Like everything else that comes out of President Bush's mouth, this man has no credibility on anything. No President, in fact, no party has spent and wasted more of the taxpayers money then Bush and these Republicans.
Bush is not even paying for the two wars in Iraq or Afghanistan... just charging the money, adding to our debt.. gotta give Bush a lot of credit... for a guy with a 29% approval rating, he just sticks by his failed leadership qualities of misleading the American people, spinning everything from the war in Iraq, to putting good honorable Generals up to do political work...
Bush has failed in his presidency, and he now is grasping at straws to be relevant.. he is not relevant.. has not been for well over a year.. the clock is ticking, thank GOD he will be at the ranch soon......

Kirk Polizzi

From 2001-2004 the GOP did spend too much, though in reality to the Dems even the 7 percent spending increases were "budget cuts."
The new Dem Congress has been on a spending spree, and of course playing the class warfare card.
If anyone thinks the Dems are going to practive fiscal restraint, they are living in the Kooky Land of Perpetual Stupidity.
Sort of like here in Illinois. Spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax, bigger deficits, bigger deficits, bigger deficits.

Talk about spending...he has started up more departments than you can shake a stick at starting with Homeland Security. First you have the Secretary, the under secretary the deputy undersecretary and they all make over $100,00 a year plus travel and insurance. Ten add their underlings etc. ad nauseum. He has spent our surplus and then some on the war. There is a war on terror...I'm terrified of what he'll think of next to waste our money on.

Are you serious? This Bafoon says that the Dems are costing more in taxes because of a mere $205 billon increase in spending at home, while he seeks an additional $200 billon for a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the other cushy plans he has for his friends at the oil companies and defense contractors? Worst of all, there are those out there that will take his word as gospel. Let's stop wasting money and spend it on the important things to keep this country running. That requires all Dems and Republicans to stop thinking of the "pork barrel" first. Oh where are you Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Paine?

John D.,

Bill Clinton left Son of Bush a budget surplus.

He said this with a straight face?

When is the Democratic Party going to officially change their name to the Socialist Party?

Kirk. Didn't Hillery vote
for us to go into Iraq?
But people have no stomach for the long haul. It has to be nice and quick and easy.

Bill Clinton left Son of Bush a budget surplus.

Posted by: Doug Zook | September 29, 2007 12:05 PM

Yes, but he still left us a debt of approximately 6 trillion dollars. What good is a budget surplus when there is still that much debt to be paid down?

Bill Clinton's real achievement wasn't that he left a "surplus." It was the fact the debt stopped growing at a ridiculous rate. But that took fiscally conscious people from both sides of the aisle to achieve. Bill Clinton's administration, as everyone seems to want to forget, happened when Republicans dominated Congress.

"Bush: Democrats On 'Path Of Higher Spending"?

It was Prez 29% and his fellow Republicant Party members in Congress who nearly doubled our national dept when they held control of all they branches of gov't (2000 - 2006).

This clown doesn't know when to shut up.

Joe:When is the GOP going to change their name to the Communist Party? They are the ones who want to give all our money to the military and Homeland Security, wiretap everyone, ignore the wishes on the international community, take away from programs that help people, and silence the opposition.

Sorry Doug but the Congress controls the purse strings. The president unlike our governor can't move money around at will.

Be sure to celebrate for today is "Peace in our time" day, where a signed and stamped agreement stopped WWII.

You're kidding, right? GEORGE W. BUSH is lambasting the DEMOCRATS for a "Path of spending"?

When was the last time we balanced a budget? During Reagan? no. During Bush I? noo. Oh, that's right, it was during a DEMOCRATIC administration!

Republicans don't recognize reality when it stares them in the face!

Record is clear - from 2000 through 2006 - a republican congress and president spent more money and expanded the government (in addition to the wars) more than any other president and/or congress in history. Hopefully, our children will forgive us.

It wasn't B.J. Clinton who left the surplus,it was the Republican controlled Congress. It's hard to cut through the political-speak no matter which party is in the majority-if a budget item calls for a 15% increase and the actual increase is only 10% that gets called a decrease. Go figure.

