God Dammit, Bush!!

[Nicholas]

This really makes me want to punch Bush in the face: He put a veto on the Child Health Insurance Bill. This is like, retarted. I mean, this pisses me off more than when he said, "If you can't afford health insurance, then just go to the Emergency Room."

Anyone else feel my pain?

[Klowny]

Anyone else feel my pain?I don't. But seek aid at the nearest Emergency Room if your pain gets any worse.

[Pencil Thief]

I do. I have wanted to punch him in the face many-a time.

[Phoenix]

This really makes me want to punch Bush in the face: He put a veto on the Child Health Insurance Bill. This is like, retarted. I mean, this pisses me off more than when he said, "If you can't afford health insurance, then just go to the Emergency Room."

Anyone else feel my pain?

Something I find very retarded and ironic is spelling retarded wrong.

Well, there is still hope for the bill. I don't really keep up with most of this political stuff, but if it's an all around good bill Congress can just override his veto.

[Majin]

Something I find very retarded and ironic is spelling retarded wrong.

Well, there is still hope for the bill. I don't really keep up with most of this political stuff, but if it's an all around good bill Congress can just override his veto.

There is also something ironic with trolls.

[Delirious]

Why would he veto something like that? I know he doesnt have alot going on up stairs, but theres got to be some limit to his stupidity.

[Wej]

Lol no end to the domb thought that run through the spaceless void which is Bush's brain

[Majin]

"So I came to tell you why I vetoed the children's health bill:

Number 1: Poor Kids

Number 2:..."

I never saw number 2, but that was Bush's first point entirely on why he vetoed it.

[Phoenix]

I loved it when he was like "My job is to be the decision maker, decision making IS my job." He acts like we're the stupid ones.

[Cyanide]

*sigh*, every time I hear something he does, I wish for new leaders. Sure, they wouldn't be amazing, but some of the stuff Bush does makes me wonder what he is thinking and why

[Pencil Thief]

Some of the things Bush does makes me wonder if he is thinking at all.

[Requiem]

Course, you have to wonder how many of these things are actually his idea. He seems as if he would be easily manipulated. In any case, still a dumbass :(

[Victoria]

some of the stuff Bush does makes me wonder what he is thinking and why
Some of the things Bush does makes me wonder if he is thinking at all.
Some of the things Bush does make me wonder what the hell America was thinking of when they elected him. Twice.

[~Lightning~]

Anybody who hates the middle east that much must be a good president!

[Pencil Thief]

Some of the things Bush does make me wonder what the hell America was thinking of when they elected him. Twice.

Quoted for truth.

Anybody who hates the middle east that much must be a good president!

Lol.

[Majin]

Some of the things Bush does make me wonder what the hell America was thinking of when they elected him. Twice.


He will forever be greater than John Kerry ;_;

[XD_Man]

I wonder why he vetoed it. I heard about it but I don't know his reasoning.

Just go to the emergency room? Doesn't that cost money itself?

[Captain Obvious]

I wonder why he vetoed it. I heard about it but I don't know his reasoning.

Just go to the emergency room? Doesn't that cost money itself?
I believe if you don't have insurance you still have to pay the bill. Don't quote me on that.

Bush is siding with HMOs, if Canada can have free health care for all of it citizens , then the US should at least be able to provide health care for children.

[i v x]

Maybe you should find out WHY he vetoed the bill...

Maybe because the democrats were planning on using a CIGARETTE TAX to fund it, which is a declining revenue source. This would've created a federalized program that (in the long run at least) would fail to actually insure the kids they planned on insuring in the first place.

[storm4]

Maybe you should find out WHY he vetoed the bill...

Maybe because the democrats were planning on using a CIGARETTE TAX to fund it, which is a declining revenue source. This would've created a federalized program that (in the long run at least) would fail to actually insure the kids they planned on insuring in the first place.
Seriously, if everyone would just realize that it's not as cut and dry as they want to make us think that it is, we'll all be a lot better off. I always love that stereotypical notion that Bush is an idiot. Yeah, that makes sense...Listen I don't agree with Al Gore, but I also know that he's not a brainless wonder. It's just not a logical assumption. What we need to do as Americans is learn to do research ourselves and not swallow everything the media or politicians on either side tell us. And above all, let us as Americans remember what it means to debate ideas and not resort to playground name calling! (What America needs now more than ever is to have the GW mods overseeing the media and debates! :tease2: )

[NightRogue]

Some of the things Bush does make me wonder what the hell America was thinking of when they elected him. Twice.
That whole "we elected him" thing is ENTIRELY debatable.

I very clearly remember two stolen elections. Many more to come too, stay tuned.

[storm4]

That whole "we elected him" thing is ENTIRELY debatable.

I very clearly remember two stolen elections. Many more to come too, stay tuned.
I'm sorry that you believe everthing that you read. For one thing, he got the electoral votes he needed in 2000 (If you want to argue popular vote, you should know that Bill Clinton lost the popular vote with Bush 41, to my recollection). Secondly, there is no way that you're suggesting that Kerry actually beat Bush, are you? There was absolutely no doubt in that election. That fiasco in 2000 was not fabricated and blown up on the Bush side, it was on the Gore side. And we wouldn't even had that arguement if Gore could've carried his own state. But, when facts are in doubt, just throw conspiracy out there. It plays well these days...

