The Buck Stops Here

Strong convictions are good for leaders, but when do strong convictions turn into downright stubborness?

Strong convictions are good for leaders, but when do strong convictions turn into downright stubborness?

I believe that is when something is proven completely wrong and hurtful, but they still continue to insist they are right.

The issue with Bush is that his policies are not solving our problems, he will not try something different and the BUCK NEVER STOPS on his desk!

Thank you for the attibution.  I agree with you about Truman.  There are many things I did not like about him, but I do admire him for being a strong leader.  As a Truman Democrat, you are one of the remaining few.  A shame you could not sway more to your side of the party.

The issue with Bush is that his policies are not solving our problems, he will not try something different and the BUCK NEVER STOPS on his desk!

Gene, all I ask is that you PROVE it. Yes, I've seen your other threads, but you still haven't really proved anything.

Thank you for the attibution. I agree with you about Truman. There are many things I did not like about him, but I do admire him for being a strong leader. As a Truman Democrat, you are one of the remaining few. A shame you could not sway more to your side of the party.

Well, being a Truman Democrat doesn't really involve what your beliefs are, it involves sticking by them. But I guess that does knock more than a few out.

The best is when both sides try to use the "that's not what the people want!" argument. Watching the same-sex marriage debate in Canada...so many loud majorities...so many silent majorities...so many morons...so much proof that Jason Kenney has to be the dumbest politician in Canada...

njforever

Proof

By placing the next generation into debt so we can give people that need nothing more money.

By not protecting the borders on this country so terrorists can walk in

By not insuring the tarde policies enable American companies and workers to get a fair shake.

By starting a war with a country that did not pose any danger to the U S

By trying to solve the funding shortfall in Social Secuuity by taking Trillions more from the system for individual accounts.

Well, being a Truman Democrat doesn't really involve what your beliefs are, it involves sticking by them. But I guess that does knock more than a few out.

Start a new Wing.  I dare say we dont agree on all things, but hold true to the beliefs and ban polling as an indication of what to do next.  That would get you and your fellow minded democrats the next Presidential elections.  The current front runners are like water when it comes for standing up for their beleifs.  A shame really.  I would like to see a 3 part government again.  Not a President, lackeys and then the judiciary.

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Sunday, April 10, 2005 njforever Proof

He said proof, not editorials.  You have lost all sight of the truth, and just have hate left.  Those are your OPINIONS as none are facts.  And Proof requires FACTS not opinions.

Start a new Wing. I dare say we dont agree on all things, but hold true to the beliefs and ban polling as an indication of what to do next. That would get you and your fellow minded democrats the next Presidential elections. The current front runners are like water when it comes for standing up for their beleifs. A shame really. I would like to see a 3 part government again. Not a President, lackeys and then the judiciary.

It would be nice if we got a stronger candidate in 2008. I've already said on another thread that I'm considering supporting the Libertarians if I cannot stomach the Democratic candidate.

Good article, If the old time democrats were still around, fdr, truman, jfk I would still be a democrat and proud of that fact.

Dr Guy

If you believe the debt, loss of jobs and industries and unprotected borders are not facts, you do not know what the word means. Only a fool would argue these things will benefit America! Tell me the debt has not increased under Bush or the the trade deficit has not increased or that millions of people have come across our border since 9/11.

If you believe the debt, loss of jobs and industries and unprotected borders are not facts, you do not know what the word means.

They would be facts if true, yet they are just your rantings and that of the left with no basis in facts.  you still have yet to provide FACTS.  You are bereft of them.

It would be nice if we got a stronger candidate in 2008. I've already said on another thread that I'm considering supporting the Libertarians if I cannot stomach the Democratic candidate.

I will join you if the democrats shirk their duty once again.

Facts

In 2001 the national debt was 5.7 Trillion. Today it is 7.7 Trillion.

The trade deficit in 2001 was about 400 billion, in 2004 it was over 620 billion

Unemployment rate in 2001 was 3.9% it is now 5.2%

In 2000 we had a 125 Billion annual surplus under the Unified Budget (adding ss and medicare surpluses). Today we are at 425 Billion annual deficit under the Unified Budget.

Underemployment( workers without living wage jobs) rate was 6.9% in 2001 and is now 9.3%

Five facts. No BS just facts. All worse since Bush became President!

