FilteringCraig

How about one per speaker of the house. Denny doesn’t look so good.

GW took the words right out of my mouth!

American Government 101: Congress – NOT THE PRESIDENT – has the power of the purse string.

American Government 102: The President proposes… Congress disposes. (*SMILE*)

Don’t get me wrong, as a true conservative Republican I’m FURIOUS at George W. Bush and the so-called “Republican” leadership of Congress, but blame must be apportioned fairly.

CONGRESS has been ADDING money to Bush’s budget proposals. BUSH has refused to veto any spending bills or even offer any recision bills.

CONGRESS stinks! BUSH stinks! This democracy thing just ain’t working…

Congress – NOT THE PRESIDENT – has the power of the purse string.

Let’s see. [Looks in desk drawers] There must be a VETO pen around here somewhere. [Looks under desk] Nope; no VETO pen, there. [Goes to window; looks behind drapes] Damn; no VETO pen, anywhere.

So few true believers, so many Bush failures to downplay.

I’m not sure what national debt even means. I think budget deficit/surplus would be more telling re institutional responsibility.

I live in Ireland, so you could say im somewhat impartial in this whole debate. Isn’t the most interesting point about this graph that under every Democratic President the Debt:GDP ratio goes down or stagnates, and under every Republican President for the last 50 years (with the exception of Nixon) it goes up? Outside of the US (and even inside a lot of the time – my brother lives in CA) the common notion is that the Democrats are the ones who cant stop spending and the Republicans are the fiscal conservatives. I think the only real difference between them is that the Democrats will tax you to fund their spending and the Republicans will simply borrow and leave it for the next generation to pay for it.

i want to know where all these people came from. you make one intelligent post and the flood gates open.

Based on either graph, can we safely say that Bush (either one) was bad for our debt? yes. did we need a graph for that? no.

I still point the finger at the red. Red congress + red president = red budget.

I’m amazed that you have to go the whole way back to FDR to find a Democrat who grew the debt faster than the economy.

Hmmm. Lost a figure. The sentence should read:

That means the true deficit spending for 2004 was not $412 billion, but over $600 billion.

The most entertaining aspect of this entire comment string is seeing George Bush the first referred to as “Poppy.” Now that’s good reporting.

Unless you used to be one, Deez, I would be curious to know how you know what a teenage girl’s tampon looks like…there are laws against that sort of thing.

At any rate, haven’t we learned ANYthing about the Repugnicans’ tactics yet? The Bushies under Rove have refined the Big Lie to a fine art, but this nonsense has been going on since at least 1946, and probably would have begun sooner if that little thing called World War II hadn’t gotten in the way. Lemme give you kids a little primer:

1) The fave tactic of the Reps is to tell a lie so many times that it starts to sound true, simply because we’ve heard it sooooo many times. This is why it’s just generally accepted now that the Dems are the “tax and spend party”, among many other pieces of “conventional wisdom” that most of America just accepts as gospel

2) When the Reps say “tax and spend”, what they really mean is, tax the people with lots o’ money, and spend it on people who DON’T have much money. When they do the opposite of that definition of tax and spend, we get periods like what we’re in now: the rich get obscenely richer, and the rest of us take it up the arse.

3) It’s no surprise to me that we have to go back to Truman (not Roosevelt, as alleged in a previous post) to find a Dem who grew the debt faster than the general economy – think about what was happening at that point in history: we had just fought a huge war, and were rebuilding much of Europe and part of Asia via foreign aid, and the armed forces were depleted and needed rebuilding, and the Cold War was just getting started, and we had a nuclear arsenal to create, and we were about to invade Korea. Read a little history, why dontcha?

4) The Reps, by their stated nature, do not care about helping those in need – in the 24 or so years since the term “trickle-down economics” first came into use, it’s been proven that it simply does not work – the rich are too effing greedy to let anything trickle anywhere. But the Reps still use it as cover for…you guessed it…further enriching those who already own most of the country, and most of us in one way or the other.

5) Remember Al Gore? He ran for prez or something an age ago. Remember his statement that “most of Gov. Bush’s tax cuts would go to the top 1% of income earners”? Remember “fuzzy math”? Truly, do Americans remember ANYTHING that happened earlier than last week’s episode of “Lost”? Gore told us the truth about Bush. Kerry and Dean and Molly Ivins told us the truth about Bush. And still, as a country, we elected him. Twice. Sort of.

So we deserve what we’ve got. As the British paper, The Guardian asked on Nov. 3, 2004: How can 59 million people be so dumb?

