ouch! anyone else's wallet in pain?

[windinthewillow]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Yes, Bush caused this. It didn't have anything to do with China, India, hurricanes, 9/11, a global war on terror, irresponsible lenders or IRRESPONSIBLE BUYERS.

I'm not sticking up for Bush, but the lack of personal responsibility exhibited by Americans when these types of comments are made is utterly disgusting.

It does did have to do with hurricanes (Katrina, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".) Katrina was mismanaged. FEMA awarded about $3.6 billion worth of contracts to companies with crappy credit histories. A Homeland audit found a screwed up bidding process, many of those contracts were awarded to companies who bid unreasonably high.

He put us in a war where there were no weapons of mass destruction. Remember this quote from Bush? "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." The ultimate cost of the war is estimated to top 3 trillion dollars. For what?

Yes, irresponsible lenders. Then why did Bush bail them out for $80 billion?


In the year 2000, the federal budget surplus was $230 billion dollars. As of today, the deficit is $9,411,116,201,914.

When Bush took office, oil was $24 a barrel. It's now $138 a barrel.

Yes, it was Bushy Boy.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by windinthewillow

It does did have to do with hurricanes (Katrina, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".) Katrina was mismanaged. FEMA awarded about $3.6 billion worth of contracts to companies with crappy credit histories. A Homeland audit found a screwed up bidding process, many of those contracts were awarded to companies who bid unreasonably high.

He put us in a war where there were no weapons of mass destruction. Remember this quote from Bush? "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." The ultimate cost of the war is estimated to top 3 trillion dollars. For what?

Yes, irresponsible lenders. Then why did Bush bail them out for $80 billion?


In the year 2000, the federal budget surplus was $230 billion dollars. As of today, the deficit is $9,411,116,201,914.

When Bush took office, oil was $24 a barrel. It's now $138 a barrel.

Yes, it was Bushy Boy.

On Katrina- Yeah, it was all FEMA. God forbid we place any blame on a NATURAL DISASTER or the people who didn't leave. FEMA had nothing to do with the cost of the storm's destruction, unless they have the ability to steer hurricanes.

He put us in the Iraq war, where we didn't find the WMD we thought we would. You can also blame the Senate Intelligence Committee, Australia, England, Israel, the UN, and IRAQ. But then, it is much more convenient to blame Bush. It is also convenient to ignore the strides our military is making, and the fact that the Iraq war has played a large role in AQ's decline (this according to the CIA last week).

I agree on the bailouts, what does that have to do with Bush and the mortgage meltdown? Unless I'm in an alternate reality, bailouts did not cause the reason for the bailouts (the subprime meltdown).

Yeah, the debt. Guess where it came from? See original post (you know, all that stuff you've failed to respond to).

On oil- You're right, Bush is at fault. It isn't, once again, ALL THOSE THINGS LISTED ABOVE. The President, God bless him, controls the price of oil. Not refinery problems, or India, or China, or those who control the supply of oil. Nope. Just Bush. And to think his party wants to drill for our own oil, here, in the US! How outrageous!

[Munchkin03]

OMG BUSH WAS IN THE GRASSSSSY KNOLLL IN DALLAS! STOP THE PRESSES!!

Back to the topic, my wallet is feeling no pain.

[KSigkid]

My wallet is doing ok - I did stub my toe yesterday though. I'll have to write the White House about that one.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by windinthewillow

When Bush took office, oil was $24 a barrel. It's now $138 a barrel.

Yes, it was Bushy Boy.

You are a goddamned moron if you think Bush is responsible for rises in oil prices. The causes for it are numerous and you are, apparently, completely ignorant of all of them.

I'm in the oil and gas business. You can save your idiotic drivel for someone else who is devoid of rational thought.

[windinthewillow]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

You are a goddamned moron if you think Bush is responsible for rises in oil prices. The causes for it are numerous and you are, apparently, completely ignorant of all of them.

I'm in the oil and gas business. You can save your idiotic drivel for someone else who is devoid of rational thought.

Now, now, no need for name calling! If you disagree, at least do so in a civilized manner.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by windinthewillow

Now, now, no need for name calling! If you disagree, at least do so in a civilized manner.

Last I heard, name calling and language such as was used in the offending post are violations of the TOS.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Last I heard, name calling and language such as was used in the offending post are violations of the TOS.

OH NOESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!! I violated the TOS on an interwebz message board. Smite me oh mighty smiter!!!!!!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by windinthewillow

In the year 2000, the federal budget surplus was $230 billion dollars. As of today, the deficit is $9,411,116,201,914.

I don't want to be a dick here, but this line illustrates the full magnitude of just how little you understand the topic. While the year-2000 budget showed a small surplus for that year, the overall US debt was still in the trillions - in fact, it was nearly $6 trillion. Every other year of Clinton's presidency showed an increase in the deficit, indicating that the year-2000 surplus was likely a "gimmick" heading into a contentious election cycle.

