Pres Bush Is No Lame Duck

[red states rule]

Despite the best attempts of the liberal media, Pres Bush is not a lame duck, and is winning battles with the Dems

On both domestic and foreign issues, Pres Bush has been proven to be right, and has made Dems back down on many issues

Yes, Pres Bush has made some huge mistakes, and is wrong on several issues - but he has impressive wins over the Reid and Pelosi run Congress



snip

Iraq: The Democrats tried repeatedly to tack a troop-withdrawal deadline onto military-spending measures, but could not muster the votes needed to override Bush's veto. Despite the doom-and-gloom forecasts that Iraq was plunging into the abyss, the surge strategy has been a spectacular success.

Last month, the Democratic majority made one more attempt to restrict or even to deny war funding, only to cave in to Bush's demands for a full $70 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The economy: The naysayers repeatedly predicted throughout the year that we were heading into a recession if we were not in one already. But the economy grew in each quarter, turning in a solid 4.9 percent spurt in July, August and September. The people who saw recession just around the corner never told us how the county could be in a near-recession with the nation at full employment.

We've produced 8.3 million jobs since August 2003 as a result of a record 51 consecutive months of net new-job creation.

The deficit: The people who said if you cut income-tax rates, you reduce tax revenue and enlarge the deficit were wrong again. The Bush tax cuts have stimulated the economy, put more people to work and boosted revenues.

The result is a deficit that plunged $250 billion in the past three years. It fell further last year as a result of $161 billion in unexpectedly higher tax revenues. The American people are not undertaxed as Democrats keep telling us, but that didn't stop them from trying to raise taxes last year.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/lame_duck_bush_is_comeback_kid.html

[April15]

I bet you believe the bible too!

[Yurt]

I bet you believe the bible too!

its tax season, biotch, even Jesus accepted tax collectors.....LOL

[April15]

its tax season, biotch, even Jesus accepted tax collectors.....LOL
I don't know why people keep spelling the name wrong Hey Zeus not jesus.

[manu1959]

I bet you believe the bible too!

have you read it?

[Sitarro]

I don't know why people keep spelling the name wrong Hey Zeus not Jesus.

I corrected your lack of respect....... you are so very typical of what is wrong with the Bay area and California in general. You are an ignorant ass and are so stupid you are also arrogant about being so brainless. When the big one hits, it will be a shame to lose a beautiful city like San Francisco but it will be no loss to this country to lose asswipes like yourself. Enjoy the ride to oblivion, it's coming.

[Yurt]

I don't know why people keep spelling the name wrong Hey Zeus not jesus.

if you can't spell, why are you asking others too?

april 15th, but not really, we accept "late" returns" "filings" and stuff.....

hey ceasar...........LOL, only if you read the bible....

[gabosaurus]

Lame, yes. Lame duck, no.

[Sitarro]

Lame, yes. Lame duck, no.

Don't be so tough on yourself gob a lot.

[red states rule]

Lame, yes. Lame duck, no.

I know who upsetting it is to libs as they sit back and watch Reid and Pelosi lose so many battles with Pres Bush

And knowing the approval ratings for the Dem Congress are much lower then the approval ratings for Pres Bush

[DrJohn]

I know who upsetting it is to libs as they sit back and watch Reid and Pelosi lose so many battles with Pres Bush

And knowing the approval ratings for the Dem Congress are much lower then the approval ratings for Pres Bush


Low is low.

If it makes you feel better to know that Congress has lower approval ratings than our lame-ass president then I say that's good.

Congress is pretty lame, too, both dems and repub.

What you are failing to see is that most Americans are fed up with our elected federal officials. That's why the caucuses are having record voter turnouts.

People are sick of the status quo and that means ALL of Congress and the Bush presidency.

Like it or not, change is coming.

[red states rule]

Low is low.

If it makes you feel better to know that Congress has lower approval ratings than our lame-ass president then I say that's good.

Congress is pretty lame, too, both dems and repub.

What you are failing to see is that most Americans are fed up with our elected federal officials. That's why the caucuses are having record voter turnouts.

People are sick of the status quo and that means ALL of Congress and the Bush presidency.

Like it or not, change is coming.

What change is that?