[Zelden]

Any hampering in the steps toward socialized health care is fine by me.

[NightRogue]

I'm sorry that you believe everthing that you read. For one thing, he got the electoral votes he needed in 2000 (If you want to argue popular vote, you should know that Bill Clinton lost the popular vote with Bush 41, to my recollection). Secondly, there is no way that you're suggesting that Kerry actually beat Bush, are you? There was absolutely no doubt in that election. That fiasco in 2000 was not fabricated and blown up on the Bush side, it was on the Gore side. And we wouldn't even had that arguement if Gore could've carried his own state. But, when facts are in doubt, just throw conspiracy out there. It plays well these days...
we should nix this conversation before we throw this thread off topic. I know a certain Admin that doesn't like me too much.

And Zelden, I have to mostly agree with you. Socialized medicine doesn't scare me one bit.

[Gorge]

Some of the things Bush does make me wonder what the hell America was thinking of when they elected him. Twice.
Just as Majin said, he was a much better choice than Kerry. If Kerry were president, we'd probably be back in Vietnam.

As for the next president. Ron Paul seems to be getting a lot of attention around the internet. I've only seen his name pop up a few times, but I know squat about him other than what i learned watching some video yesterday.

[sulwyn]

Dont worry, atleast we dont have giuliani in office. That would be 100x worse.

[Indiana]

I'm getting pretty tired of seeing Bush threads where people accuse him of something and have no idea what they're talking about and I'm a hardcore Libertarian. You think this mans doing "retarded" things in office watch what will happen if any of the Democratic runners get elected. It made me sick to see them totally flip flop on pulling the troops out during the Democratic debate. I'm a Democrat and the state the party is in makes me physically ILL.

[NightRogue]

I'm getting pretty tired of seeing Bush threads where people accuse him of something and have no idea what they're talking about and I'm a hardcore Libertarian. You think this mans doing "retarded" things in office watch what will happen if any of the Democratic runners get elected. It made me sick to see them totally flip flop on pulling the troops out during the Democratic debate. I'm a Democrat and the state the party is in makes me physically ILL.
You are probably so upset because you can't figure out what party you are affiliated with.

Doesn't surprise me at all that you like Bush.

[Indiana]

I didn't say that I liked Bush at all. I said people need to stop jumping to bash on him before you actually find out why he made the decision he did. Also I'm a libertarian but I'm a member of the Democratic party officially I have no idea what you're talking about but I'm talking about libertarianism as a poltical philosophy not a party. It's embarassing to me to be democrat right no simply because of how none of runners stuck to their word.

[NightRogue]

Well there IS a libertarian party, so why even be a democrat?

[Majin]

Well there IS a libertarian party, so why even be a democrat?

Or you could quit being a troll?

[Fool's Requiem]

One Year And 3 Months (give or take a few weeks) and counting. And then we can all sleep better at night... unless Hilary Clinton becomes president... :omg: *shutters* The Horror!

[NightRogue]

Or you could quit being a troll?
how so? the man is adding to the conversation, claiming two different schools of thought. I'm asking him to clarify.

I do all my trolling in the dome thanks.

[Majin]

how so? the man is adding to the conversation, claiming two different schools of thought. I'm asking him to clarify.

I do all my trolling in the dome thanks.


There is no clarification needed. Libertarianism is more of a philosophy in America than a political party. America continues to be a two party system and always has been. Thus people with this ideology have to chose which party to run in. Take Ron Paul for example. Many people have compared him to being a libertarian, yet he runs in the Republican party.

So pretty much, you just keep harassing the guy over something silly.

[NightRogue]

your reasoning is sound, but i still wasn't trolling. I hardly call two posts harrassing either. Anyway I'm done with it.

[Indiana]

Yes i'm a democrat with a libertarian mindset. That's a better way to say it. Noone needs to get in trouble over this it's my fault for not clarifying.

[MagnaAngemon]

come to England, have 10 kids and get everything for free :)

[Captain Obvious]

One Year And 3 Months (give or take a few weeks) and counting. And then we can all sleep better at night... unless Hilary Clinton becomes president... :omg: *shutters* The Horror!
Clinton or Rudy...............This election will be fun.

[Majin]

your reasoning is sound, but i still wasn't trolling. I hardly call two posts harrassing either. Anyway I'm done with it.


It was just a caution anyway.

[NightRogue]

no worries :)

[Nicholas]

Heh, hopefully Stephen Colbert replaces Bush. :P

[puertorock_papi]

I believe if you don't have insurance you still have to pay the bill. Don't quote me on that.

Bush is siding with HMOs, if Canada can have free health care for all of it citizens , then the US should at least be able to provide health care for children.

I agree with children should at the very least be provided free healthcare no matter what but using Canada is a terrible example. I'm pretty sure if Canada was a population of 300 million vice 30 million and half of those 300 million were actual tax paying citizens, Canada would not have free universal healthcare.

[NightRogue]

how do you know that?

[DBCrader]

I agree with children should at the very least be provided free healthcare no matter what but using Canada is a terrible example. I'm pretty sure if Canada was a population of 300 million vice 30 million and half of those 300 million were actual tax paying citizens, Canada would not have free universal healthcare.

