stock Markets Plunge

Wednesday January 16, 3:55 am ET
By Dikky Sinn, Associated Press Writer

Asian Markets Plunge on Worries That US Is Sliding Into Recession; Hang Seng Down 5.4 Percent

HONG KONG (AP) -- Asian markets plunged Wednesday on growing speculation the U.S. economy -- a vital export market -- is sliding into a recession that could lead to a global slowdown.

Investors dumped stocks after an overnight sell-off on Wall Street and on news that Citigroup Inc. had lost nearly US$10 billion in the fourth quarter as it wrote down mountains of bad mortgage assets -- the latest fallout from the credit crisis. Weak U.S. retail sales figures also added to the gloom.

"American financial mismanagement has brought us to this economic meltdown," said Francis Lun, a general manager at Fulbright Securities in Hong Kong. "Asian stock markets are all suffering; nobody has escaped."

In Hong Kong, the benchmark Hang Seng index sank 5.4 percent to 24,450.85, while Tokyo's Nikkei 225 index fell 3.4 percent to close at 13,504.51 points, its lowest in more than two years.

Markets in Australia, China, India, South Korea, New Zealand and the Philippines also dropped sharply on worries about slower growth in the U.S. and uncertainty about the extent of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Concerns about the U.S. financial system were also felt in the currency market, which sent the U.S. dollar below 106 yen, its lowest since May 2005.

Investors saw more damage from the credit crisis when Citigroup said Tuesday it had written down $18.1 billion in bad assets. That help send the Dow Jones industrial average down 277 points, or 2.2 percent, to 12,501.11.

"The fallout from the Citigroup result is significant, with many saying ... there is more bad news to come," said Trent Muller, an ABN Amro Morgan analyst in Sydney. "We will see a bit of panic selling with a lot of investors taking cash off the table today."

There is also growing fear that the Federal Reserve hasn't done enough to keep the U.S. economy going. The central bank has lowered its key interest rate by a full percentage point to 4.25 percent since early August.

Now many investors and analysts believe the Fed will cut rates by a half-point at its Jan. 29-30 meeting.

But some believed the concerns about the U.S. economy were overblown.

However, Ernie Hon, a strategist with ICEA Securities in Hong Kong, said he expected any U.S. economic slowdown would be temporary and have limited impact on Asia. Strong demand from within Asia and the Middle East would offset slowing demand from the U.S., he said, blaming the market drop on investor jitters.

"The recession will only last for one to two quarters because the U.S. will continue to cut rates and inject money into its banking system," he said.

Still, in Tokyo, the region's biggest market, worries about the yen's appreciation contributed to big declines in major Japanese exporters Honda Motor Co., which shed 4.9, and Sony Corp., which plunged 6.8.

In China, the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index fell 2.8 percent to 5,290.60. The index has gained 0.6 percent since the beginning of the year, compared with losses in most other Asian markets.

"The U.S. market certainly influenced mainland Chinese markets due to its impact on Hong Kong shares. That's the main reason for today's decline," said Peng Yunliang, a senior analyst at Shanghai Securities.

But the impact is mainly limited to major bank and insurance companies whose shares are listed in both Shanghai and Hong Kong. Overall, China's share prices have strong support from domestic demand, she said.

"Other stocks like pharmaceuticals, energy, resources and tourism are all continuing to gain thanks to strong demand," Peng said.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080116/world_markets.html

[Hogan11]

Blame Bernanke

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Blame Bernanke

Greenspan had already done most of the damage before he stepped down.

Bernanke is just the guy trying one stupid thing after another in an attempt to stop the bleeding.

[Atlas]

Let's see GW goes to war, increases spending and then gives tax cuts... Yeah, no one could ever see this coming???

A good republican cuts taxes and spending
A good democrat increases spend and increases taxes

Both of these work when done properly.

GW well, he raises spending and cuts taxes??? ??? ??? I hope he doesn't do his own finances this way for is sake.

The budget was balanced when Clinton left office and the economy was strong. Today our budget is in a mess, were stuck in Iraq and the economy is on the verge of a steep, long recession. Happy Days!!!!

[TailgateNut]

Let's see GW goes to war, increases spending and then gives tax cuts... Yeah, no one could ever see this coming???

A good republican cuts taxes and spending
A good democrat increases spend and increases taxes

Both of these work when done properly.

GW well, he raises spending and cuts taxes??? ??? ??? I hope he doesn't do his own finances this way for is sake.

The budget was balanced when Clinton left office and the economy was strong. Today our budget is in a mess, were stuck in Iraq and the economy is on the verge of a steep, long recession. Happy Days!!!!

Don't ever try common sense with the BushBots/Repukes. It doesn't work.

They are like a college student with daddy's credit card. They just spend without ever worrying about re-payment!

[Bob]

Modern US economics can be traced to "The Reagan Revolution". Reagan was a man for his time, but his time was passed long ago. That was a whole different world. The Republican Party still adheres to Reaganomics. That's obsolete.

The US Congress has balanced the General Fund with the profits from the Social Security fund for decades. We're in trouble financially. Gotta raise taxes. Nail the wealthy, and nail them hard. They'll leave the country, great Americans that they are (ha-ha), and that will leave room for others that love America to take their place and aren't scared of paying taxes.

I dont think this will help -- it is popular with some. I earn the type of money where I will be firmly in the middleclass (just so you know) But one should think about how the rich spend and how that money does go into the ecomomy as well. As for me, I am not sold on raising taxes for any group at this point. Lowering taxes on certian groups might help. The one thing I know is reducing our spending has to be the number 1 priority -- and when you look at teh majority of the proposals out there now it has to do with stimulating the ecomomy by -- you guessed it -- spending more. The politicans do not get it. Bernakie (sp) has basicly anounced that he will lower interest rates again -- how can that help? It means more money to be dumped into the system, but that collectively those dollars will be worth less -- and thus inflation will become a bigger and bigger threat.

You see, we cant stop spending money right now, as our ecomomy is built on spending, and consumption rather than building anything of value -- so teh fed feels it does not have a choice but to continue inflating the bubble.

[Bob]

Greenspan had already done most of the damage before he stepped down.

Bernanke is just the guy trying one stupid thing after another in an attempt to stop the bleeding.

Yes! I think Bernanke is cut from the same clothe however, and it hoping for a soft landing. They are quickly runnig out of levers to pull however -- we would have been better off dealing with the pain of the tech bubble, but insteda they have manufactured the housing bubble to put off off the pain.

[Bob]

Let's see GW goes to war, increases spending and then gives tax cuts... Yeah, no one could ever see this coming???

A good republican cuts taxes and spending
A good democrat increases spend and increases taxes

Both of these work when done properly.

GW well, he raises spending and cuts taxes??? ??? ??? I hope he doesn't do his own finances this way for is sake.

The budget was balanced when Clinton left office and the economy was strong. Today our budget is in a mess, were stuck in Iraq and the economy is on the verge of a steep, long recession. Happy Days!!!!

I see the logic -- but I wonder about our debt levels under Clinton -- it is no doubt that they have gone up under Bush, but I need to study this one out --Clinton may have ballanced teh budget -- but he was still sitting on a pile of debt, and its interest -- my guess is that debt has gone up under every president since FDR. If anyone has a real source about debt levels since the 40's that would be interesting.

[Atlas]

I see the logic -- but I wonder about our debt levels under Clinton -- it is no doubt that they have gone up under Bush, but I need to study this one out --Clinton may have ballanced teh budget -- but he was still sitting on a pile of debt, and its interest -- my guess is that debt has gone up under every president since FDR. If anyone has a real source about debt levels since the 40's that would be interesting.

Sure he was sitting on a mountain of debt that was built up by 12 years of Republican rule. He had the budget balanced. The debt could hae been handled after that.
Republicans talk a good game about small government but reality is that republicans believe in deficiet spending. They don't blance the budget and it is ruining the country. If I was a polititian I wouldn't run for President this year. Whoever inherits this economy, and war is screwed.

[TheDave]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for but according to this site this is what has happened since the 50's

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html



http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

[W*GS]

Greenspan had already done most of the damage before he stepped down.

Would some of that "damage" have taken place on Clinton's watch? Wasn't Greenspan in part responsible for the "prosperity" of the Clinton era?

[W*GS]

I see a lot of confusion between the deficit (the annual difference between State revenue and State spending, and which has almost always been negative) and the debt, which is the sum, over time, of all the annual deficits.

Thanks to a one-off bump in revenue during the late Clinton era (thanks to capital gains taxes revenue coming from the dot-com boom, and the ongoing surplus in Social Security, which has been used to mask the annual deficit for decades), the debt at that time grew only slowly. The debt is now growing again, because of Bush's tax cuts, the inexorably-increasing mandatory spending on entitlement programs (particularly Medicare and Bush's additional Medicare prescription drug program) and the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Of those three major drivers, the rising cost of Medicare is the most important.

