It's Midnight in America

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote>We have moved from Reagan's "Morning in America" to Bush's "Midnight in America" in less than 20 years.

This is the darkest hour for our nation, when lies, deception and political vengeance -- at the expense of our national security -- are the primary skill set of the executive branch and its subsidiaries: a Republican controlled Congress and an increasingly Republican controlled judiciary, with five Supreme Court votes lined up to side with the GOP on important partisan issues, like the theft of a presidency.

What happens during this midnight hour will determine if democracy continues to exist in our country. It will determine if we will survive as a nation of laws -- based on our Constitution -- or become a nation ruled by an extremist, elitist, dishonest one-party system, whose brazen arrogance is the veil that is used by them to conceal their chronic incompetence.</blockquote>

The moral bankruptcy of this administration is readily apparent. Its long history of evasion, prevarication and vicious attacks against any who would question either it or its motives.

For the full text, go here:

<center>http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/03/edi04023.html</center>

 

[krisy]

A bit extreme,don't you think? Clark and Kerry have PROVEN themselves to be liars-I probably would be careful putting them on a pedestal. The election thing is getting old as I'm sure there have been many converstaions on here about it in the past. We would still be counting down in Florida if it were up to Gore And if Bush wanted oil from Irag,why are gas prices so high?

Do you really want a guy for Pres who ran away from Vietnam as quickly as he could,then came home and disgraced his fellow soldiers? My father in law sat in Vietnam for a year,and thinks Kerry stinks and is a traitor,which backs my theory that it is just media hype about veterans being soooo behind Kerry. I don't feel Bush lied about anything in Iraq,we have all seen pics of the dead bodies in the streets from his weapons. They were there. Where are they now? I don't know,probably in Syria,but I know he had 10 years to hide them.

How can you call Bush Stalin like when the Dems are the ones that want government up our buts and way too far involved in our lives? And Clark,well,he obviously has an agenda-we have heard his lies on tape-word for word.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by krisy
A bit extreme,don't you think? Clark and Kerry have PROVEN themselves to be liars-I probably would be careful putting them on a pedestal. The election thing is getting old as I'm sure there have been many converstaions on here about it in the past. We would still be counting down in Florida if it were up to Gore And if Bush wanted oil from Irag,why are gas prices so high?

Do you really want a guy for Pres who ran away from Vietnam as quickly as he could,then came home and disgraced his fellow soldiers? My father in law sat in Vietnam for a year,and thinks Kerry stinks and is a traitor,which backs my theory that it is just media hype about veterans being soooo behind Kerry. I don't feel Bush lied about anything in Iraq,we have all seen pics of the dead bodies in the streets from his weapons. They were there. Where are they now? I don't know,probably in Syria,but I know he had 10 years to hide them.

How can you call Bush Stalin like when the Dems are the ones that want government up our buts and way too far involved in our lives? And Clark,well,he obviously has an agenda-we have heard his lies on tape-word for word.

Well, dear, twent yyears ago, the Republicans ran on a policy of fiscal responsiblity, smaller government and less intrusive government. I supported them then. Poppy Bush's idiot child, however, has reversed all of these policies. Shrub has squandered the Surplus and is racking up deficits which our children's children's children will be paying. He and his merry band have increased both the size and intrusiveness of government in our lives. If you want policy flip-flops, they don't get much bigger than that.

The republican party has been taken over by those more concerned with their own agendas rather than with the nation's interests. They will be the death of the Republic.

 

[Joan]

Are you by any chance in a phych hospital as a work study student bully?

 

[krisy]

C'mon.everyone has an agenda-that's politics. I feel Bush has done a good job in office. Yes,the deficit is large,but keep in mind,9-11 cost a lot. I would rather have a pres that spends on defense and homeland security than silly programs that hand out money to anyone(including those that don't want to work).
The tax cuts have also helped us and the economy-check out all the people that just got new jobs this month. 9-11 could have happened under Clinton's presidency and who knows what the result would have been there? Probably an even worse economy becuase taxes were so high we couldn't eat. My husband and I just recieved a huge tax return and are presently on the hunt for a house-thank you G.W. I work part time and Kevin works 45 + hours a week,not to mention other work he does(he's a drywall foreman). That money is ours and it doesn't need to go to the government so they can pay for abortions or study why crickets chirp. Economy is lookin good-Kerry better find something else to jump on domestically,if he can find it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by krisy
C'mon.everyone has an agenda-that's politics. I feel Bush has done a good job in office. Yes,the deficit is large,but keep in mind,9-11 cost a lot. I would rather have a pres that spends on defense and homeland security than silly programs that hand out money to anyone(including those that don't want to work).
The tax cuts have also helped us and the economy-check out all the people that just got new jobs this month. 9-11 could have happened under Clinton's presidency and who knows what the result would have been there? Probably an even worse economy becuase taxes were so high we couldn't eat. My husband and I just recieved a huge tax return and are presently on the hunt for a house-thank you G.W. I work part time and Kevin works 45 + hours a week,not to mention other work he does(he's a drywall foreman). That money is ours and it doesn't need to go to the government so they can pay for abortions or study why crickets chirp. Economy is lookin good-Kerry better find something else to jump on domestically,if he can find it.