FactsIn 2001 the national debt was 5.7 Trillion. Today it is 7.7 Trillion. The trade deficit in 2001 was about 400 billion, in 2004 it was over 620 billionUnemployment rate in 2001 was 3.9% it is now 5.2%In 2000 we had a 125 Billion annual surplus under the Unified Budget (adding ss and medicare surpluses). Today we are at 425 Billion annual deficit under the Unified Budget.Underemployment( workers without living wage jobs) rate was 6.9% in 2001 and is now 9.3%Five facts. No BS just facts. All worse since Bush became President!

Can you provide a credible link or something of the sort that backs your statements up?

njforever Proof By placing the next generation into debt so we can give people that need nothing more money. By not protecting the borders on this country so terrorists can walk in By not insuring the tarde policies enable American companies and workers to get a fair shake. By starting a war with a country that did not pose any danger to the U S By trying to solve the funding shortfall in Social Secuuity by taking Trillions more from the system for individual accounts.

This is NOT proof. These are allegations.

Sorry njforever and drmiler they are facts.

The labor data came from BLS ( Sharon Cohany and Scott Berridge_ www.bls.gov/

www.bls.gov/cvps/cpswp202.pdf www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

The National debt and annual debt came from Dept of the Trerasury and from the Bureau of public debt. For example the National debt can be found on www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm.

You can also obtain the data by using Google which will priovide numerous sites. This data is 100% correct. It clearly shows that under the Bush policies the the employment is worse, the annual deficit has gotten worse every year and the cumulative National debt increased every year under Bush. If you go to the OMB website and look at the Bush projection you will find President tells us that by 2008 the National debt will stand at $9.949 Trillion and by 2010 it will be $11.138 Trillion. That is if he is sccessful by cutting the annual deficit in half which most experts feel will not happen given his policy to make the tax cuts permanent and to divert trillions more from Social Security into his individual accounts. No one can believe that the Bush policies are working. The proof is there if you choose to look at it!



National debt ( source Bureau of Public Debt)


2002 5.674 Trillion
2002 6.228
2004 7.379
Feb 2005 7.619

the employment is worse,

Wrongo! Try going to the Labor board website. They say different.

That is if he is sccessful by cutting the annual deficit in half which most experts feel will not happen given his policy to make the tax cuts permanent

This is their opinion. That does NOT make this a fact. Notice, they say they feel not that they "know" that this will happen.

Drmiler

Are you brain dead? I have given you the rates for unemployment and underemployment in 2000 compared with today. The rates today are higher in both cases then in 2000. Higher is worse.

The same thing is true with the annual deficit and the national debt. They are both much higher in 2005 then in 2000.

YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!

Drmiler Are you brain dead? I have given you the rates for unemployment and underemployment in 2000 compared with today. The rates today are higher in both cases then in 2000. Higher is worse. The same thing is true with the annual deficit and the national debt. They are both much higher in 2005 then in 2000. YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!

YOUR the ones that's wrong. You gave me what *you* wanted me to hear as stats. But when I tell you that your wrong and give you the info required to back-up what I say. *You* don't want to hear it. Did you even "bother" to go the site mentioned? Let's try again shall we?
Link

Reply #14 By: Citizen Dr. Guy - 4/10/2005 6:04:05 PM It would be nice if we got a stronger candidate in 2008. I've already said on another thread that I'm considering supporting the Libertarians if I cannot stomach the Democratic candidate. I will join you if the democrats shirk their duty once again.

--Always liked FDR,Always thought he joined the wrong party...