This is the stupidest statement yet... Wake up pinheads... IT'S NOT FREE!!! The taxpayers PAY FOR IT!!!! It's NOT the governments money... It's OUR MONEY!!! The government HAS NO MONEY, apart from what they get from you every week!!! And if you think it's bad now... just you wait until Hillary gets in there (God Forbid!!!)...

And last time I heard, due to Canada's "Free" universal healthcare, the starin upon our medical system has increased, because many Canadian citizens are making a run for the border because they can't stand those six-month waiting periods for a life-saving operation!!!

You know, these are no longer the days when most people did watever they could to keep AWAY from the hospital... these are the pill-popping, antibiaotic-pushing, victim-packed society days!!! Now, common sense would tell you that, say you got a cut on your finger... you'd put some Neosporin on it, wrap a bandaid around it and get on with your life... but you make this healthcare "free", and you'll have scads of people filing into the emergency room every time they so much as get a bruise!!! Put something free on the table and only too many people will only too happy to keep taking it until it's all gone.

[Freakish]

This is the stupidest statement yet... Wake up pinheads... IT'S NOT FREE!!! The taxpayers PAY FOR IT!!!! It's NOT the governments money... It's OUR MONEY!!! The government HAS NO MONEY, apart from what they get from you every week!!! And if you think it's bad now... just you wait until Hillary gets in there (God Forbid!!!)...

But the strain on the pocketbook is significantly less than actually paying for it. Taxes just go up versus continually having to make payments. My brother is a Type I diabetic (the hereditary kind, not the lazy ****tard one) and the amount of money we have to pay per month just to take care of him is obscene. If healthcare is "free" then the amount of monetary stress we have go down significantly. In essence, the only people who can afford to have a terminally ill family member is the upper class because hospital bills will not put them into debt like every other member of society. And what you're complaining about is wording issue, but in essence, yes it is free as you have no control over where the money goes so techinically you could pay $0 for government funded healthcare and still receive the benefits. And on a side note, why would it be worse with Hillary vs. Obama or any other candidate?

And last time I heard, due to Canada's "Free" universal healthcare, the starin upon our medical system has increased, because many Canadian citizens are making a run for the border because they can't stand those six-month waiting periods for a life-saving operation!!!

No. People come because our medical care is significantly better because of the capitalistic aspect of the business. If Canada had the same quality of doctors we have, Canadians would stay there for treatment. But only the truly compassionate and people who want to do good for society become doctors. We live in a greedy world and many would take a bigger paycheck than a standard government wage, hence you pay for the best in America


You know, these are no longer the days when most people did watever they could to keep AWAY from the hospital... these are the pill-popping, antibiaotic-pushing, victim-packed society days!!! Now, common sense would tell you that, say you got a cut on your finger... you'd put some Neosporin on it, wrap a bandaid around it and get on with your life... but you make this healthcare "free", and you'll have scads of people filing into the emergency room every time they so much as get a bruise!!! Put something free on the table and only too many people will only too happy to keep taking it until it's all gone.

No. Just wrong on everything here. You are the reason why nothing gets done in the country and why I sincerely wish for the reinstatement of people earning the right to vote and not simply receiving it as with that knowledge and cyncicalness you do not deserve to be able to vote ever (luckily you fit in with most of America here). Currently ERs cannot turn away a patient even for a bruise. You don't have to pay, its why ERs are currently closing because of illegal immigrants with no health insurance or money who have to be treated. Making all medical care free will not do anything that you have stated. You'll have a few douchebags who try to take advantage of the system, but they try to do that anyway so free medical care will not change a thing. In fact, it would help the truly altruistic as now companies will make pills and treatments that actually work instead fo whatever nets them the biggest profit

[NightRogue]

And believe me, the economic burden of universal health care would be easier on EVERYONE. This is why even corporations are beginning to jump on the bandwagon. The key to both insuring all Americans while keeping costs the same or lower is to have a medicare based system which encourages competition and lower prices.

[~Lightning~]

You could always do what we English do and have a free healthcare service but allow private firms to start up too, allowing those who want fast treatment for something major to pay and those who don't to go for the free option

[Majin]

You could always do what we English do and have a free healthcare service but allow private firms to start up too, allowing those who want fast treatment for something major to pay and those who don't to go for the free option


Canada has that also, but you still hear of Canadians going to America or Germany to get better services.

[storm4]

Anyway you slice it and dice it,Universal Healthcare is Socialism and it's taking choice out of your hands and putting it into the hands of Washington. How could that possibly be a good idea?

[Freakish]

To be blunt: no. Socialism and increased government are inherently contradictory, hence the purpose of socialism. There's no use in getting rid of the government if you are only going to give it more power. Figured a 32 year old would at least know basic political theories. Even then the installation of universal healthcare would not put more power into the government. It doesn't force people to go to a particular doctor for the rest of your life, it just gets rid of all the bull**** fees that you pay when you see a doctor

[Nicholas]

Now that bastard just put us in a $9 F*CKING TRILLION WORTH OF DEBT!!!!

[Juve]

Well we ultimately know who's fault it was in electing Bush,


You Americanas :P

[NightRogue]

"half" of us Americanas, thank you.

[Nicholas]

I wanted him out of office the moment I saw his cheesey Texan face

[Juve]

"half" of us Americanas, thank you.