It's not the case that Reagan and GWB are responsible for nearly all the debt. What's really driving the debt are the costs of Medicare/Medicaid, which are exploding. In a relatively short time, Social Security will no longer provide a surplus to mask deficit spending, so it will add to the debt.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for but according to this site this is what has happened since the 50's

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html



http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Notice how the debt was paid down over time, thanks to Clinton's policies, only to have Dim Son come along and reverse America's progress on that front.

[SoCalBronco]

All the more reason to reject any kind of rebate/stimulus package. No more deficit spending just to delay the inevitable...the economy has to rescue itself, if it can't that's too bad, we've got to be disciplined for once.

[W*GS]

Notice how the debt was paid down over time, thanks to Clinton's policies, only to have Dim Son come along and reverse America's progress on that front.

Here we go with the Clinton-worship. Again.

Funny how someone as far Left as you are, LABF, plumps for GOP-Lite Clinton. Why is that?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In W*GS' nutty world, a statement of fact, i.e., "Clinton paid down the debt" = "Clinton worship."

W*GS simply can't stand it when anyone gives Clinton credit for anything.

:laugh:

[W*GS]

You give Clinton credit for everything you deem good, and refuse to assign him blame for anything bad.

You're the only person here who absolutely fawns over a politician. Your spin for Chavez is another example.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS is a bullsh*tter, as always.

I have stated that Clinton screwed the pooch on NAFTA, in dropping the numerous criminal investigations pending against Reagan/Bush 41, etc.

At least I have been up front about my support for Clinton - unlike W*GS who continues to deny his history of defending Bush on this board.

[Bob]

Sure he was sitting on a mountain of debt that was built up by 12 years of Republican rule. He had the budget balanced. The debt could hae been handled after that.
Republicans talk a good game about small government but reality is that republicans believe in deficiet spending. They don't blance the budget and it is ruining the country. If I was a polititian I wouldn't run for President this year. Whoever inherits this economy, and war is screwed.

I have to agree that Republicans believe in spending like crazy -- as I have never known a Repub president who has not -- conservatives, the way I see the world believe in less spending, but I cant disagree with you about GW, GHB, and Reagan -- what I do think is that most politicians for teh past 40 years have not appeared very interested in reducing our over-all spending -- they have believed in spending money on different things, but the net result has been greater debt.

I also agree that who ever gets elected will be inheriting a time bomb.

[W*GS]

W*GS is a bullsh*tter, as always.

I have stated that Clinton screwed the pooch on NAFTA, in dropping the numerous criminal investigations pending against Reagan/Bush 41, etc.

Since Clinton is GOP-lite, that's what one would expect - the mystery is why a socialist (i.e., you) loves the guy.

At least I have been up front about my support for Clinton - unlike W*GS who continues to deny his history of defending Bush on this board.

You continue to make this claim, and have never offered any proof. You're too stupid, lazy, and balls-less to back up your claims. As is typical.

[Bob]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for but according to this site this is what has happened since the 50's

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html



http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Thanks for posting -- if accurate this is teh kind of information that we all need to have a semi-informed discussion on the topic --

In terms of actuall dollars teh US owes, have we have paid it down since 1940? The chart is a percentage based line. Once again, I woudl be VERY surprised if someone had the courage to actually pay it down during thir presidency -- as it would run counter to the logicl of staying in power -- just so long as you are not thge last one holding the bag, when it blows up -- then they think they have gotten away with something.

The problem is that the solutions folks are putting forward to "stimulate the economy" is to spend more. That, I believe is insaine and will just put off payment of living beyond our means -- and pushing back the popping of two bubbles. Look at the latest by Bush/Bernanke - cut rates, and a tax rebate -- right away. Obama and Clinton have spoken about stimuls packages that involve spending more money --- WE cant get out of a hole of debt by spending more money, without getting further into the hole. Is this a complex notion? No, but it is a politically challeging one that requires honesty over political greed -- and guess who the only one who has passed the test (on this issue) Ron Paul.

Does anyone on the left agree with me that we need to reduce our spending -and we should scrap the stimulus packages brought forth by Bush, Obama and Clinton? How could their plan work, or make sense? I know you may want to sya Bush, Bush, Bush -- yes, yes -- I get it --- he continues to dig deeper by putting off the pain, but no Dem is suggesting we spend less (that I have seen.)

[Bronco Bob]

You give Clinton credit for everything you deem good, and refuse to assign him blame for anything bad.


Oh, BS W*gs, just pure BS. Who are you trying to convince, yourself?
Because you aren't convincing any of us. You are the one who
never gives Clinton credit for anything good and blames Clinton
for everything bad. In every single post that anyone has ever
posted about Bush, your rebuttal has been "Yeah, but Clinton...."
In every single post that has ever praised Clinton, your response
has been "No, it was really because of...."

[W*GS]

Oh, BS W*gs, just pure BS. Who are you trying to convince, yourself? Because you aren't convincing any of us. You are the one who never gives Clinton credit for anything good and blames Clinton for everything bad.

Hardly. I've been far more even-handed in my views on both Bush and Clinton than LABF ever has, on both.

In every single post that anyone has ever posted about Bush, your rebuttal has been "Yeah, but Clinton...."

Not "every single". Not even close.

In every single post that has ever praised Clinton, your response has been "No, it was really because of...."

Not "every single". Not even close.

Most every single comment that praises Clinton does so undeservingly - as if he was personally responsible for the given act. For example:

"Clinton paid down the debt"

Clinton did nothing of the sort.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh, BS W*gs, just pure BS. Who are you trying to convince, yourself?
Because you aren't convincing any of us. You are the one who
never gives Clinton credit for anything good and blames Clinton
for everything bad. In every single post that anyone has ever
posted about Bush, your rebuttal has been "Yeah, but Clinton...."
In every single post that has ever praised Clinton, your response
has been "No, it was really because of...."

Hammer, nail, head.

How many people have to point this out to him before he realizes no one buys into his bullsh*t?

[W*GS]

Hyperbole always makes LABF's panties all creamy...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:laugh: Ha ha ha! :laugh:

Gee, the foregoing post really refutes everything Bronco Bob just said about W*GS and Clinton.

[W*GS]

My earlier post:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1856818&postcount=89

refutes Bronco Bob's assertions. Of course, ignoring inconvenient truths is your forte, LABF.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Futures plunge on U.S. recession fears

Monday January 21, 2:51 pm ET
By Kristina Cooke

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stock index futures sank in holiday-shortened trading on Monday as fear of a U.S. recession gripped investors, indicating Wall Street was likely to join a global equity markets plunge that may usher in a bear market when trading resumes on Tuesday.

While cash equity markets were shut for the Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday, index futures were very active in electronic trading through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. U.S. stock markets reopen on Tuesday.

The sell-off in futures tracked losses in global equities, as the MSCI's main index of world stocks hit its lowest level in more than a year. World stocks nose-dived as investors worried a deteriorating U.S. economy would drag other regions down with it.

The pan-European FTSEurofirst 300 .FTEU3> closed down 5.8 percent, and Japan's benchmark Nikkei average .N225> earlier lost 3.86 percent to close at a two-year low.

If U.S. stocks open on Tuesday at the levels futures are currently indicating, it would push major indexes dangerously close to bear market territory -- or a 20 percent drop from their peak in October. That would mark the death of the bull market that began in early October 2002.

The drop in futures follows the worst week for the S&P 500 in five years. On Friday, stocks fell for a fourth day, on worries that a White House effort to boost the economy may not prevent a recession.

President George W. Bush on Friday called for a package worth up to $150 billion in tax cuts and other measures to shore up the economy, but investors said the plan did not go far enough.

"What we are seeing today are more signs that the shock waves from the U.S. are still expanding throughout the world, and we are still in the eye of the storm as far as credit issues are concerned," said Subodh Kumar, chief investment strategist at Subodh Kumar & Associates in Toronto.

Dow Jones industrial average futures DJc1> dropped 546 points or 4.5 percent. Should the Dow close lower on Tuesday by the amount the futures suggest, it would rank as the fourth-largest point loss ever for the index.

S&P 500 futures were down 62.5 points, or a 4.7 percent drop, far below fair value, a mathematical formula that evaluates pricing by taking into account interest rates, dividends and time to expiration on the contract. Nasdaq 100 NDc1> futures slid 77.5 points, or 4.2 percent.

The Standard & Poor's 500 index closed on Friday down 15.33 percent from its peak close on October 9. A fall into bear market territory for the S&P 500 would mean the end of the second-longest bull market for the benchmark index since 1929, according to the Stock Trader's Almanac.

