ProgressiveUSA

TB, you are mixing up the yearly federal deficit & the cumulative national debt. They're different things. Not sure where you're getting your deficit vs GDP numbers, but I suggest you use this source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/sheets/hist01z2.xls In dollars, Clinton's FY 2001 budget left GWB a record surplus to work with. GWB now has record deficits. That's a fact. <img src="http://www.factcheck.org/imagefiles/

But do NOT try to tell me that the "Wall Street Journal" is biased and not to be trusted. The Journal is the most read and trusted paper in America. I guess it depend on how you define 'most trusted'. This 2002 Pew poll shows that Americans are more likely to trust their local daily paper. USA Today wa

I see I am going to have to incorperate jingoistic, along with Ad hominim, vitrolic and hyperbole into more of my posts, as these are the 4 words the left uses the most trying to fool us into thinking how smart they are, It's getting to be that a left leaning lemonhead loser just CANNOT post an article or reply without useing one

Doc, thanks for posting a source. Respectfully, your subject title is not exactly accurate. That WSJ editorial does not cite European public opinion. However, December polling by AP shows Europeans give GWB an 'unfavorable' rating. ( Link ) That December poll data confirms a S

Going back to the Washington Start gubertorial race, I say re-election. I say that because more people voted in heavily democratic areas than were actually registered. Now if that isn't voter fraud, what is? Maybe Democrats can help me on this issue. They are experts at Voter Fraud. I say the system wor

In the late 1980s a NE California Assemblyman Stan Statham proposed seceding from the rest of California. I supported it, of course, even though it started as a publicity stunt in support of ignored rural counties suffering from state budget cuts. But it WAS kind of comical mostly because counties that voted on it (nonbinding of course) voted yes if they thought they'd get to secede & no if they thought they'd be left behind! Nobody was sure where the

I see Regressive USA is out making new friends again... I get along fine with some. Don't blame me if others can't read or are incoherent. I think howard da meltdownman

ParaTed2k wrote: A centrist? What part of his agenda in Vermont could possibly be considered "centrist". How about supporting gun rights, cutting taxes & balancing a budget for 10 years?

Work on your coherence, too.

I agree with ProgressiveUSA. The Democrats shouldn't be trying their hardest to be the best. They should ignore their own flaws (i.e. Howard Dean) and just focus all their sights on the Republicans! That'll win them an election! You've misinformed yourself. I didn't say any of that. And neither did Dr D

ParaTed2k wrote: It was this kind of stupidity and rhetoric that cost the democrats an election. Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that. The fact is that Team Bush is not conservative. They are radical. And on issue after issue, their policies prove it. BTW, on what planet IS torture cons

With the **radical right** running the GOP -- pushing preemptive war, torture & debt -- you're worried about the Dems? "American want Democrats to stand up to Bush," the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reports. "Fully 60%, including one-fourth of Republicans, say Democrats in Congress should make sure Bush and his

How could Bushs tax cuts affect the bottom line of the year 1999 when he didn't get into office until 2001! Get real and do your math homework. Hey doc, you misread the previous posts...an easy mistake to make. The topic was budget **projections** made in 1999. Not about the 1999 budget itself.

Did you forget that Bush was in office in 2001 and NOT Clinton? No, I didn't. But you apparently forgot that the FY 2001 budget passed under Clinton -- not GWB.

Hi Daiwa -- This graph is from June 2002 -- and from the same source as Draginol's graph. I agree that generally projections are a crapshoot -- but due to policy & events, not strict mathematics. For example, note that my graph shows interest near zero for the next 30 years. Wrong! This graph *does* show the miracle of compound interest factor nicely -- but about 25 years too late. Adding to the natl debt only steepens the compound in

Here's a better graph from the same source:

The graph I posted i think makes the case pretty succinctly. The graph you posted stops in 2001 with Clinton's record surpluses & does not reflect today.

You named 3 theories, not 3 real world effects. That's incorrect. There's nothing theoretical about debt being the opposite of wealth. That's a fact. And if you've ever been in debt, you know how it dramatically it reduces your freedom. That is, unless you skip town and change your identity.

The total interest last year paid on the $7.4 trillion national debt was $321.566 Billion. I stand corrected. I was lazy & didn't look it up. I relied on the 17 percent borrowed money (which I knew to be $420 B) & 7 percent interest paid figures (which I estimated) in the 1040 booklet. Hey, si

Can you name a single negative real world side effect of the deficit? I can name three: 1 - Simply put, debt is the opposite of both freedom & wealth. Real conservatives know this. 2 - The miracle of compound interest --in reverse. 3 - Decline of market confidence due to unsustainability

'moderateman' do you *ever* bother with facts? Or are your posts all ad hominem all the time? There's got to be more to you than that

Gideon, this is the second article in a row where you blame Dems & liberals for criticizing you... I've only been on this board a couple weeks but I haven't seen any of that...if I see it, I'll suggest they back off. But at this point, to me, you are starting to sound like moderateman junior. (And that's not good). Therefore, for the record, it's fine with me if you are

fmfyguy wrote: It's an insurance policy stupid!! That's exactly right. 110 percent.

In addition, a good rule of household income management is 60/40%. You use 40% of your income to live off. You put away 60% in a savings account. Now, if your personal situation is that you cannot live off only 40% of your income, than you want to get to work and increase you income or pay down your debt. <

You are fun! You can comment on my blogs anytime. Thanks Doc. I'll give it a try sometime. He just hates that the kooks have hijacked the democrat party. As do I. </T