2004 Democratic Primary
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:29:09 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 Democratic Primary
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59
Author Topic: 2004 Democratic Primary  (Read 438345 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1350 on: June 13, 2004, 02:11:01 PM »

Simple:

The code for the picture is: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/images/cp/graveyard_ccf.jpg

Put that between too img tags in your sig

How would I write that, I don't know how to use image tags... *blush*

Siege

<img> </img>

But use [] instead of <>
Logged
Siege40
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,821


Political Matrix
E: -6.25, S: -4.26

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1351 on: June 13, 2004, 02:26:05 PM »

Simple:

The code for the picture is: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/images/cp/graveyard_ccf.jpg

Put that between too img tags in your sig

How would I write that, I don't know how to use image tags... *blush*

Siege

<img> </img>

But use [] instead of <>

Thanks a lot Al.

Siege
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1352 on: June 13, 2004, 02:36:12 PM »

Simple:

The code for the picture is: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/images/cp/graveyard_ccf.jpg

Put that between too img tags in your sig

How would I write that, I don't know how to use image tags... *blush*

Siege

<img> </img>

But use [] instead of <>

Thanks a lot Al.

Siege

Smiley
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1353 on: June 16, 2004, 03:10:15 AM »

English debate was last night: no knockout blows or anything like that.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1354 on: June 17, 2004, 09:22:08 AM »

Jobless claims down last week -15k to 336,000

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of Americans filing for unemployment assistance for the first time fell by 15,000 last week, coming in below estimates, the government reported Thursday.

Initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped to 336,000 in the week ending June 12, according to the Department of Labor, which attributed some of the drop to federal offices being closed last Friday in memory of Ronald Reagan.

Last week's claims are down from a revised 351,000 the previous week and below economists' estimates of 340,000, according to Briefing.com.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/news/economy/jobless_claims/index.htm
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1355 on: June 17, 2004, 09:28:05 AM »

Economic indicators post solid gain - LEI +0.5%
 
Conference Board says its index rose 0.5 percent in May, coming in a shade above forecasts.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A gauge meant to forecast the economy's direction in the next several months rose at a solid clip in May, a research group said Thursday.

The Conference Board said its index of leading indictors rose 0.5 percent to 116.5 last month after rising in each of the last two months.

Economists on average had forecast an increase of 0.4 percent for May, according to a survey by Briefing.com.

Eight of the ten indicators that make up the leading index increased in May, the business research group said.

The biggest positive contributors were increases in weekly manufacturing hours and real money supply.

The negative factors were consumer expectations and stock prices.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/news/economy/lei/index.htm
Logged
mddem2004
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561


Political Matrix
E: -6.38, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1356 on: June 17, 2004, 10:08:57 AM »

Economic indicators post solid gain - LEI +0.5%
 
Conference Board says its index rose 0.5 percent in May, coming in a shade above forecasts.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A gauge meant to forecast the economy's direction in the next several months rose at a solid clip in May, a research group said Thursday.

The Conference Board said its index of leading indictors rose 0.5 percent to 116.5 last month after rising in each of the last two months.

Economists on average had forecast an increase of 0.4 percent for May, according to a survey by Briefing.com.

Eight of the ten indicators that make up the leading index increased in May, the business research group said.

The biggest positive contributors were increases in weekly manufacturing hours and real money supply.

The negative factors were consumer expectations and stock prices.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/news/economy/lei/index.htm

And on the flip side of the Bush economic coin since taking office......

Real income declined 1.5%
Record number of personal bankruptcies 2002 - 2003.
Record number of children fell below poverty level.
Record number of Americans without health insurance....44 million.
Costs for higher education up 28%.
Costs for prescription drugs average up 14% a year 2001 - 2003.

and the one that gets me.......
record $515 billion deficit in 2003 ( on top of the $420 billion the year before , and the $218 billion the year before that.......)

Oh....but thats right.....that top 2% of income earners (Bush's donor base) needed their taxes cut.