One major stock index, the Russell 2000 index .RUT> of small-cap stocks, fell into bear market territory last week.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080121/markets_stocks.html?.v=8

Stock Markets Plunge Worldwide

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080121/world_markets.html

Chinese Bank Shares Fall Sharply

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080121/china_banks.html

[ak1971]

Hyperbole always makes LABF's panties all creamy...

thats the most disgusting thought Ive ever seen on this site

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

U.S. consumers cut spending as economy weakens

AP
Consumers Retrench As Economy Weakens
Monday January 21, 3:05 pm ET
By Eileen Alt Powell, AP Business Writer

Consumers Pull Back on Spending, Worry More About Debt As Economy Weakens

NEW YORK (AP) -- Joi Freemont, a dentist in suburban Atlanta, doesn't have to look further than her appointment book to tell that people are worried about money.

Patients who used to get their teeth whitened all the time "now want to think about it a bit," she said. Braces? "People were getting them for the kids, for themselves, but now they're waiting," she added. And when people get cavities, they have their fillings done one a month, not five or six at a time, she said.

As a result, Freemont and her husband are worried their income could drop and are trying to be more prudent with their money. They're monitoring spending more closely and continuing to whittle down their credit card balances and her dental school debt, she said.

"We know how to put the brakes on if we have to," said Freemont, 35.

Across America, there are growing signs that consumers are worried about the weakening economy, which could slip into recession. While some say Americans are not famed for their belt-tightening tactics, there are signs that people are trying to improve their personal balance sheets so they're ready for tougher times.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, said the economic signals "are flashing yellow," suggesting that consumers need to take care.

Jobs are getting harder to find, while the crisis in the mortgage industry has made it more difficult for homeowners to borrow against their houses, closing down what has been a major source of extra cash in recent years. Consumers' budgets have been squeezed by rising food and fuel prices.

Credit card balances surged through the fall months, according to Federal Reserve figures. Now delinquency rates on consumer loans are rising, the American Bankers Association reported recently. Even companies that cater to higher-income families, such as American Express Co., are feeling the pinch.

When the economy stumbles, "you have to begin living within your means, or you'll be forced to do so," Zandi said.

But Americans are much better spenders than savers, said Greg McBride, senior financial analyst with Bankrate.com, an online financial information service.

"Consumer spending isn't something that gets turned on and off like a light switch," he said. "People will say they need to cut back, but they often lack the willpower to do it."

Still, it appears that people are starting to make an effort.

Denise Dorman, who runs an advertising and public relations agency in Geneva, Ill., decided not to replace her 12-year-old vehicle, a Jeep Grand Cherokee with 125,000 miles on it, to avoid taking on a car payment.

She and her husband Dave, a commercial artist known for his Star Wars illustrations, also are "aggressively paying off credit card debt." And Dorman is seeking new opportunities to expand her business, perhaps into growth areas such as video-gaming.

"I'll feel a lot more comfortable when our debt is paid down and business has picked up," she said.

The couple experienced the downturn in the housing market firsthand as it took them 18 months to sell their former home in Florida. They've also become increasingly aware of the nation's deepening economic malaise from news reports and the presidential election debates.

"Altogether, it made us rethink what we're doing financially," she said.

Frank Krystyniak, 65, director of public relations at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, said the uncertain financial environment and the effect of the upcoming presidential election has him worried that his savings could take a big hit.

So he recently moved his nest egg out of stock and bond funds and into a fixed-rate account that should yield about 4.75 percent a year, he said.

He's also wary of rising gasoline prices, which could curtail his driving to Colorado to visit family and indulge in his hobby of trout fishing.

Some consumer retrenchment might not be a bad idea, said Sheryl Garrett, founder of The Garrett Planning Network of certified financial planners and author of the "Personal Finance Workbook for Dummies."

High debt and low savings indicate that consumer budgets are out of kilter, she said.

"A mild recession would be a good opportunity -- or cause or excuse -- for people to stop and take a deep breath," Garrett said. "So many people have overextended themselves.

"If you're living on the edge when times are good, just what are you going to do when they get bad?"

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080121/recession_watch_consumers_react.html?.v=2

[Spider]

thats the most disgusting thought Ive ever seen on this site

apparently you missed the palm tree , gorilla suit , thong and Cowboy hat .....

[ak1971]

apparently you missed the palm tree , gorilla suit , thong and Cowboy hat .....

ball bearings its all about ball bearings these days

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/simple-falcon.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/try-economy-now.jpg

Bush inherited a great economy, then screwed it up with tax cuts for the super-rich.

Bush's lapdog media tried to blame 9-11, but it was the tax cuts that killed our economy.

http://www.bartcop.com/slump2.jpg
Note the date.

[W*GS]

Bush inherited a great economy, then screwed it up with tax cuts for the super-rich.

The economy tipped into a mild recession in late 2000 due to the dotcom equity bubble (you know, the one that buoyed federal revenue thus leading to the illusory "surplus"), so the economy was not "great".

And no, a single manipulated headline from USA Today is hardly irrefutable evidence of your argument.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Illusory" surplus?

I know W*GS has been sucking back the right-wing Kool-Aid for quite a few years now, but damn!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For Some, the Recession Is Already Here

AP
Is a Recession on the Way?
Monday January 21, 3:05 pm ET
By Dave Carpenter, AP Business Writer

Recession Ahead? a Survey of the Gathering Storm As Consumers Pull Back, Businesses Feel Pain

Economists and politicians can debate all they want about whether the nation is sliding into its first recession in nearly seven years. To Chuck Rizzo, the picture is clear.

Rizzo was recently laid off from his customer service job at a homebuilder in Sarasota, Fla. His grocery bill is higher nowadays, and he can barely afford his mortgage payments.

"Everything has gotten tremendously more expensive," said Rizzo, 45, who is married with a 15-year-old daughter. "We don't go out to dinner now. We don't take vacations. We've had to make a lot of adjustments to our lifestyle."

Whether an actual recession is on the way -- or already here -- U.S. consumers and businesses are being increasingly squeezed by a downturn that threatens to spread the pain being felt everywhere from the gas pump to the unemployment line.

The official designation often comes long after the recession itself begins. Experts note that the point at which the "R-word" is triggered is mostly an academic debate.

"That's not going to make a great deal of difference to people's economic well-being or their pocketbooks," said Frank Lichtenberg, professor of business, finance and economics at Columbia Business School in New York.

"The idea that if you're on one side of the line you're in a recession and if you're on the other side you're fine -- that's not really the case," he added. "Clearly, we are in a very difficult period."

In the last recession, in 2001, investors took the biggest hit from collapsing technology stock prices. This time, consumers may bear the brunt of the pain as rising inflation and sky-high energy prices boost daily living costs uncomfortably.

The current slide started when the housing market, pumped up with the help of loans that were easier than ever to obtain, went from boom to bust. The real estate and home construction markets collapsed, loan defaults and foreclosures proliferated and damage has continued to spread through the nation's financial system.

The double punch of a punctured housing market and oil that topped $100 a barrel has slowed the growth of the world's largest economy to a crawl, and tightening credit and other worrisome trends may well make things worse in 2008 before they get better.

The question now: How bad will it get?

There is little consensus on the consequences if a full-blown recession -- defined as an outright contraction of economic activity and employment lasting at least six months -- develops.

The effect will depend in part on how aggressively the Federal Reserve keeps cutting interest rates and whether Democrats controlling Congress can reach quick agreement with President Bush on an economic stimulus plan. But experts warn that even quick action from Washington now could be too late.

One potential scenario, built from precedent, recent corporate developments, economic indicators and interviews with economic and business experts:

Consumers will continue to pull back, with troublesome results for retailers and companies. Housing prices, which have fallen an average of 8 percent nationwide and as much as 40 percent in some markets since peaking in 2005, will drop for another year or so.

Unemployment could climb another two percentage points to 7 percent, which would be the highest in 16 years and leave another 3 million Americans out of work. And stocks could keep dropping.

For some, tougher times may mean opportunities. House-hunters with cash on hand and respectable credit scores will likely be able to take advantage of cheaper prices. Hardware stores and auto parts retailers tend to see sales rise when more cash-conscious people attempt their own home improvements and hang on to cars longer. Foreign investors may find U.S. assets more affordable as prices drop, especially if the dollar continues to weaken.

Overall, however, it is a picture with far more losers than winners.

"All of us are going to feel the pain to a greater or lesser degree," Lichtenberg said.

And the outcome could be gloomier still if the nation's banks and brokerages can't recover quickly from heavy losses incurred in the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, resulting in a prolonged credit squeeze -- or if the dollar goes into freefall and global investors lose faith in the U.S. economy.

