Hats Off To The GOP Dirty Tricks Committee

[MMMMMM]

On the flip side of things, just curious what the evidence is that it IS "that bad".

[vulturesrow]

If something is subjective, than by definition it cant be proved. That being said, if you think that future earnings are mythical, than in effect you are saying that you dont think the US economy will continue to grow and that productivity will never increase. Is that what you are saying?

PS Outsourcing is a way to increase productivity in an economy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you show some evidence or proof that "The deficit is not that bad." Maybe a link or two to that amazing assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will the CBO suffice? Heres the link

The relevant data is on table 2 Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962 to 2003 (as a percentage of GDP).

Percentage of GDP is the best way to view a nations ability to run a deficit. Not the actual dollar figures as the lefties would suggest. Heres a simplified example as to why.

When I was making $3.60/hr, $250 of credit card debt was quit a bit of a burden on me. When I was making $36.00/hr, $250 or credit card debt hardly any burden at all. Even though the dollar amounts are the same, the increase in my income, decreased the negative effects of $250 of credit card debt.

According to the CBO the largest deficit as a percentage of GDP occurred in 1983. According to the CBO the Clinton deficit of '93 is actually larger than the Bush deficit of '03


Stu

[nothumb]

Your facts are plain wrong.

Moveon.org never paid for an ad that compared Bush to Hitler. Someone submitted one to their website in a contest, where it was visible to the public, until it was pointed out, at which time it was removed.

And the SBVT ad using "Kerry's Own Words Against Him" leaves out the fact that he is quoting other veterans - something he states right before the clip in the ad is edited to begin. They try to make it sound like Kerry personally accused people of these things rather than conveying what had already been told to him by other vets.

These things have both been pointed out before but some people keep repeating them anyway.

NT

[cjromero]

If I stand corrected about some specifics, then I stand corrected.

My general point on both issues is still valid, however. One point being that the soft money 527s are helping Kerry much more than they are helping Bush, by an 85% to 15% margin.

Another point being that Kerry brought the Vietnam issue entirely on himself by making it the most important qualification for why he should be President. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The bottom line is that the Kerry campaign has absolutely no clue of how to present their candidate to the American public. That is no one's fault but his own. Rather than focus on domestic issues, Kerry chose to frame himself at the convention as qualified to be president based on his four months of service in Vietnam. He put himself in a box when he voted to authorize Bush to use any means necessary to deal with Iraq, only to later vote against the $87 billion for the troops solely because he was in a heated battle with Dean for the nomination. Advisers close to Kerry, and some of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, have conceded that Kerry voted the way he did based purely on political expediency.

In every presidential campaign, both sides run negative ads that contain inaccuracies and exaggerations. Both sides do so because the ads are effective, despite the fact that people say they don't want to hear any negative ads.

I have said it before and will say it again. If Kerry can't beat an incumbent president that was not elected by a majority of voting Americans given the current state of the economy and the fact that we are in a war that half the nation doesn't support, then he deserves to lose. It's the same with Gore in 2000, when he couldn't beat Bush despite the fact that we were at peace and coming off the largest and longest economic expansion in recent memory.

[cardcounter0]

Does the '03 Bush numbers include the off-the-books Iraq expenses?

Interesting the '93 Clinton numbers would have been his first year results. What happened after that? Remember the good times of the 90s?

The '03 Bush number is after three years in office. What is the trend? Are times so much better we should continue down this path?

Again, explain how these '03 numbers "aren't that bad". The ecomony is shrinking, jobs are being outsourced, growth in productivity is not there, and the high income baby boomers are retiring, so you can't count on tapping those pockets for income much longer.

[trippin bily]

kerry has personally said that HE committed atrocities and saw them committed. i believe it was the dick cavit ( not sure how to spell it ) show. that is why so many of the swift fellas are against him
kerry also made this claim while many soldiers were being tortured to say what kerry was saying. heck the bad guys pumped kery saying those things into their cells as a way to demoralize them more. any wonder they dont like kerry

[vulturesrow]

Every administration has off the books numbers. Why do you insist on focusing on this ones?

Where are your numbers that suggest that the economy is shrinking and productivity growth isnt there?

As for your aging baby boomers, lets not forget that income isnt the only tax revenue the government receives. Its a big part but I think your retiring baby boomers argument is not as strong a point as you think it is.

BTW, outsourcing is good for the economy. Basic economics here. Yes it is sad that people lose their jobs to it. I support helping retrain workers. But it is an overall plus for the economy.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, explain how these '03 numbers "aren't that bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

I should not have to spoon feed this to you cardcounter.

Anyways the largest and "most bad" deficit (in terms of GDP) occurred in 1983. It was a whooping 6% of GDP. The 2003 deficit, according to the CBO, came in at 3.5% of GDP. Heres why these '03 numbers "aren't that bad". I'll put it in bold in consideration for those of you out there stricken with ADD.

3.5% is much less than 6%

If thats to difficult to understand, perhaps you will understand it if put present it another way. Here goes....

6% is much more than 3.5%

And there you have it. Mathmatical proof that the 2003 deficit is "not that bad".

[ QUOTE ]
The ecomony is shrinking, jobs are being outsourced, growth in productivity is not there....

[/ QUOTE ]

Its your turn to post a link substantiating your position. Good Luck to you.

Stu