Americans For Bush

[sodadude]

Do any of the posters here foresee themselves changing their vote for Bush is we are attacked in the near future?

Like what happened in Madrid, Spain.

THIS is my straw vote.

Still Bush/Cheney

[infwsdm]

anybody but kerry

;)

[i_got_ideas]

I will still vote Kerry....

Don't get me wrong, I DO believe Bush is a better war time president but he has screwed the economy SO bad it offsets that. Not to mention I'd rather have used the $200billion we have spent on the war to just build a 20 foot high concrete barrier around our country. We can fight this war against terror on a more domestic level. But since it is underway and there is no turning back we need to internationalize the effort. And...when all is said and done we need to take back the money we invested from thier oil profits, who cares what the other countries say, we souldn't have to pay for it all.

[duckman373]

How can you say Bush screwed the economy? The recession started in early '01 and only got worse due to 9/11. right now we have the same economy tha Bubba ran on in '96. I can personally say my life is much better now than it was 4 years ago.

[i_got_ideas]

Originally posted by duckman373
How can you say Bush screwed the economy?

The stock market maybe fine but the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs can't afford stocks.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by i_got_ideas

Originally posted by duckman373
How can you say Bush screwed the economy?

The stock market maybe fine but the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs can't afford stocks.

What does owning stocks have to do with working. You don't have to have stocks to work.

The unemployment rate is somewhere near 6%. Do you understand how basically stupid you look?

[infwsdm]

Originally posted by i_got_ideas

Originally posted by duckman373
How can you say Bush screwed the economy?

The stock market maybe fine but the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs can't afford stocks.

I'll bet you still are only making $16 an hour huh?

[Senior Tech]

Just a thought, and not directed at any one person...

Doesn't it seem like we have a multitude of people who seem to blame their own ineptness on politics or politicians? Granted, I'm a middle-aged white male, but I have yet to have any thing I've been determined to accomplish slip from my grasp. If I want it, put my heart in it...I usually get it. And quite frankly, the economy has not been something that has affected me drastically one way or the other for several years. $2.00 for a gallon of gas, $3.00 for a gallon of milk....if these are the biggest problems I have to worry about...bring it on.

[teddy bear]

We saw bussiness in general decline during the last 6 months of clinton's term. 9/11 deidn't help. Going great now, having trouble getting good help! I don't mind working hard paying a lot of taxes but wish it was appretiated! I like George and Lora as people. He could be smoother but?

[sodadude]

Originally posted by senior tech
Doesn't it seem like we have a multitude of people who seem to blame their own ineptness on politics or politicians?

Exactly my friend. DEPENDENT people and people that only want to feel good about themselves(do gooders) ARE the Democratic base. Only problem is they are all too willing to spend my money to feel good about themselves.

I do not need government programs in order to be charitable.

I want little or no government in my life whether it be town, state or federal.

I can take care of myself. And I am perfectly capable of making decisions concerning my finances. I dont need "government" to help me spend it. Sheeeeeesshhhh!!!!

[woods mech]

BUSH/CHENEY 2004 no matter what happens.

kerry/edwards are a couple of proven frauds the only reason anyone supports them is out of hatred of Bush.
I wish Bush would do more the seal the borders but kerry would do a far worse job. He has no plan and no vision, which is par the course for a democrat now days. All they can do is complain they have no real solutions. For all of you who think Kerry will magically bring the french into our camp you should realize the french have been against us since the 50s and nothing has changed yet. The US economy is doing pretty well considering the massive hit we took on 9/11 and the restructuring of the government that was necessary to combat terrorism. It's better that we are in Iraq fighting terrorists and drawing more there to die than if we were fighting them here on our own soil. Take a look at Israel that is what America will look like if we do not fight the war on terror. Al Queda doesn't care wether you are a republicrat or a democan they want to kill you anyway they can. The war on terror is the single most important issue in this campaign. Kerry has already proved himself to be an unreliable Naval Officer and Senator. What makes you think he'd do any better as commander in chief?

[Irascible]

Originally posted by i_got_ideas
Bush is a better war time president but he has screwed the economy SO bad it offsets that.Yeah, everyone knows that tax cuts are bad for the economy. Nothing helps an economy out more that massive tax increases and even bigger government. Mind you, Bush has increased the federal budget massively. But not enough! Kerry would no doubt try to socialize health care again. The more the government runs the better. Just look at that island paradise Cuba. Or even better, take a look at the heavily socialized economy of France. Those government controlled economies have smoked us bad. :rolleyes:

[sodadude]

Originally posted by woods mech
kerry/edwards are a couple of proven frauds the only reason anyone supports them is out of hatred of Bush.


That is very true. I have yet to ask a Kerry Edwards supporter why they are voting for these two without getting the anyone but Bush rhetoric.

Weird isn't it? It is more like a cult movement or neurotic fad to hate Bush. Very strange people.

I couldn't stand the Clintons. But I certainly did not have an unmitigated hatred for them.

Bush haters=very strange people.

[RoBoTeq]

In 2000 I really didn't care who became president but I voted for President Bush because I like the Republican policies better.

This election I will be voting for President Bush because despite some seemingly wrong moves he did something and he did it with deliberation.

We have military personnel all over the globe right now and I don't see President Bush lessening their support as Clinton did in Somalia. I can see another Democrat, especially one whose convictions blow in the direction of the political wind, doing just that to our people in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots in the world.

President Bush may not be one of the common folk, none of these leaders are, but President Bush strikes me as the kind of leader that will stay with the last American in the last conflict despite what it may do to his political career.

I don't trust that Kerry will be faithful to America other than what will get him in the best position in the polls. Kerry has been a professional politician all of his working life. Even his short time in the military, which Kerry opposed before joining, Kerry used to better his political career. I just don't trust the man. He has not convinced me that he has any convictions other than to better his position in life.

I also just don't want to have to hear our president bad mouthing our military personnel again. I can just visualize Kerry in another year spouting off about how our military personnel did nothing but commit criminal acts of torture and degradation to those poor Afghans and Iraqis who never did anything to us.

Be just my luck Kerry would become president, get assasinated for being such an ass, become another JFK martyr and give me two eternal flames to have to put out by peeing on one day.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
In 2000 I really didn't care who became president but I voted for President Bush because I like the Republican policies better.

This election I will be voting for President Bush because despite some seemingly wrong moves he did something and he did it with deliberation.

We have military personnel all over the globe right now and I don't see President Bush lessening their support as Clinton did in Somalia. I can see another Democrat, especially one whose convictions blow in the direction of the political wind, doing just that to our people in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots in the world.

President Bush may not be one of the common folk, none of these leaders are, but President Bush strikes me as the kind of leader that will stay with the last American in the last conflict despite what it may do to his political career.

I don't trust that Kerry will be faithful to America other than what will get him in the best position in the polls. Kerry has been a professional politician all of his working life. Even his short time in the military, which Kerry opposed before joining, Kerry used to better his political career. I just don't trust the man. He has not convinced me that he has any convictions other than to better his position in life.

