Home | Community | Message Board


The Spore Depot
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
InvisibleClean
the lense
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/03
Posts: 2,366
The Deficit.
    #2297977 - 02/03/04 05:54 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

This is rather long, but well worth reading if you live in the U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------

Direct Deposit
Exclusive!
By Dom Stasi
Feb 3, 2004, 09:17

[[Source: Axis of Logic]]

?This is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy. This is not normal government policy. ?this is a form of looting.?
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics recently referring to the Administration of George W. Bush




The most used, abused, and misused word in this election year will be the word DEFICIT. It will be heard every time a presidential candidate speaks; and it was the subject of the MoveOn.org advertisement that CBS refused to run on yesterday?s Superbowl. So despite that the talking heads on the news have managed to sidestep this important word, and despite that CBS Sports tuned down $1.6 million for a 30 second reference to it during this weekend?s halftime, and despite that the president won?t be mentioning the word at all until he?s mastered its pronunciation, DEFICIT has made the verbal big time, and it?s done so in more ways than one. Yet more Americans than are willing to admit it, are still not quite sure what it means, especially as DEFICIT relates to the federal budget.



I expect that you, dear reader, might count yourself among of them. I make that assumption because most of those Americans who both know the word?s meaning and appreciate its implications ? specifically as they relate to the Bush Administration?s fiscal policies ? are too busy to read this article. That?s because they?re frantically grabbing up whatever possessions they can carry, and are preparing to leave the country. As for the rest of us, let?s consider our collective, if temporary, ignorance to be a patriotic act: for your president?s men do not want you to know what DEFICIT means, at least not yet, at least not until December. For by then it will be too late to do anything about it.



Now, like you, I know what deficit means in literal isolation. For example, as a writer my many detractors accuse me of suffering a talent deficit. Be that as it may, this is not about that kind of deficit. This is about government fiscal responsibility. So, as a charter member of the fiscally na?ve, I found myself asking such questions as these, just a couple of years ago: ?Is the federal budget deficit the National Debt? It isn?t? Then what is a deficit? For that matter, then, what?s the National Debt?? If you too cannot answer these questions without thinking about the answer for even a second, then read on. For though it?s a mind-numbing topic, it?s also a critically important one to us as Americans and to our children?s way of life. So be brave. Press on. I promise, I?ll try my best to keep it interesting. Who knows? Perhaps you?ll find the DEFICIT a topic of far more interest than you bargained, especially as our nation prepares to choose your next president. At the very least, I promise this article will make you angry. That?s right. Whatever your political leaning, this article will make you angry. You can get all red faced and send me letters telling me what a jerk I am. What more can a reader ask?



So take a Valium and let?s begin. Let?s begin with a standard of comparison. The wealthiest person, who?s ever lived, lives today. His name is unimportant here. Suffice to say that coming into the new Millennium his fortune was estimated at around $40 billion.1 I mention this princely sum only that it might appear as chump change when compared against the treasure our nation?s president has at his disposal. Yes, I said disposal.



As a frame of reference one need only consider the fiduciary legacy left to us by America?s most recent chief executives.



Richard Nixon?s resignation came at a time when our country?s annual federal budget topped out at around $263 billion. That was roughly what it cost to run the United States each year, and pay its debts and interest, etc. Revenues were about equal to that, so it was essentially a balanced budget. Call that a good thing. Call it two good things.2



The subsequent administrations of Gerald Ford/Jimmy Carter took Nixon?s balanced budget to a $73 billion deficit.2 That means, during their brief combined tenure, the federal government started spending substantially more than it was taking in on an annual basis. Again, we?re talking tens of billions, and when coupled with substantial revenue growth it equates to chump change deficits even at the time, but remember and keep in mind what happened to interest rates during the Carter years; they soared to 14% if memory serves. This was due in part to newly discovered OPEC trade leverage, but it was also the germ of a peacetime deficit-spending policy that would characterize forthcoming administrations.