If he only got 50% of the vote how is he in there then :l

[~Lightning~]

Majority vote?

If he got 50% and other opponents got say, 49% and 1% then Bush would win

[Freakish]

He actually didnt get 50% of the vote when he beat Gore, he got less than the majority. Thats where a ot of the outrage came when Bush won.

[Phoenix]

Majority vote?

If he got 50% and other opponents got say, 49% and 1% then Bush would win
Majority is one more than half.

[NightRogue]

notice i did put the "half" in quotations... I was just speaking to how the country was (and still is for the most part) pretty evenly divided.

Gore did get the majority of the popular vote.. or was it the plurality? either way he got more than bush.

[stnr666]

Now that bastard just put us in a $9 F*CKING TRILLION WORTH OF DEBT!!!!

bush had nothing to do with that
if you want to blame someone for that blame the World Bank for that
if you want to elect someone who will get our goverment out of debt elect Ron Paul next year

[NightRogue]

yes, elect a right wing libertarian. no wait, please don't.

[Nicholas]

bush had nothing to do with that


Let's see, no way could that debt that Bush owes have nothing to do with the war, right? :rolleyes:

[acid_soda]

well to be honest, I'd like to punch anyone in the face who thinks bush put us 8 Trillion dollars in debt

oh and according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt) the actual federal government debt not including states, corporations, and INDIVIDUALS was more within the ballpark of 5 trillion dollars. The figure with state debts, corporation debts, and individual debts is more around 9 trillion dollars.

[NightRogue]

while the actual amount may be debatable - the debt was incurred during HIS administration - so what is your reasoning?

[acid_soda]

while the actual amount may be debatable - the debt was incurred during HIS administration - so what is your reasoning?

according to the US treasury, in 2000, the public debt was about 3.4 trillion dollars. At that time, the government debt was about 2.2 trillion dollars in debt. The national debt was about 5.6 trillion dollars

Today the government debt is 4 trillion dollars, and the public debt is 5 trillion dollars. You can't just say this was all bush's fault, because while the government contributed to half of the debt increase, the public (state governments, corporations, us) contributed the other half.

To say that the debt began during bush's administration is just pure and flat-out ignorance. We've been at least 2 trillion dollars in debt since god knows how long. In fact, i'm pretty sure a good portion of the debt is still leftover from world war II. Also who does bush have to ask for money to fund this war? Oh i dont know maybe another branch of government... the legislative branch.

Permission to use the government's money for things has to be granted from either the house or the congress, or both. I'm not sure. Although I'm damn sure that while bush may be the president of the united states, he can't just pull money out of the government's piggy bank at will. He's the president of America, not the king of america. If you're gonna be pissed at the president for how far in debt the nation is (even though we, the public, hold most of the debt), you should also be pissed at the house of representatives and the senate.

Congress has the power to declare war. the president can certainly request that war be declared, but he certainly cant just start a war by himself. He can use the armed forces himself for up to 90 days, but after that he needs a formal approval from congress. Could congress have just said no at the end of those 90 days? Well yeah they could have! in fact the authorization from congress to "engage in extended military engagements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_e ngagements_authorized_by_Congress)" for the "iraq war" came nearly 1 year beforehand.

While bush certainly isn't the most awesome president we've had, he didn't cause all of America's debt. While he is pushing this war on and on, congress has had plenty of opportunities to stop it. In fact, if any of this war was unconstitutional, the Judicial branch could have declared the acts of the president and the congress unconstitutional. So there you have it, all three branches of government could have found opportunities to step in and stop this whole deal. Bottom line: Don't blame bush for the government debt, blame the government for the government debt.

[NightRogue]

I do blame the government. And guess who's been in charge of it for the past 7 years? And who has had control of the legislative branch for all those years up until last year.

As far as the numbers you gave, they seem to be correct, so your point is taken. Let's just remember that the debt was beginning to get paid down during the Clinton years, and that all stopped as soon as Bush took office. (and yes, even BEFORE the war)

And before you say anything, I think Bill Clinton was the best REPUBLICAN president we ever had. I am no fan of his.

[acid_soda]

I do blame the government. And guess who's been in charge of it for the past 7 years? And who has had control of the legislative branch for all those years up until last year.
.

The Senate and The House. Duh. President is part of the Executive branch. He doesn't have much control over what the house and the senate do... like at all

CHECKS AND BALANCES. HAVE YOU LEARNED ABOUT IT SIR.

As far as the numbers you gave, they seem to be correct, so your point is taken. Let's just remember that the debt was beginning to get paid down during the Clinton years, and that all stopped as soon as Bush took office. (and yes, even BEFORE the war)

on SEPT.30, 1997 The government was 1.62 Trillion dollars in debt. Remember that's not the NATIONAL DEBT that's the GOVERNMENT debt.
on Sept.30, 1998 The government was 1.79 Trillion dollars in debt.
on SEPT.30 1999 The government debt broke the 2 trillion mark, at 2.02 trillion
on SEPT.30 2000, the debt of the government went up to 2.26 trillion

Clinton was not getting the government debt paid off. In fact, the debt that was getting paid off was the public debt, because on those same dates, the public debt went from 3.78TRIL, to 3.73TRIL, to 3.64TRIL, and finally to 3.4TRIL.

It wasn't clinton or the federal government who was saving money, it was everyone else who was saving the money!

