We had a budget surplus for 2000 and the year before- meaning for that year we spent less than we took in. Not the same thing as saying we wouldnt be in debt. The 10 trillion didnt all come from Bush. He had a 5.6 trillion head start on it from all the previous administrations. If you want to credit him with increasing it, fine. But we were in debt to the tune of 5.6 trillion when he took office. Here are your own words.
Remember, two years with a budget surplus =/= Out of debt. Here is a link for you from the gov. showing the running national DEBT. Perhaps you meant DEFICIT and not debt. Please use the proper terms
.to do otherwise makes
you look like a fool. Why do I get the feeling that the republicans in house/senate get 0 credit from you for any of that? Hmm.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
I just love idiots on the internet that demand proof, as if they are to be appeased or something. But Ill play along. Senate bill S190 was co-sponsored by McCain and would have increased regulation of FM & FM and the types of securities they purchased including subprime mortgages. Unfortunately it didnt go very far. McCain was aware that something was wrong, though.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&tab=summary
Are you talking about Rick Lewis? The guy that left the consulting company Davis Manfort in 2006? Yeah, no income received from their activities since 2006. That NYT piece was a non-story. Nice try though. Do we need to list the politicians that are the highest on the list of FM & FMs campaign contributions?
EDIT- above should have been Rick Davis, not Lewis. Don't know where the name Lewis came from.
You havent read the bailout plan have you? It was originally drafted to give the secretary complete and unregulated power over how the money would be spent. That is the version Bush was pushing first and was a bad idea in my opinion. Read Section 8. Who is the treasury Sec.? Oh yeah, Paulson. It says the decisions cannot be reviewed by any court or legal authority. It failed and was amended to have an oversight committee and some general rules (and hundreds of pages more crap), but Bush wont be reviewing and approving Paulsons individual moves. If you can find text to prove otherwise, be my guest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html
Amended- Sec. 104 (b) lists who is on the oversight committee. None of whom are the president.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1424
Um yeah
point being? Bush told people we needed to pass it? Yeah, because Paulson, Bernanke and a host of others said there would be a collapse without it. Do you think those people are going to go on air to sell it? Thats the presidents job.
-yawn- I think we covered this above.
Well, Bush did dole out some tax cuts in the past few years. Find me a place he called himself a compassionate conservative. Hey, if you have to be appeased, so do I. Goose, gander, all that. Unfortunately, they spent a lot too. Have you read my tax link from page 1? Of course you havent. Probably still believe that tax increases increase gov. revenues every time while cuts always reduce them. Not so.
LOL! Why dont I believe you voted for Bush? LOL again.
Oh, now theyre your party? I thought you were independent. We could talk about how Obama said the surge wouldnt work and voted against it. But hey, at least he didnt vote present on that one. So I guess hes got that goin for him. LOL. Ayers is/was a terrorist- he has a conviction. He CO-FOUNDED the Weather Underground, which bombed public buildings. Kind of important, that one. Perhaps you hadnt heard.
EDIT- Ayers has no conviction. That doesn't change being a member of the group or what it did, however.
I wonder if Obama as president would just vote present if there is another crisis. Hmm.
YOU were the one that said people wont talk about Obamas plans for the economy. I never said anything about McCain having the best ideas. As far as Im concerned, McCain is the lesser of two evils. As I posted on page one (with my GREAT tax link) I am voting against Obama. Im not enthralled with McCain. Im less enthralled with Obama.
Stopping the war now is a bad idea, and dont think for a second that Obama is actually going to do it. Perhaps you didnt see that he actually wanted negotiations for troop withdrawal put on hold until after the current administration left office. That conficts with his earlier claims of wanting immediate withdrawal. Or maybe he is just trying to push it out so he can try to get credit for it. I wonder.
Windfall profits taxes on the oil companies? Really? Explain to me how that wont just pass the cost on to you and me. They have failed in the past to do what they were intended to, do we need to repeat that?
And the other things you have listed are things he wants to do, but it isnt as though he can just walk into the office and do it. He co-sponsored a bill on 07 related to that Patriot Employers Act that died before it even went to vote- it was introduced and that was it. That was even with a Democrat majority. Just promises.
And from what Ive seen, McCain gave the money back that he got from Keating. Are you really going to keep going with this? There was a reason he wasnt charged.
People get fired every day for not doing what their boss wants them to. If there wasnt a family connection to Palin, this wouldnt have even made news.
Accused rapist? Please do some research- he was accused of hugging a woman that used to work for him. She never filed charges. Maybe she was like the woman raped by the Duke lacrosse team? Another apparent non-story here.
I love when people bring up the 10 years thing. Just like Clinton did, oh, about 10 years ago. Why start anything? Why go to Med school if you wont benefit for 10 years after you start undergrad? How soon are those new forms of alternative energy going to make a significant dent? About the same amount of time- and they wont replace oil for decades anyway.
Not only that, but just having Bush lift the Ban on drilling in July dropped the price $20 in a week. Nothing had even been done to produce any more. What does that tell ya? Oh yeah, more economics here. Its been generally trending downward since. That one thing has done more to the price of than wind or any other alternative energy have.
Ill agree that alternative energy can help things out, but if you think we can replace oil any time soon, you are sorely mistaken. I have no problems with new types of energy. The reason none of those technologies has taken hold on a grand scale is because they arent economically viable. Simple enough, but then weve concluded that your grasp of economics is marginal at best. We cant just abandon oil because we WANT something different.
Really? The government might like to know this. Their info says we had growth in the first two quarters this year. What were you saying now?
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdphighlights.pdf
See above!
When did trade deficit come into the conversation?? The trade deficit went down. Thats good news. It would go down more if we were drilling our own oil.
Really? Wow. And to think that even before your reply here, you had already done that very thing to yourself. And now I see that you have replied again in a desperate attempt to redeem yourself. I would like to keep this up but I have studying to do.
😱
