Bush pushes national debt to 9 TRILLION

For the first time in history the current Republican administration has forced the national debt to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS... and counting!

The endless run up of the debt... the Nation Building "war"... oil prices... the American people have had it and they are now for Change more than ever before. Change not with a capital "C"... but with a capital "D" as in DEMOCRATIC!!!

Everyone had better prepare for a major slow down in the economy and disappointing Christmas sales... it's on the way.

 

The Iraq war an estimated 2 billion a week, oil prices nearing $100 a barrel, a major slowdown in housing. Some economists, such as Paul Krugman, are predicting a recession, or, at the very least, a significant downturn. All this can only help the Democrats.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html​

 

Are you proud of this fact? That people on your side are rooting against America?

 

Nobody is "rooting against America", just stating some facts. Somehow, I think you already know that.

 

How is stating the cost of the war "rooting against America"?

 

I was referring more to how the predicted recession can "only help the Democrats".

 

Obviously, it's just a case of examining the possible repercussions on 2008 of a potential poor economy.

 

Popeye, which of these would you most like to see happen between now and November of 2008?

Option 1: U.S. economy improves dramatically over the next year and a half. Iraq becomes a stable, functioning democracy. Republican president elected.

Option 2: U.S. economy has a severe recession. Hundreds of Americans killed, Iraq degenerates into a full out Civil War. Democrat elected president.

Option 3: U.S. economy remains about the same as it is now. Democrats withdraw funding from war, Bush forced to pull out. The move by Democrat Congress to defund the war hurts the Democrats politically but is successful in getting the country out of the Iraq. Republican president elected.

 

Those options are slanted and rigged. How about another option.

Option 4 US economy remains relatively stable, due to the following action.. Democrats force Bush to set timetable for ordered pullout from Iraq. People relieved, Democratic president elected.

 

At the beginning of George Bush’s 1st term, the federal debt was projected to be nearly eliminated by 2008. At least that was the projection if we had stayed the course set during the Clinton administration. However, with years of Republican tax cuts for the rich and the war of choice in Iraq, this morning, Nov. 9, the debt reached $9,086,714,640,576. How much is 9.087 trillion dollars? In order to get $9.087 trillion dollars all in one place, you’d have to make a stack of $1 bills 626,690 miles high. That’s a stack of bills reaching out to the moon, and then back to the Earth, and two thirds of the way back to the moon. Republicans, the party of fiscal responsibility, tell me about it.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/​

 

Here's what I don't get. If the Democrats think this war is such a tragic mistake and is truly as bad as they make it out to be, then why don't they just defund it? Congress has the power of the purse -- they can take away funding.

The reason is that it will probably make them look bad politically, and in the long run the Democrats, like most politicians, care more about getting re-elected than doing what they believe is best for the country.

The only two Democratic candidates I've heard suggest that the funding for the war be removed are Gravel and Kucinich and as such, I have way more respect for them than any of the other candidates. While I don't agree with their policies, I can respect that they stand up for what they believe in -- despite the fact that the media and consultants say it's going to cost them politically.

 

Or maybe they really do "support the troops" and know that simply "defunding" the war would be catastrophic for the troops that are already there. I don't doubt that there are political motivations too - or even that those political motivations play a bigger role than compassion - but one of the major themes that got the Democrats elected on the anti-war platform was that ending the war would help the troops who are "dying in vain." It would be antithetical to end the war by screwing the troops.

Kucinich is much more of a political oppurtunist than the Democrats who have thus far refused to yank funding on the war. While the Democrats who (albeit grudgingly) maintain the status quo on the war are catering towards the center, Kucinich caters to the extreme left. That's one of several reasons I dislike him.

As for Gravel, I found this bill that he proposed:

http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=node/1720

Part of it is that no more funding would be given to the Iraq War, however, the main part is that it would be illegal for troops to remain there. This isn't simply "defunding" the war, since requiring withdrawal would preclude the halting of the money flow.

If Gravel has advocated simple "defunding" I missed it and would be deeply disappointed in him.

 

I guess if stating the facts and not living on the "Don't look at the facts river of Denile) is rooting against America... I just don't think reasonable people will agree that it is.

How about helping America by getting into the game with some help instead of just spending us up and saying... Oh, that's OK... if it's Republican deficit spending it's GRRREAT!

Column from 11/14/07 The Columbus Dispatch (one of Ohio's largest newspapers which is well known for being very purple (not red or blue) in the positions it takes)

In pursuing fiscal restraint, President Clinton didn't push very hard for many Democratic programs. He left a budget surplus that President Bush and the Republican Congress blew through in about two minutes. Bush then proceeded to ram Republican priorities through a pliant Congress without ever worrying about how to pay for them. Who benefited from our fiscal discipline?
The complaint has merit, but in answer to the question of who benefited: The country did.
We now see the fruits of fiscal irresponsibility in today's economic turmoil. The sinking dollar reflects investor angst over America's deficits, which are the result of Republican passion for spending big, taxing too little and borrowing the difference.
The U.S. government borrows $800 billion a year, largely from foreigners. We are now in hock to the Chinese, and America is no longer master of its fate. Our econimic prestige has fallen so far that a single mischievous remark by a Chinese politician sent U.S. stocks plunging. He had suggested that his country start moving its money out of the dollar and into the stronger euro.
And so Democrats should be mighty proud that one of their first acts after winning majorities in Congress was to revive the pay-go budget rule, which requires lawmakers to offset the costs of legislation with tax increases or spending cuts. That means politicians have to find the money for new programs. Think about it: In the service of fiscal discipline, Democrats had agreed to trim their own ambitions.

 

Republicans-the party of tax breaks for the rich and spend, spend, spend

Democrats-the party of fiscal responsibility

First job I ever had was delivering the Columbus Dispatch, the name brings back memories.

 

B.S. you lying fraud. The national debt increased every single year under Clinton. I really wish you people would stop lying about that. The national debt went up every single year under Carter and Clinton. Stop acting like you want to reduce the national debt. You can't stop spending long enough to do that.

If you want to start reducing the national debt either vote Libertarian, or vote for the only GOP candidate to actually vote against every budget that wasn't balanced - Ron Paul.