(Economists write volumes on this stuff, but I prefer to think of it as a back alley crap shoot. Sometimes you?re ahead. That?s when a smart shooter builds a kitty, plays the other guys? money. It?s when a dumb shooter buys a Cadillac to improve his image. When the dice get cold, you dip into the kitty. If you?ve failed to build a kitty, you go into the hole. That?s when you turn to the shy - the money lender - who?s now crouched right behind you. After all, you?re still a pretty good bet, and there?s always the Caddy. The shy agrees, and stakes you on the cheap. You blow on the bones, hedge your bets, ride a hot shooter?s streak, and try to come back. If you go for broke, you can drive away still looking good, or you can turn to the shy again. He?ll stake you again, but not on the cheap this time. Now you?re playing with his markers only. If your luck doesn?t turn, the vig gets higher, the shy keeps raising the price of his markers. The deeper you get, the colder you get, the more the markers cost. You crap out. The shy takes the Caddy. With no collateral, the vig gets bigger than the stake. You can?t walk away. Sweating now, you borrow again. This is the leading proximate cause of injury and death among back alley crapshooters. You roll the dice...)



When Ronald Reagan left office, he left America $150 billion in the hole.2 That?s right, $150 billion. In one splendiferous move, Reagan slammed the door on chump change economics forever, leaving us with the largest peacetime deficit in our nation?s history.



Sophomoric economic dichotomies notwithstanding, few would say this president was not about charting new territory. They even gave it a name: Reaganomics. He imposed an asymmetrical tax cut, which pacified the masses, while diverting the bulk of reductions to the wealthiest taxpayers.2 In isolation such a policy can be argued as equitable. It?s an argument posed ad-nauseam by TV economists: the rich pay more taxes to begin with; wealth trickles down, so on. I?ll even drop in the phrase Kensian economic theory once in a while so I can sound like those cable TV economists with the trust-me haircuts, and pinstripe suits. But economic theories are only as viable as their execution. Reagan?s execution was irrational. Because while sharply reducing the government?s income, he and his administration continued to spend the public?s money like a bunch of heroine addicts ( a really big bunch of heroine addicts, that is). And while few would dispute that spending $150 billion more than you take in is a splendid bit of philandering, we had not yet reckoned with the Bushes. George Bush, the elder, doubled Reagan?s best. What it took Ronald Reagan eight years to accomplish, Bush senior did in a mere four. Sure, his predecessor?s tax cuts, paired with an anemic (Kensian?) economy left Bush One at a disadvantage going in. But he clearly exacerbated the problem by catching his tail in his own ill considered ?Watch my lips. No new taxes,? trap. The deficit grew to $255 billion.2 Now, as any pundit on Fox ?News? will quickly tell you, though deficit spending builds debt, it is not necessarily a bad thing. In isolation, debt is neither good nor bad. It?s simply debt. If, as with the household budgeting practice of most Americans, money is needed for a necessity such as a home mortgage, a car, a school loan, medical bills, food, whatever, we readily borrow that money. But generally such indebtedness is undertaken in anticipation of a favorable return. For example, if one needs a coronary bypass operation, but can?t afford to pay for it in cash and insurance, one must either borrow the money, steal it, or die. Most adults understand and accept this. Decisions, including the decision to make no decision at all, yield consequences. Looking on the brighter side, school costs are a common reason we borrow. Student loans generally yield a better educated, intelligent, functioning adult with improved commercial prospects and philosophical insights that easily obviate the assumed debt over time. Like most intelligent, rational mammals, we accept that resource planning is fundamental to survival. Eating ourselves when the food money runs out is not consistent with rational planning.



With Reagan and Bush the Elder, there was no rational plan to deal with the inevitable shortfall of deficit spending coupled with the self-imposed revenue reductions that characterized their combined tenure. They ignored, as do most recent administrations, the implications of such deficit spending to future debt service entirely. From their earliest days, government spending began climbing at a rate that quickly surpassed revenue and there were to be no new taxes (watch my lips) or viable potential for return on expenditure. This is the equivalent of living exactly at your means, then taking a pay cut, deliberately increasing your rent, food, and car payments, all the while deluding yourself that your standard of living has improved, and fully expecting, perhaps through reliance upon Devine providence, to either come out flush in the end, or move in with your kids. When Ronald Reagan was pressed for an answer to this apparent fiscal dichotomy, the chief executive of the United States, custodian of our treasure, said this. ?A pessimist gets handed a box. He looks inside and sees only manure. An optimist gets the same box. He looks inside and says, ?With all this manure, there must be a pony in here too!??