I also just don't want to have to hear our president bad mouthing our military personnel again. I can just visualize Kerry in another year spouting off about how our military personnel did nothing but commit criminal acts of torture and degradation to those poor Afghans and Iraqis who never did anything to us.

Be just my luck Kerry would become president, get assasinated for being such an ass, become another JFK martyr and give me two eternal flames to have to put out by peeing on one day.

================================================== =========

And if anything ever happened to Kerry, Forrest Gump would be President!

[James 3528]

Yeah Bush has made some mistakes...but pulling 70,000 troops out of Europe was a great move.

[motorboy1]

Originally posted by James 3528
Yeah Bush has made some mistakes...but pulling 70,000 troops out of Europe was a great move.

Yeah, great move. He'll need them to replenish the troops in Iraq since I doubt any troops that have served there will actually re-enlist. I'll bet there is a mass exodus from the armed services right now. Iraq - what a mess! Smooth move, Georgie the idiot.

[rob10]

He'll just draft your sorry a$$!!

[bootlen]

Originally posted by motorboy1

Originally posted by James 3528
Yeah Bush has made some mistakes...but pulling 70,000 troops out of Europe was a great move.

Yeah, great move. He'll need them to replenish the troops in Iraq since I doubt any troops that have served there will actually re-enlist. I'll bet there is a mass exodus from the armed services right now. Iraq - what a mess! Smooth move, Georgie the idiot.

================================================== ==========

Ooooooooooo! Yeah, they're suffering a mass exodus right now. There are only 3 troops left. They had to close down the Coast Guard and Army because of it. Oooooooooooo!

[infwsdm]

Originally posted by motorboy1

Originally posted by James 3528
Yeah Bush has made some mistakes...but pulling 70,000 troops out of Europe was a great move.

Yeah, great move. He'll need them to replenish the troops in Iraq since I doubt any troops that have served there will actually re-enlist. I'll bet there is a mass exodus from the armed services right now. Iraq - what a mess! Smooth move, Georgie the idiot.

go crawl back into your hole

:p

[hvac r us 2]

Originally posted by James 3528
[QUOTE]Originally posted by i_got_ideas
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by duckman373


Do you understand how basically stupid you look?

His opinion is not stupid, he is entitled to it. This is America right?

Unless of course George bankrupts the country like he did the oil company's he ran.

At least he is giving it some thought on who to vote for rather than voting by the "party".

[i_got_ideas]

Thank you HVAC R US 2............

I don't know where everyone here lives but I know in my state as well as in many other states people are hurting. I have personally witnessed coprerate executives be put out of a job because thier possition went over seas, since it's cheaper to go overseas than stay here. I know of an engineer that worked for a company that closed it's doors that is now working for just over minimum wage. In my town of 8,000 people we have lost nearly 1000 jobs in the last 2 years, that just sucks.
Our city council sucks, that don't help. FedEx wanted to build in our city, council said no in a closed door meeting, there were death threats made when word got out. People need jobs, NOW...not in 4 more years.
I believe it was Indiana that was hardest hit though I am not sure. All I do know is that all the tax cuts in the world don't make up for the loss of jobs we've seen. Hard to cash in on a tax cut when your not getting a pay check.
Now maybe I am ranting but saying I can't speak what I see is hypocritical of you James. You blabble on about more BS on here than anyone else and ofcourse you think you're always right. Come down off that damn pedistal you're ego is on and listen to people, accept that you don't know everything, I know I don't, and I sure as hell know you don't.

[Edited by i_got_ideas on 08-18-2004 at 07:04 PM]

[infwsdm]

Bwhahahahaha

[woods mech]

yeah and it was all roses when comrade clinton was in office. It wouldn't have anything to do with fact that on 9/11 we suffered a major economic blow would it? Or maybe the fact that we were in an economic downturn at the time of 9/11 and that downturn started before clinton left office? Considering all that we have been thru in the past 12 years I'd say we aren't doing too bad.

[Irascible]

Originally posted by i_got_ideas
All I do know is that all the tax cuts in the world don't make up for the loss of jobs we've seen.Who's "we"? The unemployment rate is at a historically good level, even low in some instances. And while tax cuts don't help the jobless directly, it stimulates the economy which in turn creates jobs. Reagan cut taxes yet doubled federal revenues. How in the hell could he cut taxes yet double federal receipts? Because those tax cuts spurred the largest peace time expansion of the economy in history up to that point. In other words: more jobs.

Bush's tax cuts we're pitiful in comparison. They should have been much more. And even if you don't believe in tax cuts, what's the left's brilliant response to spur the economy? Tax increases? More federal regulation? Higher tariffs on imported products? I work in the heat and air business. Bush's dumb ass tariff increases on steel only hurt the economy. Over the last year sheet metal prices have DOUBLED. And they're predicted to go higher still.

Put up or shut up ideas. You can blame Bush all day long for things he has no control over. But it has no relevance to reality. What's your solution? What's Kerry's solution? And what are we solving??? The loss of jobs? Historically the unemployment rate is fine. The loss of skilled jobs to overseas? How are you going to solve that? And how are going to prove that it's even happening?

I got news for you. Tech support positions at Dell are NOT "high tech". Most tech support people are trained script readers. Whatever REAL high tech jobs may be lost to overseas can be blamed at least in part on the government. When simply renting an office in silicon valley would BUY several valleys in India, who can blame them for moving it overseas? All levels of government tax at least HALF of the economy away. When an economy is left with only half of what it produces for itself, things get expensive. Reduce THAT expense and watch the jobs come back to America.

[bb]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
In 2000 I really didn't care who became president but I voted for President Bush because I like the Republican policies better.

This election I will be voting for President Bush because despite some seemingly wrong moves he did something and he did it with deliberation.

We have military personnel all over the globe right now and I don't see President Bush lessening their support as Clinton did in Somalia. I can see another Democrat, especially one whose convictions blow in the direction of the political wind, doing just that to our people in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots in the world.

President Bush may not be one of the common folk, none of these leaders are, but President Bush strikes me as the kind of leader that will stay with the last American in the last conflict despite what it may do to his political career.

I don't trust that Kerry will be faithful to America other than what will get him in the best position in the polls. Kerry has been a professional politician all of his working life. Even his short time in the military, which Kerry opposed before joining, Kerry used to better his political career. I just don't trust the man. He has not convinced me that he has any convictions other than to better his position in life.

I also just don't want to have to hear our president bad mouthing our military personnel again. I can just visualize Kerry in another year spouting off about how our military personnel did nothing but commit criminal acts of torture and degradation to those poor Afghans and Iraqis who never did anything to us.

Be just my luck Kerry would become president, get assasinated for being such an ass, become another JFK martyr and give me two eternal flames to have to put out by peeing on one day.

Hoorah !!!

[hvacbear]

Originally posted by motorboy1

Originally posted by James 3528
Yeah Bush has made some mistakes...but pulling 70,000 troops out of Europe was a great move.

