The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush
____________________________________________________________________________________
At their national convention three years ago, Republicans pointed with pride to the GOP's record of
fiscal rectitude.
"In the four decades from 1954 to 1994," the Republican platform declared, "government spending
increased at an average annual rate of 7.9 percent, and the public's debt increased from $224 billion
to $3.4 trillion."
Those were the profligate years, when Democrats usually controlled both houses of Congress.
"Since 1994," it went on, "with Republicans leading the House and Senate, spending has been held
to an annual 3.1 percent rate of growth, and the nation's debt will be nearly $400 billion lower by the
end of 1993."
The federal government has operated in the black for the last two years and is now projected to run a
surplus of nearly $5 trillion over 10 years."
Missing from the Republicans' recitation was any mention of the Democrat who had been in the
White House since 1993.
Didn't President Clinton deserve any of the credit for the spending restraint and budget surpluses ?
Not according to Republicans, he didn't.
In their view, they were the ones who slowed the federal spending train and forced Clinton to curb his
big- government impulses.
If he had had a Democratic Congress to do his bidding, that train would have raced out of control.
So here we are three years later, with not only a Republican Congress but a Republican president, too--
and the federal spending train is racing out of control.
The Bush administration estimated last week that the government will end the current fiscal year with
a budget deficit of $455 billion.
Over the next five years, the public debt is expected to rise by $1.9 trillion.
The administration projects next year's federal outlays at $2.27 trillion, more than $400 billion higher than when the president took office.
As any Republican will be glad to tell you, the GOP is the party of fiscal discipline.
Unlike the wastrels of the Democratic Party, Republicans know that all government money is really taxpayers' money, and they take great pains to spend that money frugally.
Sure they do.
That's why Republican George W. Bush, backed by a Republican Congress, is on track to become the biggest spending president since LBJ.
In the first three years of the Bush administration, government spending has climbed --
in real, inflation-adjusted terms -- by a staggering 15.6 percent.
That far outstrips the budget growth in Clinton's first three years, when real spending climbed just
3.5 percent.
Under the first President Bush, the comparable figure was 8.3 percent; under Ronald Reagan,
6.8 percent, and under Jimmy Carter, 13.3 percent.
No, that's not a mistake: Bush is a bigger spender than Carter was.
To be sure, Bush's budgets have had to account for Sept. 11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But even when defense spending is excluded, discretionary spending has soared by nearly 21 percent
in Bush's first three years.
In Clinton's first triennium, nondefense discretionary spending declined slightly.
If their budgets were all you had to go by, you might peg Bush for the Democrat and Clinton for the Republican.
The budget cycle Bush inherited in 2001 closed with a surplus of $127 billion.
The deficits that now stretch as far as the eye can see are the result of reckless budget-busting that would have Republicans shrieking if Al Gore were president.
To see this kind of promiscuous budgeting come out of a Republican administration should outrage
them even more.
Predictably, liberals and Democrats are loudly blaming the Bush deficits on the Bush tax cuts.
But tax relief isn't leaking red ink all over the budget; spending is.
In 2008, when most of the tax cuts signed by Bush will be fully phased in, they will reduce federal revenues by $177 billion.
In the same year, total federal spending will be $494 billion higher than it is today.
By the end of the five-year budget plan, in other words, spending increases will outweigh tax cuts
by nearly 3 to 1.
From the pork-laden homeland security bill to last year's bloated farm bill, Washington's orgy of spending is bringing on the biggest deficits in American history.
The gigantic prescription-drug entitlement making its way through the Capitol will force the budget
even further into the red and the nation even deeper into debt.
Americans count on Republicans to enforce, or at least invoke, the First Law of Holes:
When in one, stop digging.
But Republicans rule both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and the digging is more furious than ever.
____________________________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
| User: "Mark" |
|
| Title: Re: The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush |
22 Feb 2004 09:38:53 AM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5b4h30d20skdo2ik05daobh2l50toukoqq@4ax.com...
The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush
Prepare yourselves for the biggest inflationary period in American
history...
.... unless, of course, the US can conquer the world and control everything
before then.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush |
24 Feb 2004 01:56:05 AM |
|
|
a écrit:
The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush
____________________________________________________________________________________
At their national convention three years ago, Republicans pointed with pride to the GOP's record of
fiscal rectitude.
"In the four decades from 1954 to 1994," the Republican platform declared, "government spending
increased at an average annual rate of 7.9 percent, and the public's debt increased from $224 billion
to $3.4 trillion."
Those were the profligate years, when Democrats usually controlled both houses of Congress.