"It's not hard to get to dark places once you're in a recession," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.

Americans are clearly spooked by the current prospects of the economy. Consumer confidence sank to the lowest level in at least six years this month, according to the RBC Cash Index, amid growing worries about jobs, energy bills and home foreclosures after the unemployment rate rose to a two-year high of 5 percent in December.

Consumer spending, which fuels a majority of the economy's output, has slowed dramatically in recent months, as was evident in the unexpected 0.4 percent slump in December retail sales reported by the government on Jan. 15.

Carl Steidtmann, chief economist at Deloitte Research, this month forecast an actual decline in same-store sales this year at the nation's retailers -- the first since the recession of 1991.

Affluent shoppers have joined low-and middle-income consumers in pulling back, so corporate results have suffered everywhere from upscale jeweler Tiffany & Co. and Saks Inc. to Sears Holdings Corp.'s Sears and Kmart stores.

And more people are having trouble paying their bills. AT&T said recently it's disconnecting more phones because of delinquent customers, and American Express Co., whose customers are generally affluent, said it expects slower spending and more missed payments on credit cards throughout 2008.

As Americans feel the pinch -- with food and fuel costs rising and jobs becoming harder to find -- they're heaping more debt onto credit cards. Balances surged through last fall, Federal Reserve figures show.

And anecdotal reports suggest they are paring where they can -- putting off a teeth-whitening, perhaps, or trying to wring a few thousand more miles out of an old car before trying to replace it.

On the business side, financial services companies have been battered at the front edge of the gathering storm.

Merrill Lynch & Co. and Citigroup Inc. reported $20 billion in fourth-quarter losses between them earlier this month as the corporate earnings season opened with a flood of red ink. Banks, brokerages and insurers announced staggering write-downs, largely due to bad subprime mortgage bets.

They also added to the jobless ranks. Citigroup said it had slashed 4,200 jobs as it braces for more consumer-related trouble and mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp Inc. cut its work force by 24 percent, laying off about 2,400 employees as it tries to weather the housing slump.

The hardest-hit occupations in terms of recent job losses include real estate brokers, financial services sales agents, loan counselors and public relations specialists, recent government figures show.

Automakers are suffering, too, as consumers hold back. U.S. new car and light truck sales fell by 415,000 vehicles or 2.5 percent, to 16.1 million last year, according to Ward's AutoInfobank, and could drop toward 15 million in a recession.

Other industries, including airlines, may also be vulnerable to big cutbacks ahead.

The downturn also is taking a toll on city governments because revenue from property taxes will decline along with home values.

In Cleveland, an epicenter of the foreclosure crisis, the city has demolished 1,000 abandoned homes in the past year that had become targets for vandals, in order to save money on policing those neighborhoods. Most of those homes had been financed with subprime mortgages.

Small businesses are also feeling repercussions and reporting that conditions are soft as customers cut back.

In Sedona, Ariz., some galleries and restaurants have closed because tourists are spending less, said Mary Schnack, whose business Up From The Dust sells imported jewelry, purses and home decor made by women in developing countries.

Schnack said her sales were way down during the holiday season as customers bought items only as gifts, not for themselves.

"It's the first sign like this," she said. "They don't say it's because the economy is bad, but I know that's the reason."

There are winners among small businesses, too: Some companies that sell software that helps other businesses cut costs are seeing stronger sales.

Global consequences are certain if American consumers cut back for long. U.S. consumer spending has played a key role in world economic growth in recent years.

But the global economy remains the wild card in this downturn. Analysts say other economies around the world could help brake the downturn in the United States, with demand from China and India potentially cushioning the blow.

"We've never been through a recession when we've had a global economy" to this extent, said Muriel Siebert, a Wall Street veteran and head of discount brokerage Muriel Siebert & Co. "This is the first time there could be some counter-balancing forces."

Occurring about every six years, the 10 U.S. recessions since World War II have lasted from eight to 16 months and seen the level of real gross domestic product decline by an average of 2 percent.

The most severe in the postwar era was from November 1973 to March 1975, prompted by an Arab oil embargo. Inflation ran into double digits and stocks tumbled 25 percent during the recession and lost nearly half their value during the entire down cycle.

In the current case, economists see more parallels with another oil-related recession -- that of 1990-91. In those years, oil prices soared after Iraq invaded Kuwait, bad real estate loans hurt savings and loans and banks, and the Federal Reserve was criticized for not acting quickly or boldly enough.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at Chicago-based Mesirow Financial, says anecdotal reports from small businesses today are significantly more upbeat than they were in previous recessions.

"Small businesses still have access to credit, are hiring and remain cautiously optimistic about their prospects for 2008," she wrote in a Jan. 11 report.

And unlike the 2001 recession, the technology industry has held up surprisingly well through recent economic turmoil. But even that resilience is now being tested. Earlier this month, chipmaker Intel Corp. missed Wall Street's profit and sales expectations, stirring fear in the markets that other tech giants could tumble.

Another surprise: McDonald's Corp., typically a winner in a downturn with its low-priced restaurants, could be a loser if an early indicator proves true.

While the fast-food chain has yet to release December same-store sales, a survey of McDonald's franchisees by restaurant stock analyst Mark Kalinowski released last week suggested sales were at their lowest level in at least six years.

That type of unexpected development helps explain the wide range of opinions on how deep a dive the economy might take.

At the dark end of the spectrum is the extremely bearish Peter Schiff, who has been right with some gloomy forecasts about housing and oil prices in the past.

Schiff, who runs the investment firm Euro Pacific Capital Inc. in Darien, Conn., foresees the worst recession since the Great Depression, with double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation. That would mean at least a twofold increase in those key indicators.

"You're going to see the basic cost of living, food and energy get so high that that's all they're going to be able to afford," he said.

With the U.S. economy's record of resilience, most experts would characterize his prediction as alarmist. Merrill Lynch's economists believe the recession has started and will be over by midsummer.

Steps proposed in Washington might help revive economic activity and assuage worries.

The stimulus package put forth by President Bush on Friday consists of as much as $150 billion worth of tax relief, including tax rebates of up to $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples. The White House also favors tax breaks for business investment, while Democratic congressional leaders are pushing smaller rebate checks and more aid for food stamp recipients and the unemployed.

But at least for the immediate future, Americans will have to ride out the economic turbulence without extra government help.

Besides cutting back his family's spending, Rizzo is putting in 13-hour days, seven days a week after pursuing a long-held dream and opening a fiery foods store last month. Early sales were strong but have "crashed" in January, and he's worried about the economic trends.

"I just hope our economy gets better under our new man Bernanke who took (Alan) Greenspan's place," he said. "You've got to wonder if he's making the right calls."

Scot Herrick and his wife knew their jobs at Washington Mutual Inc. were at risk because of the mortgage lending crisis, but getting pink slips from the nation's largest savings and loan on the same day just before Christmas was still a shock.

Herrick, 53, who was a technology manager for WaMu in Seattle -- and who, ironically, offers career advice on his Web site, CubeRules.com -- thinks the credit market will stabilize by the end of the year and expects to find another job sooner than that.

Just in case, he and his wife, Kate, gradually banked a year's take-home pay as they saw trouble building.

"We'll be fine until well into summer," he said. "Maybe by fall we'll panic."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080121/recession_watch.html?.v=2

[W*GS]

"Illusory" surplus?

I know W*GS has been sucking back the right-wing Kool-Aid for quite a few years now, but damn!

There was no foundational change in the federal government (i.e., spending was reduced) - revenue spiked (plus the usual SS surplus) so there was a short-lived and extraordinary "surplus". Of course, any view that doesn't praise Clinton's amazing wisdom, foresight, and policies gets the cheap shot from you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

First W*GS said the surplus was "illusory."

Now he says the surplus was "short-lived and extraordinary."

Either W*GS doesn't understand the meaning of the word "illusory" or he is doing some serious backpedaling.

Amusing either way...

:laugh:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

To counter W*GS' disinfo:

The last Clinton budgets:

'98 1.722 Trillion in, 1.653 out. Surplus=69 Billion

'99 1.828 Trillion in, 1.701 out. Surplus=127 Billion

'00 2.025 Trillion in, 1.788 out. Surplus=237 Billion

'01 1.991 Trillion in, 1.864 out. Surplus=127 Billion

The first Bush Budget:

'02 1,853 Trillion in, 2,011 out. Deficit=158 Billion

Source: Congressional Budget Office

[W*GS]

First W*GS said the surplus was "illusory."

Now he says the surplus was "short-lived and extraordinary."

Either W*GS doesn't understand the meaning of the word "illusory" or he is doing some serious backpedaling.

Amusing either way...

You're wrong, either way. The "surplus" wasn't the result of a cut in spending - it was the result of a spike in revenue from the capital gains taxes resulting from the dotcom equity bubble.