Yeah, great move. He'll need them to replenish the troops in Iraq since I doubt any troops that have served there will actually re-enlist. I'll bet there is a mass exodus from the armed services right now. Iraq - what a mess! Smooth move, Georgie the idiot.

We have 20,000 people too many and they are trying to force them out. Most of them are putting up quite a fuss. A mass exodis is definately not the case!

[i_got_ideas]

:mad:

Well, just no more than 5 mintues ago on our 10:00 news this was announced.

Another plant is closing, another 564 people out of jobs effective 9-1-04.

Yep, good times, good times :rolleyes:

[infwsdm]

I'm sure if kerry gets elected, the plant will open back up with 1700 new jobs. With health care even

[woods mech]

Thank your wonderful unions for the exodus of jobs to other countries.

[Irascible]

So nothing to put up ideas? No brilliant left wing plan to save America from the evil Republicans? I thought so. :D It's typical left wing tactics. Keep blaming George Bush, Dick Cheney, some of our favorites from the past like Newt Gingrich or whatever flavor of the month that the press wants to demonize and offer no real solutions of your own - well, except for more tax increases, more abortion and more of the United Nations. That solves everything. If only us wackos on the right would learn. :rolleyes:

[johnl45]

Originally posted by Irascible
So nothing to put up ideas? No brilliant left wing plan to save America from the evil Republicans? I thought so. :D It's typical left wing tactics. Keep blaming George Bush, Dick Cheney, some of our favorites from the past like Newt Gingrich or whatever flavor of the month that the press wants to demonize and offer no real solutions of your own - well, except for more tax increases, more abortion and more of the United Nations. That solves everything. If only us wackos on the right would learn. :rolleyes: Please tell me how Bush's tax cut did anything buy drive the country back into debt after Clinton left a 300 BILLION surplus. Bush is running the country into the ground spending more of taxpayer’s money for his big business friends then any President in the last forty years. He's spending all this money on Iraq for what? Big Oil is the only reason. If he's such a humanitarian why doesn't he invade Africa? The leaders there are worse tyrants than Sadam. We can only hope someday Bush and his gang of crooks will be held accountable to the people for crimes against humanity.

[James 3528]

The country is not set up to run on a surplus. And there was no 300 billion surplus, numb nuts. IOf it had a surplus, that means the taxes were to high.

[James 3528]

And even if there was...you can thank the republicans

[hvac r us 2]

Originally posted by James 3528
And there was no 300 billion surplus, numb nuts.

You have quite a way with words James...ever consider writing children books? :)

[bootlen]

Originally posted by hvac r us 2

Originally posted by James 3528
And there was no 300 billion surplus, numb nuts.

You have quite a way with words James...ever consider writing children books? :)

================================================== ==========

Yeah, James. That's the only way you'll ever get the dems/libs to understand.

[Irascible]

Originally posted by johnl45
Please tell me how Bush's tax cut did anything buy drive the country back into debt...Lesson one in economics: Human behavior when it comes to taxes is like anything else. It can be represented by a bell curve. If tax rates are 0 the government gets no revenue. If tax rates are 100% then again, no revenue because no one would work.

In 1921 the top rate was 71. It was reduced to 24 percent and the economy grew by 59% between 21 and 29. In 1930 Hoover raised it to 63 percent and not so coincidentally we got a great depression (obviously other factors were in play as well). In the sixties the top rate was 91 percent. Kennedy lowered that to 70 but also reduced taxes on savings and investment. A long period of expansion followed. Reagan brought the top rate down to 28 percent and we had the longest peace time expansion in history as a result. Reagan nearly DOUBLED revenues to the government with a tax cut.

Are you getting any of this John or are you going to continue to believe simplistic lies about how the economy works? There's been three huge tax increases since the Reagan years, once from Bush and twice from Clinton. The definition of recession accepted by all credible economists dictates this recession started under Clinton. If you understand ANYTHING about economics, you understand that government policies take months and years to affect the economy. Those tax increases setup this recession. As has been proven over and over, REAL tax cuts will bring us out and will also increase revenues.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by Irascible

Originally posted by johnl45
Please tell me how Bush's tax cut did anything buy drive the country back into debt...Lesson one in economics: Human behavior when it comes to taxes is like anything else. It can be represented by a bell curve. If tax rates are 0 the government gets no revenue. If tax rates are 100% then again, no revenue because no one would work.

In 1921 the top rate was 71. It was reduced to 24 percent and the economy grew by 59% between 21 and 29. In 1930 Hoover raised it to 63 percent and not so coincidentally we got a great depression (obviously other factors were in play as well). In the sixties the top rate was 91 percent. Kennedy lowered that to 70 but also reduced taxes on savings and investment. A long period of expansion followed. Reagan brought the top rate down to 28 percent and we had the longest peace time expansion in history as a result. Reagan nearly DOUBLED revenues to the government with a tax cut.

Are you getting any of this John or are you going to continue to believe simplistic lies about how the economy works? There's been three huge tax increases since the Reagan years, once from Bush and twice from Clinton. The definition of recession accepted by all credible economists dictates this recession started under Clinton. If you understand ANYTHING about economics, you understand that government policies take months and years to affect the economy. Those tax increases setup this recession. As has been proven over and over, REAL tax cuts will bring us out and will also increase revenues.


================================================== ==========

Okay, James. Here's your first opportunity. Get Ira's permission to put this in children's book format (pics and all) so the dems/libs will get their first lesson in economics.

[woods mech]

Please tell me how Bush's tax cut did anything buy drive the country back into debt after Clinton left a 300 BILLION surplus.
--There was no surplus the clintonistas just used Enron tactics to cook the books to make it look better than it was. The recession started before Clinton was out of office too. Besides the debt isn't that big of a deal anyway the US has a smaller deficit compared to the GDP than any other country on earth. Bush's taxcut stimulated the small businesses which employ more workers than big business. I also like the fact that I don't have to pay as much in taxes. As far as taxcuts for the rich I think they should have their taxes cut seeing as tho they have shouldered most of the tax burden.I have never got a job from a poor person. Taxcuts are historically proven to stimulate the economy and increase the revenue to the government.

Bush is running the country into the ground spending more of taxpayer’s money for his big business friends then any President in the last forty years.
--You need to stop reciting to liberal mantra and look at the facts and think for yourself. Speaking of big business John Kerry is more connected to big business than Bush. His wife is a Billionaire and he has several billionaires supporting his campaign. John Kerry has not accomplished anything in his life except marrying two rich women and fooled enough people to get himself elected to the senate. He was a below average junior officer in the Navy and a AntiAmerican protestor before he was elected to the senate.

He's spending all this money on Iraq for what?
--Possibly because they violated the original cease fire agreement that stopped desert storm for twelve years and committed acts of war by firing on our planes patroling the no fly zones daily. Also encouraged and supported terrorism not only against the US but also against Israel. Iraq also was a safe haven for terrorists and had several terrorist training camps. Also they impeded the UN weapons inspectors from doing their job and eventually threw them out of Iraq this was also a condition of the original cease fire agreement. We were the victors in Desert Storm so we make the rules.