"Since 1994," it went on, "with Republicans leading the House and Senate, spending has been held
to an annual 3.1 percent rate of growth, and the nation's debt will be nearly $400 billion lower by the
end of 1993."
The federal government has operated in the black for the last two years and is now projected to run a
surplus of nearly $5 trillion over 10 years."
Missing from the Republicans' recitation was any mention of the Democrat who had been in the
White House since 1993.
Didn't President Clinton deserve any of the credit for the spending restraint and budget surpluses ?
Not according to Republicans, he didn't.
Nope. When it was obvious to everyone that Welfare worked, when theyre had never
been so many people working, Clinton destroyed welfare. Yep. Then the Dem prez
destroyed welfare unilaterally. These are the liberals...
And yes, then the muslims started wear. Indeed, then there was Sept 11.
Afghanistan had to be liberated. And then tehre was 1441, the last chance which
Saddam spat on. The UN would have meant nothing if the coallition hadn't stepped
in. And then Iraq had to be liberated. This is not free. But it seems that
according to Rumsfeld, the spending is within the parameters, lower in terms of
the percentage of the budget, than any other conflict ever in the US.
Problem with the economy, is Sept. 11 and the consequences that the US had to
face alone. But what happened to the jobs is as much the destruction of the
safety net, than the consequences of the terrorist attack. Well, today, at last,
I heard the leader of an American party speaking of reauthorizing welfare in
their program. Indeed, today, surprise. While the donkeys just kept braying
their anti-partriotism, Georges Bush was the one speaking of reauthorizing
welfare. insuring the minimum guaranteded revenue which is a given in any
civilized society. Not the Dems, who all patted themselves on the back about the
welfare destruction all along their little sparing invwestiture match to the
leadership, no, not them, but the Republicans. What are the Dems worth as
liberals if they can't even protect the most vulnerable? Donkey dung.
Ha yes, by the end of the campaign they had found a way to look very brilliant.
They had started to speak of changing the laws of labor to penalize those who
invest outside the country, but it was promises of reform of the actual
legislations done in such a sloppy uninformed way that Greenspan had to step
down friday and say it would worsen the situation to the point of non return if
they were to apply their promises. Quite a(nother) cold shower...
And now they freak on Nader as if he could even get .5 % of the vote by himself,
even if he presents his program in every single state, which is very unlikely.
The Americans didn't vote for him, they voted for the Greens, as the ballot to
come will show. But the Dems have no clue, ever since they let Clinton get away
with his crime agaisnt the poors. It is not tomorrow that it will change, unless
they wake up, which they are very unlikely to do with Hillary influencing all
their women and still patting herself for this attack against the destitutes.
About the tax break for the bigger payers. Indeed, the trick in giving tax break
is to insure that the surplus of money it will generate will bring in the
coffers the tax deficit produced, back. It benefit the whole economy, and thus
all, without penalty, then. But, to show it worked, one has to factor in the
consequences of Sept. 11, not only on the spending for domestic, and foreign,
security, but on the economy as a whole. It took quite a blow.
To blame only the fiscal measures, and pretend that this didn't happen shows how
irresponsible the donkeys are, and would be if in charge. And to discover that
the Rep are more responsible towards the destitutes, them who had closed the
governement to make the dems go their way, show they are being more socially
responsible than the pseudo-liberals who really donT' stand for any principle
anymore, just amoralism. The reps also talk of faith based initiatives, true,
but they are now realistic enough to concede that it takes the state as well,
adn are the ones who speak of the necessity for the senate to reauthorize
welfare to insure that no one is left behind. Not the Dems. They are not even
aware of that it appears, but they blame the reps for everything anyway. all
they want is power adn think that by making Bush a spacegoat they will get it.
And to think they are supposed to be "liberals"!
But there are other issues, indeed, who knows, health care etc... Far from being
as evolved as Canada socially. But they are working on the health issues. Not as
much as they are allowed to by the lobbies which work out both sides, allow of
course. This is somethign else. My point is that when the liberals are more
retrograde than the conservatives, the nation would be very asleep to let the
more irresponsible win. Although unfortunately (and not unlike some other
regimes), they like irresponsible (to a certain extent). So who knows.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lug Nut" |
|
| Title: Re: The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush |
22 Feb 2004 08:22:32 AM |
|
|
Hi fellow wage slaves. If these deficits bother you perhaps its time to
look at the biggest culprit in this scenario, the FED and its fractal
reserve banking system. 2 highly recommended books on the subject. "The
Creature from Jeckyl Island" and "The Gods Of Eden". Below is a quick
thumbnail of what you will find in those books. If that doesn't ***** you
off nothing will.
