Every news source and I mean EVERY one reported that our national debt is at an
all time high. What's surprising is that the war was not a huge factor.His tax
plan and spending ruined the economy. I hope everyone enjoyed those refund
checks that the country couldn't afford.
Gore was right from the beginning. He's right not to run. Why should he try to
repair the Bush mess?

RB

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

On 23 Oct 2003 16:40:18 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

Every news source and I mean EVERY one reported that our national
debt is at an all time high. What's surprising is that the war was
not a huge factor.His tax plan and spending ruined the economy. I
hope everyone enjoyed those refund checks that the country
couldn't afford.
Gore was right from the beginning. He's right not to run. Why
should he try to repair the Bush mess?

RB

I think you mean the deficit, don't you? In real dollars, it's NOT
at an all time high. In real dollars, as a percentage of the
economy, it's about half of what it was in the 1980s. The real high
was in the 1940s, during WWII. It's meaningless to cite raw dollar
amounts without comparing it to the size of the economy. A $300 or
$400 billion dollar deficit means something quite different if it
happens in Bolivia, than if it happens in the USA. Be cautious of
what the virulent Bush-haters do with numbers. They lie though
their teeth. And, you'll be happy to know that the deficit
forecasts keep coming down as every month passes. I know you'll be
happy to hear that.

two wheels


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

iQA/AwUBP5gLtdCBA23eyf45EQIhlQCgz9+f7byNgsEXV/MdU9YCduVuJaUAoL24
qrqBOPFmkqTqvqxccT0ybrWr
=GFg9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Oh, as though virulent Clinton-haters don't... ok.

"two wheels" wrote in message
...
Be cautious of
what the virulent Bush-haters do with numbers. They lie though
their teeth.

We had zero before, now we have a huge deficit, which will be around
for as far as anyone can reasonable project. This is not good news.

And, you'll be happy to know that the deficit
forecasts keep coming down as every month passes. I know you'll be
happy to hear that.

two wheels

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

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Oh, as though virulent Clinton-haters don't... ok.

"two wheels" wrote in
message ...
Be cautious of
what the virulent Bush-haters do with numbers. They lie though
their teeth.

We had zero before, now we have a huge deficit, which will be
around for as far as anyone can reasonable project. This is not
good news.

Zero deficit, or even worse, surplus? You talk, er, write like
that's a good thing. It's not. It just encourges the politicians to
spend lots of money on their pet projects. Even Bush does it. His
biggest pet project just happens to be reforming Iraq and
Afganistan, and killing terrorists. It's an expensive hobby, but I
think in the long run it's worth the cost. What's not worth the
cost, is a non-means-tested Medicare prescription drug benefit. It
will be just an ever-growing money pit that we'll regret very soon.
But, thirty years from now, I don't think any sane person will
regret invading Iraq in 2003. Especially not the Iraqis.

two wheels


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

iQA/AwUBP5g9otCBA23eyf45EQKp5wCePA6HZtvZDjB845IpH6It84 3LZSgAoJVj
36tNIRLbbU6sHShLcBppf3KE
=x5Xx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

But, thirty years from now, I don't think any sane person will
regret invading Iraq in 2003.

At least plenty of people are not bothering to call it anything else but an
invasion these days.
This expensive and deadly war was brought about by WMD that did not exist. Once
it was clear that the weapons were gone, the search began for paper work about
WMD, and even that was old and little more than conversational material.
I don't care about anything except the fact that Saddam and Bin Laden are still
alive and issuing orders to kill Americans.
Bush failed in every way.

Capt RB

"two wheels" wrote in message On
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Oh, as though virulent Clinton-haters don't... ok.

We had zero before, now we have a huge deficit, which will be
around for as far as anyone can reasonable project. This is not
good news.

Zero deficit, or even worse, surplus? You talk, er, write like
that's a good thing. It's not. It just encourges the politicians to
spend lots of money on their pet projects. Even Bush does it. His
biggest pet project just happens to be reforming Iraq and
Afganistan, and killing terrorists.

Excellent news!!! Which terrorist has he managed to kill?



It's an expensive hobby,

It certainly is very expensive! Especially when he spends billions of
dollars fighting the wrong targets.

but I
think in the long run it's worth the cost.

That is why he can kill thousands of innocent civilians, and simultaneously,
create thousands of new terrorists.

What's not worth the
cost, is a non-means-tested Medicare prescription drug benefit. It
will be just an ever-growing money pit that we'll regret very soon.
But, thirty years from now, I don't think any sane person will
regret invading Iraq in 2003. Especially not the Iraqis.

You may well be right. It *is* possible that, in 30 years, you will still
not be able to make the connection between American violence, and terrorist
violence.

Regards


Donal
--

Pulees... you're saying that it's better to run a deficit than
have a surplus, which could legitimately used for the 100s
if not 1000s of social and infrastructure projects that we
desperately need?

Why do you equate surplus with pet projects? That's a
"typical right wing" viewpoint that has nothing to do with
reality.

You're damn right it's an expensive hobby. That's all it
is... a hobby. Get Saddam cause he tried to get dada.
There was no immediate need to do that. Then, we would
have time and another $87 billion to get the economy
moving.

Every 1st world country on earth has universal health
care and it pretty much works. Our private system
is ridiculously expensive and doesn't work any better.
Even some state governments are buying perscription
drugs from Canada now. Surely, they'll be sued because
we certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience the drug
companies and more than we'd want to inconvenience
the oil companies or car companies.

Bush and his administration have a stated agenda of
gutting the Federal involvement in society. Orgs like
the EPA and Dept. of Education are on the hit list.
That's how they'll pay for Iraq. Heaven forbid that
they actually increase the taxes on the wealthiest 10%
of the population. We wouldn't want to inconvenience
Ken Lay certainly! nor Dick Cheney's old pals at
Haliburton.

But I'll be damned if they don't want to limit free speech,
imprison people without due process, and generally
stomp all over the Bill of Rights in the name of terrorism.
Is it possible for anyone to be able to justify getting
librarians to reveal what people are reading?? Seems to
me that you can get all the really bad stuff for free and
without leaving your house right on the little box sitting
in front of your face right now.

Not to get on too much of a rant here, but it sure is
sick and funny to have the Federal courts say that it's
ok to call people during dinner for yet another solicitation
to buy something, but it's not ok for me to go to a public
library and read about nuclear weapons for fear of getting
on some Fed list.

Well, look who's in charge... Bush, a mostly stupid guy
who only got where he is because of his father, and who
was basically AWOL at one point, not to mention being
a reformed drunk... and Cheney who failed out of Yale
twice before finally getting through college at a second
rate school, someone who didn't have one second of regret
bailing out of the Vietnam draft.

GOD FORBID we should get someone who has a decent
education and the ability to think on his feet. And, don't
think I'm talking about Clinton here. There are plenty of
republicans who would qualify.

Too bad Ahhhnold was born outside the US. He'd be
the perfect president... all muscle no brain power... shoot
'em up, nuke 'em, hurry up and get us into yet another
lousy spot.

Thanks

"two wheels" wrote in message
news
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Oh, as though virulent Clinton-haters don't... ok.

"two wheels" wrote in
message ...
Be cautious of
what the virulent Bush-haters do with numbers. They lie though
their teeth.

We had zero before, now we have a huge deficit, which will be
around for as far as anyone can reasonable project. This is not
good news.

Zero deficit, or even worse, surplus? You talk, er, write like
that's a good thing. It's not. It just encourges the politicians to
spend lots of money on their pet projects. Even Bush does it. His
biggest pet project just happens to be reforming Iraq and
Afganistan, and killing terrorists. It's an expensive hobby, but I
think in the long run it's worth the cost. What's not worth the
cost, is a non-means-tested Medicare prescription drug benefit. It
will be just an ever-growing money pit that we'll regret very soon.
But, thirty years from now, I don't think any sane person will
regret invading Iraq in 2003. Especially not the Iraqis.

two wheels


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

iQA/AwUBP5g9otCBA23eyf45EQKp5wCePA6HZtvZDjB845IpH6It84 3LZSgAoJVj
36tNIRLbbU6sHShLcBppf3KE
=x5Xx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

No, I have to agree with Bob, even adjusted it is at an all time record
high, according to most news agencies.
"two wheels" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23 Oct 2003 16:40:18 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

Every news source and I mean EVERY one reported that our national
debt is at an all time high. What's surprising is that the war was
not a huge factor.His tax plan and spending ruined the economy. I
hope everyone enjoyed those refund checks that the country
couldn't afford.
Gore was right from the beginning. He's right not to run. Why
should he try to repair the Bush mess?

RB

I think you mean the deficit, don't you? In real dollars, it's NOT
at an all time high. In real dollars, as a percentage of the
economy, it's about half of what it was in the 1980s. The real high
was in the 1940s, during WWII. It's meaningless to cite raw dollar
amounts without comparing it to the size of the economy. A $300 or
$400 billion dollar deficit means something quite different if it
happens in Bolivia, than if it happens in the USA. Be cautious of
what the virulent Bush-haters do with numbers. They lie though
their teeth. And, you'll be happy to know that the deficit
forecasts keep coming down as every month passes. I know you'll be
happy to hear that.

two wheels


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

iQA/AwUBP5gLtdCBA23eyf45EQIhlQCgz9+f7byNgsEXV/MdU9YCduVuJaUAoL24
qrqBOPFmkqTqvqxccT0ybrWr
=GFg9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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.

Measured against GNP as a percentage it's nothing. That's the arguement
Doug used on me last time. Once you invoke that you are home free. 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. Neither do I worry about the National Debt or the annual budger
imbalances . .. .

All you have to do to get rid of it is do like the last administration.
Take it "off budget" and ignore it. Then you can claim a budget surplus.
In point of fact there has never been a budget surplus when the books are
balanced. Take a quick look at the Dept of Treasury website. End of
conversation. The rest is just meaningless BS.

As long as the majority of the nation thinks we are solvent, we are solvent
(faith standard versus gold standard or rabbit skin standard or wampum
standard or whatever else). Now of course the electronic symbols on
computer tapes have been given the same status as printed money or (in the
old days) coined money (not since what? 64 or 65 have we minted coins) or
against tokens (look like coins but no intrinsic value).

Let's suppose the situation gets really, really bad. Two types of things,
make that three, will happen.

Employment gets low enough there will be a war and employment will rise
dramatically. Might be a shooting war, might be a war on poverty, might be
a war against kangaroo rat infestations. Doesn't matter.

Individual programs get too hard to handle then the original intent will be
enforced. For Example Social Security is for " those who are destitute".
Read the original law that established the program. Do away with those at
the top who really don't need it and voila! No problem. Course if you
retire on $25,000 or so plus a year plan on getting shafted.

Finally look at the example of Nixon and Kissinger when they did away with
the Johnson Debt. Simply create an artificial shortage of a basic
commodity. Float scare rumours of $2.00a gallon gas, let the price float
from 35 cents to nearer one dollar and then you can raise the taxes on fuel.
Can't tax fifty cents on thirty five cent a gallon gas can you? Scare
people into thinking $5 a gallon gas is around the corner . . .let it settle
at $2 plus and bing taxes can now raise to $1 plus.

Another name for this is debt devaluation or 'your investment ain't worth as
much as you thought when you loaned out the money." That's another phrase
for PERS or IRA or any other retirment fund investment. The whole thing is
BS of the highest magnitude.. .. .and not worth worrying about. Want a real
scare? The unfunded debt of the nation is now hovering around 50 trillion.
Unfunded military retirement, unfunded Social Security, unfunded Railroad
Retirement, unfunded Medicare and Medicaid. And that's only through the
lifetime of the baby boomers.

In truth, the only debt worth worrying about is your own. $10 Big Mac's
anyone? What is worth worrying about is how much per foot is the cost of a
sailboat and where in the world you can make what you have left last as long
as you need it.

Can anyone properly define the term "money?"

MST

The ONLY thing worth worrying about is when enough people say, "The emperor
(government) has no clothes." Once enough people realize the government has
not intention of paying their bills .. . . . . . .

Well. . .no one said everything lasts forever . . But in the immortal words
of Alfred E. "What me Worry?"

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

When the economy is humming along, the deficit cures itself. That's
what the tax cuts were for--to prime the economic pump. Tax and
tariff policy is about the only power government has over the
economy. They can slow down the economy with tax increases (as in
California) or speed it up with tax cuts. That's it.

two wheels


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...id=749&e=1&u=/
nm/20031030/bs_nm/economy_dc

Economy Rocketed Ahead in 3rd Quarter
By Tim Ahmann

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

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy rocketed ahead at its
fastest pace in more than 19 years in the third quarter of 2003 as
consumers, their wallets fattened by tax cuts, went on a buying
spree, an unexpectedly strong government report showed on Thursday.

U.S. gross domestic product surged at a 7.2 percent annual rate in
the July-September period, the Commerce Department said. It was the
steepest climb since the first quarter of 1984 and more than double
the second quarter's 3.3 percent rate.

Three other reports on Thursday also suggested a firmer recovery was
taking root -- new claims for jobless benefits and a help-wanted
index suggested some stability in the labor market, while companies
spent more on wages and benefits.

The jump in GDP (news - web sites) growth, which also reflected a
big gain in business spending, outstripped forecasts on Wall Street,
where economists had looked for a rise closer to 6 percent.

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



On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:31:56 -0500, "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.

Measured against GNP as a percentage it's nothing. That's the
arguement
Doug used on me last time. Once you invoke that you are home
free. 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. Neither do I worry about the National Debt or the annual
budger
imbalances . .. .


[SNIP]


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

iD8DBQE/oVKg0IEDbd7J/jkRAjIIAJ9iEQBsx59F7tzVYCdl0kchrdJIdwCg/KGK
71q1Rr2jByjpLPvlm6yZ/4Y=
=TnEI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----