• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Disgusted by Bush

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The following are notes I took from this weeks copy of U.S. News and World Report, generally regarded as the most non-partisan of the major news magazines.

Republicans be forwarned...it gets sickening....

First of all, Bush squandered the budget surplus in his first term.

David Walker, head of the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) states,

"The Federal Governments' obligations, current liabilities, and unfunded fiscal committments are over 43 trillion dollars and rising." ( That's a trillion with 12 zeros, that's right, 12 zeros!)

According to the GAO, it would take 75 years of DOUBLE DIGIT growth to pay off the current debt...impossible considering that during the DotCom boom of the 90's, growth averaged 3.2%.

The cost is even deeper because it excludes Bush's 2nd term which will add another 5 trillion to the deficit...

Making tax cuts permanent....1 trillion.

Privitizing Social Security...1.5 trillion the 1st decade, 3.5 trillion the 2nd decade.

Not to mention 10's of billions spent on military operations, and all of this spending is coming at a time when the Baby Boomers will be retiring, causing Social Security and Medicare to soar in cost!

Meanwhile, the President continues to lie and promise us he'll cut the deficit in half by 2009, but his numbers don't include the cost of his war and privitizing Social Security!

Meanwhile, Bush is eliminating 12% in elementary education programs, a 14% cut in Medicaid, 20% cut for clean water, Head Start is slashed by 3.3 billion and nutrional assistance to low income pregnant women will reduce the number covered by 740,000!

Yet, Bush increases high-way spending by 284 billion and the Farm Subsidy program which benefits conglomerate Agri-Corporations will hardly be touched!

Things get even worse when Bush leaves office...his prescription drug program jumps from 400 billion to 724 billion in the first decade!

Meanwhile, we've lost 9 billion dollars in Iraq and no one seems to know what happened?

Our debt is covered by nations like Japan and China who take our U.S. dollars and buy our U.S. stocks. With our dollar continuing to fall, if Japan and China pull out of our stock market, we will see a crash the likes of which will make a Charles ****ens character look like a lottery winner compared to what the citizens of the U.S. will be going through!

Bush has shown no capacity for financial self control, and has yet to veto a single spending bill that has crossed that desk in the oval office!

I grew up in a republican household and have served my country in the military, but if you blind conservatives cannot see the recklessness of this administration, then we're all doomed.

Bush is without a doubt, the worst president in the history of our nation.

Whatever happened to the "fiscally conservative" republicans?

I'm disgusted by this Congress and this administration and the legacy they're leaving for future generations.

And what is Congress doing about all this?

Investigating steriods in baseball, and arguing about whether a feeding tube should be removed from a brain dead woman...that's where our tax dollars are going.

It's a sad day for America.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,280
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Since when did BUSH = every congressperson?

*NEWSFLASH* they have to sign it as well.
 

IndependentTexan

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Location
Dallas, Texas
true...but thanks to the voters, the republicans are in control, which makes most of what bush brings to the table, signed by his own political party
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
vauge said:
Since when did BUSH = every congressperson?

*NEWSFLASH* they have to sign it as well.
Since the House, Senate, and White House are all controlled by Republicans...I blame all of them, but Bush doesn't have to sign every spending bill, does he?

Maybe Bush thinks Veto is the main character in the Godfather movies?
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,280
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hoot said:
Since the House, Senate, and White House are all controlled by Republicans...I blame all of them, but Bush doesn't have to sign every spending bill, does he?
Cannot argue with that one.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since the House, Senate, and White House are all controlled by Republicans...I blame all of them, but Bush doesn't have to sign every spending bill, does he?
I don't like all the spending either, but for a liberal to start crying about it is very hypocritical. If it was Democrats doing it, you wouldn't be complaining Hoot.
 

IndependentTexan

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Location
Dallas, Texas
Squawker said:
I don't like all the spending either, but for a liberal to start crying about it is very hypocritical. If it was Democrats doing it, you wouldn't be complaining Hoot.
I seriously doubt that a democrat would make us 3 trillion in debt and then propose a plan since social security is "going bankrupt" that would cost us an extra 2 trillion dollars.
 