The great lie of the Bush administration has been that they cut taxes. This couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, they deferred taxes, and the bills will be coming due all too soon. It is going to take a long time to pay off this drunken party.

The federal debt was $5.7 trillion when Bush took office. It is now $9 trillion. Thank you GW.

Bill Clinton's real achievement wasn't that he left a "surplus." It was the fact the debt stopped growing at a ridiculous rate. But that took fiscally conscious people from both sides of the aisle to achieve. Bill Clinton's administration, as everyone seems to want to forget, happened when Republicans dominated Congress.

Posted by: John W. | September 29, 2007 12:43 PM

So when did the "party of fiscal responsibilty" and "family values" aka the Rethuglicans, lose their way?

Mr. Lipstick meet Mr. Pig.

Yes, but he still left us a debt of approximately 6 trillion dollars. What good is a budget surplus when there is still that much debt to be paid down?
Posted by: John W. | September 29, 2007 12:43 PM

A debt that candidate Al Gore promised to pay down, remember. It is highly unlikely that President Gore would have laid waste to the budget surpluses the way Bush did, and since there's almost no chance he would have gone into Iraq, there's another $600 billion we could use for renewable energy or paying down the debt.

You're a pleasure to have around here, John, so please keep reminding the neoconservatives here that DEBT ISN'T FREE.

"The great lie of the Bush administration has been that they cut taxes. This couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, they deferred taxes, and the bills will be coming due all too soon. It is going to take a long time to pay off this drunken party."
Posted by: Ken Stox | September 29, 2007 1:22 PM

Very very well said. As much as Bush would like, we cannot create our own economic reality. Taxes will have to be raised once the Daddy party takes over the White House and strengthens its lead in Congress. They should do it just as they did in 1993: raise taxes on the top 1%, and cut them for just about everyone else. It worked once, it can work again.

Holding down spending is going to be particularly challenging in light of the soon-to-be trillion dollar fiasco currently in Iraq, and looking to be expanded to Iran, but progressive taxation will soften the blow of the necessary increase in revenue. As long as the domestic spending is focused primarily on education and health care, it will benefit the widest possible constituency.

He cut tax rates which spurred expansion creating more revenue.
Government revenue isn't the problem. It's what they spend it on. Wasted money has been spread throughout every department by everyone. They spend as if the money isn't theirs. It's not but it still buys votes from alot of people who actually think the government is a strange Santa Claus type entity.

Lochness, wasn't that Dept. of Homeland Security something the Dems in Congress wanted? Also wasn't that department one of the suggestions from the 9/11 Commission? It also seems to me that at first Bush was against the Dept., but then the Dems and media were hammering him on it, so he went along with its creation. In my view, the jury is still out on whether creating that Dept. was good or not.

And, Doug, by the time Cliton left office in Jan. 2001, the surplus was vanishing because the tech sector went belly up and a recession was beginning. And it was the new GOP Congress in 1994-95 that pushed for the balanced budget and surplus notion. Clinton fought it, then wanted it done in 12 years and not the 7 the GOP wanted. But the tech boom and growing economy and GOP Congress putting a lid on spending all combined to provide us with the surpluses that occurred in late 1990s.

It's said that blood is thicker than water. According to Bush, oil has them both beat.

Bush is a typical lying Republican freak:

By the numbers:

Bush has 478 days left. 3,800 U.S. and 4,100 total coalition confirmed deaths in Iraq. Over $455,490,000,000 has been spent on the Iraq invasion and occupation. The U.S. federal debt is now over $8,998,969,000,000 and the U.S. household debt is now over $13,009,900,000,000.

Didn't the GOP used to call themselves the party of "fiscal responsibility"?

That "family values" garbage that the Repugs like to spout off about is kind of taking a hit too, thankyou (R) Larry Craig, (R) David Vitter, (R) Mark Foley, and "Rev" Haggard.

[quote]
From 2001-2004 the GOP did spend too much, though in reality to the Dems even the 7 percent spending increases were "budget cuts."
[/quote]

Oh great journalist John "the joseph stalin of Streamwood" D, please tell us what universe you live in where a SPENDING INCREASE is a "budget cut".

