Originally posted by Alliance
Its rather huge. Democrats now have the House. If they can take the senate, which at this point seems likely, we will have control of Congress.Nothing this big has happened since the 94 Republican revolution.
Yes, good things come to those who wait. I must admit to being quite eager to see the first things that that get investigated by the new Democrat controlled committees. It is being said here that the New speaker has plans for up to 100 things she plans to see done by the end of the first week of office as speaker.
The @sshole you are thinking of is Rick Santorum. Santorum's last name, incidentally, was turned into a term to describe the frothy mix of semen and feces that can be made created during sodomy by the gay columnist Dan Savage. Santorum was a bit to much of a basket case, and flagrantly anti-homosexual.
Thank goodness he is gone then. Sounds like a foul type best kept away from any form of power.
And as funny as it sounds I am kind of happy Arnold retained his governorship. Clearly being more moderate has certainly helped him.
Originally posted by Mr KriegerThe Senate is still inconclusive.
I have now lost the remaining respect I had for Bush and his administration, he isn't going to fight for anything, and is now becoming a puppet of the Senate, Republicans didn't fight for anything, they let this happen, and now our tax cuts go bye bye, Gas/store prices increase, and Al Quada can rebuild.This is a sad day in America's history, which will be finalized when they impeach Bush. I'm looking forward to 4 years in hell
The only good thing coming out of this is Liberals can show America what they really can do fear
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I've called the Senate for the Democrats. Officially however it is still not declared.You don't believe in the least that those tax cuts in conjunction with the Iraq war have contributed to your record budget deficit? Do elaborate.
The war is the burden the tax cuts are nothing as compared to that.
They don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance or thought in conjunction with the war costs.
Originally posted by Soleran
The war is the burden the tax cuts are nothing as compared to that.They don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance or thought in conjunction with the war costs.
But to not mention the tax cuts as a factor of the deficit is just idiotic. Is the war and the tax cuts an equal factor? No, but the tax cuts are a factor.
Originally posted by SoleranThey're both poor decisions by this Administration, approved by it's rubberstamp congress, that have contributed to a record budget deficit.
The war is the burden the tax cuts are nothing as compared to that.They don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance or thought in conjunction with the war costs.
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
How exactly is he too much? He's right.
Greenspan still supports tax cuts, however he acknowledges those tax cuts, at that time, and the manner in which they were inacted contributed to the budget deficit.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
They're both poor decisions by this Administration, approved by it's rubberstamp congress, that have contributed to a record budget deficit.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/22/BUGO2CD4SC1.DTL&type=business
Clearly he knows something Alan Greenspan doesn't.Greenspan still supports tax cuts, however he acknowledges those tax cuts, at that time, and the manner in which they were inacted contributed to the budget deficit.
Originally posted by Soleran
The war is the burden the tax cuts are nothing as compared to that.They don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance or thought in conjunction with the war costs.
But to not mention the tax cuts as a factor of the deficit is just idiotic. Is the war and the tax cuts an equal factor? No, but the tax cuts are a factor.
Of course lets also not to forget to mention the interest rates are a contributing factor and blah blah blah the war is the chunk that broke the bank there are 50 thousand other "contributing" factors.
Originally posted by SoleranWell let's see the tax cuts are expected to result in somewhere between 2 to 3 trillion dollars over the next decade, and have already resulted in about $250 billion in lost rev in fiscal 2006 about 1 trillion dollars overall.
Conversely the Iraq war has thus far cost $340 billion over it's tenure.
In graphical form from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well let's see the tax cuts are expected to result in somewhere between 2 to 3 trillion dollars over the next decade, and have already resulted in about $250 billion in lost rev in fiscal 2006 about 1 trillion dollars overall.Conversely the Iraq war has thus far cost $340 billion over it's tenure.
In graphical form from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
So in that beautiful example whats the growth rate of the govt and the population in the predicted model you're showing me? When you say cost of the war what are the proposed costs in said model up to this point and expected in the future? When using the term tax cuts are these cuts specific to Bush and Republicans or is it in conjunction with Democrats and their system of tax cuts?
You're description is so vague and open to interpretation just like so much crap found floating on the internet it leaves little room for credibility.