Big Oil is the only reason.
--Come on get real if it was for oil then we should paying 25 cents a gallon by now. Another example of mindless liberalthink.

If he's such a humanitarian why doesn't he invade Africa? The leaders there are worse tyrants than Sadam.
--Invade Africa? Which country? Africa is a continent not a country. Besides, the countries there are not committing the same crimes against the US as I described above. We had a legal right to invade Iraq we don't have a legal reason to invade any country in Africa as of yet. Although I do believe we have a moral responsibility to stop the slaughter going on there. Why doesn't the UN stop it? Because the UN is run by despotic dictators and has no interest in human rights only world domination.

We can only hope someday Bush and his gang of crooks will be held accountable to the people for crimes against humanity.
--This is just a stupid remark. Typical liberal trash talk.

[woods mech]

Bootlen,
Seems liberals can't read only go out and repeat the mantra the liberal media spews out.
The Democratic motto should be "If we want your opinion we'll give it to you".

[king nothing]

Originally posted by hvac r us 2

Originally posted by James 3528
And there was no 300 billion surplus, numb nuts.

You have quite a way with words James...ever consider writing children books? :)

Oh my God, that's too funny. I literally laughed out loud!
I've got tears in my eyes. Thanx guys. both of you.

[johnl45]

Originally posted by James 3528
And even if there was...you can thank the republicans O.K thanks Mr. Bush for giving this gift to our children.
National Debt Limit Countdown
On August 2, Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress to raise the federal debt limit without delay, and warned that the limit will be reached by late September or early October.

Others have speculated that gimmicks can be used to keep from reaching the limit until mid- or late November. One way that has been used in the past is not making scheduled payments into the Federal Employee Retirement System pension fund and after the ceiling is raised, repaying the "borrowed" amounts (with interest). This would allow action on the debt limit to be postponed until after the election

What is the debt limit?
The debt limit or ceiling is the legal amount -- set by statute -- up to which the government can go into debt. Currently it is set at $7.384 trillion. Increasing debt over this limit is illegal.

What causes the national debt to grow?

Every time the government runs a annual deficit, meaning revenue is not sufficient to cover spending, it must borrow money, which increases the national debt. Record deficits have become the norm under this administration, because of a combination of factors: the economic downturn following 9/11, the war on terrorism, the Iraq war, and, perhaps most significant, the huge tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that dramatically reduced revenue. The Office of Management and Budget recently estimated the deficit for fiscal year 2004 at $445 billion, adding $445 billion more to the national debt.

When was the last time the debt ceiling was raised?
It was last raised in May 2003 by a record $984 billion.

Since Bush entered office in January 2001, the debt limit has been increased by more than $1.4 trillion.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by johnl45

Originally posted by James 3528
And even if there was...you can thank the republicans O.K thanks Mr. Bush for giving this gift to our children.
National Debt Limit Countdown
On August 2, Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress to raise the federal debt limit without delay, and warned that the limit will be reached by late September or early October.

Others have speculated that gimmicks can be used to keep from reaching the limit until mid- or late November. One way that has been used in the past is not making scheduled payments into the Federal Employee Retirement System pension fund and after the ceiling is raised, repaying the "borrowed" amounts (with interest). This would allow action on the debt limit to be postponed until after the election

What is the debt limit?
The debt limit or ceiling is the legal amount -- set by statute -- up to which the government can go into debt. Currently it is set at $7.384 trillion. Increasing debt over this limit is illegal.

What causes the national debt to grow?

Every time the government runs a annual deficit, meaning revenue is not sufficient to cover spending, it must borrow money, which increases the national debt. Record deficits have become the norm under this administration, because of a combination of factors: the economic downturn following 9/11, the war on terrorism, the Iraq war, and, perhaps most significant, the huge tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that dramatically reduced revenue. The Office of Management and Budget recently estimated the deficit for fiscal year 2004 at $445 billion, adding $445 billion more to the national debt.

When was the last time the debt ceiling was raised?
It was last raised in May 2003 by a record $984 billion.

Since Bush entered office in January 2001, the debt limit has been increased by more than $1.4 trillion.


================================================== ==========

Of course, none of that has to do with 911 (thank ya, Slick Willie) or the lack of demanding that member nations of the U.N. abide by U.N. policy (thank ya again, Slick Willie), or that the economy was tanking when W took office (Oh, thank ya, Slick Willie).

john, the oven awaits.

[johnl45]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by johnl45
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James 3528


================================================== ==========

Of course, none of that has to do with 911 (thank ya, Slick Willie) or the lack of demanding that member nations of the U.N. abide by U.N. policy (thank ya again, Slick Willie), or that the economy was tanking when W took office (Oh, thank ya, Slick Willie).

john, the oven awaits. Just like a true right-winger when the truth stares you in the face blame it all on Slick Willie.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by johnl45

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by johnl45
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James 3528


================================================== ==========

Of course, none of that has to do with 911 (thank ya, Slick Willie) or the lack of demanding that member nations of the U.N. abide by U.N. policy (thank ya again, Slick Willie), or that the economy was tanking when W took office (Oh, thank ya, Slick Willie).

john, the oven awaits. Just like a true right-winger when the truth stares you in the face blame it all on Slick Willie.

================================================== =========

How astute of you to recognize the truth. "Slick Willie."

[bobby7388]

How many superpowers have not ever run deficits? none.
How could you reasonably avoid runnung deficits forever? you can't, eventually somthing will give.
As we saw during the end of the 90's the economy was faultering, and most of the cause was the lack of capital venture moneies available for re-investment, or in other words too many people were holding onto their money and not infusing it back into the market.

If you study macro-economics you'll find that deficits are a normal cycle in larger economies, a deficit is not a constant as a surplus is not. Deficit amounts will always increase as the cost of goods and services increase. you need to look at the GNP ratio to gauge the true impact.

One thing you can definitly bet on is that if 9/11 didn't happen the economy would be healthier. Don't balme Bush for 9/11.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by johnl45

Originally posted by James 3528
And even if there was...you can thank the republicans O.K thanks Mr. Bush for giving this gift to our children.
National Debt Limit Countdown
On August 2, Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress to raise the federal debt limit without delay, and warned that the limit will be reached by late September or early October.

Others have speculated that gimmicks can be used to keep from reaching the limit until mid- or late November. One way that has been used in the past is not making scheduled payments into the Federal Employee Retirement System pension fund and after the ceiling is raised, repaying the "borrowed" amounts (with interest). This would allow action on the debt limit to be postponed until after the election

What is the debt limit?
The debt limit or ceiling is the legal amount -- set by statute -- up to which the government can go into debt. Currently it is set at $7.384 trillion. Increasing debt over this limit is illegal.

What causes the national debt to grow?

