BUSH Debt
 

Schoonertrash wrote:

So what? Does it matter? Of course not. It hasn't mattered for well over
sixty years. Didn't matter under Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagain, Carter, Ford,
Johnson, Nixon (did I leave out anyone?), Eisenhower . . . correction . ..
Nixon did something to correct it partially and Kennedy tried to do so.

You should try some facts. Carter almost balanced the budget, and so did
Clinton. The main fiscal skulduggery used each time was to project foreign
balance of payments and use the Social Security surplus to reduce the size of
the liability balance.




Measured against GNP as a percentage it's nothing. That's the arguement
Doug used on me last time.

No, Doug most definitely did not say anything of the kind. Doug said something
more along the lines that national debt should be measured against GNP (or it's
counterpart GDP) to be meaningful, and for the US it's still quite small.


Once you invoke that you are home free.

Hardly.

What you seem to be saying is "Republican national debt is fine & wonderful, but
those Democrats just screw everything up and then lie about it."


....The
rest is just silliness like worrying about five or ten nukes in N. Korea.
Hell . . .I'm used to worrying about ten thousand plus of the things pointed
at me.

Ten nukes is definitely an improvement over ten thousand, but that hardly means
that we should relax and stop trying to do anything about those ten nukes. Ten
nukes is BIG problem amigo.


Neither do I worry about the National Debt or the annual budger
imbalances . .. .

You won't be happy when it erases your pension.

DSK

BUSH Debt
 

Clinton never came close to balancing the budget and raised the national
debt by a third or more. Raising the debt and not balancing the budget is
something he had in common with every other administration. Has nothing to
do with Democrat or Republican. The knee jerk blaming of the 'other side' of
the coin argument is meaningless. It's still the same coin. He also
refunded the national debt with short term, high interest bonds instead of
long term low interest bonds and and fudged the unemployment figures. .
...let's see. . .funded the Mexican bail out with the social security fund
and the railroad retirement fund Most of that money never left the US
though but went to pay off the loaning institutions such as the home
corporation of the then Treasury Secretary. Bet his stocks didn't suffer.
But on balance . . .. So what? Does it matter? Not really.

Carter . . . carter .. . carter . . oh yes wasn't he the one who presided
over double digit inflation, was more despised by the military than was
Clinton and holds the record for screwing up more foreign policy than any
other President in memory ('cept maybe Ford) ... thought so. Sorry, ten
nukes means little to me. How they got the ten nukes is of some
importance though. The fact that they (North Korea) even exists as a
government and how that happened has meaning to me. Bullets, bombs,
landmines, and seamines mean a great deal to me but I've managed to dodge
them all through the years ('cept for two). I guess you have to have been
there. Come to think of it the items in question were reportedly made by
out of scrap metal shipped to a supporter of the opposition under dear ole'
Tricky Dick. A pox on both your houses.

You are right about my pension and social security though. The one pitfall
of government employment, military, civilian, social security or otherwise
is this . . . . are you really going to get paid? Well so far so good ..
.. . Dec 1st is another question. Think that guy Rubin would loan some of
the money back?

Actually I have and abiding faith in the government Donkeys and Elephants
alike to keep the game going. They really don't have any other choice do
they?

And that's where I'll leave it . . .They really don't have any other choice.

BUSH Debt
 

"Schoonertrash" wrote in message
...
Carter . . . carter .. . carter . . oh yes wasn't he the one who presided
over double digit inflation, was more despised by the military than was
Clinton and holds the record for screwing up more foreign policy than any
other President in memory ('cept maybe Ford)

Are you stark raving mad?? No president has screwed up foreign policy as
much as Bush.

Before the invasion of Iraq, many countries supported the US in its foreign
policy. Now -- I doubt if any political leader in the free world would
support the US in a similiar venture.

Bush, and through the nationalistic support he received, has destroyed
America's credibility in the international community.

There was a report on TV tonight that said that 51% of Americans still
believe that the war in Iraq has something to do with 9/11. For Gawd's
sake!!! Bush has *admitted* that Saddam had nothing to do with bin Laden.
What on earth is wrong with all you whackos? Iraq had nothing to do with
international terrorism. The war has created a breeding ground for
terrorists that will be responsible for thousands of murders in the years to
come.

Bush isn't just a liar - he is a dangerous idiot. His actions have made
enormous profits for his family and friends. However, the rest of us will
pay dearly. So, while the executives of Haliburton, Carlyle and Bechtel
rejoice in their good fortune, the families of American soldiers (and Iraqi
civilians) must suffer enormous grief.

How many American families will get an "official" phone call tomorrow? ...
Or perhaps an official might visit them and personally deliver the bad news.
I bet that Fox won't show pictures of a young woman, with a baby in her
arms, opening the door to a well dressed army officer - who is bearing bad
news.