Go back to refusing to back up your allegation that John Edwards spends just as much on his suits as Bush does - you actually had more credibility then (which was ZERO).

Bush should have used his veto pen on his own party the first six years - main reason he is having the headaches of dealing with the democrats now.

However, if you believe that the dems will be come the party of fiscal responisbility if left unchecked, I have some Kansas oceanfront property to sell you. The dem canidates are already showing it with the expansion of healthcare, or the $5000 per child born proposal of Hillary's. Where is the money going to come from? They will take whatever savings they have from Iraq and create socila programs with it. The next terror issue will arise in five-to-ten years and the next president, probably a republican will be left cleaning that ignored mess up just like President Bush had to do.

Iraq is a financial sinkhole, but the Republicans -- garbed in patriotism -- want Americans to keep funding privately run corporate-welfare hogs such as Halliburton and Blackwater. It's past time to pull our resources out of this terrible investment and spend the funds on our own people's health and education, and renewing a decayed domestic infrastructure. This important shift will result in homeland security, not to mention a return to moral values. Go ahead, patriotic Republicans: Call me a coward, but I'm for "cut and run" when we throw good money after bad. It's time to end the wholly extravagant and unholy crusade started by Bush & Cheney.

[quote by Barry]It wasn't B.J. Clinton who left the surplus,it was the Republican controlled Congress. It's hard to cut through the political-speak no matter which party is in the majority-if a budget item calls for a 15% increase and the actual increase is only 10% that gets called a decrease. Go figure.[/quote]

Barry,

Wouldn't that be a sign of a great President to be able to lead a contrasting party controlled Congress to help the country's financial situation. Great Wit Bush spent, spent, spent with a Republican Congress for the majority of his tenure...and he's still trying to spend...

Please...if you're going to try to debate, at least step in the shoes of the other side. Keep in mind, the Dems haven't done a great job either in recent history.

If it were up to me, the government would be made up by the [i]real[/i] American people...and not the career politicians that worry about WIIFM (what's in it for me)...I am of the opinion that they are very un-American (on both sides of the parties)....but that's me.

A very little fraction of me sort of wishes that whatever wars we stepped into occurred at our front door. That would get the American people really to stand up and take heed with who we put into positions of power.

...apologies, I'm going into a tangent.

This has to be a joke, Bush lambasting the Democrats for spending. It was in no small degree the profilgate spending of the 109th Congress aided & abetted by Bush that cost the Republicans control of Congress.

It simply amazes me that those who support this failed president and his corrupt administration still cling tenaciously to the fairy tail that the Republicans used to get elected. When are facts going to prevail over fantasy? Let's face it, neither party is worth a hoot. They are both so beholden to special interest PAC money that they can't get beyond conflict of interest and personal well-being to do something useful for the country. The real tragedy is the myth of democracy being perpetrated on the American people. We need to wake up and smell the coffee. There will be no improvement until Washington is purged of its establishment cronies on both sides of the aisle. If you deny this, you are part of perpetuating the folly that is government in our age.

John E:

They lost their way when: 1) a substantial number of the real conservatives either retired from Congress or failed to run again; and 2) they got suckered by certain neo-cons who "sounded" conservative, but who had no intention of practicing anything resembling fiscal or institutional conservatism, or even carrying on the normal "realpolitik" foreign policies of their Republican predecessors in office.

Duh'bya, in my opinion, practiced a fraud on a lot of well meaning conservatives (myself included) who had no idea that he had such radical departures in mind. I think a lot of people let their guard down because they couldn’t imagine that Duh'bya, with his conservative ties, would do what he did. The problem we - the non neo-cons - now face is that there are still a lot of Republicans in denial about just how un-conservative and un-Republican Duh'bya really is.

I have to tell you, honestly, that some of the stuff the Democrats have done since BIll Clinton left haven't helped with our choices. You are probably aware of this, but the Democrats have taken much more radical social and political stances even since his departure. Bill Clinton was an easy cross-over for conservatives like me to accept and support because, on the surface, he acted like one of those conservative "Southern Democrats." The old saying used to be "Scratch a Southern Democrat and you'll find a Republican." And that was true from time almost immemorial because southern conservatives avoided the Republican Party more for historical reasons (i.e. they were still sore about the Civil War) than ideological ones. That appears to be no longer the case. Moreover, Democrats in general have assumed fiscal and social stances I believe rank and file Democrats would have found unacceptable 20 years ago.

