Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

The Local _ International affairs _ Maxed Out

Posted by: FR 7.Mar.2006, 11:36 PM

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1141643710888&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

Washington close to U.S. debt limit
Mar. 6, 2006. 01:59 PM
ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON ? Treasury Secretary John Snow notified Congress today that the administration has taken "all prudent and legal actions," including tapping certain government retirement funds, to keep from hitting the $8.2 trillion US national debt limit.

Posted by: Taking A Break 7.Mar.2006, 11:44 PM

And all this time I was given to understand that GW Bush is a conservative who believes in smaller government...

:roll:

Posted by: Toronto 1 8.Mar.2006, 12:27 AM

No more cookie's in the cookie jar.
The Bush admin has to get there debt under control, because if currency traders and speculators turn on the greenback, there be hell to pay.
8.2 trillion dollars is one hell of alot of money.
War and Homeland security costs alot on money to maintain and carry out.
The states themselves are also in debt and in trouble because of Homeland security costs for this Middle East adventure.
Even thought they are neo-CONS they are spending money like drunken sailors.
The usually programs will be cut. And I can here it now, READ MY LIPS,
NO NEW TAXES.
laugh.gif

Posted by: Kodos 8.Mar.2006, 12:30 AM

Aaahhh...the Conservatives prevail, yet again.

Posted by: Taking A Break 8.Mar.2006, 01:26 AM

QUOTE
Snow in his letter notified legislators that Treasury would begin tapping the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, which Treasury officials said would provide a "few billion" dollars in extra borrowing ability.


Yeah, take money from the old and sick, but don't cut corporate welfare or anything...

Posted by: FR 8.Mar.2006, 04:13 PM

I think it's time for Halliburton to start giving back to the hand that's fed it so well. :shock:

Posted by: Kodos 8.Mar.2006, 04:17 PM

laugh.gif

Like that will ever happen.

Slightly off topic...but it never ceases to amaze me that lesser off folks actually vote for these people. Like they'll ever live the life of the fat cats who actually benefit from the misdeeds in Washington.

I believe it was Ariana Huffington who said it best, "Pigs at the Trough." Gosh...I just quoted Ariana Huffington. ohmy.gif

Posted by: FR 8.Mar.2006, 04:22 PM

People seem to vote for the candidate that promises them what they want. I remember my ex-father-in-law was very upset with a politician who he had helped during the campaign. He did a lot of work for this politician and he won. He then turned around and backed off his campaign promises, including the thing the ex-fil really wanted. Ex-fil called him up screaming, but the politician didn't care. He had already won.

In politics, one needs only one true talent... the ability to lie convincingly. The top politicians are the ones who have excelled in this particular sleight of hand.

Posted by: FR 8.Mar.2006, 04:24 PM

To add... GWB has a lot of people convinced that he instituted tax cuts. Real tax cuts come from cutting spending. GWB increased spending and therefore has increased the burden to taxpayers, not lowered it.

Posted by: Kodos 8.Mar.2006, 04:38 PM

FR...

Do you know what I'm hearing. It sounds like chugging. Chugging coming from the Third Rail.

Years ago, when yours truly was a Repug, my dear old, dad sat me down for a heart to heart. He explained why, citing specific examples, the Republican party had absolutely no interest in the little man. He also clearly explained why the little man will never benefit from their machinations. I chewed on that for a few weeks and resubmitted my voter registration card asking for a change in party.

Moving beyond economics...just to twist the knife in deeper...my sister and her husband (who work very hard and have earned every penny) make quite a nice living and would benefit under tax laws the Repugs favor so much. Neither of them will have anything to do with that party. It's easier to sleep at night when you have pricinples.

/Kang

Posted by: FR 8.Mar.2006, 04:43 PM

I had an argument with a friend many years ago about voting. He wanted to vote for the promises. His wife said principles. He asked me and afterwards conceded that principles was the right way to go. I can't remember what I said, but it was something to the effect that if you liked a politicians principles, he would be likely to make decisions you would like and a campaign promise can be broken (or it can turn out to be the wrong thing to do once all the info has been collected).

Posted by: Kodos 8.Mar.2006, 04:51 PM

Voting based on promises? Cute...but naive.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of one politician who actually has principles or scruples, for that matter. I do not believe that one can achieve a higher office and maintain principles. Too many back room dealings.

In this day and age...the percentage of people who succeed based on their hard work is getting smaller and smaller. Everyone has a price.

Posted by: Roy E 8.Mar.2006, 04:58 PM

QUOTE (Married_A_Swede)
And all this time I was given to understand that GW Bush is a conservative who believes in smaller government...

:roll:


You've been very wrong to think that. Conservatives have been railing against Bush for years on the federeal spending front and others. He has not once vetoed a spending bill. Yet he still gets no credit for the huge spending increases in education, health care...

I always did mistrust 'Compassionate Conservative' label. He never was in the Reagan mold, but to his credit, he never claimed to be.

But the opposition US Democrat party would be mistaken to think Bush's low favorabilty ratings is automatically good for them. A sizable portion of the disaffected are conservatives who think Bush has gone wobbly. These folks find the Democrat approach (or should I say 'the lack of one') as even more reprehensible.