Prove otherwise.

[baja]

For Some, the Recession Is Already Here

AP
Is a Recession on the Way?
Monday January 21, 3:05 pm ET
By Dave Carpenter, AP Business Writer

Recession Ahead? a Survey of the Gathering Storm As Consumers Pull Back, Businesses Feel Pain

Economists and politicians can debate all they want about whether the nation is sliding into its first recession in nearly seven years. To Chuck Rizzo, the picture is clear.

Rizzo was recently laid off from his customer service job at a homebuilder in Sarasota, Fla. His grocery bill is higher nowadays, and he can barely afford his mortgage payments.

"Everything has gotten tremendously more expensive," said Rizzo, 45, who is married with a 15-year-old daughter. "We don't go out to dinner now. We don't take vacations. We've had to make a lot of adjustments to our lifestyle."

Whether an actual recession is on the way -- or already here -- U.S. consumers and businesses are being increasingly squeezed by a downturn that threatens to spread the pain being felt everywhere from the gas pump to the unemployment line.

The official designation often comes long after the recession itself begins. Experts note that the point at which the "R-word" is triggered is mostly an academic debate.

"That's not going to make a great deal of difference to people's economic well-being or their pocketbooks," said Frank Lichtenberg, professor of business, finance and economics at Columbia Business School in New York.

"The idea that if you're on one side of the line you're in a recession and if you're on the other side you're fine -- that's not really the case," he added. "Clearly, we are in a very difficult period."

In the last recession, in 2001, investors took the biggest hit from collapsing technology stock prices. This time, consumers may bear the brunt of the pain as rising inflation and sky-high energy prices boost daily living costs uncomfortably.

The current slide started when the housing market, pumped up with the help of loans that were easier than ever to obtain, went from boom to bust. The real estate and home construction markets collapsed, loan defaults and foreclosures proliferated and damage has continued to spread through the nation's financial system.

The double punch of a punctured housing market and oil that topped $100 a barrel has slowed the growth of the world's largest economy to a crawl, and tightening credit and other worrisome trends may well make things worse in 2008 before they get better.

The question now: How bad will it get?

There is little consensus on the consequences if a full-blown recession -- defined as an outright contraction of economic activity and employment lasting at least six months -- develops.

The effect will depend in part on how aggressively the Federal Reserve keeps cutting interest rates and whether Democrats controlling Congress can reach quick agreement with President Bush on an economic stimulus plan. But experts warn that even quick action from Washington now could be too late.

One potential scenario, built from precedent, recent corporate developments, economic indicators and interviews with economic and business experts:

Consumers will continue to pull back, with troublesome results for retailers and companies. Housing prices, which have fallen an average of 8 percent nationwide and as much as 40 percent in some markets since peaking in 2005, will drop for another year or so.

Unemployment could climb another two percentage points to 7 percent, which would be the highest in 16 years and leave another 3 million Americans out of work. And stocks could keep dropping.

For some, tougher times may mean opportunities. House-hunters with cash on hand and respectable credit scores will likely be able to take advantage of cheaper prices. Hardware stores and auto parts retailers tend to see sales rise when more cash-conscious people attempt their own home improvements and hang on to cars longer. Foreign investors may find U.S. assets more affordable as prices drop, especially if the dollar continues to weaken.

Overall, however, it is a picture with far more losers than winners.

"All of us are going to feel the pain to a greater or lesser degree," Lichtenberg said.

And the outcome could be gloomier still if the nation's banks and brokerages can't recover quickly from heavy losses incurred in the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, resulting in a prolonged credit squeeze -- or if the dollar goes into freefall and global investors lose faith in the U.S. economy.

"It's not hard to get to dark places once you're in a recession," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.

Americans are clearly spooked by the current prospects of the economy. Consumer confidence sank to the lowest level in at least six years this month, according to the RBC Cash Index, amid growing worries about jobs, energy bills and home foreclosures after the unemployment rate rose to a two-year high of 5 percent in December.

Consumer spending, which fuels a majority of the economy's output, has slowed dramatically in recent months, as was evident in the unexpected 0.4 percent slump in December retail sales reported by the government on Jan. 15.

Carl Steidtmann, chief economist at Deloitte Research, this month forecast an actual decline in same-store sales this year at the nation's retailers -- the first since the recession of 1991.

Affluent shoppers have joined low-and middle-income consumers in pulling back, so corporate results have suffered everywhere from upscale jeweler Tiffany & Co. and Saks Inc. to Sears Holdings Corp.'s Sears and Kmart stores.

And more people are having trouble paying their bills. AT&T said recently it's disconnecting more phones because of delinquent customers, and American Express Co., whose customers are generally affluent, said it expects slower spending and more missed payments on credit cards throughout 2008.

As Americans feel the pinch -- with food and fuel costs rising and jobs becoming harder to find -- they're heaping more debt onto credit cards. Balances surged through last fall, Federal Reserve figures show.

And anecdotal reports suggest they are paring where they can -- putting off a teeth-whitening, perhaps, or trying to wring a few thousand more miles out of an old car before trying to replace it.

On the business side, financial services companies have been battered at the front edge of the gathering storm.

Merrill Lynch & Co. and Citigroup Inc. reported $20 billion in fourth-quarter losses between them earlier this month as the corporate earnings season opened with a flood of red ink. Banks, brokerages and insurers announced staggering write-downs, largely due to bad subprime mortgage bets.

They also added to the jobless ranks. Citigroup said it had slashed 4,200 jobs as it braces for more consumer-related trouble and mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp Inc. cut its work force by 24 percent, laying off about 2,400 employees as it tries to weather the housing slump.

The hardest-hit occupations in terms of recent job losses include real estate brokers, financial services sales agents, loan counselors and public relations specialists, recent government figures show.

Automakers are suffering, too, as consumers hold back. U.S. new car and light truck sales fell by 415,000 vehicles or 2.5 percent, to 16.1 million last year, according to Ward's AutoInfobank, and could drop toward 15 million in a recession.

Other industries, including airlines, may also be vulnerable to big cutbacks ahead.

The downturn also is taking a toll on city governments because revenue from property taxes will decline along with home values.

In Cleveland, an epicenter of the foreclosure crisis, the city has demolished 1,000 abandoned homes in the past year that had become targets for vandals, in order to save money on policing those neighborhoods. Most of those homes had been financed with subprime mortgages.

Small businesses are also feeling repercussions and reporting that conditions are soft as customers cut back.

In Sedona, Ariz., some galleries and restaurants have closed because tourists are spending less, said Mary Schnack, whose business Up From The Dust sells imported jewelry, purses and home decor made by women in developing countries.

Schnack said her sales were way down during the holiday season as customers bought items only as gifts, not for themselves.

"It's the first sign like this," she said. "They don't say it's because the economy is bad, but I know that's the reason."

There are winners among small businesses, too: Some companies that sell software that helps other businesses cut costs are seeing stronger sales.

Global consequences are certain if American consumers cut back for long. U.S. consumer spending has played a key role in world economic growth in recent years.

But the global economy remains the wild card in this downturn. Analysts say other economies around the world could help brake the downturn in the United States, with demand from China and India potentially cushioning the blow.

"We've never been through a recession when we've had a global economy" to this extent, said Muriel Siebert, a Wall Street veteran and head of discount brokerage Muriel Siebert & Co. "This is the first time there could be some counter-balancing forces."

Occurring about every six years, the 10 U.S. recessions since World War II have lasted from eight to 16 months and seen the level of real gross domestic product decline by an average of 2 percent.

The most severe in the postwar era was from November 1973 to March 1975, prompted by an Arab oil embargo. Inflation ran into double digits and stocks tumbled 25 percent during the recession and lost nearly half their value during the entire down cycle.

In the current case, economists see more parallels with another oil-related recession -- that of 1990-91. In those years, oil prices soared after Iraq invaded Kuwait, bad real estate loans hurt savings and loans and banks, and the Federal Reserve was criticized for not acting quickly or boldly enough.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at Chicago-based Mesirow Financial, says anecdotal reports from small businesses today are significantly more upbeat than they were in previous recessions.

"Small businesses still have access to credit, are hiring and remain cautiously optimistic about their prospects for 2008," she wrote in a Jan. 11 report.

And unlike the 2001 recession, the technology industry has held up surprisingly well through recent economic turmoil. But even that resilience is now being tested. Earlier this month, chipmaker Intel Corp. missed Wall Street's profit and sales expectations, stirring fear in the markets that other tech giants could tumble.

Another surprise: McDonald's Corp., typically a winner in a downturn with its low-priced restaurants, could be a loser if an early indicator proves true.