And before you say anything, I think Bill Clinton was the best REPUBLICAN president we ever had. I am no fan of his.
I really have no idea what you're trying to say here
Bill clinton is a democrat first of all (I thought this was common knowledge)
And you think he was the best... but you're no fan of his?

what am I missing here

or maybe you're being sarcastic? I honestly can't make heads or tails of this statement

ACK ANOTHER POST MERGE: also, there's nobody "in charge" of the government. That's why we have the system of checks and balances in place. It's designed so that no one branch of government has more power than the other two.

[NightRogue]

The Senate and The House. Duh. President is part of the Executive branch. He doesn't have much control over what the house and the senate do... like at all
i was referring to the republican domination of the legislative branch for numerous years before Bush even took office. Since you felt it necessary to speak about who controlls the money (the senate) I felt it necessary to tell you who had been spending it.

CHECKS AND BALANCES. HAVE YOU LEARNED ABOUT IT SIR.
no... i don't know nothing bout no politics massa.

on SEPT.30, 1997 The government was 1.62 Trillion dollars in debt. Remember that's not the NATIONAL DEBT that's the GOVERNMENT debt.
on Sept.30, 1998 The government was 1.79 Trillion dollars in debt.
on SEPT.30 1999 The government debt broke the 2 trillion mark, at 2.02 trillion
on SEPT.30 2000, the debt of the government went up to 2.26 trillion

Clinton was not getting the government debt paid off. In fact, the debt that was getting paid off was the public debt, because on those same dates, the public debt went from 3.78TRIL, to 3.73TRIL, to 3.64TRIL, and finally to 3.4TRIL.
Typical neo-con nonsense. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Yes, the debt increased slightly under Clinton, but not nearly as much as it had been, and it actually started on a downhill turn. Shrub took office and cut taxes and resumed the lovely policy of mad deficit spending.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say here
Bill clinton is a democrat first of all (I thought this was common knowledge)
And you think he was the best... but you're no fan of his?
Just like Lieberman claimed to be a democrat. It's not that difficult to understand. I think the bulk of his policies made him a republican, and I think that he was the best republican president we ever had. Comprende'?

ACK ANOTHER POST MERGE: also, there's nobody "in charge" of the government. That's why we have the system of checks and balances in place. It's designed so that no one branch of government has more power than the other two.
yes, but the legislative branch controls the money.

[acid_soda]

i was referring to the republican domination of the legislative branch for numerous years before Bush even took office.

Well i guess the new democratically-dominated legislative branch which bush has even less "control" over is really saving us money hand-over-fist (not really, the government has gone 700 billion more dollars into debt since the beginning of 2006)

Since you felt it necessary to speak about who controlls the money (the senate) I felt it necessary to tell you who had been spending it.

sorry to burst your bubble sir, but the united states house of representatives controls the federal spending and taxing of The United States (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_controls_taxing_and_spending_in_the_US_federal _government)

no... i don't know nothing bout no politics massa.
Obviously. especially since you didn't know that the United States House of Representatives controls the federal spending and taxing of the United States.
Typical neo-con nonsense. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Yes, the debt increased slightly under Clinton, but not nearly as much as it had been, and it actually started on a downhill turn. Shrub took office and cut taxes and resumed the lovely policy of mad deficit spending.

That graph is the national debt as a percentage of gdp. Public + Government debt. The government debt is more like 30% of the GDP right now. And sure, there was a decrease at the end of clinton's presidency, but that was because the public debt was decreasing. As I mentioned above, according to the united states treasury, the government spendings slowly increased during that time. The government debt has not decreased since 1997 (from what i can gather from the treasury website. There are no exact numbers for both government and public spendings available from before that point) The rest of america's debt accounts for the other 34-ish% of what that graph says we're in right now. you can grab an excel file of the GDP from the last 70 years or so from this webpage (http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp).

The legislative branch has control over the money and the policies regarding money. According to that graph, that debt decrease occurred during the republican congress that was there "even before bush got into office". Wasn't the legislative branch the one that cut down on that debt? Yet again, I emphasize:
The President does not control government spending or how the government collects money. The legislative branch of government has that responsibility. More specifically, the United States House of Representatives controls the federal taxing and spending of the United States (I love giving you a hard time about that :D)

Now pardon me, sir, but my "neo-conservative nonsense" was pulled directly from a .gov website of the US Treasury (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np). That very web page is where i got all of my numbers. Not the very first thing that came up under google like you did.

If you don't trust a .gov web page, a website authorized by the government of the united states of america, then what the hell are you going to trust? Oh wait a second, I forgot, you're one of those people who thinks everything the government says is a lie and who thinks the world trade center attacks were a conspiracy created by the government. OF COURSE! Nothing is to be trusted unless it's obscure and its reliability is questionable.