On the Dem side it looks like more tax and spend liberalism, as well as appeasement to terrorists

Same old same old to me

[retiredman]

What change is that?

On the Dem side it looks like more tax and spend liberalism, as well as appeasement to terrorists

Same old same old to me


tax and spend is more responsible than using the grandkid's credit cards to spend and spend some more...

and your appeasement line is SOOOOOO fucking lame.

Like it or not, patriotic Americans can, and do, disagree with president Bush's poor execution of the war against islamic extremism and want to see us actually go after our enemies instead of making more of them.

[red states rule]

tax and spend is more responsible than using the grandkid's credit cards to spend and spend some more...

and your appeasement line is SOOOOOO fucking lame.

Like it or not, patriotic Americans can, and do, disagree with president Bush's poor execution of the war against islamic extremism and want to see us actually go after our enemies instead of making more of them.

The Bush tax cuts have caused revenue to the US government to soar to record highs, the annual deficit is down more then 50%, and we have a 95% employment rate

Dems want to raise every tax they can, and increase government spending. Which will result in less economic activity, and lower revenues to the government

Dems do want to appease, their actions prove it. Even with success in Iraq Dems still want to cut and run

[retiredman]

The Bush tax cuts have caused revenue to the US government to soar to record highs, the annual deficit is down more then 50%, and we have a 95% employment rate

Dems want to raise every tax they can, and increase government spending. Which will result in less economic activity, and lower revenues to the government

Dems do want to appease, their actions prove it. Even with success in Iraq Dems still want to cut and run


interesting that the annual budget deficit does not consider the off-budget costs of the war in Iraq.

[red states rule]

interesting that the annual budget deficit does not consider the off-budget costs of the war in Iraq.

link?

Libs have been proven wrong when they say tax cuts REDUCE revenue. Of course Dems need more moey to pay for their increasing prok, and their pay raises they just got

[retiredman]

link?




here's one for you:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html

oh....and wanting to leave Iraq is not synonymous with "appeasing terrorists".

[red states rule]

here's one for you:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html

oh....and wanting to leave Iraq is not synonymous with "appeasing terrorists".

When the numbers are added up, the annual budget defict is shrinking year after year. Assuming your link is correct, the deficit is still way down from where it once was

The tax cuts have caused INCREASED revenues to flow into DC

Yes, DEems wanting to cut and run from Iraq is appeasement. The terrorists can't win on the battle field, but they hope to win the war on the floor of the Dem run Congress

[retiredman]

When the numbers are added up, the annual budget defict is shrinking year after year. Assuming your link is correct, the deficit is still way down from where it once was

The tax cuts have caused INCREASED revenues to flow into DC

Yes, DEems wanting to cut and run from Iraq is appeasement. The terrorists can't win on the battle field, but they hope to win the war on the floor of the Dem run Congress


from the link:

"The US can certainly afford the war, says budget analyst Stan Collender, a managing director of Qorvis Communications in Washington. But the spending is taking resources from other areas, he notes. Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. "And it's still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought," he says.

Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. "It's fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed," says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. "But eventually everything has to be paid for."

Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget."

[red states rule]

from the link:

"The US can certainly afford the war, says budget analyst Stan Collender, a managing director of Qorvis Communications in Washington. But the spending is taking resources from other areas, he notes. Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. "And it's still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought," he says.

Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. "It's fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed," says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. "But eventually everything has to be paid for."

Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget."



The Shrinking Deficit

We hate to be the bearers of good news, but someone's got to do it: The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35% to $161 billion.

There's more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7% more than in 2006. This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. Income, dividend and capital gains tax rates were all cut in 2003, but individual income tax receipts have soared by 46.3% in four years, with payments by the wealthy accounting for most of the windfall. Last year's increase in individual income payments was 11.3%, or more than double the rate of growth in nominal GDP. Don't worry, class warriors: Hannah Montana and others among the "new rich" are paying their taxes.

Overall federal revenue is now 18.8% of GDP, compared with the 18.2% average of the past 40 years. The nearby table shows how far off CBO was, as usual, in its static-revenue estimates that failed to anticipate the impact of taxes on incentives and growth.

