Congratulations, Voters

Wilson Daily Times ^ | 11.13.02 | Wilson Resident

[~Vor~]

I just wanted to congratulate all the people who helped put the Republicans in complete control of our government; this includes those Democrats who stayed home on election day. Here is what has been accomplished since Mr. Bush was appointed president and now that the Senate is controlled by the Republicans we can look forward to even more "prosperity."

While Bush has been President:

..Unemployment has risen from 3.9 percent to 6.0 percent;

..42 states will or expect to make Medicaid Cuts;

..41.2 million people in America have no health insurance;

..Number of Americans living in poverty rises for first time in eight years;

..Overall economic growth at 1 percent, the lowest for any administration in 50 years;

..The value of Americans' stock holdings down $4.5 trillion and a 30 percent drop in the value of IRAs and 401(k) plans;

..A projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion converted into a deficit of $400 billion;

..Bush budget will spend the entire Social Security trust fund over next two years;

.."Consumer Comfort" has dropped from plus-20 to minus-20 in one year;

..49 percent of Americans are "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time," up from 29 percent;

..Bush budget posted first deficit since 1997, predicted deficits until 2005;

..98 percent of pension funds expected to be under-funded;

.."Consumer confidence" continues to drop;

..U.S. debt will have "major international consequences;"

..Spending on education is down;

..The crime rate is up.

Boy, am I looking forward to the next 2 years.

[~Vor~]

This letter to the editor was posted in our local paper this evening. I would really like to respond to this, but don't have the time to do all the research. Any information from freepers that I can incorporate into a response will be greatly appreciated.

I am on my way to work and will check back later for replies. Thanks in advance!

[DM1]

You can start out with saying that many of the coporate abuses were originally orchestrated and conducted under Clintons watch which caused the Pension problems as well as hampering economic growth. Also the attackd definitely did not help economic development at all.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Criminal Clintons out of the White House.

Tax rates dropping.

[TomServo]

I just wanted to congratulate all the people who helped put the Republicans in complete control of our government..

You're welcome.

[waxhaw]

What strikes me is this writer's overiding concern for economic issues; Clinton used the phrase "It's the economy, stupid." I would suggest that there are in fact more important issues facing this nation than the economy and I would suggest Clinton built his economy on largely shady practices, unchecked cheap labor (illegal immigration) and a huge, underground economy based on narcotics and corruption. Basing one's ideology and entire being on economic issues makes for a pretty shallow individual... but then most liberals are pretty shallow.

[Alberta's Child]

A quick look at the collapse in the stock market will reveal that most of the corporations with major accounting scandals were run by big Democratic supporters. In fact, most of them (Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, etc.) weren't even around before 1992. On the other hand, most of the old, boring blue-chip companies like General Electric, Procter & Gamble, etc. have had no such accounting problems.

You might also point out that Bill Clinton could not have been such a great president if he presided over a nation of investors who were willing to pay a premium for stocks that didn't make any money.

[Sacajaweau]

My daughter (age 39) rarely discuss politics but she happened to catch the Wellstone "Memorial" aka "The Big Dem Rally" and realized just how low the Dems were.

"This is an important election, isn't it mom?." "Yes, it is". "I'll make sure I vote".

I didn't ask her whom she was going to vote for. I knew!

[roderick]

The writer illustrates the ease of being a demorat. No sources to back up his rant. Is the drought GWB's fault too? Here goes off the top of my head. Unemployment has risen from 3.9 percent to 6.0 percent; Check these yourself, I don't believe 'em.

..42 states will or expect to make Medicaid Cuts; So the prez is responsible for state spending priorities? Get real

..41.2 million people in America have no health insurance; Liberal Oregon voters shot down 80/20 when given a universal (soak the "rich") health insurance option.

..Number of Americans living in poverty rises for first time in eight years; I don't believe this one either. What is the source?

..Overall economic growth at 1 percent, the lowest for any administration in 50 years; Wrong, wrong. I do not recall exactly what it is but I am confident it is above 1%. Even if it was 1% what should we do, elect more rat senators to bottle up everything the House of Reps passes?

..The value of Americans' stock holdings down $4.5 trillion and a 30 percent drop in the value of IRAs and 401(k) plans; Okay, elect 'rats so they can repeal the business cycle and, while they're at it, why not the law of gravity?

..A projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion converted into a deficit of $400 billion; We are at war numbnuts. I don't believe his numbers anyway.

..Bush budget will spend the entire Social Security trust fund over next two years; More baloney. You can't spend what doesn't exist.

.."Consumer Comfort" has dropped from plus-20 to minus-20 in one year; Our tax dollars actually go to some bureaucrat to figure out a "Comfort" Index?

..49 percent of Americans are "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time," up from 29 percent; More qustionable, unsubstantiated BS. What source?

..Bush budget posted first deficit since 1997, predicted deficits until 2005; Yawn. Again dummy, we at war

Adnauseum, adnauseum.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

I remember Jimmy Carter's 15% unemployment, sitting in gas lines 25 cars long on the grapevine in CA in a blizzard waiting to gas up. The hit our presitige as Americans took while the Peacefull Religion held our people hostage for 2 years while Carter genuflected in their direction and sacrificed more Americans in his botched rescue. His refusing our ally in the peace process in the Middle East a terminally ill, King Saddat of Iran, safe haven. Such a craven act of cowardice. Such a sick political party.