Just like Lieberman claimed to be a democrat. It's not that difficult to understand. I think the bulk of his policies made him a republican, and I think that he was the best republican president we ever had. Comprende'?
The president can't implement laws. That's the legislative branch's duty. The legislative branch's policies were republican.

yes, but the legislative branch controls the money.
when have I not said that? First you say that bush is in charge of the government, then I point out that that's not the case, then you say "well the legislative branch controls the money". What, are you now saying that the legislative branch is in charge of the government because they hold all the money? WHERE DOES THIS ARGUEMENT LEAD

[NightRogue]

Well i guess the new democratically-dominated legislative branch which bush has even less "control" over is really saving us money hand-over-fist (not really, the government has gone 700 billion more dollars into debt since the beginning of 2006)
didn't say they were doing a good job either. I hate both parties. You can't expect them to turn it around in one though either - it took Clinton 6 years to begin to reverse the effects of Reaganomics.
sorry to burst your bubble sir, but the united states house of representatives controls the federal spending and taxing of The United States (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_controls_taxing_and_spending_in_the_US_federal _government)
whoops, my mistake I got the houses confused.
Obviously. especially since you didn't know that the United States House of Representatives controls the federal spending and taxing of the United States.
ooooooo, cheap shot. I'll take it since I said it.
That graph is the national debt as a percentage of gdp. Public + Government debt. The government debt is more like 30% of the GDP right now. And sure, there was a decrease at the end of clinton's presidency, but that was because the public debt was decreasing. As I mentioned above, according to the united states treasury, the government spendings slowly increased during that time. The government debt has not decreased since 1997 (from what i can gather from the treasury website. There are no exact numbers for both government and public spendings available from before that point) The rest of america's debt accounts for the other 34-ish% of what that graph says we're in right now. you can grab an excel file of the GDP from the last 70 years or so from this webpage (http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp).
I'll take a look at it Monday.
The legislative branch has control over the money and the policies regarding money. According to that graph, that debt decrease occurred during the republican congress that was there "even before bush got into office". Wasn't the legislative branch the one that cut down on that debt? Yet again, I emphasize:
The President does not control government spending or how the government collects money. The legislative branch of government has that responsibility. More specifically, the United States House of Representatives controls the federal taxing and spending of the United States (I love giving you a hard time about that :D)
NP :D This is of course true, but the president has influence in budget proposals and policy decisions made working in concert with both houses. For instance, if the house wants to do tax cuts, but the president vetoes and they compromise, ending up with something more fiscally responsible, he has then influnced the flow of money, would you not agree?
Now pardon me, sir, but my "neo-conservative nonsense" was pulled directly from a .gov website of the US Treasury (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np). That very web page is where i got all of my numbers. Not the very first thing that came up under google like you did.
I actually use that website from time to time thank you - and I cross-referenced the graph with it's source, though I didn't go into as much depth as you apparently did - like I said I'll look at all your info when I have more time.
Oh wait a second, I forgot, you're one of those people who thinks everything the government says is a lie
Of course I don't trust the government. Why should I?
The president can't implement laws. That's the legislative branch's duty. The legislative branch's policies were republican.
No sh*t. Clinton was fiscally conservative and did what presidents do, which is enter into treaties. Clinton signed us into NAFTA, which is IMO a neo-con leaning agreement that has lead to the destruction of our economy.
when have I not said that? First you say that bush is in charge of the government, then I point out that that's not the case,
by constitutional authority, Bush is not in control of the government, no. That does not mean that he and his crew have not been bullying congress into instituting every single policy they have wanted to see through however.

[acid_soda]

didn't say they were doing a good job either. I hate both parties. You can't expect them to turn it around in one though either - it took Clinton 6 years to begin to reverse the effects of Reaganomics.

ugh, i'm getting tired of saying this
it was the public debt that decreased, not the government debt
and the graph that you showed me was the national debt (which again i emphasize is the government debt + the public debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. That is not a direct representation of the national debt.

NP :D This is of course true, but the president has influence in budget proposals and policy decisions made working in concert with both houses. For instance, if the house wants to do tax cuts, but the president vetoes and they compromise, ending up with something more fiscally responsible, he has then influnced the flow of money, would you not agree?
yes, but what branch puts the bill into legislation? The legislative of course. Who has the power to change it at any given time? The legislative of course. Who has the power to override a presidential veto? The legislative of course.

I actually use that website from time to time thank you - and I cross-referenced the graph with it's source, though I didn't go into as much depth as you apparently did - like I said I'll look at all your info when I have more time.
well sorry but i don't appreciate having my opinion being brushed off as "neo conservative nonsense" sir.

Of course I don't trust the government. Why should I?
BECUASE YOU LIVE HERE
If you hate the government so much, then feel free to move out of the country and find a country that has a better government.
No sh*t. Clinton was fiscally conservative and did what presidents do, which is enter into treaties. Clinton signed us into NAFTA, which is IMO a neo-con leaning agreement that has lead to the destruction of our economy.

k

by constitutional authority, Bush is not in control of the government, no. That does not mean that he and his crew have not been bullying congress into instituting every single policy they have wanted to see through however.
I don't think that means he has been bullying them either. The president and his "crew" (and by "crew" I'm assuming you mean the cabinet) can't just barge into the senate and the house of representatives, give the senators wet willies and the representatives indian burns till they all say "UNCLE!!!" and enforce his policy. In fact, recently, I think the new congress has been giving the president wet willies, hell, maybe an indian burn or two in the public eye for the past year or so. How many times have you seen the congress get all upset and whiney about the war in iraq? Okay, so compare that to how many times bush has come out and said "HOUSE AND SENATE YOU HAD BETTER AUTHORIZE THIS SPENDING BILL OR ELSE I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU INDIAN BURNS THAT ARE SO BAD THAT ALL OF YOUR ARMS FALL OFF. IS THAT CLEAR"

Weak people that are affected by "bullying" of the president tend to not be elected into congress. I mean, if I was catching crap from someone who doesn't have the power to fire me or harm my position as a senator or a representative, I'd be hardly moved by their bullying. Besides, I have yet to see anywhere on the news where some dolt from congress cried that he gave in to bush's policy to make the bullying stop.