Reply #18 By: COL Gene - 4/11/2005 7:41:27 AM Sorry njforever and drmiler they are facts. The labor data came from BLS ( Sharon Cohany and Scott Berridge_ www.bls.gov/ www.bls.gov/cvps/cpswp202.pdf www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm The National debt and annual debt came from Dept of the Trerasury and from the Bureau of public debt. For example the National debt can be found on www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm. You can also obtain the data by using Google which will priovide numerous sites. This data is 100% correct. It clearly shows that under the Bush policies the the employment is worse, the annual deficit has gotten worse every year and the cumulative National debt increased every year under Bush. If you go to the OMB website and look at the Bush projection you will find President tells us that by 2008 the National debt will stand at $9.949 Trillion and by 2010 it will be $11.138 Trillion. That is if he is sccessful by cutting the annual deficit in half which most experts feel will not happen given his policy to make the tax cuts permanent and to divert trillions more from Social Security into his individual accounts. No one can believe that the Bush policies are working. The proof is there if you choose to look at it! National debt ( source Bureau of Public Debt) 2002 5.674 Trillion 2002 6.228 2004 7.379 Feb 2005 7.619 Reply #19 By: Citizen drmiler - 4/11/2005 8:04:52 AM the employment is worse, Wrongo! Try going to the Labor board website. They say different. That is if he is sccessful by cutting the annual deficit in half which most experts feel will not happen given his policy to make the tax cuts permanent This is their opinion. That does NOT make this a fact. Notice, they say they feel not that they "know" that this will happen. Reply #20 By: COL Gene - 4/11/2005 8:10:47 AM Drmiler Are you brain dead? I have given you the rates for unemployment and underemployment in 2000 compared with today. The rates today are higher in both cases then in 2000. Higher is worse. The same thing is true with the annual deficit and the national debt. They are both much higher in 2005 then in 2000. YOU ARE DEAD WRONG! Reply #21 By: Citizen drmiler - 4/11/2005 10:53:06 AM Drmiler Are you brain dead? I have given you the rates for unemployment and underemployment in 2000 compared with today. The rates today are higher in both cases then in 2000. Higher is worse. The same thing is true with the annual deficit and the national debt. They are both much higher in 2005 then in 2000. YOU ARE DEAD WRONG! YOUR the ones that's wrong. You gave me what *you* wanted me to hear as stats. But when I tell you that your wrong and give you the info required to back-up what I say. *You* don't want to hear it. Did you even "bother" to go the site mentioned? Let's try again shall we?

--How about we just say they're both wrong and get this argument over with, obviousley NO one is going to win it...you can't really tell the facts from fiction on the internet...people could just as easily state opinions as facts [I am NOT pointing any fingers at anyone, so no comments needed against me]

--How about we just say they're both wrong and get this argument over with, obviousley NO one is going to win it...you can't really tell the facts from fiction on the internet...people could just as easily state opinions as facts [I am NOT pointing any fingers at anyone, so no comments needed against me]

Well said. The internet, in the end, isn't really a very credible place; I think we should just leave it here as well.

This is the unemployment data Feom BLS

It shows Dec 2000 3.7% and march 2005 5.4


Change Output Options: From:
To:


include graphs NEW!



Data extracted on: April 11, 2005 (3:38:47 PM)
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNU04000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent
Age: 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1995 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.8 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.6
1996 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.4
1997 5.9 5.7 5.5 4.8 4.7 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.9
1998 5.2 5.0 5.0 4.1 4.2 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.5
1999 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.7 4.2
2000 4.5 4.4 4.3 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7 4.0
2001 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.4 4.7
2002 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.7 5.5 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.8
2003 6.5 6.4 6.2 5.8 5.8 6.5 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.4 6.0
2004 6.3 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.3 5.8 5.7 5.4 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.5
2005 5.7 5.8 5.4

This is the change in the National Debt. The data I included above is correct per the Treasury and Bureau of labor.problem with you guys is you don't want accept the truth you try and come up with reasons why the data he is invalid or some other lame excuse. The reality is that in the last four years we have not developed enough jobs and the unemployment and underemployment rate is much higher than it was when Bush took office. When Bush took office there was a annual surplus which is now turned into a huge deficit. And finally we added about $2 trillion to the cumulative national debt since Bush took office. Every one of these is a negative for our country, our economy and for our children. The policies we are following will continue this downward spiral until the policies are changed.



The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount

04/08/2005 $7,789,330,877,191.02


Current
Month

04/07/2005 $7,788,009,463,759.88
04/06/2005 $7,782,421,898,856.14
04/05/2005 $7,782,816,546,352.29
04/04/2005 $7,780,782,448,066.81
04/01/2005 $7,783,719,222,961.24



Prior
Months

03/31/2005 $7,776,939,047,670.14
02/28/2005 $7,713,137,673,664.71
01/31/2005 $7,627,742,597,775.41
12/31/2004 $7,596,165,867,424.14
11/30/2004 $7,525,209,508,979.45
10/29/2004 $7,429,677,448,545.04


Prior Fiscal
Years

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00