The point I’m trying to make is that politics had become highly polarized. There was no longer a lot of middle ground shared by the two major parties. Thus, following Bill Clinton’s administration, this chasm of political polarization forced conservatives to an unhappy choice between what was clearly the inauguration of an unacceptable political system (i.e. the Democrats) and someone who looked and sounded like what they were used to and could trust. That he would not follow the beaten path and had, apparently, decided not to do so before he was elected makes his fraud on conservatives in the Republican Party that much worse.

Folks, GW Shrub is the perfect Republic preznit. He has governed according to Republic principles and conservatives need to be held to those principles.

The fact is that Republics have no clue about how to govern. If you like corruption, incompetence, violation of the rule of law, by all means, vote Republic. The Dems are only marginally better, but let's give them a chance to turn this around.

The point I’m trying to make is that politics had become highly polarized. There was no longer a lot of middle ground shared by the two major parties. Thus, following Bill Clinton’s administration, this chasm of political polarization forced conservatives to an unhappy choice between what was clearly the inauguration of an unacceptable political system (i.e. the Democrats) and someone who looked and sounded like what they were used to and could trust. That he would not follow the beaten path and had, apparently, decided not to do so before he was elected makes his fraud on conservatives in the Republican Party that much worse.

Posted by: John W. | September 29, 2007 7:44 PM

John W,
The only "good" thing to come from the W. administration that I can think of is so many people (myself included) who used to only be casually interested in our political system have become very involved.
I've not always held such a low opinion of Repubs.... until 04 and the Swiftboat debacle, that was the end all for me, I'm not saying that Kerry would have been a good President, in fact he probably would have lost even without the Swiftboat ads, but what Bush/Cheney/Rove did was pathetically wrong.

I think alot of Dems feel they have to pull hard in the left direction because this White House has done everything possible to pull us all to the right.

I hope we can all pull together again one day but until Iraq is figured out one way or another I don't see it happening.

Peace...

John W,

Your transliteration of Duh'bya (not Dubya) is on the mark.

Anyway, to add an interesting aside to your last comment: More than a few Marxists liked the Neocon take on foriegn policy -- the most notable one being Christopher Hitchens. Ain't nothin' more ironical than irony, rght?

If the middle class relied on "trickle down" we'd die of dehydration, while the rich drown.

BC, you are dense aren't you? In Washington, it is very typical to call an increase a budget cut. You see, often there is a plan to increase spending on a program by let's say 10 percent for argument's sake. Then there is a new plan to only increase that program by 5 percent. The ones who want the 10 percent increase call it a budget cut.

And i see you are still on the suits. Your wife really must be one lonely lady.

OK. Allright.
He is a bit spendy and indeed lost 3 or 4 trillion dollars. (4,000,000,000,000)

But what a great job he did with the undecipherable Medicare drug plan, the almost acceptable Social Security reform and the Irak War that was done right after the Shock and Awe treatment.
Actually he is simply following Reagan the great communicator who was the first one to spend multiple trillions of us minions....So it seems now to be a robust Republican tradition!
Oh did I forget to mention that Clinton had sex with Monica? That misteak did not cost me any money nor sleep.

The best thing Bill did for us was install a welfare reform that is esquisite. We help dependent single moms and kids and help them toward an independent life. His program broke the welfare cycle which used to trap welfare mothers in the vice of poverty without hope. I wish Hillary would have learned from her husband but being first lady doesn't mean you will be a good administrator. She is sly she adopted Edwards plan. She knows people have been crying socialist and now she is saying the government won't pay for it. They will insist everyone buy insurance. Some people can't afford to buy it. Others pay cash instead of giving a fortune to insurance companies. The insurance companies are the richest in the US and have good lobbyist.