While the fast-food chain has yet to release December same-store sales, a survey of McDonald's franchisees by restaurant stock analyst Mark Kalinowski released last week suggested sales were at their lowest level in at least six years.

That type of unexpected development helps explain the wide range of opinions on how deep a dive the economy might take.

At the dark end of the spectrum is the extremely bearish Peter Schiff, who has been right with some gloomy forecasts about housing and oil prices in the past.

Schiff, who runs the investment firm Euro Pacific Capital Inc. in Darien, Conn., foresees the worst recession since the Great Depression, with double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation. That would mean at least a twofold increase in those key indicators.

"You're going to see the basic cost of living, food and energy get so high that that's all they're going to be able to afford," he said.

With the U.S. economy's record of resilience, most experts would characterize his prediction as alarmist. Merrill Lynch's economists believe the recession has started and will be over by midsummer.

Steps proposed in Washington might help revive economic activity and assuage worries.

The stimulus package put forth by President Bush on Friday consists of as much as $150 billion worth of tax relief, including tax rebates of up to $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples. The White House also favors tax breaks for business investment, while Democratic congressional leaders are pushing smaller rebate checks and more aid for food stamp recipients and the unemployed.

But at least for the immediate future, Americans will have to ride out the economic turbulence without extra government help.

Besides cutting back his family's spending, Rizzo is putting in 13-hour days, seven days a week after pursuing a long-held dream and opening a fiery foods store last month. Early sales were strong but have "crashed" in January, and he's worried about the economic trends.

"I just hope our economy gets better under our new man Bernanke who took (Alan) Greenspan's place," he said. "You've got to wonder if he's making the right calls."

Scot Herrick and his wife knew their jobs at Washington Mutual Inc. were at risk because of the mortgage lending crisis, but getting pink slips from the nation's largest savings and loan on the same day just before Christmas was still a shock.

Herrick, 53, who was a technology manager for WaMu in Seattle -- and who, ironically, offers career advice on his Web site, CubeRules.com -- thinks the credit market will stabilize by the end of the year and expects to find another job sooner than that.

Just in case, he and his wife, Kate, gradually banked a year's take-home pay as they saw trouble building.

"We'll be fine until well into summer," he said. "Maybe by fall we'll panic."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080121/recession_watch.html?.v=2

Wow LABF that's some article you found., where did you ever find that? Tell me is that another old hippie coward American turn coat hiding in Mexico that is reporting those awful things about the US economy?

[Rohirrim]

I woke up this morning, turned on the TV and found out the markets were dropping the second they opened. There also seems to be a worldwide sell off of U.S. assets and currency underway. That's the response to Bush's "emergency" spending bill. The world is saying, ":bs:" to George Dubya. The Fed is slashing interests rates, but too late now, kiddies.

I would personally like to thank all of those Americans who voted for George W. Bush. Enjoy the ride.

[Spider]

1970's all over again , the only good thing is , this coming at the end of Bushs idiocy err I mean presidency .......With a few good stimulus economic policies could pull us out of a recession , not over night , but alot of Americans are going to get hurt over this ........with the selling over seas , this just might trigger factory jobs to come back ......

[Bob]

I woke up this morning, turned on the TV and found out the markets were dropping the second they opened. There also seems to be a worldwide sell off of U.S. assets and currency underway. That's the response to Bush's "emergency" spending bill. The world is saying, ":bs:" to George Dubya. The Fed is slashing interests rates, but too late now, kiddies.

I would personally like to thank all of those Americans who voted for George W. Bush. Enjoy the ride.

Yes, yes, it is all our fault completely... Bush is the reason for all evil in the world. Bush did spend too much money -- I get it he has been one of teh worst, but since when have politicains spent less than they brought in?

Now, that we have worthless, myopic view that everyone who voted for Bush is evil, and to blame for everything out of the way, look at what BOTH parties want to do to solve the problems we are in...they want to stimulate teh encomy by spending more money we dont have. It is not "too late now kiddies" it is contributing to the problem -- too much debt.

Hilarys plan, Obama's plan, and I believe Romney's plan all require an injection of cash -- they are idiots. My plan is that we swallow the pill now rather than put it off when it will hurt even more.

[TailgateNut]

I woke up this morning, turned on the TV and found out the markets were dropping the second they opened. There also seems to be a worldwide sell off of U.S. assets and currency underway. That's the response to Bush's "emergency" spending bill. The world is saying, ":bs:" to George Dubya. The Fed is slashing interests rates, but too late now, kiddies.

I would personally like to thank all of those Americans who voted for George W. Bush. Enjoy the ride.


Were you surprised? I told my wife yesterday to brace herself for the losses in the market.


I don't hear all of those morons who were praising the Bush Economy not less than a month ago speaking up about Bushs' destructive presidency.

[Spider]

you have spend money to make money

[Rohirrim]

Yes, yes, it is all our fault completely... Bush is the reason for all evil in the world. Bush did spend too much money -- I get it he has been one of teh worst, but since when have politicains spent less than they brought in?

Now, that we have worthless, myopic view that everyone who voted for Bush is evil, and to blame for everything out of the way, look at what BOTH parties want to do to solve the problems we are in...they want to stimulate teh encomy by spending more money we dont have. It is not "too late now kiddies" it is contributing to the problem -- too much debt.

Hilarys plan, Obama's plan, and I believe Romney's plan all require an injection of cash -- they are idiots. My plan is that we swallow the pill now rather than put it off when it will hurt even more.

You really are challenged aren't you? Dubya instigated an unnecessary war to the tune of a trillion dollars and has allowed our trade deficit to go nukular. He has single-handedly destroyed our military. We are hundreds of billions of dollars in debt to China and Saudi Arabia. George W. Bush, and HIS POLICIES have created that debt. He and his buddies in Congress have flushed the wealth of this nation down the toilet. He is the first president in history to go a complete term without a single veto.

No, everyone who voted for Bush is not evil. They're stupid. You want to know how I can prove they are stupid? Because some of them (wink,wink) are still defending him.

[TailgateNut]

You really are challenged aren't you? Dubya instigated an unnecessary war to the tune of a trillion dollars and has allowed our trade deficit to go nukular. He has single-handedly destroyed our military. We are hundreds of billions of dollars in debt to China and Saudi Arabia. George W. Bush, and HIS POLICIES have created that debt. He and his buddies in Congress have flushed the wealth of this nation down the toilet. He is the first president in history to go a complete term without a single veto.

No, everyone who voted for Bush is not evil. They're stupid. You want to know how I can prove they are stupid? Because some of them (wink,wink) are still defending him.


At first I thought it to be hilarious that some actually defended Bushs' policies, but know I am angry at those who were stupid enough to vote for him, not once, but in many instances twice.
You can't get any of them to admit it anymore, but we know who they were.

They are as guilty as Bush.

[Spider]

I agree I dont think enough pressure is being put on the Bush voters ..stupidity needs to be exposed

[TailgateNut]

I agree I dont think enough pressure is being put on the Bush voters ..stupidity needs to be exposed


I do what I can. Once I become aware that someone who I do business with supports Bush or has supported Bush, I toss them to the curb, and will continue to do so. I could probably steer quite a bit of business to Spdirty, but I'll be Damned if I do.

PS: you should see the stupid ass looks I get from drivers who I "SALUTE" because they still have a W sticker on their car/ truck. **** the assholes, may they rot in hell with their hero!

[Spider]

I do what I can. Once I become aware that someone who I do business with supports Bush or has supported Bush, I toss them to the curb, and will continue to do so. I could probably steer quite a bit of business to Spdirty, but I'll be Damned if I do.

PS: you should see the stupid ass looks I get from drivers who I "SALUTE" because they still have a W sticker on their car/ truck. **** the a-holes, may they rot in hell with their hero!

LOL yeah being in the oil patch I run into my fair share of Bush voters .... Nothing like looking a 285 pound rough neck in the eye and telling him he is stupid ;D but 2 weeks ago near Moab I saw the same car as I saw before , reason I remember this car so well is .Condi for 08 bumper sticker ROFL! the guy wont look over at me when I get beside him .but yeah i am flipping him off big time

[TailgateNut]

LOL yeah being in the oil patch I run into my fair share of Bush voters .... Nothing like looking a 285 pound rough neck in the eye and telling him he is stupid ;D but 2 weeks ago near Moab I saw the same car as I saw before , reason I remember this car so well is .Condi for 08 bumper sticker ROFL! the guy wont look over at me when I get beside him .but yeah i am flipping him off big time


Condi 08? She's a BRATZ doll on crack with a wind up wingnut protruding out of her ass! Geezuss, who in their right mind would want her to run this country! On second thought, anyone would be better then Bush.