Every time the government runs a annual deficit, meaning revenue is not sufficient to cover spending, it must borrow money, which increases the national debt. Record deficits have become the norm under this administration, because of a combination of factors: the economic downturn following 9/11, the war on terrorism, the Iraq war, and, perhaps most significant, the huge tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that dramatically reduced revenue. The Office of Management and Budget recently estimated the deficit for fiscal year 2004 at $445 billion, adding $445 billion more to the national debt.

When was the last time the debt ceiling was raised?
It was last raised in May 2003 by a record $984 billion.

Since Bush entered office in January 2001, the debt limit has been increased by more than $1.4 trillion.



You still did not get it Numb Nuts. You were bragging on a huge money surplus when Clinton left office. Well guess what? Clinton don't spend the money. Congress spends money and during that time the republicans controlled both branches of government that pass spending and the budget. I never thought there was a huge surplus anyway but if there was at all, it was no thanks to Clinton.

[johnl45]

Originally posted by James 3528

Originally posted by johnl45
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James 3528
And even if there was...you can thank the republicans O.K thanks Mr. Bush for giving this gift to our children.

What causes the national debt to grow?

perhaps most significant, the huge tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that dramatically reduced revenue.
[/B]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by James 3528

You still did not get it Numb Nuts. You were bragging on a huge money surplus when Clinton left office. Well guess what? Clinton don't spend the money. Congress spends money and during that time the republicans controlled both branches of government that pass spending and the budget. I never thought there was a huge surplus anyway but if there was at all, it was no thanks to Clinton.

No, I got it completely Bush gives a supposed tax cut but has no money to pay for it. Like going to the Bank and using your bank card for a cash advance then your children get to repay it with lots of interest for your Big Banking buddies With Clintons surplus Big Banking buddies.weren't mankin any money and we can't have that Thanks Georgie for the tax cut. One thing for sure Clinton’s surplus was a hell of a lot more then Georgie boys when he leaves office in January.

[infwsdm]

Yo Johnny boy, go take your tax cut and buy yourself a clue.


:p

[bootlen]

No, I got it completely Bush gives a supposed tax cut but has no money to pay for it. Like going to the Bank and using your bank card for a cash advance then your children get to repay it with lots of interest for your Big Banking buddies With Clintons surplus Big Banking buddies.weren't mankin any money and we can't have that Thanks Georgie for the tax cut. One thing for sure Clinton’s surplus was a hell of a lot more then Georgie boys when he leaves office in January. [Posted by johnI45]

================================================== ==========

Buckethead economics spoken above.

johnI. You been playin' roundball on the 45 again?

[bobby7388]

Originally posted by johnl45

Originally posted by James 3528
[QUOTE]Originally posted by johnl45
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James 3528
And even if there was...you can thank the republicans O.K thanks Mr. Bush for giving this gift to our children.

What causes the national debt to grow?

perhaps most significant, the huge tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that dramatically reduced revenue.



Originally posted by James 3528

You still did not get it Numb Nuts. You were bragging on a huge money surplus when Clinton left office. Well guess what? Clinton don't spend the money. Congress spends money and during that time the republicans controlled both branches of government that pass spending and the budget. I never thought there was a huge surplus anyway but if there was at all, it was no thanks to Clinton.

No, I got it completely Bush gives a supposed tax cut but has no money to pay for it. Like going to the Bank and using your bank card for a cash advance then your children get to repay it with lots of interest for your Big Banking buddies With Clintons surplus Big Banking buddies.weren't mankin any money and we can't have that Thanks Georgie for the tax cut. One thing for sure Clinton’s surplus was a hell of a lot more then Georgie boys when he leaves office in January. [/B]



Here again john, your arguing a point which does not take into account all the particulates of what makes a deficit.

One thing is for sure, and time and history will prove it.
Taxing an economy to death will kill it.
You cannot argue this cause because we are the reason for the ups and downs in our economy, we the people.
For instance, who is going to pay for national healthcare? you?
Who is going to pay for security? you?
Who is going to pay for environmental concerns? you?
Who is going to pay?
Every cause cannot be taken care of without running much larger deficits. It's just a shame that Bush doesn't see things as you want.

[woods mech]

Thank GOD Bush doesn't.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by bobby7388

Originally posted by johnl45

Originally posted by James 3528
[QUOTE]Originally posted by johnl45
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James 3528
And even if there was...you can thank the republicans O.K thanks Mr. Bush for giving this gift to our children.

What causes the national debt to grow?

perhaps most significant, the huge tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that dramatically reduced revenue.



Originally posted by James 3528

You still did not get it Numb Nuts. You were bragging on a huge money surplus when Clinton left office. Well guess what? Clinton don't spend the money. Congress spends money and during that time the republicans controlled both branches of government that pass spending and the budget. I never thought there was a huge surplus anyway but if there was at all, it was no thanks to Clinton.

No, I got it completely Bush gives a supposed tax cut but has no money to pay for it. Like going to the Bank and using your bank card for a cash advance then your children get to repay it with lots of interest for your Big Banking buddies With Clintons surplus Big Banking buddies.weren't mankin any money and we can't have that Thanks Georgie for the tax cut. One thing for sure Clinton’s surplus was a hell of a lot more then Georgie boys when he leaves office in January.



Here again john, your arguing a point which does not take into account all the particulates of what makes a deficit.

One thing is for sure, and time and history will prove it.
Taxing an economy to death will kill it.
You cannot argue this cause because we are the reason for the ups and downs in our economy, we the people.
For instance, who is going to pay for national healthcare? you?
Who is going to pay for security? you?
Who is going to pay for environmental concerns? you?
Who is going to pay?
Every cause cannot be taken care of without running much larger deficits. It's just a shame that Bush doesn't see things as you want. [/B]

GO HERE AND READ.. http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=36547

[Green Mountain]

I was afraid that Bush was going to screw up the economy. When his father was President I almost lost my whole company. I spent many sleepless nights trying to figure out how to steer the ship through that mess.

We did good during the Clinton years that is why I voted for Gore. Our company continues to do well with Bush in office. Plus I think he retailated to the 9/11 attacks with a proper response. So I will vote for him this time.

People might accuse me of voting with my pocketbook. To that I respond. "Yes, Yes,I do."

As far as having hundreds of people out of work. Where are they? I could use 2.

Nike is not going to open a sneaker factory in this country until 2035*. There is nobody in the US that wants to work in a sneaker factory. I know I didn't raise and educate my kids to work in a sneaker factory. Did any of you?

*In 30 years robots will be doing most of the manufacturing work so even making things in China will not be profitable. China will have a recession in 30 years.

[James 3528]

You have hit on something I knew years ago. Automation plays a big roll in putting people out of work. Would you rather have a robot or 6 UAW members?

[bobby7388]

That was a good read james.

Here's another example of johns misguided thoughts. During the Reagan years the tax burden was lessend, yet the revenue coming into the treasury was increased.
It was the democrats that spent the extra revenue giving the impression that Reagan caused a deficit.

To say that tax burden decreases cause higher deficits is simply wrong.