The timing here is too funny. They are behind the eight ball because some of our most brilliant minds and inventors have recently decided to release to the world their inventions. Many of these devices have been around for many years but have been suppressed from the world. The cat is out of the bag and don’t buy into the disinformation that this technology doesn’t work or it is too costly to actually produce. Everyone can buy devices today that will run any engine on water for the cost of a tune up. This is using tap water alone…through electrolysis creating hydrogen on demand. Keep in mind there would be no need to go to the filling station…Perhaps your fuel tank may rust out in a few years and have to be changed because you had been filling it up with your garden hose. Sounds too good to be true….well it is not. But, the oil companies, god bless their souls, may not like the fact that oil would drop about 87% and we may take away the power of those whom wish to control us. Imagine our world if we decided to do the right thing and give this to the world. Water desalination(making fresh water from salt water) is very inexpensive now and with low cost energy…hmmm we as a world could feed our poor and let them have energy. Oh I forgot that may put a damper on GW’s grandfathers’ plan from 60 years ago for a New World Order which has been impended into our country via the Council on Foreign Relation, the North American Union and the SPP ( the neo-cons).(Search Google video or youtube.com for the aforementioned organizations, Surprise…Most all of the presidential front runners on both sides, Dem/Rep, are proud members supporting these agendas. Let us look at who are members: Barak Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Condilza Rice, Our Vice Prez chaired this CFR for several years proudly, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain….go to CFR.org and do a search for Sovereignty and Globalization. What are their agendas: Say good bye to our mighty greenback and welcome a currency sounds euro but starts with the letters Am and ends with ero . (Five letters in total.) They want to dissolve our borders via the NAU (North American Union) and push for a new world order. This is nuts. Do your research now and when you find out the truth of what’s going on, you will want to shout it from the tops of buildings. See how hard it is to get people to understand that this is our last chance to save the USA. I may not agree with Dr. Ron Paul on all issues but he sure wants no part of this stuff for our nation, for good reason. Please educate yourself on these topics and help get the word out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI

Weiner,

I remember the chance the dems had in 93/94. They jacked up taxes across the board and tried to socialize 1/7 of American economy. Then go back to the days of Jimmy Carter. Thanks, but no thanks.

Bill Clinton's administration, as everyone seems to want to forget, happened when Republicans dominated Congress.
Posted by: John W.
-
Two things you want to forget:

1) Clintons Economic Package, which led to a surplus and a booming economy, happened with a Democratic Congress.

2) We had a repub congress that turned a surplus into a record deficit.

Just the facts, Maam

Distrust & Verify (I think I will):

“A debt that candidate Al Gore promised to pay down, remember. It is highly unlikely that President Gore would have laid waste to the budget surpluses the way Bush did, and since there's almost no chance he would have gone into Iraq, there's another $600 billion we could use for renewable energy or paying down the debt.”

>>>“promised”, “highly unlikely”, and “almost no chance”, oh my! Yes, dubya is a hypocrite when it comes to spending, but please don’t make Gore out to be a bastion of fiscal restraint. You could make the case that opposing parties in power may have helped spending, but you’ll never convince me that we wouldn’t have had 9/11, Homeland Security, Katrina, Afghanistan (remember the 600 billion is for both wars), and a host of additional programs had Gore been in office. Iraq, maybe not, but please remember who voted for this war, and remember that Clinton/Gore were bombing Iraq and signing the Iraqi Liberation Act BEFORE any kind of significant war on terror. (see http://www.whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/, and go down to the Al Gore section)

“raise taxes on the top 1%, and cut them for just about everyone else.” but then “progressive taxation will soften the blow of the necessary increase in revenue”.

>>> So, your entire tax policy revolves around the top 1%? The same top 1% who are creating companies? The same 1% like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Oprah who are making more efficient use of their cash than the government through philanthropy?

“As long as the domestic spending is focused primarily on education and health care, it will benefit the widest possible constituency.”

>>>We’re spending more than ever on education and health care. How much more would you prefer?

Bruce Y,

Not "just the facts".

1) Go back and check when the economy in the early 90's started to turn around.

2) Please explain specifically how the "Clinton Economic Package" led to a booming economy.

Bruce Y:

Bill Clinton quote in January, 2005, just when the republican Congress has taken over is stating that there will be "$200 billion deficits for as far as the eye can see". He sure doesn't sound like he had much faith in his deficit reduction package he passed in 1993 - does he?