Pathetic.....  

Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1357 on: June 17, 2004, 10:48:30 AM »

and the one that gets me.......
record $515 billion deficit in 2003 ( on top of the $420 billion the year before , and the $218 billion the year before that.......)

WOW!  That's      $1.153 Trillion in just three years!   But..., if that is the one that gets you, then you should at least get your facts straight:

FY2003 -375.3B
FY2002 -157.8B
FY2001 +127.4B

That's $0.404 Trillion, not the $1.153 Trillion you stated.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1358 on: June 17, 2004, 10:52:04 AM »


Oh....but thats right.....that top 2% of income earners (Bush's donor base) needed their taxes cut.

Kerry has a much higher percentage of his donations coming from the top 2% of income earners than Bush does.

---


Yes, your knowledge of the facts is "pathetic"
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1359 on: June 17, 2004, 12:34:09 PM »

JMF,

Do you know of a website that shows the % of Kerry and Bush donations by income bracket?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1360 on: June 17, 2004, 01:18:37 PM »
« Edited: June 17, 2004, 01:21:05 PM by jmfcst »

JMF,

Do you know of a website that shows the % of Kerry and Bush donations by income bracket?

Not off hand, but I'll google it.  So far, I've only been able to find  that Bush has many more <$200 donantions than Kerry, but that is a given (and doesn't tell us anyjthing about income bracket).

But we do know one piece of info: that $6M of Kerry's money came from just one individual in the "top 2% income bracket"....his WIFE!
Logged
mddem2004
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561


Political Matrix
E: -6.38, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1361 on: June 17, 2004, 01:34:16 PM »

and the one that gets me.......
record $515 billion deficit in 2003 ( on top of the $420 billion the year before , and the $218 billion the year before that.......)

WOW!  That's      $1.153 Trillion in just three years!   But..., if that is the one that gets you, then you should at least get your facts straight:

FY2003 -375.3B
FY2002 -157.8B
FY2001 +127.4B

That's $0.404 Trillion, not the $1.153 Trillion you stated.
Your quite right, my numbers for 02 & 03 were wrong.

But you forgot Bush's own FY2004 budget deficit projections of $521 billion which would make $925 billion in deficit spending on his watch.

You also forgot to mention that 02 and 03's numbers used the Social Security Trust Fund for General Revenue expenditures, somthing that hasn't been done since 1997 to make those years deficits appear smaller.

You also forgot to mention that Bush's first OMB Director, Mitch "Hide The Red Ink" Daniels, used Expected Corporate Reciepts for FY 02 in the FY01 budget so that he would appear not to be dipping into the SS Trust Fund in FY01.

Its kinda like the way the administration forgot to mention to Congress that the $400 billion Republican Medicare Bill would actually cost $530 Billion the day after Bush signed it because they refused to allow the Medicare Actuary's report to be viewed by Congress before the vote.

Much like the way the administration, when submitting its budget this year, forgot to include ANY costs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and won't submit those numbers until after the election.

People may not forget this one though....

National Debt on Jan. 20, 2001  -  $5.88 trillion
National Debt Today                   -  $7.21 trillion
(per national debt clock)

Total Debt accumulated on Bush's watch as of TODAY -
$1.33 trillion. Let's see those Enron accountants you have there in Texas fudge that one.......

Sad thing is.......Before Congress leaves for its summer recess they will have to raise the nationl debt ceiling (the second time on Bush's watch) to $7.76 trillion to keep the government solvent.

But thats right.....those top two percenters just had to have their tax's cut.....
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1362 on: June 17, 2004, 01:37:53 PM »
« Edited: June 17, 2004, 01:38:17 PM by Lunar »

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp

You can get the amounts donated to each candidate (% of 200+, % of 1000+, etc.), the top industries, top donors, top states, etc.

It was last updated May 20th though.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1363 on: June 17, 2004, 01:42:17 PM »


And on the flip side of the Bush economic coin since taking office......

