Is it Over for Bush?

MtnBiker said:
Holy crap this thread is all over the place. Again, Smirkinjesus your thesis was a "5 trillion dollar deficit" that would cause Bush to lose the election and have to give a concession speach. Are you going to discuss this?
maybe if we all quit posting to his thread, it and he will go away?
 
What is there to discuss? Yes, a $10 trillion dollar swing in the deficit from positive to negative. Does anyone care anymore? No. Should they? Yes.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2003/08/27/study_says_deficit_could_soar/



MtnBiker said:
Holy crap this thread is all over the place. Again, Smirkinjesus your thesis was a "5 trillion dollar deficit" that would cause Bush to lose the election and have to give a concession speach. Are you going to discuss this?
 
smirkinjesus said:
I gave you my documentation, its as reliable as yours. 1,409 reasons not to vote for Bush each with links to the underlying article. The men who stood on the stage with Kerry last night are real documentation. Men that served with him, under his command, and trust him so much they are actually willing to put their dignity on the line by standing next to him at a partisan convention. That is documentation. You don't say someone saved your life when they didn't, that's the real deal. Not some stupid payroll, or tattered document some "researcher" dug up. That's what Bush gives us. Payrolls that sort of say something, but not really. Those are Bush's documents, paper. Kerry's documents are the men who stand by his side. Where are Bush's fellow servicemen willing to stand next to him at the RNC and say they would trust their life in his hands?

There are many more that served with him that will NOT stand by his side. His former commanders, those that knew him best, even say he is not fit to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
 
Another way to look at the budget deficits is as a percentage of gross domestic economy. In those cases, the forecast deficits are not at record levels, according to CBO estimates. At 3.7 percent of GDP this year and 4.3 percent in 2004, the budget shortfall is well below the record 6 percent level hit in 1983.
From the same article.
 
There are many more that served with him that will NOT stand by his side. His former commanders, those that knew him best, even say he is not fit to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
Since he disagrees with them, their opinions don't count.
 
smirkinjesus said:
What is there to discuss? Yes, a $10 trillion dollar swing in the deficit from positive to negative. Does anyone care anymore? No. Should they? Yes.

The discussion of a supposed lose of an election based upon the deficit. You can hold onto a small notion that this issue will be one to oust Bush, but you are wrong.

First, should people care about the deficit? To a point yes but, :
Budget deficits in the United States have never caused interest rates to increase unless the Fed has tried to monetize them. They have never crowded out any private investment, they have never created a trade deficit, and they have never made anyone (except for Paul Krugman) think that the U.S. is becoming a Third World country. They have also never influenced the outcome of an election unless a President reacted to them by raising taxes.

Deficits, and debt, transfer consumption over time -- that is all. Those who are willing to consume less of their income today provide funds to those who want to spend more than their income. Interest rates are both the cost and benefit of this activity. From the government's point of view, the only question is whether to borrow or tax the revenues that it needs.
link

And second the deficit in not something people can feel, touch or associate with, it doesn't effect their daily lives. We know we have had large deficits in the past that have gone away, we know we will have large deficits in the future that will go away. Your assumption that this issue will cause Bush the election is a pipe dream.
 
smirkinjesus said:
So if I post the same tired 'Kerry is a bad guy' crud that everyone else is, its a legitimate post worthy of serious consideration? If I post any form of crud that is negative towards Bush, I must be ignored? Obviously any bad rumors about Kerry must have some merit! And anything bad said about Bush is just Liberal propaganda!
So here's my contribution to the "debate", smut about Kerry, smut about Bush, here are 1,409 reasons not to vote for Bush:
http://www.thousandreasons.org/listB.html


Obviously if you have an intellectual opinion on any candidate, support your opinion and then dont act like a complete moron and ignore all debate on the subject you will be treated fairly. But if you keep trolling like you are, you may not be here very long.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Obviously if you have an intellectual opinion on any candidate, support your opinion and then dont act like a complete moron and ignore all debate on the subject you will be treated fairly. But if you keep trolling like you are, you may not be here very long.


Words to live by... :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
 
smirkinjesus said:
What is there to discuss? Yes, a $10 trillion dollar swing in the deficit from positive to negative. Does anyone care anymore? No. Should they? Yes.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2003/08/27/study_says_deficit_could_soar/

The article says that it could total $5 trillion over ten years - using the worst possible estimates. That's $500 billion per year, since your math skills are obviously lacking. Meanwhile, this AP story says that the deficit is expected to fall to $229 billion per year by 2009.
By comparison, Clinton's surpluses were in the $300 billion neighborhood. Assuming a $500 billion deficit, that still gives us a maximum swing of $800 billion, not $10 trillion. The yearly budget is only $2.3 trillion!
Your scaremongering over budget deficits is sophomoric.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top