You may well rejoice that the deaths of Iraqi civilians somehow compensate
for the terrible events of 9/11. You may resign yourself to the fact that
some American soldiers will die in their attempts to punish the culpurts.
However, the world knows, and Bush has admitted, that Iraq had nothing to do
with 9/11.


Why are American soldiers dying? .... Why?



Regards


Donal
--

BUSH Debt
 

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:44:45 -0000, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


"Schoonertrash" wrote in message
...
Carter . . . carter .. . carter . . oh yes wasn't he the one who presided
over double digit inflation, was more despised by the military than was
Clinton and holds the record for screwing up more foreign policy than any
other President in memory ('cept maybe Ford)

Are you stark raving mad?? No president has screwed up foreign policy as
much as Bush.

Except Carter.

Actually president George W. Bush is doing a great job. Many of the
furriners actually like him.


Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

BUSH Debt
 

Horass needs to be excused. According to his boyfriends,
he likes to have a broom handle shoved up his butt and he
keeps forgetting to remove it.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:44:45 -0000, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


"Schoonertrash" wrote in message
...
Carter . . . carter .. . carter . . oh yes wasn't he the one who
presided
over double digit inflation, was more despised by the military than was
Clinton and holds the record for screwing up more foreign policy than
any
other President in memory ('cept maybe Ford)

Are you stark raving mad?? No president has screwed up foreign policy
as
much as Bush.

Except Carter.

Actually president George W. Bush is doing a great job. Many of the
furriners actually like him.


Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

BUSH Debt
 

Donal wrote:

Are you stark raving mad?? No president has screwed up foreign policy as
much as Bush.

No, wait. Nixon came pretty close. Only U.S. President to lose a major war. He
also inspired more fear & loathing abroad than GWB, but it's a close call. Also,
Nixon actively took steps to send the economy down the tubes whereas GWB has
merely failed to stir up any kind of economic recovery (other than funneling
billions into his buddies pockets).

But then, to many people, facts are irrelevant.

DSK

BUSH Debt
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:06:58 -0500, DSK wrote:

Donal wrote:

Are you stark raving mad?? No president has screwed up foreign
policy as much as Bush.

No, wait. Nixon came pretty close. Only U.S. President to lose a major
war. He also inspired more fear & loathing abroad than GWB, but it's a
close call. Also, Nixon actively took steps to send the economy down
the tubes whereas GWB has merely failed to stir up any kind of
economic recovery (other than funneling billions into his buddies
pockets).

But then, to many people, facts are irrelevant.

DSK

From:
http://msnbc.com/news/966470.asp

NBC NEWS: MEET THE PRESS
Sunday, September 14, 2003
GUEST: Dick Cheney, vice president
Tim Russert, moderator

excerpt:
- -------------

MR. RUSSERT: Democrats have written you letters and are suggesting
profiteering by your former company Halliburton and this is how it was
reported: "Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President
Cheney, has won contrast worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation
Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars
under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
according to newly available documents. The size and scope of the
government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war
in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and
demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit
corporations to run its logistical operations." Were you involved in
any way in the awarding of those contracts?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Of course not, Tim. Tim, when I was secretary of
Defense, I was not involved in awarding contracts. That's done at a far
lower level. Secondly, when I ran Halliburton for five years and they
were doing work for the Defense Department, which frankly they've been
doing for 60 or 70 years, I never went near the Defense Department. I
never lobbied the Defense Department on behalf of Halliburton. The only
time I went back to the department during those eight years was to have
my portrait hung which is a traditional service rendered for former
secretaries of Defense. And since I left Halliburton to become George
Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company,
gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest
in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years.
And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement
of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the
Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government, so...

MR. RUSSERT: Why is there no bidding?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I have no idea. Go ask the Corps of Engineers. One
of the things to keep in mind is that Halliburton is a unique kind of
company. There are very few companies out there that have the
combination of the very large engineering construction capability and
significant oil field services, the first- or second-largest oil field
service company in the world, and they've traditionally done a lot of
work for the U.S. government and the U.S. military. That expertise has
stood the military in good stead over the years, but it's a great
company. There are fine people working for it.
I also have a lot of confidence in the people in the Department
of Defense. Nobody has produced one single shred of evidence that
there's anything wrong or inappropriate here, nothing but innuendo,
and-basically they're political cheap shots is the way I would describe
it. I don't know any of the details of the contract because I
deliberately stayed away from any information on that, but Halliburton
is a fine company. And as I say-and I have no reason to believe that
anybody's done anything wrong or inappropriate here.