Repubteen

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
IndependentTexan said:
I seriously doubt that a democrat would make us 3 trillion in debt and then propose a plan since social security is "going bankrupt" that would cost us an extra 2 trillion dollars.
:spin:

Ya of course your right because Kerry had a "plan"(what is was, nobody knew). It's amazing how you soon forget during the Clinton years all the Lib's saying we need to fix SS. The when GWB brings it up they say, theres no problem?And about the 3 trillion, if Gore had been President I guaranty Saddam Hussein would still be in power, Osamas number two man would still be around, and we'd be doing nothing to prevent terrorism in the US.Because if he didn't have the guts to tell Clinton to do it in the 90's he wouldn't have the guts to do it now.
 

IndependentTexan

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Location
Dallas, Texas
Repubteen said:
: if Gore had been President I guaranty Saddam Hussein would still be in power, Osamas number two man would still be around, and we'd be doing nothing to prevent terrorism in the US.Because if he didn't have the guts to tell Clinton to do it in the 90's he wouldn't have the guts to do it now.

I cant believe you have the nerve to bring up the war in iraq. The war in Iraq is a mistake my friend. So when you say Sadam would still be in power your right. Gore wouldnt be that idiotic to invade Iraq
 

Repubteen

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So your saying having Saddam Hussein out of power has not made the world safer? And regardless of what you might think we were allowed to attack him because he violated every single rule on the Agreement in 1991.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I seriously doubt that a democrat would make us 3 trillion in debt and then propose a plan since social security is "going bankrupt" that would cost us an extra 2 trillion dollars.
Lets start with FDR, then move on to LBJ. The only time Democrats think we are in debt is when Republicans are in the white house. Funny how that works.
 

IndependentTexan

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Location
Dallas, Texas
ok here we go....0...that is the number of Weapons of Mass Destruction we found in iraq...wow isnt that amazing...Sadam was a bad person but he wasnt a threat to anyone other than his people....Sadam did keep terrorists out of Iraq until we invaded, and now guess what? terrorists are swarming into Iraq to shoot americans.....and when we leave the terrorists will take over, and the middle east will hate us even more for what we did....so BRAVO the world is now much safer.

Lets start with FDR, then move on to LBJ. The only time Democrats think we are in debt is when Republicans are in the white house. Funny how that works
True but FDR was right after W.W. I which i disagree with by the way, and World War II was underway...to save the world from the nazi's and to mention to u 3 million jews died.....that was a war worth fighting...and in the LBJ administration we had Vietnam war.....You don't have much of an arguement there my friend...unless u think that we shouldnt have been in World War II and just ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor.
 

HighSpeed

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
1
Location
Chicago, IL
Repubteen said:
So your saying having Saddam Hussein out of power has not made the world safer?
N. Ireland isn't any safer before or after Sadam. Terrorism is happening there 24/7, why isn't the U.S. there?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Squawker said:
I don't like all the spending either, but for a liberal to start crying about it is very hypocritical. If it was Democrats doing it, you wouldn't be complaining Hoot.
Ah here is the madness of president Bush! A liberal spends on social programs mostly while raising taxes. Bush spends not on social programs to help the poor, but rather for privatising SS and his 2 wars. None of that is to help the poor. And Bush lowers taxes! No this kind of handling of the economy is neither liberal nor conservative...it is simply insanity!
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
I don't like all the spending either, but for a liberal to start crying about it is very hypocritical. If it was Democrats doing it, you wouldn't be complaining Hoot.
Does this ever end? You're now suggesting that Liberals, as you call them, are hypocrites for complaining about sh*t that Bush does? Democrats don't do this. In case you've forgotten, under President Clinton the US had it's biggest budget surplus EVER.

Bush doesn't even have the decency to include his extraordinary expenses in his budget! Why do you think that is? Politically incorrect?

Saying that Democrats would do the same is your opinion only, not based in any fact, as is your wont. I do not believe your words, they are untrue.