People are fantastic at coming up with models and yet they don't ever seem to function as well in real life as they do in the sketching room.
Originally posted by SoleranGovernment spending was below the past 20 year average.
So in that beautiful example whats the growth rate of the govt and the population in the predicted model you're showing me? When you say cost of the war what are the proposed costs in said model up to this point and expected in the future? When using the term tax cuts are these cuts specific to Bush and Republicans or is it in conjunction with Democrats and their system of tax cuts?You're description is so vague and open to interpretation just like so much crap found floating on the internet it leaves little room for credibility.
People are fantastic at coming up with models and yet they don't ever seem to function as well in real life as they do in the sketching room.
Regardless of your questions, that if you really wanted the answers to (and didn't just want to find some room to move out of previously saying the Iraq war was the only significant factor in creating a budget deficit and tax cuts played no part compared to the magnitude of the spiralling war costs) you would simply find them yourself.
The tax cuts did.
Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank has suggested the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be $1 trillion in a conservative scenario and could top $2 trillion in a moderate one. Additionally, the extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.[83] [84] The CIA World Factbook lists a 2005 estimate of U.S. military expenditure as 4.06% of GDP (the 26th position in a listing of 167 countries). The Congressional Research Service recently estimated weekly spending at almost $2 billion per week, and that total expenditures have now topped $1 trillion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war
The link to the information
I would like a link to your information so I can review it myself please.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The Senate is still inconclusive.
Those tax cuts have created a huge budget deficit, in conjunction with the war in Iraq, which Bush tried to claim was an integral part of the war on terror and then when asked in the same press conference what it had to do with 9/11 responded "Nothing.", and which has caused the instability that has resulted in rise in crude oil prices for everyone not just the U.S, and created a country in which Al Qaeda now have a foothold where previously they had none.
Bush will not be impeached.
Senators serve for 6 years.
Essentially your entire statement is nonsense.
Senate is controlled by the Democrats
Iraq was a mistake going in, but we are by no means losing, nor would it be smart to pull out
Al Qaeda did have a foothold in Iraq prior to the War, that was Zarquawi
Bush might be impeached if the Democrats are stupid enough
The next midterm is in 4 years
And to tax cuts, there's a long explanation as to how those work, but not going to get into that
Either way, both parties suck, we need more Moderate Independents
You could have linked to articles on MSNBC or in the Guardian in which this figure is also cited. But instead chose a Wikipedia article above which there is a big box reading "The neutrality of this article is disputed." How quaint.
Stiglitzt projections of up to $1 - $2+ trillion are not with regard to current cost but based on projections of Congressional Budget Office figures to 2010 and 2010 respectively, and addition of among other things future healthcare and disability costs and depreciation or military hardware.
How exactly this is relevant to current military costs and a current budget deficit is somewhat eluding. Nor would a high current cost of war negate the fact that the loss of revenue due to tax cuts, already exceeding a trillion dollars since their inception have had a significant impact on budget deficit.
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.cbpp.org/
Originally posted by Mr Krieger
Al Qaeda did have a foothold in Iraq prior to the War, that was Zarquawi
Actually, Jordanian born Zarquawi, to my knowledge, only arrived along with the other foreign fighters after the war began - Saddam has never been shown to have any link to supporting A.Q. or Bin Laden. In fact way back he shut down Bin Ladens attempts to set up shop in Iraq due to the threat A.Q. policy posed to Iraqi stability.
And even if he was there before, he had no power to do anything.
Bush might be impeached if the Democrats are stupid enough
He wont be impeached, but if he was, well, he certainly has more to answer for then Clinton did, and that didn't stop the Republicans impeaching him.
Either way, both parties suck, we need more Moderate Independents
Possibly...
Originally posted by Mr KriegerThere were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. You have strange definitions of "winning" and "losing".
Senate is controlled by the DemocratsIraq was a mistake going in, but we are by no means losing, nor would it be smart to pull out
Al Qaeda did have a foothold in Iraq prior to the War, that was Zarquawi
Bush might be impeached if the Democrats are stupid enough
The next midterm is in 4 years
And to tax cuts, there's a long explanation as to how those work, but not going to get into that
Either way, both parties suck, we need more Moderate Independents