During this period of quixotic economics, we saw no improvement in the national infrastructure or GNP that might be objectively considered as a domestic equivalent to the level of spending, but both administrations continued to tout the tax cut. They also managed to scare up an annual foreign crisis. Both of which managed to keep the bulk of America?s citizens alternately blissful, and otherwise occupied. We were consumed by the myth that the mighty United States was ostensibly under constant threat from insolvent Communist countries, or from nut case theocracies and bananna republics most Americans couldn?t point to on a map. Russia, China, Granada, Panama, Iran, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Libya. One red herring followed another, each intent to murder us in our beds. A wacky, highly selective xenophobia characterized these years, culminating in the first Iraq turkey shoot, and allowing this pair of simplistic patriots to swell both the debt and the balance of trade deficit, while keeping the collective public mind tenuously concentrated on holding the foreign evil-doers at bay. Meanwhile, in the shadows, American manufacturing declined, taxes actually went way up, and unemployment grew to 9.7%.3 These conditions exacerbated the original tax shortfall, making it more difficult to reduce federal spending. The balance of trade mattered not a wit to the government or the media. We were becoming a service economy. That?s what they told us. If an American needed something, she could count on good foreigners, such as the Japanese, to build it for her: smarter, better, cheaper. Remember? In return, Americans could sell each other hamburgers cooked with our secret recipe. It was a recipe for failure, a failure from which we seem to have learned but little.



The simple fact is this, by the time the first President Bush handed the reins of office to the reviled philanderer Bill Clinton by actual popular mandate, George the First and his immediate predecessor had plunged our nation into a nearly $300 billion annual budget deficit. If you find that difficult to swallow, just check the facts. I recommend the American Association for the Advancement of Science?s web site. Science, being knowledge-based, generally feels the pinch of ignorance first. So the AAAS put together some easy to understand graphs gleaned from the not-so-easy-to-understand federal record.2



Fortunately, during reviled philanderer Clinton?s ensuing eight-year tenure, we not only climbed out of that $300 billion black hole, but also accrued a $230 billion surplus.2 Through a fiscal discipline (somehow attributed to Ronald Reagan by radio talk show hosts wiser than I) we saw a $530 billion dollar gain in the public coffers in eight years.2 Income outpaced spending. The Clinton administration returned billions to the treasury? hundreds and hundreds of billions. Many believe these billions would have been better put against the growing national debt.8 But let?s call the Clinton administration?s practice better than spending it all on nothing. Then, while imposing an 8% tax increase as compared to the 14% aggregate increase of its immediate fiscally conservative predecessors, the sinful Clinton people still found enough cash to run the government.2 That?s effectively cheaper. In turn it allowed them to pay down the enormous deficit, build an equally enormous surplus, and still set aside enough cash to build all those smarter weapons today?s dumber leaders seem to so enjoy using. Smarter, better, cheaper. See? Turning Japanese, I think I?m?



But I digress.



What happened then, you ask, rhetorically? Did Clinton get a medal, a pay raise, an airport named after him? What?



The loyal opposition impeached him.



Why might they do such a thing following so stellar a fiscal performance? Was it because of Bubba?s alleged sexual misconduct in the White House?



Not plausible.



Try this. It makes a lot more sense. With all that money now just lying about in the federal coffers, and so much more coming in every day, the Republicans had their own interpretation of what was inappropriate presidential behavior. It had little to do with Clinton?s alleged sexual proclivities, or with defiling the White House as shrine. In fact, to these guys, getting a little head in the Oval Office could be a good thing. In fact, it could be a very good thing ? especially if that little head was the one that sat atop their president?s neck. And these cons (short for conservatives, of course) knew just the candidate who fit that description. So, they rigged the ensuing election, thus handing the greatest budget surplus in our nation?s history, and the greatest monetary treasure in the history of history, to their new quiz kid president, George W. Bush. ?The Businessman President.? Yahoo! God bless America!



He promptly spent all of it on nothing.



Though GWB the politician was one of only six Americans (seven if we count Rush Limbaugh) who understood the legal abstractions attendant to his being appointed President of the United States, GWB The Businessman seems blissfully unaware of the business world?s axiom that income must at some point equal and perhaps even exceed expense.



We the people seem hardly more acquisitive. That $230 billion surplus that the Businessman President squandered was your money. It was my money. It was every other taxpaying American's money too. But we didn?t guard it, and those to whom we subsequently and in hindsight, foolishly, entrusted it, proved unworthy of trust. The money?s gone. Some of it was squandered through George W. Bush?s popular tax cut. But much of the pittance the vast majority of Americans, including the middle- and upper-middle earners, will regain has already found its way from your pocket into big oil?s pockets. It went there through the $2.25 per gallon gas prices that accompanied the tax cut and the elevated utility bills you?ll be paying through dergulation. And it went there in record time. Every other penny of the incredible surplus we?d built up as a society has been spent, and another $477 billion that we don?t have will be gone by year?s end.3 America is hopelessly in debt again, deeper than ever, and we?re now deficit spending another at least $165 billion we?ve not yet accrued, by blowing up and building back and blowing up again Iraq.4



Unfortunately, as the Iraqi smoke clears ? if indeed it ever does - its dissipation along with that of our nation?s life savings will yield but a single certainty: the American treasure will have changed hands forever. In this shell game that began some 27 months ago, $700 billion has been skimmed from the public coffers, and much of it transferred to the bankrolls of the masters of war and the masters of oil.