Here's the actual data:



Bush shows a strong deficit increase throughout his terms, but it is actually fairly similar to the Reaganomics boom era, and this by itself shouldn't be considered damning (read up on why nations engage in deficit spending if you'd like to continue along these lines).

Your points are disingenuous and specious, in addition to showing a knack for confusing causation and correlation.

[windinthewillow]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't want to be a dick here, but this line illustrates the full magnitude of just how little you understand the topic. While the year-2000 budget showed a small surplus for that year, the overall US debt was still in the trillions - in fact, it was nearly $6 trillion. Every other year of Clinton's presidency showed an increase in the deficit, indicating that the year-2000 surplus was likely a "gimmick" heading into a contentious election cycle.

Bush shows a strong deficit increase throughout his terms, but it is actually fairly similar to the Reaganomics boom era, and this by itself shouldn't be considered damning (read up on why nations engage in deficit spending if you'd like to continue along these lines).

Your points are disingenuous and specious, in addition to showing a knack for confusing causation and correlation.

From the same source you lifted the chart from (without providing any attribution,) here's the clarification of the chart -


"This is a study of the spending habits of our presidents since 1938. It shows that Conservative Presidents out borrow and spend Democratic Presidents almost 3 to 1. Just looking at the graph at the beginning of the study tells a powerful story: In the last 30 years, if you wanted a President to be fiscally responsible, you had better vote for a Democrat. Admittedly this study has the bias of a deficit hawk, but here are the facts, you can draw your own conclusions (the link points to an Excel spreadsheet, obviously if you do not have Excel this link will not work)."

"Most of the negative feedback received on the original paper concerned the lack of the comparison of the GDP to the national debt. To correct this oversight the last update added a section on this topic. The most recent dismal debt data was added and the percentages and analysis adjusted accordingly. "

"Addressed in the latest version is the role of Congress in the amassing of our debt. Both the right and the left may be surprised by the facts here.
I was shocked to see how far this document has spread. If you do a Yahoo or Google search for "United States National Debt" (with the quote marks) this study comes up on the first page. I am guessing that is why it is referenced on dozens of other web sites. Both professors and students have used the graphs in colleges across the county. I should have copy righted this one." - Steve McGourty

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Bush_opinion.htm

Which of my points, specifically, are "disingenuous and specious, in addition to showing a knack for confusing causation and correlation" and why, specifically, do you feel that way?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by windinthewillow

From the same source you lifted the chart from (without providing any attribution,) here's the clarification of the chart -


"This is a study of the spending habits of our presidents since 1938. It shows that Conservative Presidents out borrow and spend Democratic Presidents almost 3 to 1. Just looking at the graph at the beginning of the study tells a powerful story: In the last 30 years, if you wanted a President to be fiscally responsible, you had better vote for a Democrat. Admittedly this study has the bias of a deficit hawk, but here are the facts, you can draw your own conclusions (the link points to an Excel spreadsheet, obviously if you do not have Excel this link will not work)."

"Most of the negative feedback received on the original paper concerned the lack of the comparison of the GDP to the national debt. To correct this oversight the last update added a section on this topic. The most recent dismal debt data was added and the percentages and analysis adjusted accordingly. "

"Addressed in the latest version is the role of Congress in the amassing of our debt. Both the right and the left may be surprised by the facts here.
I was shocked to see how far this document has spread. If you do a Yahoo or Google search for "United States National Debt" (with the quote marks) this study comes up on the first page. I am guessing that is why it is referenced on dozens of other web sites. Both professors and students have used the graphs in colleges across the county. I should have copy righted this one." - Steve McGourty

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Bush_opinion.htm

Which of my points, specifically, are "disingenuous and specious, in addition to showing a knack for confusing causation and correlation" and why, specifically, do you feel that way?

First, that the national debt is directly related to the President - there are external factors that will force the nation's hand, even while realizing that conservative policies have followed a much more Keynesian-aligned deficit spending policy since Reagan. You're misunderstanding which is the horse and which is the cart, giving us a causation/correlation dilemma.

Second, the inference that Clinton's (nearly worthless) balanced budget was somehow an indictment of Bush is specious at best and intentionally misleading at worst. In context, that "balanced budget" shows innumerable problems, including context that indicates it was more parlor trick than the actual best thing for the nation (hence, disingenuous). Additionally, Clinton ran a deficit every other year - and one that does not seem out of line with any other time in history, especially accounting for inflation.

Third, assuming that running a national deficit is implicitly a negative without accounting for the reasons why a nation like the US often has to run a deficit, without any argument about why this particular deficit is worse than, say, 1982 (when accounting for inflation and different world events) again gives a specious argument rooted in emotion rather than logic.

We could continue if you'd like, but I think this is more than enough - no one is arguing the specifics of the debt, nor that Republicans have often utilized deficit spending to stimulate the economy and promote US interests abroad (not war, either - rather, shaping the world economy). However, you've provided no reasons why these are bad.

"Fiscal responsibility" does not mean "balanced budget" implicitly - there are other complex economic factors that state a balanced budget might be a net negative. You're missing that point, or avoiding it.