[Spider]

Condi 08? She's a BRATZ doll on crack with a wind up wingnut protruding out of her ass! Geezuss, who in their right mind would want her to run this country! On second thought, anyone would be better then Bush.

LOL ....

[Bronco Bob]

Yes, yes, it is all our fault completely... Bush is the reason for all evil in the world. Bush did spend too much money -- I get it he has been one of teh worst, but since when have politicains spent less than they brought in?

Now, that we have worthless, myopic view that everyone who voted for Bush is evil, and to blame for everything out of the way, look at what BOTH parties want to do to solve the problems we are in...they want to stimulate teh encomy by spending more money we dont have. It is not "too late now kiddies" it is contributing to the problem -- too much debt.



The last Clinton budgets:

'98 1.722 Trillion in, 1.653 out. Surplus=69 Billion

'99 1.828 Trillion in, 1.701 out. Surplus=127 Billion

'00 2.025 Trillion in, 1.788 out. Surplus=237 Billion

'01 1.991 Trillion in, 1.864 out. Surplus=127 Billion

The first Bush Budget:

'02 1,853 Trillion in, 2,011 out. Deficit=158 Billion

Source: Congressional Budget Office

[TailgateNut]

Don't confuse the GOPer's with facts. They're confused enough!

[Bob]

The last Clinton budgets:

'98 1.722 Trillion in, 1.653 out. Surplus=69 Billion

'99 1.828 Trillion in, 1.701 out. Surplus=127 Billion

'00 2.025 Trillion in, 1.788 out. Surplus=237 Billion

'01 1.991 Trillion in, 1.864 out. Surplus=127 Billion

The first Bush Budget:

'02 1,853 Trillion in, 2,011 out. Deficit=158 Billion

Source: Congressional Budget Office

Thank you... if this is correct, I stand corrected. This is the type of information that I can use (and others.) I actually do learn, contrary to what others may think, and change my views accordingly.

So with the hole that Americans are now in -- it will be interesting to see how WE try to dig out, or if those we elected will cuase more pain with thier cure. What I see from both parties right now is that the way they believe they will solve the problem is to spend more in stimulus packages. Spending is what got us here, so how will spending more get us to a better place? When teh tech bubble popped the way Washington dealt with it is by lowering interest rates, which created a new housing bubble (allong with bad lending policies) -- so now that a correction in housing is around the corner -- folks what the government to step in to put that off as well, which will create more significant devaluing of the dollar -- I think the more politicans muck with it, the more we will all suffer.


I dont know what part of the total budget is spent on Military vs social programs --- but at this point I dont care what gets slashed.

[TailgateNut]

Thank you... if this is correct, I stand corrected. This is the type of information that I can use (and others.) I actually do learn, contrary to what others may think, and change my views accordingly.

So with the hole that Americans are now in -- it will be interesting to see how WE try to dig out, or if those we elected will cuase more pain with thier cure. What I see from both parties right now is that the way they believe they will solve the problem is to spend more in stimulus packages. Spending is what got us here, so how will spending more get us to a better place? When teh tech bubble popped the way Washington dealt with it is by lowering interest rates, which created a new housing bubble (allong with bad lending policies) -- so now that a correction in housing is around the corner -- folks what the government to step in to put that off as well, which will create more significant devaluing of the dollar -- I think the more politicans muck with it, the more we will all suffer.


I dont know what part of the total budget is spent on Military vs social programs --- but at this point I dont care what gets slashed.


there's a big diffenrence between spending money on programs and projects which benefit our country vs Bushs' waste of gazillions on the war while cuttting the taxes of the uberrich and corporations.

I would be in financial trouble also if I took several vacations overseas each year while not paying my credit card bills and not depositing any funds in my checking/ savings accounts. It just wouldn't make any damn sense, and would lead to financial ruin!

[alkemical]

Look, this is what we are going to have to accept. it's going to hurt for the next 10 years, and this is a great opportunity to really advance in many ways with alternative energy solutions, and really push nano/bio tech.

I'm really working with people i know, in my generation to really push them to be inventive, or if they have the ability to - to really go to school for engineering types of things.

Infact, i'm working on a magazine to sort of 'primer' my generation(s) (I'm between x & y) for these types of things.

We all have to carry the brunt of it, but between 21-38 are really going to have to buckle down and really push for the direction which is best for the country. The boomer generation has lots they can do to help in their own way, but it's time for my generation to end the war(s) and change the way things are.

I just hope i can really make that difference to inspire....

[Bronco Bob]

Here is another fun one. Notice that from Roosevelt's last term until
the end of Carter's term, the national debt was steadily decreasing.
But as soon as Red Ink Ron got into office, the debt increased.
In fact by the time Bush senior left office it had more than doubled
Then with Clinton it started to go down again. And with Bush junior
it went back up again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms


<table id="sortable_table_id_0" class="wikitable sortable"><tbody><tr class="even"><th>U.S. president http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#)</th> <th>Party http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#)</th> <th>Term years http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#)</th> <th>Start debt/GDP* http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#)</th> <th>End debt/GDP* http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#)</th> <th>Increase debt ($T) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#)</th> <th>Increase debt/GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/sort_none.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#)</th> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Roosevelt /Truman</td> <td>D</td> <td>1945-1949</td> <td>117.5%</td> <td>93.2%</td> <td>0.05</td> <td>-24.3%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Truman </td> <td>D</td> <td>1949-1953</td> <td>93.2%</td> <td>71.3%</td> <td>0.01</td> <td>-21.9%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Eisenhower1 </td> <td>R</td> <td>1953-1957</td> <td>71.3%</td> <td>60.5%</td> <td>0.01</td> <td>-10.8%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Eisenhower2 </td> <td>R</td> <td>1957-1961</td> <td>60.5%</td> <td>55.1%</td> <td>0.02</td> <td>-5.4%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Kennedy/Johnson</td> <td>D</td> <td>1961-1965</td> <td>55.1%</td> <td>46.9%</td> <td>0.03</td> <td>-8.2%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Johnson </td> <td>D</td> <td>1965-1969</td> <td>46.9%</td> <td>38.6%</td> <td>0.05</td> <td>-8.3%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Nixon1 </td> <td>R</td> <td>1969-1973</td> <td>38.6%</td> <td>35.7%</td> <td>0.07</td> <td>-2.9%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Nixon2 / Ford</td> <td>R</td> <td>1973-1977</td> <td>35.7%</td> <td>35.8%</td> <td>0.19</td> <td>+0.1%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Carter </td> <td>D</td> <td>1977-1981</td> <td>35.8%</td> <td>32.6%</td> <td>0.18</td> <td>-3.2%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Reagan1 </td> <td>R</td> <td>1981-1985</td> <td>32.6%</td> <td>43.9%</td> <td>0.65</td> <td>+11.3%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Reagan2 </td> <td>R</td> <td>1985-1989</td> <td>43.9%</td> <td>53.1%</td> <td>1.04</td> <td>+9.2%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Bush GHW </td> <td>R</td> <td>1989-1993</td> <td>53.1%</td> <td>66.2%</td> <td>1.40</td> <td>+15.1%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Clinton1 </td> <td>D</td> <td>1993-1997</td> <td>66.2%</td> <td>65.6%</td> <td>1.12</td> <td>-0.6%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Clinton2 </td> <td>D</td> <td>1997-2001</td> <td>65.6%</td> <td>57.4%</td> <td>0.42</td> <td>-8.2%</td> </tr> <tr class="odd"> <td>Bush GW1 </td> <td>R</td> <td>2001-2005</td> <td>57.4%</td> <td>64.3%</td> <td>1.15</td> <td>+6.9%</td> </tr> <tr class="even"> <td>Bush GW2 </td> <td>R</td> <td>2005-2009 projection</td> <td>64.3%</td> <td>68.2% projection</td> <td>
</td> <td>+3.9% projection</td></tr></tbody></table>

[W*GS]

The last Clinton budgets:
'98 1.722 Trillion in, 1.653 out. Surplus=69 Billion
'99 1.828 Trillion in, 1.701 out. Surplus=127 Billion
'00 2.025 Trillion in, 1.788 out. Surplus=237 Billion
'01 1.991 Trillion in, 1.864 out. Surplus=127 Billion
The first Bush Budget:
'02 1,853 Trillion in, 2,011 out. Deficit=158 Billion
Source: Congressional Budget Office

Same source:

'98 $1,722 billion in, $1,653 billion out, $ -30 billion on-budget, $99 billion from SS, $69.3 billion net
'99 $1,828 billion in, $1,702 billion out, $ +2 billion on-budget, $125 billion from SS, $126 billion net
'00 $2,025 billion in, $1,789 billion out, $ +86 billion on-budget $152 billion from SS, $236 billion net
'01 $1,991 billion in, $1,863 billion out, $ -32 billion on-budget, $163 billion from SS, $128 billion net

If you look at the on-budget numbers (that is, not including the SS surplus) there was only one "Clinton" budget that had a significant surplus, and, Clinton benefitted from a $64 billion jump (almost 2/3rds increase) in the SS surplus - from $99 billion to $163 billion. Without those, his record at "balancing the budget" wouldn't have existed at all.