We were warned that this would happen, just as Michael Brown warned Bush that Katrina was going to be “a big one”. So stop treating what we’ve known for years about the most corrupt administration since Nero was in Rome as if it were NEWS. Bush and cronies aren’t content with MOST of the country’s wealth – they want ALL of it. Though if they achieve that goal, what they’ll do for household servants is a mystery to me.

Remember Hillary’s remark about the “vast right-wing conspiracy”? She was right!

The SocSec trust fund is kaput – Bush has it in his back pocket to pay for Bush’s War in Iraq.

And don’t think the fact that China and Japan and Saudi Arabia own most of our debt paper is insignificant. Any of you ever had a mortgage company foreclose on you? Think about it.

Geez! Americans are so naive sometimes! If we were the country we think we are, we’d be great – but we’re not, and we haven’t been since about 1963. And think about THAT too!

>>

T69 – if what you say is true, then you are exactly the kind of person who is largely to blame for the mess we’re in – the kind of person who, presumably, is a lifelong Republican (see, I can spell it right if I want), who voted for Bush simply because he’s a Republican too, and who can brook no criticism or SATIRE (for that’s what my spelling choice was, a small attempt at humor in a comment of otherwise serious intent) of your demigods. And if you did indeed stop reading my post at that point, then I can only say – your loss. You are a victim of the Big Lie, so thoroughly so that you don’t even recognize it.

And if my assumptions in this post are correct (and unlike Republicans, I am at least willing to suggest I might NOT be correct), then you are part of the reason the country is in the ghastly mess we’re in now. You voted for him, and thus it’s partly your fault.

I offer a challenge to you and to all who read this post: name me ONE THING – anything at all, a legislative proposal, a presidential edict, a speech of support for anything or anyone – that Bush has done in his entire 4 1/2+ years in office that has unquestionably benefited the majority of the American people (the majority he claims gave him his “mandate”), without ALSO benefiting, often to an obscene degree, Big Business, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Bush’s cronies and pals, or some combination of the above. Just ONE thing. I’ve put forth this challenge several times in the past two years, and no one yet has been able to do it. Can you? I would sincerely doubt it. You may write to me directly, or post your reply here. But frankly, I don’t think it can be done.

Your loss, yes – but also our loss, to a degree we will not see clearly for probably 20 years or more. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I deeply resent those who, like you, don’t even bother to ask the questions.

What piece of legislation are you referring to, Kiddicus? The Defense of Marriage Act was passed on Clinton’s watch. Bush’s try for a Constitutional amendment has gone nowhere. That aside, I’m still unclear how a gay marriage ban benefits anyone. It might make them feel better, but in terms of substantive benefits, I don’t see it.

chris -
yea i have no idea. it was the first and only thing i could think of that didn’t have direct negative repercussions on people. well, not the MAJORITY of people. and i pay so little attention to politics that i don’t know who introduced what when and to whom. i was actually tyring to get a rise out of RichMiles. Thanks for stomping me flat. again.

CIA factbook pegs external debt not at $4.7B, but $1.4T.

I left a little bit out of a sentence above:

Bush’s support or tacit approval of state constitution

should read:

Bush’s support or tacit approval of state and federal constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage

Just as an aside, I sometimes wonder if our president or members of Congress even know what it takes to amend the US Consititution. It’s a lot harder than they seem to think it is. Now STATE constitutions are mostly a different matter – all most of them require is for the majority party to “decide” what they want the people to think, and then ram it through the state legislature. It happened here in Kentucky where I (blush) live.

You’d be hard pressed to find anything on anyone’s list of accomplishments which was only to the benefit of the “the people” without also being to the benefit of the “benefactors”.

Chris:

Short answer: no, and no.

Longer answer: the faith-based initiatives are almost acceptable – no one (so far as I’ve seen) has managed to ferret out any corruption in this area, though it’s early days yet. But in reality, this idea and the presidential action that went with it was Bush’s first salvo at making clear what Bush was going to do in terms of theocracy, and was also to stave off the Bush family’s worst nightmare: actually having to do something for the benefit of poor people. Pass it off to the churches, was the essential message, and it lets the government off the hook for some of it. And it allows the religious nuts not only to help the poor, but to preach and proselytize at the same time, all with government approval – a win-win situation for radical religious nutcases.

Second, the child tax credits, and the – what was it? – $300 or so “refund” checks we all received. When compared with the billions of dollars in tax cuts received by that upper 1%, it kinda makes the rest of us look like saps, doesn’t it? And cheaply-bought saps at that. While the refunds cost a lot nationwide, they were one-offs, and the tax cuts to the rich are (so far, pending renewal) ongoing. The CTC’s are being considered for removal, or so the WashPost said last month. I’ll see if I can’t find the link for a future post.