- --------------------

I think I'd take Cheney's word on it over the Bush-haters. He doesn't
have any financial connection to Halliburton anymore, and he's already
made plenty of money as the CEO. He took a big pay cut to go back into
government. The "profiteering" nonsense is just politics, and most
people understand that. Halliburton is the only (American) company with
the experience to do the jobs in Iraq, while being shot at. It costs a
little more when they're shooting at you, for some reason. The job
applications from engineers are a little harder to come by.


two wheels


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQA/AwUBP6fq9dCBA23eyf45EQKiZgCg2nJL4mxeJ/p7vtu4u6SVfxaXrVkAoIv9
agkJ6WOEuFVYWPm3Dp2zSOBY
=EhVg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

BUSH Debt
 

He has no idea?????? He's the bleeping VP of the United States
and he HAS NO IDEA?

"two wheels" wrote in message
...
MR. RUSSERT: Why is there no bidding?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I have no idea. Go ask the Corps of Engineers. One
of the things to keep in mind is that Halliburton is a unique kind of
company. There are very few companies out there that have the
combination of the very large engineering construction capability and
significant oil field services, the first- or second-largest oil field
service company in the world, and they've traditionally done a lot of
work for the U.S. government and the U.S. military. That expertise has
stood the military in good stead over the years, but it's a great
company. There are fine people working for it.
I also have a lot of confidence in the people in the Department
of Defense. Nobody has produced one single shred of evidence that
there's anything wrong or inappropriate here, nothing but innuendo,
and-basically they're political cheap shots is the way I would describe
it. I don't know any of the details of the contract because I
deliberately stayed away from any information on that, but Halliburton
is a fine company. And as I say-and I have no reason to believe that
anybody's done anything wrong or inappropriate here.

- --------------------

I think I'd take Cheney's word on it over the Bush-haters. He doesn't
have any financial connection to Halliburton anymore, and he's already
made plenty of money as the CEO. He took a big pay cut to go back into
government. The "profiteering" nonsense is just politics, and most
people understand that. Halliburton is the only (American) company with
the experience to do the jobs in Iraq, while being shot at. It costs a
little more when they're shooting at you, for some reason. The job
applications from engineers are a little harder to come by.


two wheels

BUSH Debt
 

Hey, I liked Nixon... well, at least you knew he was a crook.
When he died, we all observed 18-1/2 minutes of silence.

Besides, he went to China.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Are you stark raving mad?? No president has screwed up foreign policy
as
much as Bush.

No, wait. Nixon came pretty close. Only U.S. President to lose a major
war. He
also inspired more fear & loathing abroad than GWB, but it's a close call.
Also,
Nixon actively took steps to send the economy down the tubes whereas GWB
has
merely failed to stir up any kind of economic recovery (other than
funneling
billions into his buddies pockets).

But then, to many people, facts are irrelevant.

DSK

BUSH Debt
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:30:06 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

He has no idea?????? He's the bleeping VP of the United States
and he HAS NO IDEA?

It's not important stuff. It's maintenance and remodeling. What's the
big deal? Why would a VP have to get involved in that? Bigger
job--bigger numbers on the check--that's all.

two wheels



"two wheels" wrote in message
.. .
MR. RUSSERT: Why is there no bidding?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I have no idea. Go ask the Corps of Engineers.
One of the things to keep in mind is that Halliburton is a unique
kind of company. There are very few companies out there that have
the
combination of the very large engineering construction capability
and significant oil field services, the first- or second-largest oil
field service company in the world, and they've traditionally done a
lot of work for the U.S. government and the U.S. military. That
expertise has stood the military in good stead over the years, but
it's a great
company. There are fine people working for it.
I also have a lot of confidence in the people in the
Department of Defense. Nobody has produced one single shred of
evidence that
there's anything wrong or inappropriate here, nothing but innuendo,
and-basically they're political cheap shots is the way I would
describe it. I don't know any of the details of the contract because
I
deliberately stayed away from any information on that, but
Halliburton is a fine company. And as I say-and I have no reason to
believe that anybody's done anything wrong or inappropriate here.

- --------------------

I think I'd take Cheney's word on it over the Bush-haters. He
doesn't have any financial connection to Halliburton anymore, and
he's already made plenty of money as the CEO. He took a big pay cut
to go back into government. The "profiteering" nonsense is just
politics, and most people understand that. Halliburton is the only
(American) company with the experience to do the jobs in Iraq, while
being shot at. It costs a little more when they're shooting at you,
for some reason. The job applications from engineers are a little
harder to come by.


two wheels


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQA/AwUBP6gJNdCBA23eyf45EQKNcQCffyFy0ddhAZFWxZJSD83RJU noZI8AnjG2
7WGc++2CpU+kCR0ynoyBJU1v
=97gn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----