Real income declined 1.5%
Record number of personal bankruptcies 2002 - 2003.
Record number of children fell below poverty level.
Record number of Americans without health insurance....44 million.
Costs for higher education up 28%.
Costs for prescription drugs average up 14% a year 2001 - 2003.

and the one that gets me.......
record $515 billion deficit in 2003 ( on top of the $420 billion the year before , and the $218 billion the year before that.......)

Oh....but thats right.....that top 2% of income earners (Bush's donor base) needed their taxes cut.

Pathetic.....  

Sources on all your info?

And don't give me raw numbers, raw numbers are always deceptive.  There are mroe Americans today than at any point in history.  Give me percentages.

AS for some of your points:

Cost of higher education has been skyrocketing since the 80s, and continued to do so under Clinton in the 90s.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/highereducation/factsheetcost101003.htm

The RIch get richer?  Not quite.  Look at the share of wealth in the top 5% of the US.  Is it rising?  No, it is dropping.  The top 5% has lost ground in terms of total share of wealth.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-221.pdf

So the loss in real income over the past few years has disproportionately effected the top 5%.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1364 on: June 17, 2004, 02:15:51 PM »

Your quite right, my numbers for 02 & 03 were wrong.

Actually, you number for 2001 was wrong also.

---

But you forgot Bush's own FY2004 budget deficit projections of $521 billion which would make $925 billion in deficit spending on his watch.

The 2004 deficit will come in at well South of $395B, the Bush Admin's $521B number was just a very early estimate, and probably intentionally inflated.

---

You also forgot to mention that 02 and 03's numbers used the Social Security Trust Fund for General Revenue expenditures, somthing that hasn't been done since 1997 to make those years deficits appear smaller.

Yeah, right....The surplus figures for '98 (+$69.2B), 99 (+$125.6B), '00 ($236.4B), '01 (+$127.4B)...are ALL given with the SS surplus INCLUDED.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

---

You also forgot to mention that Bush's first OMB Director, Mitch "Hide The Red Ink" Daniels, used Expected Corporate Reciepts for FY 02 in the FY01 budget so that he would appear not to be dipping into the SS Trust Fund in FY01.

The government always spends the SS surplus.  The balance of the "SS Trust Fund" is $0.00.  There is nothing in there but a huge IOU.

---

Its kinda like the way the administration forgot to mention to Congress that the $400 billion Republican Medicare Bill would actually cost $530 Billion the day after Bush signed it because they refused to allow the Medicare Actuary's report to be viewed by Congress before the vote.

I would have voted against it.  But how much would the Dem's bill have cost?  Answer: MUCH MORE!

---

People may not forget this one though....

National Debt on Jan. 20, 2001  -  $5.88 trillion
National Debt Today                   -  $7.21 trillion
(per national debt clock)

That's the "national debt" is NOT the "public debt".  The 'national debt' never decreased under Clinton, even during the surplus years.



Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1365 on: June 17, 2004, 02:23:33 PM »

The RIch get richer?  Not quite.

The rich are ALWAYS going to get richer in a growing economy.  Why?  Because they are the ones positioned to take advantage of opportunity, they have the most skin in the game.

If you have no marketable skills and are unwilling to sacrifice in order to attain marketable skills (which basically describes those in the lower income brackets), you have no means by which to take advantage of opportunity.
Logged
Siege40
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,821


Political Matrix
E: -6.25, S: -4.26

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1366 on: June 17, 2004, 02:31:18 PM »

Layton embarassed himself by talking to much, Martin did better than I expected, Harper came across weak and the scary factor was felt be me and a few people I've talked to, and Duceppe might send a few voters to stick with the Liberals with fear of a Bloc victory.

Siege
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1367 on: June 17, 2004, 02:45:28 PM »

Layton embarassed himself by talking to much, Martin did better than I expected, Harper came across weak and the scary factor was felt be me and a few people I've talked to, and Duceppe might send a few voters to stick with the Liberals with fear of a Bloc victory.

Siege

All three-and-a-half wasted their time by in effect preaching to the converted.
None did as well as they should have done.
If a single seat is decided by that debate I'll be stunned.
Logged
mddem2004
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561


Political Matrix
E: -6.38, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1368 on: June 17, 2004, 07:33:14 PM »


And on the flip side of the Bush economic coin since taking office......

Real income declined 1.5%
Record number of personal bankruptcies 2002 - 2003.
Record number of children fell below poverty level.
Record number of Americans without health insurance....44 million.
Costs for higher education up 28%.
Costs for prescription drugs average up 14% a year 2001 - 2003.

and the one that gets me.......
record $515 billion deficit in 2003 ( on top of the $420 billion the year before , and the $218 billion the year before that.......)

Oh....but thats right.....that top 2% of income earners (Bush's donor base) needed their taxes cut.

Pathetic.....  

Sources on all your info?

And don't give me raw numbers, raw numbers are always deceptive.  There are mroe Americans today than at any point in history.  Give me percentages.

AS for some of your points:

Cost of higher education has been skyrocketing since the 80s, and continued to do so under Clinton in the 90s.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/highereducation/factsheetcost101003.htm

The RIch get richer?  Not quite.  Look at the share of wealth in the top 5% of the US.  Is it rising?  No, it is dropping.  The top 5% has lost ground in terms of total share of wealth.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-221.pdf

So the loss in real income over the past few years has disproportionately effected the top 5%.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income  -  Falling Income
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2003/02/24/daily43.html  -  Bankruptcies
http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpf04.html  -  Children
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pov-s13.shtml  -  Children
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/1617-8064.html  -  Uninsured
http://www.kltprc.net/emergingissues/Chpt_167.htm  Higher Education
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NKV/is_3_4/ai_98626335  -  Prescrption Drugs

Two caveots: my numbers on falling income of 1.5% and higher education costs under Bush at 28% were quotes from a Senior Fellow of the Brooking Intitute during a CSPAN segment. As you will see in both listed sources above under those categories, they state falling income of 3.3% for years of 2001 and 2002. 1.5% is an average over Bush's term. You will also see under the source for higher education that in the school year 2003 to 2004, cost increases were 14% for that year alone, hence I'm sure his quote of 28% is probably on the mark for total increases during Bush's term.

Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1369 on: June 17, 2004, 08:06:04 PM »

JMF,

Do you know of a website that shows the % of Kerry and Bush donations by income bracket?

For what it's worth, 58% of Bush's donors gave $2,000 compared to 39% of Kerry's donors.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1370 on: June 17, 2004, 08:14:45 PM »


http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income  -  Falling Income
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2003/02/24/daily43.html  -  Bankruptcies
http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpf04.html  -  Children
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pov-s13.shtml  -  Children
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/1617-8064.html  -  Uninsured
http://www.kltprc.net/emergingissues/Chpt_167.htm  Higher Education
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NKV/is_3_4/ai_98626335  -  Prescrption Drugs

Two caveots: my numbers on falling income of 1.5% and higher education costs under Bush at 28% were quotes from a Senior Fellow of the Brooking Intitute during a CSPAN segment. As you will see in both listed sources above under those categories, they state falling income of 3.3% for years of 2001 and 2002. 1.5% is an average over Bush's term. You will also see under the source for higher education that in the school year 2003 to 2004, cost increases were 14% for that year alone, hence I'm sure his quote of 28% is probably on the mark for total increases during Bush's term.



Bankruptcies: They are predicting a 7% inclrease, one which did not follwo through.  Increase for the next 12 months was only 2.8%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5033402/

Children in poverty:  First, lets throw out the insanely biased socialist site, and go with your other source.  No where does it say this number is a record, and I again point out that raw numebrs are not as meaningful as percents for comparison.  The trend also began in 2000,  not under Bush's watch.

Higher Education:  As I said before, the college costs have been rising since teh 80s and has not stopped.  This is a problem much older than Bush.  Bush and the Rep house are looking to control it too.

Drug costs:  Same as education cost, a longer term probelm than Bush.

Falling real income: No dispute, just want to say I far more often hear 1.1% than 1.5%.  What do you expect in a recession?
Logged
mddem2004
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561


Political Matrix
E: -6.38, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1371 on: June 17, 2004, 08:23:04 PM »


That's the "national debt" is NOT the "public debt".  The 'national debt' never decreased under Clinton, even during the surplus years.


OK, lets talk Public Debt:
9/28/01 Publically Held Debt = $3.34 Trillion
6/16/04   "            "        "     = $4.23  Trillion

Thats an $890 billion debt increase in 2 years and 9 months. Thats a 26% increase in less than 3 years.

Unsustainable.

And even if Bush's red ink comes in "well south" of $395 billion as you claim, again those numbers include NONE of the operational costs of Iraq and Afghanistan which of course they will not disclose.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Logged
mddem2004
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561


Political Matrix
E: -6.38, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1372 on: June 17, 2004, 08:44:43 PM »


http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income  -  Falling Income
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2003/02/24/daily43.html  -  Bankruptcies
http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpf04.html  -  Children
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pov-s13.shtml  -  Children
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/1617-8064.html  -  Uninsured
http://www.kltprc.net/emergingissues/Chpt_167.htm  Higher Education
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NKV/is_3_4/ai_98626335  -  Prescrption Drugs

Two caveots: my numbers on falling income of 1.5% and higher education costs under Bush at 28% were quotes from a Senior Fellow of the Brooking Intitute during a CSPAN segment. As you will see in both listed sources above under those categories, they state falling income of 3.3% for years of 2001 and 2002. 1.5% is an average over Bush's term. You will also see under the source for higher education that in the school year 2003 to 2004, cost increases were 14% for that year alone, hence I'm sure his quote of 28% is probably on the mark for total increases during Bush's term.



Bankruptcies: They are predicting a 7% inclrease, one which did not follwo through.  Increase for the next 12 months was only 2.8%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5033402/

Children in poverty:  First, lets throw out the insanely biased socialist site, and go with your other source.  No where does it say this number is a record, and I again point out that raw numebrs are not as meaningful as percents for comparison.  The trend also began in 2000,  not under Bush's watch.

Higher Education:  As I said before, the college costs have been rising since teh 80s and has not stopped.  This is a problem much older than Bush.  Bush and the Rep house are looking to control it too.

Drug costs:  Same as education cost, a longer term probelm than Bush.

Falling real income: No dispute, just want to say I far more often hear 1.1% than 1.5%.  What do you expect in a recession?
I thought you would get a kick out of the"World Socialist Website"!

Granted all these problems were here before Bush, in fact the rate of increase in prescription drugs is actually still increasing but at a slower rate. I do contest the higher education costs however. Lack of Fed aid to my own state has devestated what help there is out there and the percent of annual increase in cost is skyrocketing here. I doubt the conservative House will do much in this area.

Don't get me wrong...Clinton probably got too much credit for the 90's economy and Bush is probably getting too much blame now, but it goes with the territory.

I am however very concerned with the balloning Fed red ink, the effect it will have on interest rates, the effect it will have on the future availability of credit, and of course how it will effect the ability for us to meet the future Soc Sec retirees.  
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1373 on: June 17, 2004, 10:19:28 PM »

OK, lets talk Public Debt:
9/28/01 Publically Held Debt = $3.34 Trillion
6/16/04   "            "        "     = $4.23  Trillion

Well, now you're taking the debt from beginning-fy2002 to almost the end of fy2004.  That's a different time period than the fy2001-2003 timeframe you orginally mentioned.