The biggest surprise in fiscal 2007 was the slower growth in federal spending. CBO reports that federal outlays crept up just 2.8% last year (2.5% after adjusting for timing in payments), which was "well below the 7.3 percent average over the previous five years." The decline was largely due to lower disaster-related payments compared with Hurricane Katrina's aftermath the year before, plus the budget deal last winter that kept domestic spending stable as Congress changed hands.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1191...googlenews_wsj

[retiredman]

read and try to understand the following statement:

"Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget."

[red states rule]

read and try to understand the following statement:

"Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget."

Stop ignoring this

Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[retiredman]

Stop ignoring this

Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

that is budget deficit. that does not include spending that is OFF budget. The annual costs of homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is significantly greater than $150-200B.

Again...all of the SUPPLEMENTAL war funding bills are not included in budget deficit calculations. do you understand that?

[red states rule]

that is budget deficit. that does not include spending that is OFF budget. The annual costs of homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is significantly greater than $150-200B.

Again...all of the SUPPLEMENTAL war funding bills are not included in budget deficit calculations. do you understand that?

I understand how libs like you are fit to be tied seeing tax cuts growing the economy and increasing revenues :laugh2:

[retiredman]

I understand how libs like you are fit to be tied seeing tax cuts growing the economy and increasing revenues :laugh2:

so you do understand that your claims of shrinking budget deficits are silly given the fact that all the supplemental spending for the war in Iraq is not included in the calculations?

thank you.

[red states rule]

so you do understand that your claims of shrinking budget deficits are silly given the fact that all the supplemental spending for the war in Iraq is not included in the calculations?

thank you.

The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35% to $161 billion.


Try www.hop.com and get back to me

[retiredman]

The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35% to $161 billion.


Try www.hop.com and get back to me

no...you need to read that link. The costs of the Iraq war are NOT included in the federal budget deficit calculations...because they are supplemental spending. So, if the budget deficit fell again, but the costs of the Iraq war were not included, what does that prove?

Try actually answering me with your own words. please

[red states rule]

no...you need to read that link. The costs of the Iraq war are NOT included in the federal budget deficit calculations...because they are supplemental spending. So, if the budget deficit fell again, but the costs of the Iraq war were not included, what does that prove?

Try actually answering me with your own words. please

Sorry to bust your bubble

There's more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


You must not be able to stand it MM :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Sorry to bust your bubble

There's more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


You must not be able to satnd it MM :laugh2:

so...you really DO have problems understanding the concept that the costs of the Iraq war are largely OFF BUDGET and are therefore NOT REFLECTED in budget deficit calculations.

Do you honestly think that the costs of homeland security department plus those costs required to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only cost $150-20B per year?

[red states rule]

so...you really DO have problems understanding the concept that the costs of the Iraq war are largely OFF BUDGET and are therefore NOT REFLECTED in budget deficit calculations.

Do you honestly think that the costs of homeland security department plus those costs required to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only cost $150-20B per year?

Can you prove the CBO and the WSJ is lying? I know how depressed this good news makes you, but the facts are the facts

I do recall how sad Reid and Pelosi were when the declining deficit numbers came out

[retiredman]

Can you prove the CBO and the WSJ is lying? I know how depressed this good news makes you, but the facts are the facts


I never said they were lying. I said that the costs of the war are OFF BUDGET and are, therefore, not included in any BUDGET deficit calculations.

THAT'S a fact.

The federal BUDGET deficit may be shrinking, but that does not mean that we spending LESS money in relation to how much we take in. We are still spending MORE...the difference is that a large chunk of it is as a result of SUPPLEMENTAL spending which is not included in the calculation.

Is that really too tough for you to comprehend?

[manu1959]

that is budget deficit. that does not include spending that is OFF budget. The annual costs of homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is significantly greater than $150-200B.

Again...all of the SUPPLEMENTAL war funding bills are not included in budget deficit calculations. do you understand that?

so if not for the war this would make bush a better economic president than clinton.....:laugh2:

[DrJohn]

Bush gave us the record deficit but now he making it shrink so he is a hero???

Sooo, I shoot someone but I give them some meds so I am a hero?

:lol:

I love that republican logic RSR.

[retiredman]

so if not for the war this would make bush a better economic president than clinton.....:laugh2:

kinda like saying, "Other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

[red states rule]

Bush gave us the record deficit but now he making it shrink so he is a hero???