Uhh-Hunh...Click your heels together thre times and say, "There's no place like home."

Dorothy...Wake up.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Uhh-Hunh...Click your heels together thre times and say, "There's no place like home."

Dorothy...Wake up.

I believe what krissy said is 100% true Bully, it is you that needs to wake up. Nice post Krissy!

 

[krisy]

Thank you very much jon!

Bully,Dorothy is up and she's lovin her country!!

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Well, dear, twent yyears ago, the Republicans ran on a policy of fiscal responsiblity, smaller government and less intrusive government........... Shrub has squandered the Surplus and is racking up deficits which our children's children's children will be paying.

What are you talking about? There was deficit spending in the 80's under Reagan, huge deficits. And they were paid off, not like the scenerio you paint with our children's children's children money. There is no more surplus - good, the government should not be collecting more money than it needs anyway. Its our money not the governments.





Deficits Don’t Matter
By Brian S. Wesbury
Published 3/30/2004 12:07:11 AM


I can't believe that I am writing about budget deficits again. The Bush Administration's $520 billion deficit forecast for this year doesn't bother me, but the deficit phobia and media outcry is getting tiresome. I thought this had been resolved and agree with Vice President Cheney, who reportedly told Paul O'Neill, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." He was right.

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.

No matter how the government chooses to finance spending, every dollar must be taken from the private sector. The only difference is that borrowing is voluntary, while taxation is not. This is why "crowding out" is such a wimpy theory. It may sound good on the evening news and make sense in Macro 101, but the data has never supported the theory.


RONALD REAGAN EXPERIENCED budget deficits every year he was in office and retired with some of the highest approval ratings of any President. Moreover, the economy underwent the worst recession in 50 years during his tenure in office, and between November 1982 and July 1990 experienced what was at that time the second longest expansion in history.

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

The Wall Street Journal's Panel of 54 economists expects real GDP to expand 4.4 percent during 2004. While an excessively easy Fed policy has caused my models to forecast some sharp increases in long-term interest rates for this year, the consensus expects only a slight 50 basis point rise.

If deficits are bad and surpluses are good, as former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells anyone who will listen, then why did manufacturing and investment falter in late 2000 and why did the economy fall into recession in early 2001? Why did the recovery begin just when budget deficits were returning?

If deficits supposedly push up bond yields, then why did rates fall during the 1980s, stabilize during the late-1990s when surpluses appeared, and then tumble to 40-year lows in the early 2000s when deficits returned again?

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

Debt that provides a positive real return is a good thing. Borrowing money to go to college or graduate school will pay benefits for years to come. Running a deficit to fight a war against terrorism is an investment in protecting the freedom that creates growth. Cutting taxes to boost economic growth may not always boost revenues right away, but over time the growth that tax cuts create is essential to balancing the budget.

Ronald Reagan exemplified how these two policy decisions can have huge payoffs. Reagan cut taxes to boost growth and increased defense spending to defeat communism. Following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the world reaped the benefits of his investment and experienced a "peace dividend." Bill Clinton was able to cut defense spending from 5.4 percent of GDP in 1991 to 3.0 percent in 2000. This 2.4 percent drop in defense spending as a share of GDP is exactly equal to the 2.4 percent of GDP surplus that the U.S. experienced in 2000. Coincidence? Hardly.

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

WHILE DEFICITS ARE CLEARLY back for the time being and the just-released Bush budget forecasts a peak deficit of just 4.5 percent of GDP in 2004, this deficit is small compared to the past. Between 1982 and 1986, the federal budget was in deficit by an average of 5.0 percent of GDP. The economy continued to grow, with low inflation and falling interest rates, throughout the 1980s, and there is no reason to believe that deficits in the 2000s will result in any different outcome.

Some may say that it is different this time because baby-boomers are starting to retire and Social Security and Medicare are about to hit the wall. This analysis is misguided. These programs are financially flawed and will eat our economy alive unless they are fundamentally restructured. If not, then government spending will soar and truly crowd out the private sector. No amount of government surplus will pay for these programs.

I doubt this is the last time I will have to explain these realities about budget deficits, but I hope I have set the record straight this time. Reagan taught us right -- deficits don't matter, spending does.




full story

It's not midnight in America, perhaps at the DNC.

 

[krisy]

I've read these theories before and I do think they make sense. It doesn't seem like they do matter much in the longrun. Dick Cheney got jumped all over for saying it though. All I know is things are going well here,and I live in Ohio,a state that the media is trying to make everyone think is mad at Bush because of job loss. That doesn't seem to be the general feeling though. there are a lot of Bush supporters where I live. If one looks,there are a lot of jobs out there-and not just McDonald's,good jobs that one can support him/herself on. Depends on how extravagant you want to live a lot of times.

 

[Hobbit]

Hey Bully, let me tell you a little secret. The media is extermely liberal. They hate Bush because he's Republican. They represent the views of only about 20% of the American population. They will spin any story any way they can to make it look like Bush sucks, so when gathering information about presidential candidates, it's good to take a look at news radio and Fox News along with all the left wing sources like the New York Times and CNN. Now remember, this is a really big secret, so don't tell anybody.