DV,

As far as all the tax breaks for the top 1% - look who pays all the federal income tax in this country:

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

[quote]
And i see you are still on the suits.

Posted by: John D | September 30, 2007 1:11 AM
[/quote]

And I'm going to remain "on them" until you either post PROOF that John Edwards pays as much for his suits as Bush does as you allege, or you admit in print that you posted your OPINION and tried to pass it off as a "fact". And got caught.

Why are you such a coward, afraid to back up your words with evidence?

Oh, I forgot. You're a Republican, that's why.

Link for you Bruce Y

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v48/ai_18614099

Terry and Ted, shame on you for presenting facts to counter the maniacal thinking of those on the Left. Providing them facts is mean, cruel and unusual punishment! My, Dick Durbin would say you guys are like the Nazis or Pol Pot!

*****

Posted by: Anonymous is Still Here | September 29, 2007 10:47 PM

You becha. For anyone who sounds like they took lessons in public speaking from Dan Quayle, there must be a distinctive "Duh" in "Duh'bya."

As for the appreciation by Marxists, there is nothing surprising here. While the neo-con ideal of a "global democratic revolution" supposedly has its roots in Woodrow Wilson's policy of supporting democratic change throughout the world, the neo-con version has features that would have made Wilson cringe.

In particular, Wilson's vision was always one of peaceful support for democracy. In contrast, the neo-cons apparently believe that it is appropriate to "make" democratic changes abroad, by force if need be, after peaceful measures aimed at change have failed. This is one of the reasons we invaded Iraq. Grow democracy in Iraq, they believed, and democracy would take hold in the region.

It is this willingness to resort to force that makes the neo-cons policy look less like Wilson’s vision of spreading democracy, and more like the Trotskyite’s “permanent revolution” in pursuit of the international spread of Marxist socialism. So, yes, there are features in there for a Marxist to like.

* * * * *

Posted by: John E | September 29, 2007 10:36 PM

I agree with most of what you said, and the miniscule disageement I have with minor details isn't worth mentioning.

Peace.

DV,

As far as all the tax breaks for the top 1% - look who pays all the federal income tax in this country:

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Posted by: Terry | September 30, 2007 2:38 PM

Here's a link to the net worth and financial statistics on the top percentiles: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html . Between 1983 and 2001, the Top 1% controlled from 33.4% to 38.5% of net worth, and 39.7% to 47.3% of financial wealth. They pay, according to your link, 36.89%.

Where's the injustice, exactly?

DV (tony),

We don't have a "wealth tax" in this country until you die and then everything you have accumulated after you have paid tax on it once, is taxed again.

Our is an INCOME tax. I hope you know the difference between between income and wealth.

This picture shows why BC thinks John Edwards gets his suits at Irv's and why he has no clue about suits (BC is the one standing on the left):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44868568@N00/378477290/

Bill Clinton quote in January, 2005, just when the republican Congress has taken over is stating that there will be "$200 billion deficits for as far as the eye can see". He sure doesn't sound like he had much faith in his deficit reduction package he passed in 1993 - does he?
-
His lack of confidence was in the republican congress, and it was justified. Good thing he stared them down twice to get his budget passed.

The point is, don't waste your time talking about the economic achievement of the republican congress, there isn't any.

Link for you Bruce Y
-
Right wing rambling, you mean. Unacceptable in any court in the land as evidence of anything other than bias.
Anyways it does remind us that Clinton's economic package passed both houses of Congress without a single Republican vote. They all said it would ruin the economy. They were proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Clinton rescued us from the voodoo economics of Reagan-Bush, and Hillary will rescue us from the voodoo economics of Bush-Cheney.
And all she has to do is show up.

The clown prince of fiscal irresponsibility casting stones. Now that is laughable!

Posted by: John D | October 1, 2007 12:14 AM

I've never heard of Irv's - where are they located? Do they sell suits that are better quality than the ones you buy from K-Mart's Blue Light Specials or Salvation Army thrift stores?

BruceY

The link was to show the quote from Bill Clinton about $200 Billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. It wasn't Bill largest tax increase that balanced the budget, it was American economy, not gov't.