The effects of 9/11 will be felt on this country for many years to come as it relates to the economy, some bad, some good.
As john posted earlier, "the economic downturn following 9/11".
It is wrong to try and argue a point of falsehoods, and that statement is false. The economy was slowing much before 9/11, and any surplus will always follow the same path.

[johnl45]

Originally posted by bobby7388
Here's another example of johns misguided thoughts. During the Reagan years the tax burden was lessend, yet the revenue coming into the treasury was increased.
It was the democrats that spent the extra revenue giving the impression that Reagan caused a deficit.
You got your facts messed up, Reagan causes the deficit with the largest military budget ever.

[johnl45]

Originally posted by James 3528
You have hit on something I knew years ago. Automation plays a big roll in putting people out of work. Would you rather have a robot or 6 UAW members? A robot doesn't need his air conditioner fixed so I'll go with 6 UAW members who earn a decent living and have the money to pay for my services.

[rob10]

Than expensive robots. The can't even think for themselves.

[johnl45]

Originally posted by James 3528
You have hit on something I knew years ago. Automation plays a big roll in putting people out of work. Would you rather have a robot or 6 UAW members? One thing for sure a robot doesn't need his air conditioner fixed so I'll go with 6 UAW members.

[Irascible]

Originally posted by johnl45
You got your facts messed up, Reagan causes the deficit with the largest military budget ever.From 1980 to 1992 defense spending rose 30 percent while social spending rose 44 percent. You were saying something about facts?

That fact of the matter is that Reagan was a pragmatist. He wanted increased military spending but had a mostly Democrat congress to deal with. So he gave them what they wanted and they gave him what he wanted. And the fact of the matter is that welfare programs increased in size dramatically faster than the military budget.

Reagan was complicit to be sure. But since the Constitution grants Congress the power to make budgets, they are first responsible for the deficits of that era. And since welfare programs grew at nearly a 50% faster rate than the military budget, they are also first responsible.

[rob10]

You're wasting it on a 10 on the IQ chart!!

[johnl45]

Originally posted by Irascible

Originally posted by johnl45
You got your facts messed up, Reagan causes the deficit with the largest military budget ever.From 1980 to 1992 defense spending rose 30 percent while social spending rose 44 percent. You were saying something about facts?
That fact of the matter is that Reagan was a pragmatist. He wanted increased military spending but had a mostly Democrat congress to deal with. So he gave them what they wanted and they gave him what he wanted. And the fact of the matter is that welfare programs increased in size dramatically faster than the military budget.
Reagan was complicit to be sure. But since the Constitution grants Congress the power to make budgets, they are first responsible for the deficits of that era. And since welfare programs grew at nearly a 50% faster rate than the military budget, they are also first responsible.
Thanks for at least presenting a valid point of view. It's refreshing instead of the name calling practiced by many right-wingers on this board.

While conservatives blamed House Democrats for declaring each of Reagan's budgets "Dead On Arrival" before going on their own spending spree, liberals have several strong refutations:
If Congress had passed Reagan's budgets exactly as proposed, the national debt would have been $29.4 billion worse.
Many Republicans forget that they controlled the Senate from January 1981 to January 1987. Both the Senate and the House vote twice on each budget, once on the original budget bill, and again after the conference committee has hammered out a compromise. Therefore, the Senate is an equal player in the budget process.
Reagan could have vetoed any budget unacceptable to him. He did not.
Not all of Reagan's budgets were declared DOA; Congress actually passed his first one. The first one was critical because it contained his famous, three-year supply-side tax cuts, and established a new direction for tax policy.
Along with the national debt grew our trade deficit. MIT professor Lester Thurow made the famous quote that "the epitaph of the Reagan presidency will be: 'When Ronald Reagan became President, the United States was the largest creditor nation. When he left the presidency, we were the world's largest debtor nation.

Another myth is who gets welfare. Mention the word "welfare" and most people automatically think of the poor. But the fact is that corporations and the rich receive far more welfare than the poor. Welfare for the poor (AFDC and Food Stamps) totaled $50 billion in 1992, but welfare for corporations (pork-barrel projects, business subsidies and tax breaks) are estimated to run from $85 billion to $800 billion, depending on which think tank you listen to. Brian Kelly, a Washington journalist who has written a book on corporate pork, discloses that pork alone costs taxpayers between $20 to $100 billion a year. By itself, the $500 billion dollar Savings & Loan bailout would have funded 10 years of AFDC and Food Stamps. There is simply no question who receives the most welfare from government.

During the 80s, government spending on individuals increased for everyone except the poor. The reason is because the poor cannot afford lobbyists to defend their interests in Washington; consequently, politicians find the poor easy targets for budget cuts. Between 1970 and 1991, the purchasing power of benefits for the typical AFDC family fell 42 percent, primarily as a result of state and federal cuts.

[James 3528]

I am a busy person. I don't have time to detail why you are stupid. Especially the kind of stupid where it looks like you woke up in the morning and planned to be stupid or you should be the grand marshall in the stupid parade.

[woods mech]

Hey I worked in a sneaker factory. We made New Balance shoes and I had to be a member of a stupid union. The AFL-CIO what a crooked organization that is!. One time they came thru asking for 2 volunteers from our factory to go to Memphis and protest. Me and this other guy said OK since they were paying for gas and the hotel. We got there and there were hundereds of us idiots marching down Beale St. with some Martin Luther King wannabe leading us. No one knew why we were there we were just marching and chanting stupid slogans. When we got to the Pyramid downtown the police told us to disperse and the ones who wanted to go to jail should get on one side of the street while the others should get on the other side. Well I told my friend I wasn't going to jail for this stupid bunch of people so we both left. They had people there that were ex-hippy professional protestors I guess they sent anywhere they wanted to have a protest. I learned a lot that day about the left and their deceptive practices. All that talk about how the union helps you get better wages didn't apply to me I only made $5.10 at my highest point. I moved to Texas and took a non-union job and got $10.00 an hour to start. Never again will I join a union. Thank goodness I live in Texas and I don't have be in a union to work. Unions are what drove the business out of this country by extorting more and more money from companies and using dirty tactics. I used to be on the left side of the spectrum but I had enough sense to see thru the B.S. I am not a right wing diehard but I am conservative for sure due to what I have learned from experience.

[Irascible]

Originally posted by johnl45
Thanks for at least presenting a valid point of view. It's refreshing instead of the name calling practiced by many right-wingers on this board.It's a failing of people in general, right and left. I threw a few names around myself when I got into it with the duct cleaners and since then I've tried to mend my ways. Insults only hasten the breakdown of the conversation. Mind you, the conversation always breaks down. I just try to make sure it's the other guy's fault when it does. :D

Besides, why bother with the names when we have Rob and James? With such magnificent wit on display, as evidenced by such jewels as "dumb-o-crat" (*cough*), I dare not encroach on their turf. :rolleyes: LOL! ;)

No Rob. Agreeing with John on preferring civility over insults does not make me a pinko commy sympathizer. :p

[bobby7388]

Originally posted by johnl45

Originally posted by bobby7388
Here's another example of johns misguided thoughts. During the Reagan years the tax burden was lessend, yet the revenue coming into the treasury was increased.
It was the democrats that spent the extra revenue giving the impression that Reagan caused a deficit.
You got your facts messed up, Reagan causes the deficit with the largest military budget ever.