Regarding your accusations, to use your favorite disclaimer: {b]PROVE IT![/b] :boom

The original basis of this thread is based in facts about Bush, facts. You countered with an attack against Liberals & Democrats! Amazing!
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Repubteen said:
:spin:

Ya of course your right because Kerry had a "plan"(what is was, nobody knew). It's amazing how you soon forget during the Clinton years all the Lib's saying we need to fix SS. The when GWB brings it up they say, theres no problem?And about the 3 trillion, if Gore had been President I guaranty Saddam Hussein would still be in power, Osamas number two man would still be around, and we'd be doing nothing to prevent terrorism in the US.Because if he didn't have the guts to tell Clinton to do it in the 90's he wouldn't have the guts to do it now.
You guarantee it, huh? Are you omni-potent? Oh so easy to throw rocks at Clinton, isn't it? Are you one of those guys who is still blaming everything that Bush does wrong on Clinton? How about some facts to back up your 'guarantee'? Prove to all us that if Gore were President that the world would be less safe than it is today? Saddam's gone, great. How many new Terrorists have been recruited as a direct result of Saddam's removal?

Let me ask something? Would you rather have today's economy or the economy as it was under Clinton? Which one is better? How much was gasoline in the bad old days? How about interest rates? Jobs? Credit Card Debt? Can you name 10 things in today's economy that are better than they were when Clinton was president?
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Repubteen said:
So your saying having Saddam Hussein out of power has not made the world safer? And regardless of what you might think we were allowed to attack him because he violated every single rule on the Agreement in 1991.
YES I DO think we would be safer if we had never invaded Iraq.

Here's the latest Washington Post / ABC News opinion poll re the Iraq war:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/graphics/iraqpoll_031605.html

A majority of Americans now believe by 53% to 45% that the Iraq War isn't worth it. Translation? Americans now believe it would have been better to keep Saddam in power. And to use Bush's arithmetic, it's a MANDATE!
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
26 X World Champs said:
You guarantee it, huh? Are you omni-potent? Oh so easy to throw rocks at Clinton, isn't it? Are you one of those guys who is still blaming everything that Bush does wrong on Clinton? How about some facts to back up your 'guarantee'? Prove to all us that if Gore were President that the world would be less safe than it is today? Saddam's gone, great. How many new Terrorists have been recruited as a direct result of Saddam's removal?

Let me ask something? Would you rather have today's economy or the economy as it was under Clinton? Which one is better? How much was gasoline in the bad old days? How about interest rates? Jobs? Credit Card Debt? Can you name 10 things in today's economy that are better than they were when Clinton was president?
I can name one- things are a hell of a lot better off if you're wealthy. If you're poor- chances are you're poorer.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
I can name one- things are a hell of a lot better off if you're wealthy. If you're poor- chances are you're poorer.
Oh but Pacridge, don't you know? Despite the fact that wages for workers remain stagnant, and sometimes do not keep pace with inflation, that's all OK because workers get stock market options! Oh the wonders of the New Economy! But, to you 26X, I wouldn't credit Clinton too heavily, since it was he that really began enacting many pro-market theorys, rolling back government speding, lowering taxes, and hurting the poor, inevitably leading to recession.
 

Contrarian

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
335
Reaction score
5
Location
The Constitution State - Connecticut
What are you complaining about Anomoly... all those evil American capitalist jobs are now going to "Communist" China! Read the book - "China, Inc." by Freeman... an eye opener to see how a Communist government takes care of the poor... yea right!

Another wonderful result of Bush-enomics! Allow the low end manufactuing jobs to go to China ($90 BILLION in textiles alone last year!) then con workers into re-training themselves into service sector jobs... then outsource those jobs to India! This is going all the way up the food chain now to engineers, accountants and you may even have your X-rays read by a doctor in Bagalor! We're in deep sh*t!

Now you have a growing underclass with no options. All of this strategically designed to increase corporate profits and fatten the payrolls of CEOs (the highest it has ever been). This incompetent (Bush & Co) feels that he needs to "save" Social Security when the truth is he needs to protect the jobs of those who contribute to the system! If there is a larger undercalss created by this mess, not only will Social Security take a hit, but welfare will be back on the top of the agenda because of starving people. Who says history repeats itself? Hoover > FDR anyone?
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
since my fellow Liberals/Democrats have already did the thrashing all I have to say is.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Contrarian said:
What are you complaining about Anomoly... all those evil American capitalist jobs are now going to "Communist" China! Read the book - "China, Inc." by Freeman... an eye opener to see how a Communist government takes care of the poor... yea right!

Another wonderful result of Bush-enomics! Allow the low end manufactuing jobs to go to China ($90 BILLION in textiles alone last year!) then con workers into re-training themselves into service sector jobs... then outsource those jobs to India! This is going all the way up the food chain now to engineers, accountants and you may even have your X-rays read by a doctor in Bagalor! We're in deep sh*t!