The Democrat calls for 'fiscal responsibilty' are merely political opportunism. Most people see it for what it is - democrat code for 'raise taxes'. Nobody is fooled - except maybe the Democrats themselves.

Posted by: FR 8.Mar.2006, 05:01 PM

www.lp.org

Posted by: Kodos 8.Mar.2006, 05:19 PM

QUOTE (RoyE)
You've been very wrong to think that. Conservatives have been railing against Bush for years on the federeal spending front and others. He has not once vetoed a spending bill. Yet he still gets no credit for the huge spending increases in education, health care...

I always did mistrust 'Compassionate Conservative' label. He never was in the Reagan mold, but to his credit, he never claimed to be.

But the opposition US Democrat party would be mistaken to think Bush's low favorabilty ratings is automatically good for them. A sizable portion of the disaffected are conservatives who think Bush has gone wobbly. These folks find the Democrat approach (or should I say 'the lack of one') as even more reprehensible.

The Democrat calls for 'fiscal responsibilty' are merely political opportunism. Most people see it for what it is - democrat code for 'raise taxes'. Nobody is fooled - except maybe the Democrats themselves.


As a Democrat, Roy...

I do not see Bush's failings as an opportunity for the Dems to move in on the kill (from a completely tactical perspective). The Dems are far to disjointed and fractured to do anything right now. The party platform is piss-poor, to say the least. I do not believe that Howard Dean is going to be the one to lead the charge, either. Fundraising whiz-kid that he is...he doesn't have the required leadership skills.

Don't be fooled into believing, for one second, that members of the party do not see this. The more moderate folks, like myself, cannot even begin to come up with a way to get this party back on track.

Ask any pundit, see what Chris Matthews has to say (who...by the way...should have a very interesting show on Friday regarding the potential candidates to replace Bush). The Democrats only success lies in the fact that the Bush Administration is being caught in too many of their misdeeds.

I think it is also paramount for me to state that I understand that the Bush Administration is not a solid representation of the Republican party, as well. I am watching the mid-term candidates step back from Bush, just like the Dems did with Clinton in 2000 (Al Gore).

How do the Republicans feel about Bush's reclassification of declassified documents? Are they worried about any implications from Abramoff? I understand he will sing if he cannot get a delay from the judge.

/Marnie

Posted by: Roy E 8.Mar.2006, 05:46 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
How do the Republicans feel about Bush's reclassification of declassified documents?


It's not even on the radar screen as far as I can tell. There seems to be general sentiment out there that the media has been acting irresponsibly with sensitive information. Perhaps that's why it's not resonating at all outside of the conspiracy circles.

QUOTE
Are they worried about any implications from Abramoff?


Not from a partisan standpoint. Both parties are implicated. It just reduces trust in government across the board.

Cunningham's bribery conviction is of greater concern. But Republicans can easily counter with Democrat Congressmen Dan Rostenkowski and James Trafficant being sent to prison. So it's a wash.

again, it just reinforces people's distrust in government across the board.

PS - I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative. There's a difference.

Posted by: Roger O. Thornhill 8.Mar.2006, 05:50 PM

QUOTE (Married_A_Swede)
And all this time I was given to understand that GW Bush is a conservative who believes in smaller government...

:roll:



Bush is only a Conservative to the left because he is a religious man.

In all other aspects he is not a Conversative, perhaps a Republican and maybe even a RINO.

Posted by: Kodos 8.Mar.2006, 06:00 PM

Roy...

Trifficant is a monument to all things slimy.

I'm a registered Democrat (because I like to vote in the Primaries). I'm actually a Moderate/Centrist. Just waiting it out for a viable third party option that can address social issues without draining the coffers. Dock, believe it or not, is more of a Libertarian.

Regardless of what the media says, I am uncomfortable with the reclassification of documents. I think it was Bush's handling of that that rattles me the most. Not sure if it was meant to serve as a "middle-finger" to the Clinton Administration or what... Maybe he was just trying to say there's a new sheriff in town. Who knows. It just makes me worried.

You should really try to catch Hardball on Friday. I think I'm going to pass up happy hour to make sure I'm hope for it. I like Chris Matthews. It's provacative tv. He's probably one of the only pundits that doesn't have a particular slant. His brother may be a Republican...but he's a Montgomery County Republican. Back home, most of the folks in Montgomery County are registered Republican...regardless of their habits.

Posted by: Taking A Break 8.Mar.2006, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (RoyE)
You've been very wrong to think that.


Dude, it was sarcasm. :wink:

Believe me, I don't think that neo-cons are in any way true representations of the conservative ideology. I just find it sad that they've managed to convince enough people that they are...and that some people still don't see that they're not, even now...

Posted by: Roy E 8.Mar.2006, 10:45 PM

QUOTE (Married_A_Swede)
Dude, it was sarcasm. :wink:


k. you got me. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Taking A Break 8.Mar.2006, 11:35 PM

QUOTE (RoyE)
k. you got me. biggrin.gif


biggrin.gif

While I don't agree with a lot of the conservative agenda, I respect it. The same cannot be said of the dishonest policies of the neo-cons.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)