Not content to steal America's private pensions, like the Enrons and Arthur Andersons of the world, the private-sector fat cats along with their instruments of government power will now dispense with your country's treasure and your state's future too. Rather than going through the tedious process of picking over what?s left after the federal government pays its bills with our tax money, the Haliburtons who will optimize Iraq?s untouched oil fields, the Bechtels who will rebuild her decimated infrastructure, and the Boeings who will develop the unapproved and scientifically dubious missile defense system11 to ?protect? us all from future non-existent WMD, will get to have your tax money (with no small assist from their Washington stooges) diverted directly to them. Think of it as direct deposit. Pretty good scam, eh? Getting depressed? Well, it ain?t over yet, in fact it?s hardly started.



Revenues have declined every year since Bush took office. At this rate (rate being the operative word), in something just under six years, the federal government will have to come up with about a trillion dollars a year, swelling to $4.4 trillion a year in ten years. That?s money it simply does not have. That?s not a joke. It?s the projected annual federal deficit under a reelected Bush.5 $4,400,000,000,000.00! If it isn?t collected in taxes, it will have to be borrowed - or printed ? every year. So figure a trillion or two in interest (every year) we?ll also have to borrow (every year) against the deficit and burgeoning debt service. Do the math and you?ll have your kids? future tax environment pretty well mapped out. But to hell with them. What does all this mean to you and me? Simple. Kiss your 5% mortgage rate goodbye. Kiss your 0% APR auto loan goodbye. Kiss your cheap student loan goodbye. Kiss your home equity goodbye. Because when the Fed empties the banks and private lending institutions of trillions of bucks annually just to keep the government?s lights on, the simple laws of supply and demand will drive interest rates through the roof - again. Sure, you?ll be paying lower income taxes for a while (if you have a job), but you?ll be paying higher interest ? a lot higher interest. Simply stated, yes, Bush Jr. lowered taxes, but that was just to divert your tax money to his friends and handlers without subjecting them to too much congressional red tape, Appropriations Committee scrutiny, GAO audits, competative bidding and all those other tiresome processes that would bog down public money allocation in a functional democracy.



There?s nothing wrong with moving money back into the private sector, you say.



There is when joblessness in that same private sector skyrockets during that same period, I say.



Still depressed? Not to worry, the Bush administration and his Republican dominated congress have plans to limit government spending. For example, congress has already approved huge spending cuts designed to offset the projected $38 billion annual costs of homeland security.6 One big way they?ll do that is by cutting veteran?s benefits $24-billion over the next ten years.10 Here?s another one. Last year Bush asked for $79 billion to fund the war in Iraqi.4 This year he demanded and got another $87 billion. That?s about the same amount the IRS under Bush has already approved in annual tax breaks for American corporations who?ve moved their operations offshore. 9 Think of how much money the government will save by not having to process those time consuming corporate tax forms and employee W-2s.



But there?s more, much more. It appears there?s a plan to actually recover the economy, too. It?s just as rational, relies on the petroleum industry to come to our national rescue, and is only marginally more terrifying than what we?ve seen from this administration so far.



It goes something like this. The current petroleum output of OPEC member states is limited by quota to 2 million barrels per day. That?s about 750 million barrels a year. It?s what allows the bad foreigners to control prices by limiting supply.7



All of which brings us back around to Iraq.



Iraq, though it floats atop the second largest petroleum reserve in the world, posts a pathetic output currently limited not by OPEC, but by international sanctions and second-rate scud-era extraction technology.



Under U.S. control, however, oil production more consistent with a democratic, sanction-free Iraq?s vast reserves is possible. Add to that Dick Che? I mean Haliburton?s equally vast technology, and the oil industry?s immeasurably vast avarice, and Iraq?s output could be literally pumped up to $7 million barrels per day without breaking a sweat.7 This would blow a hole in OPEC the size of Texas. Yippee.



American oil prices would tumble (sure they would). OPEC would flounder and perhaps even collapse. The United States and Great Britain would reign supreme, the U.S. economy would recover, and we?ll all live happily ever after.



But what will actually happen if we allow a free election in Iraq? Would the vast Shiite majority (the sect of the Iatolla Khomeini) win such a vote? If so, I might submit that predicting the actions of a freely elected Islamic fundamentalist government requires no leap of imagination. But perhaps it does. Perhaps something we hadn?t foreseen would take place. For example, might the Shiites revive a not-so-hated policy of the hated Saddam Hussein? On November 6, 2000, Saddam took Iraq?s oil trade off the world standard U.S. dollar, and based it on the euro.7 Would an Iraqi Shiite government follow the example of their Shiite neighbor, Iran, which has also agreed to begin trading its go-goop in euros?7 Oh, did CNN miss this stuff in their continuous incisive, probing coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom? (Keep in mind, in the Pentagon?s effort to label every one of their mistakes with a dashing military moniker, the Iraq war was originally named Operation Iraq Liberation. Give that acronym a try.) Maybe they haven?t found the time, what with all the dog-bites-man excitement of the actual trouncing itself to report. So they probably also haven?t told you that North Korea, too, has begun buying oil in euros only.7 If you find this interesting, I suggest you check out a scholarly, exhaustively researched paper by grad student William Clark, entitled: ?The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq.? There?s nothing new here. It?s a year old paper. But you?ll find both its predictions and rationale substantively more accurate than the mainstream media?s coverage of the actual smoke and mirrors-on-the-ceilings. Gee, you?d think these news conglomerates would be able to get better stuff from Scott McClellan than some graduate student could dig up, especially when considering how much money they gave the Bush campaign.



But, back to why a piss ant country like North Korea might do such a thing? Could it be that we?ve been starving them to death with energy sanctions? Nah. After all, every other country in the world trades oil in U.S. dollars.7 That has always made America the ?house? in the world?s biggest crapshoot, as well as the back alley shy. Nobody beats the house. Everybody loves America. They trust us and our dollars, especially these days. But, hmmm... Boy, if that sort of thing caught on, it could really screw up America?s big economic recovery. What else do these three states - Iraq, Iran, North Korea - have in common? Axis of something or other comes to mind? Boy, these damned terrorists just won?t play by the rules. Well, we know how to handle that, now, don?t we?



But wait. Perhaps all that unpleasantness could still be avoided. Perhaps there could be some sort of Florida-like vote count in democratic Iraq. Perhaps it could be administered by Americans, people experienced in the delicate art of nullifying majority mandates. Perhaps such a miracle would actually cause OPEC to lie down and die quietly, plunging the region surrounding Iraq into relative poverty. I mean, c?mon, what is OPEC, anyway? Isn?t OPEC just a bunch of sheiks from dusty, historically Muslim countries ruled by despised American imposed despots whose hold on power becomes more tenuous with each American inspired humiliation?



Yes.



How will the 70 million-strong Muslim populations of these dusty countries respond to the new American induced austerity?



I freely and humbly submit that no one, not the despised American imposed despots, not CNN or Fox ?News,? not even the supremely knowledgeable Richard Perle or the equally quixotic Paul Wolfowitz can answer that question with authority. Events. Only events, events certain to unfold in the very near and continue through the very distant future will provide us such an answer. Given our government?s historical record of dismal failure through intervention, we have no real choice but to wait and see.



So in the meantime, wave a Chinese made American flag, put one on your Japanese made car, smile. America is in control.



But when our collective arms get tired of all that waving, as they surely will, most of us will be left to face the truth, which is simply this.



The American economy is now at great risk in this ever-smaller world. The recently coined euro currency has grown steadily and impressively stronger against the ever-shakier U.S. dollar on world markets, until today it is stronger than ever. Tomorrow it will be stronger still.7 Be certain that our newly created enemies both in Europe and the East have long since decided that they?re tired of being pushed around. When their response is finally formulated it will not be military as our simplistic government and media pundits seem to expect. As we?ve learned in Iraq, or should have by now, there will be no headlong rush by the other nine-tenths of the world to impale themselves on America?s terrible swift sword. No. The world?s response will be considered, coordinated, but unlike Iraq?s, it will also be wholly economic. The European Union is now a $10 trillion economy, just like us.7 Prosperous Pacific rim countries are tired of investing in America?s Enrons, and Worldcoms, and Arthur Andersons that went supernova in the blink of a Harvey Pitt eye. Pitt is gone, but his legacy remains. Our EU friends, while they might smile and make diplomatic nice today, are embarrassed and frightened by this administrations global hegemony, economic shenanigans, and unbridled hubris. Our American treasure is gone. The $700 billion the Bush administration has already blown through will quickly grow to a $1-trillion, $2 trillion, who knows how many trillion-dollar deficit. Every projection has been exceeded by the actuals. Measured against a 2003 federal budget of $2.2-trillion,8 this is roughly akin to your earning $50,000.00 per year, and spending $88,000.00 while giving yourself annual pay cuts over the next ten years, and pissing off your customers to boot. It?s also literally a ton of money that will not be available for your parents' healthcare; it will not be available for your healthcare; it will not be available for our children's social security; it will not be available for their college subsidy; it will not be available to fight crime; it will not be available for medical research; it will not be available for public education; it will not be available for disaster relief; it will not be available for ?homeland security.? It will not be available to develop the sciences that have so abundantly gifted this country. And it looks like $24-billion of it will not be available to counsel America?s latest generation of eighteen-year-old killer angels whose living nightmares playing out in Iraqi alleys and check points today, will leave so many of them to a life of nightmares yet to come.



No. America?s treasure will not be available. Period. At least it will not be available to the likes of you and your kids and our soldiers. 12



But, how many hundreds of billions of dollars have somehow become readily ? no strings, no bids no nothing - available to first destroy and eventually rebuild Iraq?



From where does it actually come? To whom does it actually go? Would our neighbors still think us traitors to demand ? DEMAND! - these answers from our government? Will our children judge us traitors if we do not?


? Copyright 2003 by AxisofLogic.com



Footnotes and References



1. Richest man:

http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/28/billionaires.html



2. Budget deficit and surplus:

American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences: federal Budget & Deficit: a review of the twentieth-century presidencies.

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/defic04p.pdf

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/pr022002.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0



3. Unemployment:

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf



4. Costs of the war:

New York Times, 4/17/2003: ?Bush Urges Lifting Of Sanctions On Iraq,? - el Brinkley

http://www.thomasmc.com/

5. Projected Deficit and Debt:

New York Times, 4/9/2003: ?No New Tax Cuts,? by John Kerry, Sam Nunn, P.G. Peterson, Sam Rudman, Paul Volcker.



6. Homeland security costs:

Business Week, 3/14/2003: ?Watch Out, The Deficit Is Growing?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020124-1.html

7.Iraq and the Euro:

?The Real reasons For The Upcoming War With Iraq,? by William Clark. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

8. National Debt:

The 2003 Federal Budget http://www.federalbudget.com/

9. Offshore tax dodges http://www.moveon.org/news/1292.html



1. VA benefits. http://winwithoutwarus.org/html/new.html



11. MIT Technology Review, 4/2002: Why Missile Defense Won?t Work.



12. Fiscal Doomsday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42232-2003Oct3.html


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLe_Canard
Slightly Nutty

Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 93,714
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: The Deficit. [Re: Clean]
    #2298232 - 02/03/04 06:51 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

A very interesting article indeed! :thumbup:
It made some nice points about Bush V2.0's fiscal insanity, and that's some scary stuff, to say the least. :frown:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleClean
the lense
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/03
Posts: 2,366
Re: The Deficit. [Re: Le_Canard]
    #2317006 - 02/09/04 09:41 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

^


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: The Deficit. [Re: Clean]
    #2317164 - 02/09/04 10:57 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

thx


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* $2.57 Trillion Budget Ravus 2,049 19 05/02/11 10:33 AM
by Phred
* $2.77 trillion budget wilshire 686 12 02/09/06 12:40 PM
by Ancalagon
* US Budget Deficit Drops to 5-Year Low Luddite 688 2 10/14/07 10:25 PM
by afoaf
* Bush Unveils $3.1 Trillion Spending Plan MistaUNGA 537 5 02/04/08 09:10 PM
by kidaihuan
* Obama caused the loss of 10 trillion dollars
( 1 2 all )
Luddite 2,223 23 11/10/08 07:59 PM
by mr.bixby
* Slashing the Budget? Solutarch 714 7 11/26/05 01:34 AM
by gregorio
* Communists (Really!) Behind Obama Push To Cut Deficit Madtowntripper 477 4 03/14/09 04:18 PM
by Redstorm
* House passes sweeping budget-cut bill lonestar2004 1,136 15 11/19/05 01:27 AM
by RandalFlagg

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
986 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Zamnesia.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.136 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.