The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners
(stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share - the stock is not publicly
traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international
banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison (Reference 1, 14). The FED
banking system collects billions of dollars (Reference 8, 17) in interest
annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress
illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no
interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back
to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys
Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S.
taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud
(Reference 1,2,3,5,17).
Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12
Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed:
Rothschild Bank of London Warburg Bank of Hamburg Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Lehman Brothers of New York
Lazard Brothers of Paris Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Goldman, Sachs of New York Warburg Bank of
Amsterdam
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Reference 14, P. 13, Reference 12, P. 152)
These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately
control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America (our
forefathers were fighting their own government), they planned to control us
by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt
(Reference 4, 22).
The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the
FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED
District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are
partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank. (Reference
22)
First National Bank of New York James Stillman National City Bank, New York
Mary W. Harnman National Bank of Commerce, New York A.D. Jiullard
Hanover National Bank, New York Jacob Schiff
Chase National Bank, New York Thomas F. Ryan
Paul Warburg William Rockefeller Levi P. Morton M.T. Pyne George F. Baker
Percy Pyne
Mrs. G.F. St. George
J.W. Sterling
Katherine St. George
H.P. Davidson
J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life)
Edith Brevour T. Baker
(Reference 4 for above, Reference 22 has details, P. 92, 93, 96, 179)
How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act
through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's
campaign for President. He had committed to sign this act. In 1913, a
Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed
the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of
Congress was on vacation (Reference 3, 4, 5). When elected, Wilson passed
the FED. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied (referring to the FED), "I have
unwittingly ruined my country" (Reference 17, P. 31).
Now the banks financially back sympathetic candidates. Not surprisingly,
most of these candidates are elected (Reference 1, P. 208-210, Reference 12,
P. 235, Reference 14, P. 36). The bankers employ members of the Congress on
weekends (nickname T&T club -out Thursday...-in Tuesday) with lucrative
salaries (Reference 1, P. 209). Additionally, the FED started buying up the
media in the 1930's and now owns or significantly influences most of it
Reference 3, 10, 11, P. 145).
Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of
bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest
(Reference 4). Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints
dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are
circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system
$286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money
virtually cost free (Reference 12, P. 265). Forty percent of our personal
federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The FED's books are not open
to the public. Congress has yet to audit it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grantland" |
|
| Title: Re: The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush |
22 Feb 2004 09:05:12 AM |
|
|
"Lug Nut" <lugnut@emailaccounts.com> wrote:
Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12
Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed:
Rothschild Bank of London Warburg Bank of Hamburg Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Lehman Brothers of New York
Lazard Brothers of Paris Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Goldman, Sachs of New York Warburg Bank of
Amsterdam
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Reference 14, P. 13, Reference 12, P. 152)
These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately
control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America (our
forefathers were fighting their own government), they planned to control us
by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt
(Reference 4, 22).
Yep, those dastardly Englishmen! Rothschild Israel Moses Seif Kuhn
Loeb Goldman Sachs: yep very "English" names there. Bah! Why don't
you call a spade a spade?
Grantland
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Never anonymous Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush |
22 Feb 2004 02:29:21 PM |
|
|
While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "Lug Nut" <lugnut@emailaccounts.com>
scribbled:
And this relates to Nostradamus HOW??
To reply by email, remove the XYZ.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lug Nut" |
|
| Title: Re: The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush |
22 Feb 2004 07:56:11 PM |
|
|
"Never anonymous Bud" <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:f84i30d9erehd4uhdbt2ekreg6kv3qcv0q@4ax.com...
While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "Lug Nut"
<lugnut@emailaccounts.com>
scribbled:
And this relates to Nostradamus HOW??
It relates precisely the same way the original post did. If anyone however
chose to get their heads out of their asses and try to find a reason why the
world and US economy is in the shitter, they might find an answer in my
post.
Lugnut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Never anonymous Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush |
23 Feb 2004 01:14:00 AM |
|
|
While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "Lug Nut" <lugnut@emailaccounts.com>
scribbled:
It relates precisely the same way the original post did.
OK, you admit it had nothing to do with the topic of this group.
Thanks.
To reply by email, remove the XYZ.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush |
22 Feb 2004 08:14:49 AM |
|
|
In article <5b4h30d20skdo2ik05daobh2l50toukoqq@4ax.com>, wrote:
The biggest deficits in American history ~ Thanks to Bush
Also the first time in history that the US economy has actually ~lost~ jobs
under any president. (This doesn't even take into account that many of the
higher paying jobs have been replaced by lower-paying, part time jobs).
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