Sooo, I shoot someone but I give them some meds so I am a hero?

:lol:

I love that republican logic RSR.

Libs were quick to blame him when it went up - now that it is dropping you will not give him credit

Libs always want to have it both ways

[DrJohn]

Libs were quick to blame him when it went up - now that it is dropping you will not give him credit

Libs always want to have it both ways


When the republican controlled congress and the republican controlled white house are in charge and the deficit goes out of control, then yes, any sane person would "blame" the republicans.

So he is fixing a problem that he and his party caused???

He SHOULD fix it. He gets no credit until he does.
That is not having it both ways.

You make me laugh with that "blame" stuff of yours.
Somehow, I know you are going to "blame" it on the libs.

[red states rule]

When the republican controlled congress and the republican controlled white house are in charge and the deficit goes out of control, then yes, any sane person would "blame" the republicans.

So he is fixing a problem that he and his party caused???

He SHOULD fix it. He gets no credit until he does.
That is not having it both ways.

You make me laugh with that "blame" stuff of yours.
Somehow, I know you are going to "blame" it on the libs.

Hey John, the national debt is growing with a Dem run Congress

The pork is increasing with a Dem run Congress

Yet the annual budget deficit is shrinking because Pres Bush is standing up against the insane spending of Dems. John Murtha is the pork king so far, yet Dems ignore these facts

You seem to want to go back in time and blame Republicans for things that cost them the 06 election - while ignoring the "promises" the Dems made to get elected

[DrJohn]

Hey John, the national debt is growing with a Dem run Congress

The pork is increasing with a Dem run Congress

Yet the annual budget deficit is shrinking because Pres Bush is standing up against the insane spending of Dems. John Murtha is the pork king so far, yet Dems ignore these facts

You seem to want to go back in time and blame Republicans for things that cost them the 06 election - while ignoring the "promises" the Dems made to get elected


I'm not ignoring anything. You, on the other hand, are refusing to face facts.
Was there no deficit when the dems took over in 2006?

You have to admit that there was-- It was a record deficit and we all know who had control then, don't we.

[red states rule]

I'm not ignoring anything. You, on the other hand, are refusing to face facts.
Was there no deficit when the dems took over in 2006?

You have to admit that there was-- It was a record deficit and we all know who had control then, don't we.

The record deficit was after 9-11 and the trillion dollar hit the economy took afterwards. Like Iraq, libs said the Bush tax cuts would be a disaster and harm the economy

Like Iraq, the Dems were wrong and are to arrogant to admit it

Allow me to remind you the facts about the tax cuts and the deficit

The Shrinking Deficit
October 9, 2007; Page A16
We hate to be the bearers of good news, but someone's got to do it: The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35% to $161 billion.

There's more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7% more than in 2006. This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. Income, dividend and capital gains tax rates were all cut in 2003, but individual income tax receipts have soared by 46.3% in four years, with payments by the wealthy accounting for most of the windfall. Last year's increase in individual income payments was 11.3%, or more than double the rate of growth in nominal GDP. Don't worry, class warriors: Hannah Montana and others among the "new rich" are paying their taxes.

Overall federal revenue is now 18.8% of GDP, compared with the 18.2% average of the past 40 years. The nearby table shows how far off CBO was, as usual, in its static-revenue estimates that failed to anticipate the impact of taxes on incentives and growth.

The biggest surprise in fiscal 2007 was the slower growth in federal spending. CBO reports that federal outlays crept up just 2.8% last year (2.5% after adjusting for timing in payments), which was "well below the 7.3 percent average over the previous five years." The decline was largely due to lower disaster-related payments compared with Hurricane Katrina's aftermath the year before, plus the budget deal last winter that kept domestic spending stable as Congress changed hands.

This is a one-year wonder. Congress is already gearing up to splurge again, with its $35 billion expansion in the children's health program, a $286 billion five-year farm bill, $23 billion in water projects, and $22 billion more in non-defense discretionary spending. Combine this blowout with slowing revenue growth due to the housing recession, and the deficit may not fall again in 2008. This is all the more reason for President Bush to finally use his veto pen on spending bills.

for the complete article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj