Bushs claim that the democrats are on the wrong road, remindes me of a song..Bushs'...Highway to hell.

As one commentator said, "The press would tout the past couple years as the greatest economic period in American history--if the president was a Democrat."

"The Democrats' budget plan proposes $205 billion in additional domestic spending over the next five years.

Lets see $205 Billion over 5 years to be spent for Americans or....

Roughly $450 Billion dollars over the last four years going to pay for the War In Iraq.

Which do you think will improve the average American's life most?

Who's the fiscal conservative again?

Shut off the ball game and look around W. There are key Republicans on the Hill saying YOU"RE on the wrong path.

Bruce,

I suppose there's some whack job out there who might have said what you said in your post.

But if you're trying to assert that's a majority viewpoint, you're a whack job too.

Gee, we have some Loons who say we've spent trillions in IRaq. Here, Tony says $450 billion in the past 4 years. So, which is it?

Anyway, on that score, Tony, while I am not wild about the money spent on Iraq, I do see Iraq as part of the overall War on Terror, and since the U.S. economy was damaged to the tune of $1 trillion on 9/11, I see the money spent on Iraq as a necessary evil.

Difference between the $205 billion and the $450 billion for the Iraq war is the Iraq war will have end some day, that $205 billion will just keep going and going and going.

"They are working to bring back the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past,''

Is that anything like spending just under a billion a month in a failed war? And having to borrow money from the Chinese to continue to pay for it?

I'll take the tax and spend past over leveraging the future of this nation to communist!

Only in the deluded world of Dubya could they inherit a budget surplus, take the US into deficit and then claim it's the Democrats fault.

How whacked is that?

What about the war you created thinking(laughable) there were "mass Destruction bombs being made.

You have put this country in a defacit more than any other of your predecessors Republican or Democrat. Yes this will be paid for by the middle class down with highre taxes just as before...

I am getting the idea that you are the Anti-Christ causing nothing but hate throughout the world... I pray to God for the next president to fix what you broke, Which by the way is a gigantious task...

Shame on you Mr President!

So we have a choice.
The Democrats 'Tax and Spend' plan, otherwise known as 'Pay as You Go', ot the Republicans 'Spend and Borrow' plan, otherwise known as 'Lets let our Grandkids and Great Grandkids pay our Bills'.

The Republicans Spend and Borrow plan pumps hundreds of Billions of Dollars (of borrowed money) into the Economy, then they sit back and act like they should get credit for the economy doing well. Of course the economy is going to do well, because it is being artifically propped up!

"The Democrats' budget plan proposes $205 billion in additional domestic spending over the next five years.

Lets see $205 Billion over 5 years to be spent for Americans or....

Roughly $450 Billion dollars over the last four years going to pay for the War In Iraq.

Which do you think will improve the average American's life most?

Who's the fiscal conservative again?

Posted by: Tony | July 7, 2007 10:39 AM

Bravo Tony. Bruce the RNC stooge, do you ever get the idea your getting paid by the wrong team. Conservatives take back your party from the Bush neo-con right wing fringe. Better yet just vote for change. Vote Democrat!!!

[quote]
"No nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity," Bush said
[/quote]

Oh yeah? Bush is sure trying to fulfill the 'SPEND' part, seeing as how he's boosted the national Debt from $6 trillion to $9 trillion during his presidency.

Let's see...The largest expansion of the government since the Johnson administration...Budget surplus versus a deficit...Please

This putz of a President still want's us to believe that his time in office has provided us with prosperity?

W. is borrowing from China to fund his civil war in Iraq and he's doing it on a "supplemental" spending bill. This would be akin to the average citizen blowing off their monthly house payment every month and claiming that they are "wealthy" because they have all the "extra" spending money.

The W. administration and the Republic Party nearly doubled our national debt. in only 6 years.

Please stop lying to us, Mr. President.

What happened to the idea of also posting the Democrats' response to Bush's weekly address? I had suggested that a few months ago and you seemed to think it was a good idea. Why should Bush get the headline (which is bogus, by the way - last year the GOP-controlled Congress was even further behind in getting spending bills passed) and all the attention when he makes these ridiculous accusations? I think there should be more fact-checking and truth-telling by the press when he makes this stuff up

As one commentator said, "The press would tout the past couple years as the greatest economic period in American history--if the president was a Democrat."

Posted by: Bruce | July 7, 2007 10:24 AM

The economy of the past couple of years not only failed to "trickle down" through all segments of society, but much of it was fueled by an "irrational" housing market that was doomed to tumble like the house of cards it was. Then you add in huge budget deficits (even worse than they appear because of the funds raided from Social Security), and it's hard to find something for the average American to cheer about. Just curious, who is the "one commentator" who made this idiotic statement?

Coming from the least responsible and least transparent president (and Republican Congress)in recent memory, how does he say this stuff with a straight face? Or, maybe he doesn't, that's why it's a radio address. Where was Dubya's veto pen when a Republican Congress was spending through the stratosphere and cutting taxes while waging a trillion dollar war? Unbelievable, the chutzpah of this guy.

I can't believe Bush as the nerve to call himself a fiscal conservative.

Anybody stupid enough to buy that?

President Bush has racked up over THREE TRILLION DOLLARS of debt in his administration, which is vastly more than any administration in our nation's history.

As one commentator said, "The press would tout the past couple years as the greatest economic period in American history--if the president was a Democrat."

Posted by: Bruce | July 7, 2007 10:24 AM

That must be one dumb commentator!

Gee, we have some Loons who say we've spent trillions in IRaq. Here, Tony says $450 billion in the past 4 years. So, which is it?

Gee, Johnny Ding Dong, One of the world's leading economist, Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize for economics, estimates the true cost of the Iraq at $2.267 trillion. Paul Wolfowitz claimed that the war would pay for itself. Who's the loon?

(From article by Charles Young):
"But according to one of the world's leading economists, that is just a fraction of what Iraq will actually wind up costing American taxpayers. Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize for economics, estimates the true cost of the war at$2.267 trillion. That includes the government's past and future spending for the war itself ($725 billion), health care and disability benefits for veterans ($127 billion), and hidden increases in defense spending ($160 billion). It also includes losses the economy will suffer from injured vets ($355 billion) and higher oil prices ($450 billion)."

For the complete article go to this link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12855294/national_affairs_the_2_trillion_dollar_war/1

Or...keep listening to the neo-nut liars since they've gotten everything right so far, right Dyslin?

Difference between the $205 billion and the $450 billion for the Iraq war is the Iraq war will have end some day, that $205 billion will just keep going and going and going.

Posted by: Terry | July 7, 2007 12:00 PM

Haven't you heard, Terry? It's the war "on terror" (a tactic), which can never end because terrorist tactics will never end, whether it be Bin Laden (remember him?) or the Timothy McVeighs of the world. But at least there's comfort in knowing that those trillions are keeping the Military Industrial Complex a vital American tradition. Party on, cons! (Ike rolls in his grave).

And the right road would be what exactly? 5000 Americans dead, and 25000 permanently maimed and injured in Iraq? Those surviving requiring billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to support them as they get older, due to an illegal occupation that cost billions of taxpayer dollars? Building roads in our national forests and then leasing them for pennies on the dollar to timber companies so they can cut down old growth forests, plant pines and pay the executives millions of dollars in unearned bonuses? Drilling in the ANWR to put money in the pockets of oil company executives while killing off untold numbers of indigenous species. Oh wait, let's try a conservative approach. Not securing our borders, so people can come here illegally, earn cash, and not pay taxes on it? Which road are we talking about exactly chimpster? 'Cause the road we've been on the last 7 years ain't exactly been smooth sailing (to mix my metaphors). Sorry chimpy and your apologistas. Your rhetoric rings hollower every day. The public totally sees thru your scare 'em to vote for us garbage. You no longer have the respect or the vote of the American people. And the republitards will find that out very soon.

This just in - from a town hall meeting featuring John Doolittle - all I can say is, wow, the rats are really running. I guess he's hoping for a pardon from President Clinton in 2009.

At a town hall meeting in Rocklin and then in a meeting with the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee he questioned whether the conflict was worth the loss of more American lives. He said U.S. troops should be pulled back from the front lines "as soon as possible" and the fighting turned over to Iraqi forces.

A longtime supporter of the war, Doolittle called the situation in Iraq a "quagmire" on Thursday. "We've got to get off the front lines as soon as possible," Doolittle said at Rocklin City Hall, the Bee reported. "And in my mind that means something like the end of the year. We just can't continue to tolerate these kinds of losses."

Raise your hand if you actually want to be taxed more. I have a better idea. Keep taxes the way the are and cut spending. The Fed Govt should only run at a deficit in the case of a national emergency.

"No nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity." That's a no brainer.

But it is also true that no nation has ever worked its way to prosperity through deficit spending either. Deficit spending is always worse than taxing and spending because more taxes must eventually be raised to pay down the interest and principal of the debt.

What planet did this guy come from to think he could pull the wool over our eyes with this stuff?

Coming from the least responsible and least transparent president (and Republican Congress)in recent memory, how does he say this stuff with a straight face?
Posted by: dt | July 7, 2007 4:13 PM

It's probably the booze talking.

Nice to see Bruce and John D backing their idiot, as usual.

But it is also true that no nation has ever worked its way to prosperity through deficit spending either. Deficit spending is always worse than taxing and spending because more taxes must eventually be raised to pay down the interest and principal of the debt.

I think the key here is that it will take a Democrat to raise taxes to pay down Bush's deficit spending spree, so Repubs can say; "see Dems want to raise your taxes" (we just want to give them to Haliburton).

You really have to wonder who is stupid enough to listen to Mr. 26% any longer.

As much as I hate to say it, the current situation is not entirely Bush's fault. Incompetent gov't. is a natural consequence of Republican/conservative governance. They simply are incapable of good government because they don't believe gov't. can ever govern well.

dt,

Tony's post was the war in Iraq, which will have an ending. You stand corrected.

dt:

The next person who gets into the White House is going to have to sign off on a tax increase regardless of whether they have a D or an R behind their name. If they don't, you can bet we are going to be in a great deal of trouble.

What surprises me is that our budget deficit has yet to surface as an issue for the election campaign. I suppose everyone avoids the issue because it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing to the Republicans to have to acknowledge having such a nitwit spendthrift in the White House. It also makes all the claims of being the “fiscally responsible” party ring hollow. It's embarrassing to the Democrats because they are afraid of the T&S label, and because it makes less appealing their high price tag, "progressive" programs.

Maybe Duh’bya inadvertently made it an issue by blurting out this nonsense. I know he didn’t do it on purpose for that effect.

There will be no need for a tax increase by the next president - the deficit has been getting smaller the past three years and continues to shrink. The next president has to curb spending, unlike President Bush has done. Go look at all the earmark pork that the Swamp posted about 10 days ago.

Interesting....
The right will say that 1 trillion was lost in the US due to the 9/11 attacks, but the economy has never been stronger then under George Bush.
Spending hundreds of billions for a failed war on terror in Iraq is somehow better then spending it domestically.

Are we safer when there's been more terrorist attcks throughout the world? Has radical Islam only spread throughout the Middle East? What's going to happen with Iran? Whose going to be running things in Iraq once the US is out? Shiites? Sunnis?

Yes, I see the logic behind conservatives & the right road we're on.

Isn't it Nov. 2008 yet?

John W. The deficit hasn't surfaced as an issue, but most Americans are dealing with such high inflation, they can't afford to read. We need to keep the economy as a non-partisan issue because we're all suffering somewhat.
If the social programs were funded by half of the waste and graft in the "war", we wouldn't be having this debate.

John W. The deficit hasn't surfaced as an issue, but most Americans are dealing with such high inflation, they can't afford to read. We need to keep the economy as a non-partisan issue because we're all suffering somewhat.
If the social programs were funded by half of the waste and graft in the "war", we wouldn't be having this debate.

I take the President's opinion that Democrats are going the wrong way as a good solid endorsement of the fact that we're pointed in EXACTLY the CORRECT direction for this country based on the record of his opinions so far. Bush doesn't do so bad when he has absolutely nothing to do with a situation (such as his inactivity on border security resulting in no further terrorist attacks on continental soil), but as soon as he involves himself and tries to direct the outcome, things tend to get fouled up mightily.

No, Mr. President -- thank YOU! God Bless your little heart, this day and for all the days of your life!

"The Democrats' budget plan proposes $205 billion in additional domestic spending over the next five years and includes the largest tax increase in history.

GW hello!!! Look how much your fiasco in Iraq is costing. Not to mention the you broke it you own it situation W's policy has left us in. Mr Bush is nothing more than a snakeoil salesman.

There will be no need for a tax increase by the next president - the deficit has been getting smaller the past three years and continues to shrink. The next president has to curb spending, unlike President Bush has done. Go look at all the earmark pork that the Swamp posted about 10 days ago.

Posted by: Terry | July 8, 2007 12:16 PM

Terry, have you got the other 9 Trillion covered?

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 09 Jul 2007 at 06:03:05 AM GMT is:
$8,877,138,351,200.23
The estimated population of the United States is 302,377,773
so each citizen's share of this debt is $29,357.77.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.31 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!

Bruce, baby - at your next Mensa meeting ask someone for a copy of The Economist, (it's a British capitalist magazine). OK, go in the back - say pp 109-110 of the 7July issue - READ THE BLOODY NUMBERS, idiot. Your 'commentator' must have been one of the Econ PhDs at Faux Noise. Sheesh.

dt,

With a $12 trillion economy, that debt is relatively small. We cut back on discretionary spending and don't create any new entitlements, we can grow our way out of this. If discretionary spending hadn't grew the past six years, we would be in good shape.