---

And even if Bush's red ink comes in "well south" of $395 billion as you claim, again those numbers include NONE of the operational costs of Iraq and Afghanistan which of course they will not disclose.

Not true, the <$395B figure is for monies already allocated for fy2004, Iraq and Afghanistan included.  What Bush hasn't "disclosed" is the request for fy2005 military operations.  That's going to come in the form of a initial $20B request to get the military through the beginning of fy2005 (Oct 2004) to Jan 2005, at such time another request, much bigger, will be made.
Logged
mddem2004
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561


Political Matrix
E: -6.38, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1374 on: June 19, 2004, 12:16:36 PM »

OK, lets talk Public Debt:
9/28/01 Publically Held Debt = $3.34 Trillion
6/16/04   "            "        "     = $4.23  Trillion

Well, now you're taking the debt from beginning-fy2002 to almost the end of fy2004.  That's a different time period than the fy2001-2003 timeframe you orginally mentioned.

---

And even if Bush's red ink comes in "well south" of $395 billion as you claim, again those numbers include NONE of the operational costs of Iraq and Afghanistan which of course they will not disclose.

Not true, the <$395B figure is for monies already allocated for fy2004, Iraq and Afghanistan included.  What Bush hasn't "disclosed" is the request for fy2005 military operations.  That's going to come in the form of a initial $20B request to get the military through the beginning of fy2005 (Oct 2004) to Jan 2005, at such time another request, much bigger, will be made.
Lets make sure we are comparing apples to apples here....

1) To give Bush credit for the $127B FY2001 budget surplus is ludicrous. FY01 was Clintons last budget, pieced together by his OMB, appropriated by Congress and took effect beginning Oct. 1, 2000. Yes Bush was in office operating for his first 8 months under this budget, and yes adjustments are made to this budget each month as with all budgets.....the fact remains these were Clinton's spending priorities appropriated by Congress, not Bush's.

http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/budget/fy2001/      

2) Bush's first budget was the FY02 budget, prepared by his OMB, appropriated by Congress, and began taking effect Oct. 1 2001.
Net result = $158B in the RED

Bush's 2nd budget, FY03, took effect Oct 1, 2002....
Net result = $375B in the RED

Now, the Publically held numbers I quoted you in my earlier post....  
The 9/28/01 numbers is the debt amount when Clinton's FY01 budget ended and Bush's FY02 numbers begin....the baseline by which to judge Bush's performance re: the public debt.

6/16/04 was the amount accumulated under Bush's watch to date....$890B more in publically held red ink.

3) It is true that Bush's numbers for our current fical year, FY04, are improving due largely to the improving economy...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A64130-2004May3&notFound=true

Yet....even with these revised numbers, and they are revised monthly, CBO estimates that when FY04 comes to a close we will be $477B more in RED INK.

CBO estimates that Bush's FY05 budget will be $358B in the RED.

These are CBO's estimates. Yes they are off sometimes but they are certainly more credable than anything the OMB puts out no matter which party is in the White House.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5151&sequence=1&from=0

Hence.....even if the CBO's numbers are 25% less than their current estimates for FY04 and FY05 (current est total for FY04 & FY05 = $835B in red, minus 25% = $626B for FY04 & FY05) Bush's budget mess will be for his term:

FY02 = $158B in RED
FY03 = $375B in RED
FY04 & FY05 at 25% less than current CBO estimates = $626B in RED

Total RED = 1.159 TRILLION as a 1 term President (and thats assuming a 25% reduction in CBO's current estimates).

This also says nothing of the Supplementals that Bush will be asking for Iraq and Afghanistan, all of which will of course be borrowed.

So I ask you again, why are we asking for permanent tax cuts for those making over $200K a year, with this much deficit spending, whose interest costs alone will put presure on meeting the demands of the retiring Baby Boomers, at a time of war, with increasing defense spending for the war of terror?

Where is their sacrifice?

   
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.085 seconds with 12 queries.