Now honestly, if you don't see a reason to trust the American government, then why are you living here? Go find another country that has a better government. I'm not challenging you to find a better government than america, I'm honestly saying that if you hate the government so much that you can't even trust it, then you shouldn't be sitting around complaining about it. People like you really make me sad, because they're either so immature and they hate authority or they're so clouded up in their conspiracy theories that they distrust the very people that run their lives every single day. If you don't trust the american government and you're complaining about it, then you're contributing nothing to the government and you're doing nothing to improve it. I know it sounds crazy that I said that, but if United States citizens take action against wrongdoings in the government, we can change it and we can make it better. I know that what I just said sounds extremely trite and cliche, but thats how our government was designed to work and that's how it's been working for over 200 years. If you don't trust it, well start trusting or start moving out.

They're the goverment. They help us deal with foreign affairs, they represent us when we need representing, and they at least try to work with the public to create a better nation.

SHOW SOME RESPECT, BROTHA :'(

edit: *BECAUSE

[jackenape]

The president and his "crew" (and by "crew" I'm assuming you mean the cabinet) can't just barge into the senate and the house of representatives, give the senators wet willies and the representatives indian burns till they all say "UNCLE!!!" and enforce his policy.
I'm relatively sure he's referring to the core members of the RNC: the ones that decide the what party lines are to be toed and who will get a shot to toe them. And yes, they can and have done exactly what you're mocking.

You've a good working knowledge of textbook democracy, but you're an absolute Pollyanna about the way it works in the real world.

[NightRogue]

That's kind of why I've given up on this arguement... I mean, for what it's worth, most of everything he has said is correct (from what I can tell), but it's just not the way it's going down in today's America. And arguing that point just takes a hell of a lot more effort than I am willing to expend nowadays.

I remember the days when I used to enjoy long-winded word for word arguments on these here forums. I've either lost my edge or I just don't really give a crap enough anymore. Or maybe I'm just not nearly as angry as I was 6 years ago.

Anyway, yeah, what Jack said.

Oh, and BTW. Don't tell me to get out of my country. If anything, why don't YOU move to a country where dissention and questioning of authority is outlawed, so people like me don't bother you so much. I mean, look at this line:

People like you really make me sad, because they're either so immature and they hate authority or they're so clouded up in their conspiracy theories that they distrust the very people that run their lives every single day.
My apologies, but I believe a very VERY healthy distrust of "the very people that run my life every single day" is not just a good thing, but the very best of things. Live in your bubble all you want.
If you don't trust the american government and you're complaining about it, then you're contributing nothing to the government and you're doing nothing to improve it. I know it sounds crazy that I said that, but if United States citizens take action against wrongdoings in the government, we can change it and we can make it better
It sounds crazy because IT IS. What "action" would you like me to take? Everything starts at discussion. In most cases, DISCUSSION is all most of us have as an option. I can't even vote.
If you don't trust it, well start trusting or start moving out.
LOL... *suppresses trolling instincts*

[Freakish]

I remember the days when I used to enjoy long-winded word for word arguments on these here forums. I've either lost my edge or I just don't really give a crap enough anymore. Or maybe I'm just not nearly as angry as I was 6 years ago.

Or you start to realize that arguing with younger people is worthless because they refuse to accept the harsh truth of the situation and prefer to idealize everything.

It sounds crazy because IT IS. What "action" would you like me to take? Everything starts at discussion. In most cases, DISCUSSION is all most of us have as an option. I can't even vote.


Its difficult to say. While public opinion is supposed to be the biggest option its effective in small doses and when you look deeper, its not really effective. Politicians pretend to heed public opinion just to make themselves look like they give a damn to the American public, case in point, the new Democratic congress. We also lost our best presidential candidate due to douchebags in authority position (yes I do realize Colbert is not a real politician but frankly we need a non-partisan non-nutjob [which eliminates Ron Paul] and an actual liberal as a Democratic candidate, or hell even a Republican candidate would be nice).

By the way, NightRogue have you read THe People's History of the United States yet? Seems like a book you'ld enjoy

[NightRogue]

No, though Non-Fiction is my reading of choice. Who is the author?

Or you start to realize that arguing with younger people is worthless because they refuse to accept the harsh truth of the situation and prefer to idealize everything.
True, but heaven help them if they become as jaded and as cynical as I have.

[The_Mess]

By the way, NightRogue have you read THe People's History of the United States yet? Seems like a book you'ld enjoy
Howard Zinn's book right?

Damn I'd like to get that at some future point, but the history student in me is leery of revisionist history :tease: And I'm also bothered by some of the criticism from other historians.

And this; http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=385

Oh yeah, this is my regulation-required time once more to advise that all read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, a sobering tale of the origins of al Qaeda and the US's involvement, and maybe Tariq Ali's The Clash of Fundamentalisms might prove interesting.