Now you have a growing underclass with no options. All of this strategically designed to increase corporate profits and fatten the payrolls of CEOs (the highest it has ever been). This incompetent (Bush & Co) feels that he needs to "save" Social Security when the truth is he needs to protect the jobs of those who contribute to the system! If there is a larger undercalss created by this mess, not only will Social Security take a hit, but welfare will be back on the top of the agenda because of starving people. Who says history repeats itself? Hoover > FDR anyone?
I agree with the rest of it, but to call China 'Communist' just displays the vast ignorance present in modern America about the subject. Congratulations, Contrarian, you've just hopped on the bandwagon of ignorance!
 

Contrarian

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
335
Reaction score
5
Location
The Constitution State - Connecticut
I don't think that I am the ignorant one..........

You missed the point entirely. If one would enter a lecture hall in a well respected university, and you would ask students to name a "Communist" country. My guess is that China would be named more often than others. This would be because of the "Great Revolution" about 50 years ago, and the ideology of Mao and his gang... and probably because 1.3 BILLION people in that country represent themselves as such. If you think I'm incorrect please point to a single, successful communist government on the planet? North Korea? Vietnam? Cuba?

The point is, that Communism (as most of us ignorant capitalists understand it :unsure13: ) is more exploitive than any form of Capitalism. In fact the Communist Chinese are using their years of oppression of the people to leverage cheap labor and a "submissive" workforce in their state sponsored economy. In other words these people have been so abused for so long that they will do ANYTHING for a fraction of wages earned by the rest of the industrialized world. That is exploitation to the highest degree. When you're moved from living in a mud hut on a state run farm to a clean dormitory in Shanghai so you can work in a sweat shop for the glory of the people and the party... it looks pretty good. The only problem with that is these people will never be allowed to achieve anything more. If they weren't selected to get an education etc... they are just cheap, compliant labor feeding a national economy devastated by Communist ideology.

I understand where you are coming from, unfortunately it is fantasy-land. :beam:
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Contrarian said:
I don't think that I am the ignorant one..........

You missed the point entirely. If one would enter a lecture hall in a well respected university, and you would ask students to name a "Communist" country. My guess is that China would be named more often than others. This would be because of the "Great Revolution" about 50 years ago, and the ideology of Mao and his gang... and probably because 1.3 BILLION people in that country represent themselves as such. If you think I'm incorrect please point to a single, successful communist government on the planet? North Korea? Vietnam? Cuba?

The point is, that Communism (as most of us ignorant capitalists understand it :unsure13: ) is more exploitive than any form of Capitalism. In fact the Communist Chinese are using their years of oppression of the people to leverage cheap labor and a "submissive" workforce in their state sponsored economy. In other words these people have been so abused for so long that they will do ANYTHING for a fraction of wages earned by the rest of the industrialized world. That is exploitation to the highest degree. When you're moved from living in a mud hut on a state run farm to a clean dormitory in Shanghai so you can work in a sweat shop for the glory of the people and the party... it looks pretty good. The only problem with that is these people will never be allowed to achieve anything more. If they weren't selected to get an education etc... they are just cheap, compliant labor feeding a national economy devastated by Communist ideology.

I understand where you are coming from, unfortunately it is fantasy-land. :beam:
A communist neccesarily reads Marx (or has read), and apparently you haven't read him. You have no room to talk about your perceived definition of what you happen to think communism is. What you describe is Stalinism, the ideology that spread through eastern Europe driven by an iron fist. And to go further, China's oppressive roots come from another ideology of which you lack understanding-Maoism. Fantasy land appears to simply be truth, yours is not a lie, simply a misunderstanding, I suppose.
 

Contrarian

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
335
Reaction score
5
Location
The Constitution State - Connecticut
There are 31 Flavors at Baskin Robbins.... but they are all ice cream...no?

Catholics and Jews have various denominations, yet they are all Catholics and Jews.

Not all Liberals or Conservatives are minted the same.

As a scholar of the ideology, you might be able to distinguish the flavors, but to we uninterested, illinformed masses... it's communism. And communism in the familiar, popular eteration has been oppressive to the very people it was geared to help and a miserable failure.

As I said earlier, please show me ONE successful eutopian communist country / government.
 
Top Bottom