[Coleus]

Wasn't Bush and Ted Kennedy on TV shaking hands for joining together with an Education Bill which increased spending by $15 Billion. So, the writer was wrong.

[DaisyCutter]

From what I remember, in his first budget, Bush called for huge spending increases for education, so our Dim friend can stick that one up his tailpipe.

41 million without health insurance. As I recall, that's how many were "without insurance" at the end of the Klinton administration. For reference Klinton claimed that there were 37 million uninsured when he ran against Bush in 92.

Economic downturn begin in 2Q 2000, while Klintoon was president. Previous period of economic growth began in 2Q 1992, when Bush was still president. 3Q 1992 economic growth was more than 5% and exploded ahead from there until Klinton finally wrecked it 8 years later.

That's all I've got off the top of my head.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The majority of the time, GW faced an obstructionist Senate which not only would not pass a budget but would not even vote on judges nominated by the president.

Mr. Bush wasn't on the ballot this time, but he will be in '04. By then we will, God willing, have a track record of what the Republicans actually do when they have a majority in the Senate as well as a fairly strong majority in the House and the White House.

And, God willing, they will by then have downshifted the tax rates which affect the economy--the capital-gains tax first, and the top income tax bracket second. It would be wonderful if they would even go to a flat tax. In any event there is little doubt that the Republicans do not desire to have tax rates higher than the point of negative returns, as the Democrats prefer.

[SES1066]

..The value of Americans' stock holdings down $4.5 trillion and a 30 percent drop in the value of IRAs and 401(k) plans;

I'd be willing to wager that this is measured from the Dow and NASDQ peaks in March of 2000, in which case the writer should be reminded that Bush took office at the end of January 2001 and the bubble is still deflating [I'm hoping that it is ending now]. Thus the responsibility for the lax regulation belongs to the executive branch appointees for SEC, Treasury, Attorney General to name a few. Ah, blindsight, it is so perceptive, NOT!

[mfreddy]

Start with this,

Posted on Wed, Nov. 13, 2002

The budget surplus was merely a phantasm
By JERRY HEASTER
Columnist

The failure of the first federal budget deficit in four years to become an election campaign issue marked the end of a political era.

When fiscal 2002's final tally was announced in late October, Uncle Sam's books showed a budget shortfall of nearly $160 billion after four years of reported budget surpluses.

Despite several years of huge surpluses, however, the national debt kept rising to the point where Congress was forced to raise the legal debt limit. The most remarkable aspect of the debt ceiling debate, though, went unremarked: Media and political watchdogs never asked why the debt had kept rising even as budget surpluses were claimed.

It was not an insignificant amount of money. The combined alleged surpluses and the amount added to the national debt during the alleged surplus years totaled well over a trillion dollars. It's difficult to ignore an apparent accounting discrepancy that large, but just about everyone did.

So, the question remains: Where did all the money go? The simple answer is that the budget surplus never existed except as a bookkeeping phantasm. The federal government can't save money in the sense most people understand the concept. Whenever Treasury had more income than outgo, much of the excess was used to pay down the publicly held portion of the national debt.

At the same time, the excess tax collections for specific outlays such as Social Security went to other budget outlays and the trust funds set up for these activities received Treasury IOUs. This process added to the government-held portion of national debt -- money we owe ourselves, so to speak. The national debt kept increasing because the government-held debt rose faster than Treasury was paying down the publicly held debt.

When it became necessary to raise the legal debt limit, there was a rancorous debate on Capitol Hill, but nobody addressed the question of why the debt went up during a period of budget surpluses.

Thus, it shouldn't have come as a surprise when candidates ignored news of the first deficit since '97 in the heat of a campaign. It was as simple as the surplus charade being a bipartisan scam. Neither side could make hay from the issue.

As unfortunate as the duplicity has been, it may serve a useful purpose. The lesson of the past two decades has been that U.S. economic performance bears no relationship to whether the year-end budget number is a plus or a minus. Meanwhile the economic myth of the link between deficits and higher interest rates has had a stake put through its heart. Despite this past fiscal year's reported deficit, some key rates hit lows not seen in more than four decades.

Now that Washington has embarrassed itself by running up debt while boasting of budgetary black ink, the issue no longer offers any political upside potential. This probably means an end to the pointless mendacity both parties have indulged in when discussing fiscal issues. The sad reality is that those responsible for the federal fisc have about as much credibility as those who kept the books at places like Enron and WorldCom.

More Americans now seem to understand this, which is progress.

[Badger1]

This is the typical Liberal methodology of debating.

1) Make a bunch of baseless accusations and then expect the other side to refute them.

2) Blame Conservatives for all the worlds problems.

I, for one, refuse to get drawn into this type of discussion with liberals anymore. Instead of spending the time to refute their assertions, I demand that liberals back up their assertions with facts. Since they generally cannot provide any facts, I am spared the effort of debating them.

[mfreddy]

some good info here as well:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/582845/posts

[mfreddy]

good info here as well:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a1251.htm

[mfreddy]

I like this one too:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/762536/posts

[Coleus]

Yes he was. And Bush also instituted his "No child left behind" program as well...

[c-b 1]

..Bush budget will spend the entire Social Security trust fund over next two years;

I am sorry to dissapoint this product of the government indoctrination centers, but there is no Social Security trust fund, Democrat, Lyndon Johnson spent it on the Viet Nam War.