Though I can't recommend Chomsky all that strongly. Interesting, intellectual engaging, but he does pick and chose sources that only back up his historical/political arguments, something of problem when it comes to these subjects.

BECUASE YOU LIVE HERE
If you hate the government so much, then feel free to move out of the country and find a country that has a better government.
No government, in my opinion should be fully trusted, which I qualify by noting politics is about power, cutting deals and pragmatism, all of which can get in the way of holding political promises and actually sorting out . And that answer you give above, is frankly rather poor logic, which I'm going to lazily quip "think about it" instead of explaining :D

"...sorting out issues."

Ugh, need sleep.

[Freakish]

Howard Zinn's book right?

Damn I'd like to get that at some future point, but the history student in me is leery of revisionist history :tease: And I'm also bothered by some of the criticism from other historians.

Its just an interesting read. I wouldn't call it revionist, its just everything they left out in your K-12 history education which is that the United States government ****s over everything and everyone who isn't an elite. Its just an expansion of your historical thought.

[acid_soda]

No government, in my opinion should be fully trusted, which I qualify by noting politics is about power, cutting deals and pragmatism, all of which can get in the way of holding political promises and actually sorting out . And that answer you give above, is frankly rather poor logic, which I'm going to lazily quip "think about it" instead of explaining :D

Maybe you should think about trusting the people that are protecting you first

my quote tags done gone broken :(


It sounds crazy because IT IS. What "action" would you like me to take? Everything starts at discussion. In most cases, DISCUSSION is all most of us have as an option. I can't even vote.


Not really. Have you ever called a congressman? participated in any protesting demonstrations? Anything like that?

why cant you vote


Majin Edit: Fixed quotes.

[daNce*]

Blah, bush is only doing his interest, nothing new here.

[NightRogue]

Not really. Have you ever called a congressman? participated in any protesting demonstrations? Anything like that?
how does that prove that everything doesn't start at discussion? And yes, I have been in one march/protest. Don't plan on going to any nowadays because it's so easy to get arrested now and.....

why cant you vote
because I'm a double felon currently doing a 10 year suspended sentence. I have no rights.

[Shadoph]

Bush is only the leader in the States anyway... He's given too much attention. I don't think I would've ever heard of this bill if he hadn't veto'd it... He knows how to get in the media...

[Nicholas]

Also, there was something in the radio about Bush, since he's commander in chief, he can send troops where ever he wants. However, there is nothing saying that he can force people to give money for the war. So in my opinion, Bush is abusing his powers.

[DBCrader]

Okay... we've put up with all the irrational liberals here damning Bush for NOT signing the S-CHIP Bill... now that it has been amended and many of the "earmarks" that the Democrats keep putting in have been removed, he has signed it... I take it that the very same people who keep bitching about it will now praise him for signing it??? Anyone???

No... I didn't THINK so!!!

Instead of worrying about Bush, perhaps you should worry about your own party, that, despite what was said to win the mid-term elections, are now setting records in trying to sneak unprecedented numbers of "earmarks" into every bill they send to the hill....

Also, there was something in the radio about Bush, since he's commander in chief, he can send troops where ever he wants. However, there is nothing saying that he can force people to give money for the war. So in my opinion, Bush is abusing his powers.

Actually, he can't... can't send troops to any state in the U.S., unless asked to by the governor of said state... which is why he never sent the National Guard to Louisiana until after the fact... the DEMOCRATIC Governor of Louisiana didn't request them until after the hurricane hit...

[Majin]

I do believe the president can control the Marines for 45 days before getting Congress approval. Though it's been years since I heard that, so it's probably been twisted by memory.

[Freakish]

Okay... we've put up with all the irrational liberals here damning Bush for NOT signing the S-CHIP Bill... now that it has been amended and many of the "earmarks" that the Democrats keep putting in have been removed, he has signed it... I take it that the very same people who keep bitching about it will now praise him for signing it??? Anyone???

No... I didn't THINK so!!!

Instead of worrying about Bush, perhaps you should worry about your own party, that, despite what was said to win the mid-term elections, are now setting records in trying to sneak unprecedented numbers of "earmarks" into every bill they send to the hill....

I don't think anybody here has said that the Democratic Congress has been anything short of awful.


Actually, he can't... can't send troops to any state in the U.S., unless asked to by the governor of said state... which is why he never sent the National Guard to Louisiana until after the fact... the DEMOCRATIC Governor of Louisiana didn't request them until after the hurricane hit...

Right and wrong. See the National Guard is like a militia. The president just can't order the militia to do anything, he has to get approval from the governor to send them anywhere

[NightRogue]

Okay... we've put up with all the irrational liberals here damning Bush for NOT signing the S-CHIP Bill... now that it has been amended and many of the "earmarks" that the Democrats keep putting in have been removed, he has signed it... I take it that the very same people who keep bitching about it will now praise him for signing it??? Anyone???

No, I'm not praising him for anything. How about quoting some sources for your "earmarks" remark? If, by earmarks, you mean the expansion of the program and using tobacco tax to fund it, then what's your problem?

Bush signed it because it's basically now been reduced to the same program it always was, without being broadened. He couldn't veto it forever because that would mean he just cut 6 million kids out of health care. He could, however, hold out and give the tobacco companies what they wanted.