printed or borrowed, it's all the same mess. by writing IOUs to the social security and medicare trusts, all you do is postpone debt. if you are constantly spending more than you are taking in, where does that repayment come from? You either have to borrow more or print money when the IOU comes due. borrowing on a temporary basis would work but that would require fiscal dicipline in good times and as you can tell, the lobbyists and politicians will have none of that.

This is not about who's deficit was worse. i admit that the Bush Administration's deficit was one of the worst in history. There is no dispute there. It was, however, not directly the cause of where we are now. Either way, this is about your argument. Try to focus here.

I'll take you back to kindergarden for a second and remind you that two wrongs still don't make a right. You can kick and scream all you want, the fact is, ANY politician you support is killing our nation.

I already know what your answer will be, but if you were so pissed about the tax cuts, how come you never bitched about any of the bailouts? IIRC, you actually argued for them...

From my direct conversation with a few southern KKK boys, they'd never vote for the party of Lincoln aka, the Republicans.

Borrowing billions upon billions from yourself (aka, printing money) to make ends meet is not a surplus. The debt has not fallen since Jackson was president.

The economic situation was extremely favorable in perspective with our history... much like post WWII America. THAT is what lowered the deficit but it never completely eliminated it. By raising taxes in times of great economic growth, you make large quantities of cash. However, when that growth abruptly stopped in 2000, the money did too. Cutting the taxes back at that point yielded under $150B a year loss of income to the feds. Even the additional costs associated with the wars didn't make the two equivalent of the deficit in those years. There was more afoot and it was nothing but the usual bullsh*t politics in washington FROM BOTH SIDES

Thanks for playing. Care to try again?

I stopped riding at night because of all the dumbsh*t drivers. Even in broad daylight, I still have felt the mirror of a car hit my sleeve. There's just no courtesy.

huh? did i miss something here? We have never had it my way. but once again, here you go skirting an argument by attacking me.

How about backing up your claim that 2001 was a great economic time? You said it but have offered no justification for it.

Or even better, tell me how it was predictable that this would all happen over a few tax cuts. If it was so predictable to you, then surely you can cite a few major points along the way where this was becoming more and more evident to yourself. I know what they were, but they were hardly partisan.

Or even better still, tell me how we weren't broke in the first place, long before W, Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, or any of them took office. I really need a laugh.

Maybe provide backup for your claim that "bridges and roads fell into despair" and that the poor lost out on all these social programs because of the tax cuts. I mean, you must have a source for this.

And the source of much hilarity, how are the Dems actually standing up to big business? You know, AIG, for example. How about a few examples here?

The thing is, you cannot. You never have, and you never will. So if you're not going to respond with an answer, please, just don't hit "reply."

Being that you think that 2001 was the best economy we've ever seen, yeah, you have no idea. Throwing good money after bad does not fix things. You obviously have no clue so I'll just stop here. I've argued it time and time again and being that you cannot even argue the opposing arguments based on fact, this argument would be wasted on you. again.

I think you need an economics/finance lesson because that is so far from how it happened that the post is laughable. I/ve tried explaining it before but your ignorance, lack of comprehension, or bias always get in the way.

How about we use the other millions upon millions of free acres in the US instead. It's not like there's an excess of golf courses sucking up all the land, let alone courses in third world countries.

Just chill and kill the holier-than-thou attitude. It's a game that makes many happy. If you don't like it, fine, but don't go being a d*ck and talking trash about everyone else.

Totally agree. It just pisses me off when someone will condemn a Republican but completely support a Democrat for the same thing (or vice versa - obviously, the republican doing wrong side is more applicable now).

If you're so independent, then why is Obama not guilty for continuing the wars?

Accessory to murder still gets you ten to twenty. Doesn't make you any less guilty.

remember... no earmarks will be passed.

Of course not! It's never wrong when your side does it!