One very important point needs to be addressed, I never have my facts mixed up. If your going to argue a point I assume you've done some research prior to posting. If it seems that you haven't then I'll rebut promptly and correctly.
Even though a president is blamed for most of the economies problems, or credited with growth, they are not in direct control of spending, they only make recommendations and have the power of veto which can be overiden with a 2/3 majority vote from congress.

Remember!!! Kerry voted against the Gulf War(91) yet voted for the current war. Then he came out in favor of the Gulf War and agianst the current war. If you can figure him out all the power to you. But to trust him with the security of our country is ludicrous at best.

[James 3528]

Study this page http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm the trends and the years when who was President. This is why people like John fascinate men with their brainless Jibs.

See if you can find the Clinton Surpluss.

[acmanko]

The wonderful thing about that chart is how each years debt just disappears. It's government stupid, they aren't in it for a profit. We make money,gov. taxes it and then spends it. what else is it for.

[James 3528]

It doesn't disappear Numb Nuts. Some one should put a net over you. Or get you into rehab

[acmanko]

Yea it does, explain why you only here about deficits in the year they are created. and quit flopping around, get one one side or the other.

[bobby7388]

Originally posted by acmanko
Yea it does, explain why you only here about deficits in the year they are created. and quit flopping around, get one one side or the other.


Well!! one good reason is because that's how the books are handled, deficits are fiscal, and then carried over with any increase to the next fiscal yr.
A deficit is not truly created in one year, it is an ongoing process.
The main reason for increases is the cost of goods and services, the services that we demand from our government.

[johnl45]

Originally posted by Jamesgang 3528
Study this page http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm the trends and the years when who was President. This is why people like John fascinate men with their brainless Jibs.

See if you can find the Clinton Surpluss.
What's this?
William J. Clinton

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by johnl45

Originally posted by Jamesgang 3528
Study this page http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm the trends and the years when who was President. This is why people like John fascinate men with their brainless Jibs.

See if you can find the Clinton Surpluss.
What's this?
William J. Clinton

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus.


Your Nucking Futs! PEACE? USS COLE, WAKO, BOSNIA,BLACK HAWK DOWN,SAME UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AS NOW. HIGHEST HOUSING STARTS IN 25 YEARS UNDER BUSH.

You are a liar or either stupid. Take your pick.

[Edited by James 3528 on 08-22-2004 at 04:54 PM]

[bootlen]

Originally posted by johnl45

Originally posted by Jamesgang 3528
Study this page http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm the trends and the years when who was President. This is why people like John fascinate men with their brainless Jibs.

See if you can find the Clinton Surpluss.
What's this?
William J. Clinton

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus.


================================================== =========

There were a large number of "self-employeds" who were the so-called "dot-commers". All that turned out to be was a bunch of paper movers who made a ton of money in a very short period of time, causing the cost of living to go sky-high. When all the paper moving came to where the rubber hits the road, there was neither rubber nor road and left a whole lot of people with a huge debt and no job. It was a false economy (thank ya, Slick Willie!).

BTW, execs at Enron took the hint and did the same thing, corruption following corruption...business following White House leadership. (thank ya, Slick Willie!)

[bobby7388]

Originally posted by johnl45

Originally posted by Jamesgang 3528
Study this page http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm the trends and the years when who was President. This is why people like John fascinate men with their brainless Jibs.

See if you can find the Clinton Surpluss.
What's this?
William J. Clinton

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus.





All at the cost of the military and intelligence agencies that you curse now for not doing their jobs.
Now look where we are, trying to recover from the mishaps of Clinton.

[acmanko]

Trying to recover? 3 steps back and 1 step forward means we are losing ground. Down with the pinko commie Bu****es. Ever wonder whe the commies of Russia and china are called Reds, just as the Red for republicans. both the same . power mongering, trickle down bastards.

[rob10]

I thought you voted in Mexico!! You have no green card hombre'. :D

[acmanko]

Just boiling some blood, my bruha sister in law is coming to town and I need some patsies for a little magic

[sline-dawg]

you're doing your sister-in-law too??? maybe libs aren't that bad after all.. have fun.

[bobby7388]

Originally posted by acmanko
Trying to recover? 3 steps back and 1 step forward means we are losing ground. Down with the pinko commie Bu****es. Ever wonder whe the commies of Russia and china are called Reds, just as the Red for republicans. both the same . power mongering, trickle down bastards.


Absolutly, maybe if Clinton would have grapped Bin-Laden when we had the chance 9/11 may not have gone off as succesfully as it did, Oh, I forgot, that's Bush's fault too.

Also, don't forget who was in office when communism fell, A Republican, if Reagan were alive today he'd come to your house and slap you for such comments.

[Irascible]

Originally posted by bobby7388
If Reagan were alive today he'd come to your house and slap you for such comments.I don't think so bobby. Eighteen F-111 fighter-bombers would have been more his style, France's denial to use their airspace notwithstanding. :D


http://ontimehvac.com/other/loadout.jpg

[bobby7388]

I use to guard those birds at Pease AFB back in the 80's, 5 loaded hot with four specials apiece, ready to go in 3 minutes. God!! I miss the cold war.

[acmanko]

Yea, I know Reagan was in office, one red collaborating with another. Cheer up though, Cheney is endorsing the gay/ lesbian ticket. now all you fag/pinko's have a leader.

[bobby7388]

Originally posted by acmanko
Yea, I know Reagan was in office, one red collaborating with another. Cheer up though, Cheney is endorsing the gay/ lesbian ticket. now all you fag/pinko's have a leader.


Now your just spewing out sentences wihout much forethought.

[James 3528]

You just noticed that? You can't tell when the 5th Jack Daniels comes around?

[2seasons-employed]

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/newreply.php?action=newreply&postid=579328

[2seasons-employed]

Originally posted by bobby7388 OLLIE NORTH AND POINDEXTER ARENT HEAR TO TAKE THE FALL THIS TIME , WITH YOUR TRICKLE DOWN MY LEG ECONOMICS.

Originally posted by acmanko BUSH SOLD ARMS TO KHADAFI, AND BUSH JETS TO LIBYA AND IRAN THEN DECLARED WAR ON THEM, OH DUH!
Trying to recover? 3 steps back and 1 step forward means we are losing ground. Down with the pinko commie Bu****es. Ever wonder whe the commies of Russia and china are called Reds, just as the Red for republicans. both the same . power mongering, trickle down bastards.