Clinton was lucky, and that's about it.

[W*GS]

Here is another fun one. Notice that from Roosevelt's last term until the end of Carter's term, the national debt was steadily decreasing. But as soon as Red Ink Ron got into office, the debt increased. In fact by the time Bush senior left office it had more than doubled Then with Clinton it started to go down again. And with Bush junior it went back up again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Also from the above link:

In interpreting this table, it should be borne in mind that according to the United States Constitution, the United States Congress is responsible for legislating government spending and thus bears constitutional responsibility for deficit-spending.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMAO @ W*GS backpedaling from "the surplus was illusary" to putting up numbers for this supposedly "illusary" surplus.

:laugh:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You really are challenged aren't you? Dubya instigated an unnecessary war to the tune of a trillion dollars and has allowed our trade deficit to go nukular. He has single-handedly destroyed our military. We are hundreds of billions of dollars in debt to China and Saudi Arabia. George W. Bush, and HIS POLICIES have created that debt. He and his buddies in Congress have flushed the wealth of this nation down the toilet. He is the first president in history to go a complete term without a single veto.

No, everyone who voted for Bush is not evil. They're stupid. You want to know how I can prove they are stupid? Because some of them (wink,wink) are still defending him.

:thumbsup: ^5

Post of the year!

[W*GS]

LMAO @ W*GS backpedaling from "the surplus was illusary" to putting up numbers for this supposedly "illusary" surplus.

I didn't misspell "illusory".

My point still stands - thanks to a huge bump in SS receipts, and a one-off spike in receipts from capital gains thanks to the dotcom equity bubble, Clinton and the GOP-controlled Congress (the part you always forget) enjoyed a teeny surplus in 1999, and slightly larger surplus in 2000. In neither year did federal spending drop due to policy - what happened was more like finding some cash laying on the ground. More luck than anything else.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:laugh:

Typo smack is all W*GS has left now that he's been exposed for his backpedaling and revisionism.

[W*GS]

Any comments from LABF must be considered in light of the fact that he's a proven liar.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:oyvey:

When straw man arguments, deflection, and revisionism fail, W*GS only remaining recourse is to poison the well.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Proven liar = claims all of the trillions missing from the Pentagon went missing on Clinton's watch.

[Bronco Bob]

Also from the above link:

Who submits the budget to Congress? Who signs off on or vetoes the budget.
Who shut down the government in the mid 90's rather than sign off on a
budget he didn't like?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMAO also @ W*GS' claim that Clinton's balanced budget was simply "luck" (or to be credited to the republicans) as opposed to the result of prudent fiscal policy.

Anyone remember Clinton's deficit reduction package that not a single repug supported? (Gore cast the tie-breaking vote.)

[Spider]

I didn't misspell "illusory".

My point still stands - thanks to a huge bump in SS receipts, and a one-off spike in receipts from capital gains thanks to the dotcom equity bubble, Clinton and the GOP-controlled Congress (the part you always forget) enjoyed a teeny surplus in 1999, and slightly larger surplus in 2000. In neither year did federal spending drop due to policy - what happened was more like finding some cash laying on the ground. More luck than anything else.

I have seen cars on solid sheet of ice do less spinning then you are in this thread .......Bronco Bob opened up a can of whup ass .....

[W*GS]

When straw man arguments, deflection, and revisionism fail, W*GS only remaining recourse is to poison the well.

Hardly. You've made any number of assertions that you've failed to prove, and that I and others have shown to be false. In short, it's neither ad hominem nor "poisoning the well" (you sure are fond of that phrase!) to point out that you're a liar.

[W*GS]

Who submits the budget to Congress?

Congress, specifically the House, is the source of all budgetary matters. The Senate and the President have wish lists, essentially, but the House is Constitutionally-mandated (and Constitutionally-responsible) for the federal budget. Period.

Who signs off on or vetoes the budget.

The President, as with all bills.

Who shut down the government in the mid 90's rather than sign off on a budget he didn't like?

Clinton. Can you tell me why he didn't like that budget (as you claim)?

[W*GS]

LMAO also @ W*GS' claim that Clinton's balanced budget was simply "luck" (or to be credited to the republicans) as opposed to the result of prudent fiscal policy.

It was luck. A big rise in SS receipts (was Clinton responsible for that?) and a big spike in receipts from capital-gains taxation (was Clinton responsible for the dotcom boom? If so, then he was also responsible for the dotcom bust).

I fully realize that you're so adoring of Clinton that you believe he makes the grass grow, the flowers blossom, the birds sing, and all things Good that come to humanity, but the facts don't support you.

[W*GS]

Proven liar = claims all of the trillions missing from the Pentagon went missing on Clinton's watch.

Snort.

Let's list a few of your lies...

That I'm a Bush supporter/drinker of the Bush Kool-Aid/etc., etc;

That gun violence increases when the GOP is in power (never saw any proof of that one!);

Venezuela has the most-free press in the world (!);

and so on...

[Bronco Bob]

It was luck. A big rise in SS receipts (was Clinton responsible for that?) and a big spike in receipts from capital-gains taxation (was Clinton responsible for the dotcom boom? If so, then he was also responsible for the dotcom bust).

I fully realize that you're so adoring of Clinton that you believe he makes the grass grow, the flowers blossom, the birds sing, and all things Good that come to humanity, but the facts don't support you.

Let's see, prior to the 1992 election economists were predicting a huge
recession and who-ever got elected would bear the blames.
Clinton instead enacted policies that promoted growth and the recession
never came. Instead more people employed. Companies, all companies,
were begging people to come to work for them. If you were breathing,
you were hired. More people paying taxes, including Social Security taxes.
Massive influx of money into the treasury. Simple as that.
And the dot.com boom's effect on the economy is a myth. It accounted
for less than 1% of the economy.
I realize you anti-clintonites think Bill spent all his time getting knobbers
from bimbos, but facts are facts.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let's see, prior to the 1992 election economists were predicting a huge
recession and who-ever got elected would bear the blames.
Clinton instead enacted policies that promoted growth and the recession
never came. Instead more people employed. Companies, all companies,
were begging people to come to work for them. If you were breathing,
you were hired. More people paying taxes, including Social Security taxes.
Massive influx of money into the treasury. Simple as that.
And the dot.com boom's effect on the economy is a myth. It accounted
for less than 1% of the economy.
I realize you anti-clintonites think Bill spent all his time getting knobbers
from bimbos, but facts are facts.

Facts like these have to be ignored lest they threaten W*GS' little revisionist fantasy world.

[W*GS]

Let's see, prior to the 1992 election economists were predicting a huge recession and who-ever got elected would bear the blames. Clinton instead enacted policies that promoted growth and the recession never came.

The '90-'91 recession had already come and gone by the time Clinton took office.

Instead more people employed. Companies, all companies, were begging people to come to work for them. If you were breathing, you were hired. More people paying taxes, including Social Security taxes. Massive influx of money into the treasury. Simple as that.

What's been the unemployment rate from 1992 to today? Any proof of a massive increase in employment over the last few years of Clinton's administration?

And the dot.com boom's effect on the economy is a myth. It accounted for less than 1% of the economy.

I was talking about the dotcom equity bubble, you know, when the NASDAQ went over 5,000 - March 2000, not the economy as a whole.

The rest of your stuff is just LABF-ian irrelevancy.

[W*GS]

Facts like these have to be ignored lest they threaten W*GS' little revisionist fantasy world.

I've taken Bronco Bob's "facts" to task. When it comes to the Clinton era, you're the revisionist.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

Gotta laugh at W*GS' ability to ignore inconvenient facts, e.g., like the chart that was posted earlier showing the trends in the national debt, etc.

But when he pulls claims out of his ass like "the trillions that went missing from the Pentagon went missing on Clinton's watch," W*GS' agenda becomes obvious.

[W*GS]

Gotta laugh at W*GS' ability to ignore inconvenient facts, e.g., like the chart that was posted earlier showing the trends in the national debt, etc.

This from the guy who has a long history of ignoring the truth when it conflicts with his red-colored glasses... Thanks for the guffaw, LABF.

But when he pulls claims out of his ass like "the trillions that went missing from the Pentagon went missing on Clinton's watch," W*GS' agenda becomes obvious.

I apologize for overstating my case. Those trillions didn't all go unaccounted-for when Clinton was President; however, some portion did.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/bright-gas.JPG