(no subject)

[lather2002.livejournal.com]

Comments

[i.livejournal.com]

if the Bush hadn't squandered Clinton's surpluses, we would have plenty of money to fix social security, medicare, and healthcare with a public option. instead he gave it away to the richest people in america who bought their 4th 5th and 6th homes with it, helping drive the housing bubble, and then he waged a debilitatingly expensive war on borrowed money to enrich his campaign contributors and his vice president.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Wut he sed alzo

[dr-pepper-spray.livejournal.com]

If the surplus was a myth then why did we all get no less then $300.00 in the mail during Bush's first term? That was what the tax cuts and refunds were originally based on.

Re: No pun intended.

[dr-pepper-spray.livejournal.com]

I have no doubts that the Clinton surplus was either nonexistent or at best less then originally reported. This makes sense though, the outgoing president wants everyone to think he left the country better then he got it. So along comes Bush, who agrees with the notion that the Clinton surplus is just as reported, and he's going to give us all our money back. Was he stupid, criminally negligent or intent on bankrupting the US economy?

Here's the point would Gore putting a specific amount of money in his proposed "lock box" not make the program better off today? Or does money only really exist when it's in the hands of crazy libertarians who think the government is intent on stealing it from them?

Re: No pun intended.

[dr-pepper-spray.livejournal.com]

I don't remember the specifics of the whole "lock box" thing, but it's my understanding that he was going to basically lock down social security's budget and future administrations couldn't raid it for funds elsewhere. If I'm completely wrong about this then fine.

As for your last point, I think you just take a cynical view that I completely disagree with.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

No, I think that was bullshit monkeying by the Bush administration to try to "prove" to us that it was better to have a Republican, and preferably a Bush, in the White House.

[dr-pepper-spray.livejournal.com]

So apparently its alright with the red state republicans if the government issues personal checks, but if it spends money on programs they shit the bed.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Apparently this is the case. Sofa king ignorant.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

It's government that got us into the mess

No. It's irresponsible people running the government that got us into that mess.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, it's not. The US government is not poorly designed. However, when people who are convinced that government is "the problem" run the government, wow, it's just fucking SHOCKING that it doesn't function as well!

Put competent people in charge, and lo! government works!

[dwer.livejournal.com]

go part what you want to part. The civil service is overwhelmingly made up of good people who view their work as important and helpful to the country.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

and the fact that you have a differing opinion does not make it so.

Re: Wow, that's like totally Zen.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Except that the results you're looking at are biased by eight years of utter, purposeful incompetence, and the massive steps needed to fix that incompetence.

Re: Wow, that's like totally Zen.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

you can repeat all the lies you want.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

so how come we didn't have all that when clinton was pres?

[i.livejournal.com]

it took him eight years to bring us back from the borrow and spend years of bush/reagan to that point. hence the big debate about what to do with the surplus in the last year of his term and the 2000 election. we all know what was done with it.

there was also the small matter of a blowjob and a republican house.