The fact that this thread differentiates from one side being criminals and the other not speaks worlds about how seriously it should be taken. I especially like the photoshopped images and cute video clip of McCain. Totally makes me want to take anything you say seriously.

<-- not republican, remember. I have to have told you at least two dozen times now. besides, today's republican party is not exactly the best demonstration of fiscal conservatism.

You always criticize without substance and avoid an argument by attacking the poster. Yes, the Republicans were irresponsible when in power. Guess what... the Dems are too! They were at the end of Bush's term and they are far moreso now. It's not going to change. This is reality. The sooner everyone realizes it, the better off we'll all be.

Thanks for posting this. I needed a good laugh.

Ok, I admit I know that Dubai is quite corrupt. You rarely get a rich dictatorship without exploiting someone else.

However, this is hardly the capitalist philosophy and hardly the structure of government proposed by us fiscal conservatives. You see, there are stark differences in the situations of the two. Comparison would be like comparing healthcare between us and France - sure, on face value it has one appearance but once you look at the underlying factors, it's all very, very different.

So go ahead and play your little game of pin the tail on the republican and stretch examples to make it fit your argument. If anyone here is not living in reality, it's you.

I do not see why anyone would like to flee to a side that would have an over 50% tax rate. Not to mention who would like to start a business in such a sittuation. There would be so little economic and technological development it'd be pathetic.


I think both would ultimately fail. The Democratic side because of economics, and the Republican side because of social values. There would be no rich on the democratic side because that seems to be the answer for any monetary issue: tax the rich. It would be a nation of "equals" where nobody lives well but everyone gets by.

The fact is, a nation such as this will not be able to compete on the world marketplace. If you do not heavily tax imports, manufacturing and production will never survive. When the average worker will be making around $15-20 an hour (so there is some left after your check gets raped for taxes) for some job a partially-trained monkey can do, inflation hits hard. Inflation weakens currency and creates a very large trade deficit. This is the root of the failure. It would be an exaggerated view of our current manufacturing industries. A modern nation cannot survive this way.


However, the social limitations of the far right in respect to religion would create a facist state. Economically, the state could thrive and while you assume that the EPA and every agency will just disappear, the free market will regulate this to an extent and do so far more efficiently. Ultimately, this lack of freedom will lead to reduced productivity and a religious state a la Israel or Saudi Arabia. So long as you can keep "morality" out of the workplace and keep workers happy, it will thrive far beyond any other - provided defense spending can be kept in check and the nation keeps its troops where they belong.

I'm not speaking of predicting trends, I'm just speaking of the fact that nothing is free and nobody seems to realize it.

And truthfully, economics can predict failures and everything that has happened. however, just like any science, your conclusinos are only as good as your inputs. If you do not know all the inner workings, your conclusions will never be perfect.

people still trust the government.



I actually place it in the top 5 of our biggest problems.

this is one point i am fuzzy on... they declare that the 9/11 mastermind will be given a civillian trial but others will be given a tribunal because they specifically targeted a military target. I'm sorry, is the pentagon no longer a military target?

I can understand why they are bringing him to trial in a civilian setting (the majority of the crime was a civilian target), however, god help them if they get his confession and other evidence thrown out because he was never given miranda rights (which, last I checked, are required upon any arrest for a crime in the US, regardless of nationality). A tribunal does not carry this technicality.

If he is set free on a technicality, all hell will break loose for our fearless leader.

thank you quietman for being a rational, logical voice in this thread, regardless of all the childish responses. I completely agree that history is the only judge. Many replies about him being an idiot and running the country into the ground do nothing but prove the ignorance of the poster in their knowledge of the topic and the system as a whole.

Dammit! How many times do I have to tell you that you cannot post anything involving economics and actual logic around here!?! You know it just confuses the living daylights out of everyone lol.

It's really very simple, actually, and exactly what is wrong with the plan. I just wish mire people had taken economics 101 so they could understand why.

Great article