Absolutly, maybe if Clinton would have grapped Bin-Laden when we had the chance 9/11 may not have gone off as succesfully as it did, Oh, I forgot, that's Bush's fault too. HEY SNIFF HTE JAVA OR SNIFF THE BS OF BUSH YOUR CHOICE, WHATS YOUR FLAVE? BUSH HAD BEEN TOLD AND ADVISED AND GAVE NO REGONITION TO THE ADVISE OF THE ATTACK OF 9-11, AND HE WAS WELL APRISED IN ADVANCE OF THE BIN LADEN BEING IN THE SITES OF THE AMERICAN SNIPER, IT WAS TELEVISED ON CNN, AND IT WAS CONFIRMED FOR A HALF AN HOUR , HE WAITED AND COULDNT GET THE OKAY TO SHOOT BIN-LADEN I SUUPPOSE ALL THIS IS NOT, BUSH'S FAULT? WHERES THE RESPONSIBILITY LIE, NOT UPONN CLINTON, HE'S OUT OF OFFICE ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY, BUSH DIDNT ACT WITHIN EMEGENCY TIME NECESSARY TO CATCH THE ATTACKERS , NOR PUNISH THEM, HE WAITED COWERDLY , FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE WORLD! AND MADE LIARS AND ENEMIES OF OUR ALLIES AND DESTROYED WORLD PEACE THAT CLINTON HAD SO HARD ACHIEVED! BUSH WAS WELL AWARE OF HIS COMMANDERS SEXUALLY HARMING POW'S-WAR CRIMES, WHICH PUTS HIM IN THE SAME CATAGORY AS , SADDAM, AND KEPT IT HID FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, SO WE WOULDNT REQUEST OR DEMAND WITH DRAWL OF OUR TROOPS, SUPPORT OUR TROOPS BY BRINGING THEM HOME, FOR THEIR SAFETY AND THEIR WELFARE OF WELBEING, NOT BUSH'S PERSONAL AGENDA! THERES A DIFFERENCE, LEARN IT OR THINK ABOUT IT! CAUSE WHEN ITS OVER , HE'LL CUT JOBS BASES AND CLOSE BASES AND MILITARY PAY, ITS ONLY FOR A LARGE VOTING GROUP TO RELECT HIMSELF, HIS DAD DID THE SAME , SHORT TERM MEMORY LOSS?, OR SELECTIVE MEMORY?, THINK ABOUT IT? THE LITTLE OIL TYCOON DRIVEN UP OIL PRICES BECAUSE IT MADE HIM RICHER, AND ALOT MORE MONEY THAN THE CLINTON SCANDEL, SO SMELL THE JAVA, AND WAKE UP!, THERES NEVER BEEN MORE SENSELESS KILLING, AND WAR CRIMES AND LOST JOBS, AND AMERICAN FACTORIES GOING ABROAD, AND BANKRUPTCIES FILED AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS CLOSING AND FAILING, AND HOMELESS FAMILIES, THAN WAY BEFORE THE CLINTON ERA, WHEN IS BUSH GOING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, KERRY IS A TRUE BLUE COLLAR WORKER AND WAR HERO, HE STOOD UP AGAINST THE GOVT FOR DENIAL OF AGENT ORANGE EXISTING AND POW'S BEING LEFT BEHIND, ETC; BUSH LIED , TO THE ALLIES AND TO THE WORLD AND TO THE AMERICAN'S THAT HE'D END THE WAR IF SADDAM WAS REMOVED FROM POWER AND NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE EVER FOUND! WELL? NO COMMENT??? WE COULD'VE GAVE THEN THE WEAPONS TO FIGHT THEIR OWN WAR AND HELP THEMSELVES, BUT ITS EASIER TO SPEND TILL THE ECONOMY ALLOWS THE RICH TO PURCHASE ALL THE LOSSES OF THE MIDDLE CLASS THAT FOOTS THE BILL, AND THE POOR, AND THE SPOILS OF WAR, IS ACHIEVED AND THE DEFICIT IS AGAIN OUT OF CONTROL AFTER CLINTON LOWERED IT AFTER THE BUSH REAGANOMICS ORDEAL, THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR GOES DOWN AND THE DEBT GOES UP AND THE COST OF LIVING IS RAISED AND THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE BILL OF THESE BILLIONS , WHO FOOTS IT?http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/newreply.php?action=newreply&postid=579328

Also, don't forget who was in office when communism fell, A Republican, if Reagan were alive today he'd come to your house and slap you for such comments. DONT MISREPRESENT THE FACTS , CLINTON WAS THE PRESIDENT WHEN THE WALL OF COMMUNISM(S) CAME DOWN AL OVER THE WORLD, AND KOSOVO IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE LAST PART OF THAT, CLINTON , PROMOTED DEMOCRACY AND RUSSIA BECAME A DEMOCRACY GOVT DURING THE CLINTON PRSIDENCY, THE SALT PEACE TREATY 2 WAS BREECHED BY THE REAGEN IDIOT HIMSELF, BOTH BUSH AND REAGAN WERE CAUGHT ON FILM RUNNING OFF IN THEIR LIMO'S SELLING ARMS IN LIBYA, IRAN! REAGAN WAS A ACTOR AND WITH A MONKEY AS HIS CO-ACTOR, BUSH NEVER WORKED AN HONEST DAY'S WAGE IN HIS LIFE, AND OWNS MORE OIL THAN YOU CAN DREAM ABOUT MAKING FOR GENERATIONS UPON GENERATIONS, OF INCOME! GET A GRIP AND SLAP YOURSELF, THE ONLYTHING THAT HAS COME DOWN IN BUSH'S ERA, IS THE TEN COMMANDMENT MONUMENTS, SCHOOL PRAYERS, AND JOBS AND BUSINESSES, AND AMERICAN FACTORIES, AND THE REMOVAL OF GOD , AND WHAT ORIGINALLY STARTED MORE GOVT INTERVENTION, AND LESS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, WAS WHEN , BUSH SR., HAD CIRCUMVENTED THE LAW OF THE STATE COURTS NO LONGER HAD TO FOLLOW THE PRECEDENCES OF THE SUPREME COURT RULLINGS! AMONG TAKING OVERTIME FROM ANYONE WHO MAKES 23,000 A YEAR OR MORE! THIS WAS ALL DONE WITHOUT THE ISSUES GOING BEFORE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND THE US CONGRESS FOR APPROVAL, SO IF YOU THINK YOURE A BLUE COLLAR REPUBLICAN, THEY DONT EXIST , BECAUSE REPUBLICAN PARTY ONLY REPRESENTS THEIR INTEREST OVER 250,000 A YEAR AND UP, NOT BLUE COLLAR WORKERS! GET A CLUE! OR PAY THE PRICE, AND THEIR WAGES!

[Edited by 2seasons-employed on 09-01-2004 at 05:12 AM]

[rob10]

Kerry has NEVER been a blue collar worker. Besides his all expense paid vacation in nam, he has always been a career politician. 2seasons, you sound like a typical commie liberal with that crap you are spewing. BTW, your run on writing style makes me naseous!!