Cynic – you say “You’d be hard pressed to find anything on anyone’s list of accomplishments which was only to the benefit of the “the people” without also being to the benefit of the “benefactors”. In addition to being a bit circular in the way you word it, it’s not quite true. I refer you to the Welfare Reform acts of the Clinton administration – while some welfare receipients may disagree that yanking their benefits was a good thing (who wouldn’t prefer receiving govt benefits for no work?), and while there have undoubtedly been instances in which difficulties were created by the policy, by and large it’s been reasonably beneficial both for the recipients and the taxpayers, which two groups would probably add up to a majority of the American people. And though I have no data to prove it, I would suspect that this act contributed significantly to the creation of surpluses in the Fed budget that existed when Clinton left office.

So no, I don’t think anyone has met the challenge yet. It’s a principal tenet of the Bush administration (and yes, probably ALL administrations to a lesser degree) that “the people” don’t pay attention to details, and that things which look like good ideas on the surface, but have negative consequences intended or un-, almost never are examined to find the connections to the negative or the corruption created by it. I recommend to your collective and respective attention an article in the Oct. 1 NY Times headlined, “Contract Killers” by Matthew Continetti, which in addition to other points, makes this case in a somewhat clearer fashion – essentially, most Americans are not paying attention to what their government is doing.

The challenge still stands unmet.

What’s really neat is declaring victory in your own game, while setting the rules. Seems like a cool game all the way around.

“What’s really neat is declaring victory in your own game, while setting the rules. Seems like a cool game all the way around.”

Geez…kinda makes me look like a Republican, doesn’t it? I hope my previous post clarifies a little, but believe me, this was not my intention. I’ve at least tried to explain WHY I don’t think the offered answers meet the criteria, haven’t I? Huh? Haven’t I?

Sorry to have created what seems to be some sort of hard feelings, Chris. That was certainly not my intention. But I respectfully suggest that you haven’t really read what I’ve said very carefully. There’s a reason why almost every post I’ve done on this topic is pretty long – it’s because I was trying to be clear.

When I posted the original challenge, I merely meant to make the point that, even though almost every politician coddles their respective special interests, contributors, cronies, etc., the Bush administration has turned it into an art form, as witness the Michael Brown episode, the Julie Myers episode (which broke AFTER the Michael Brown firing), etc etc. In fact, as I pointed out, I didn’t think it could be done, and so far, I think you have to agree that there hasn’t been one single unequivocal example. But no, I wasn’t changing the rules as I went along, I was merely disagreeing with the proposed answer, and trying to explain why I disagreed.

So – if you don’t want to play, don’t play. But I respectfully submit that what I say in this post is what I’ve done, and those who have offered potential answers haven’t offered documentation or even particularly detailed explanation of why they think their idea qualifies – one person, kiddicus I think, even says that he doesn’t know enough about politics to really offer an answer, then proceeds to offer an answer that I (and a couple others) found inadequate. So why do you think I should simply accept any answer anyone offers?

I don’t want to play any more either. Your last post kinda took the fun out of it, so forget I asked.

Oh!!! I get it!! I say something, and then you just…turn it around, and do the moral equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?”. Clever…very clever indeed.

But unless I’m forgetting an entire era of congressional history (and I might be), I don’t think the Democrats, when they were the majority, ever sought to change their OWN rules in the House to protect the power and seat of a Majority Leader who they were pretty sure was about to be indicted. Their failure to do so is one of the few times I can remember that the Republicans actually paid any attention to what the American people were saying – and only then because they thought they’d lose votes if they didn’t.

The kind of empty rhetorical nonsense contained in your post, Gaz, is exactly why people like me hate having to deal with Republicans – the issue at hand is not addressed, and the discussion gets sidetracked to a distraction on form or style that has nothing to do with the problem. One can only have one’s attempts to address the real issues diverted to BS so many times before it really pisses a person off.

Like I said, forget I asked.

Back to the original subject of the post: I’m not convinced you can look at a graph like this and draw any meaningful conclusions.

If anyone cares to do the work, I’d be interested, as previous posters, to see the party of the congressional majority instead of the President, and with the GDP shifted by 5 years or so, since it probably takes at least that long for the economy at large to adjust to the legislated changes in tax and regulatory policies.

I honestly have no idea what the outcome would be. I am just always suspicious of neatly wrapped up little packages like this.

Somebody said, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”