Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

peeb · Dec 18, 2007, 12:21 PM

The Comptroller General of the United States and head of the GAO:
In a speech today at the National Press Club, he said, "If the federal government was a private corporation and the same report came out this morning, our stock would be dropping and there would be talk about whether the company's management and directors needed a major shake-up." Walker urged greater transparency and accountability over the federal government's operations, financial condition, and fiscal outlook...
"The federal government's fiscal exposures totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007, up more than $2 trillion from September 30, 2006, and an increase of more than $32 trillion from about $20 trillion as of September 30, 2000," Walker said. "This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household."
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/07frusg/07frusg.pdf

Nice. We'd better elect some drunken sailors before Bush bankrupts us with his runaway spending.

finboy · Dec 18, 2007, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Nice. We'd better elect some drunken sailors before Bush bankrupts us with his runaway spending.

No agenda at the GAO, huh? I'm surprised that it's so transparent these days.

ironknee · Dec 18, 2007, 02:03 PM

worst. president. evar.

nonhuman · Dec 18, 2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

worst. president. evar.

Idi Amin?

BadKosh · Dec 18, 2007, 02:17 PM

good thing our Congress is looking out for us. They didn't have ANYTHING to do with all that money Bush spent.

Dork. · Dec 18, 2007, 02:19 PM

"Comptroller General", huh? With a title like that, he sounds like one of them Socialist dictators. That's probably why he hates America so much!

If he loved America like Dick Cheney does, he would know that deficits don't matter, because the Supply Side Economics fairy will leave surpluses under our pillows once we make the Bush tax cuts permanent!

Besides, Americans should be able to support paying $175,000 a person, since we can't place a price on freedom! Anyone who says they can't afford it is probably one of those welfare queens, anyway, and living high on the hog on our tax dollars! Or worse yet, one of them illegal immigrants who force employers to hire them and send all the money back home to their Socialist friends to pay for more of them to come over....

peeb · Dec 18, 2007, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

No agenda at the GAO, huh? I'm surprised that it's so transparent these days.

So, any part of the facts or conclusion you want to dispute, or do you just want to call names?

besson3c · Dec 18, 2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

good thing our Congress is looking out for us. They didn't have ANYTHING to do with all that money Bush spent.

Or, in other words "Bush may be doing something bad, but look over here... here are some other guys doing bad things! Over here I said!! Look over HEEERRREEEEE!"

Why do you always feel the need to jump to Bush's defense BadKosh? We're talking about his administration, not congress.

ironknee · Dec 18, 2007, 03:15 PM

is it an ego thing that people like kevin or badkosh still supports bush?

you know, can't admit they backed the wrong horse...or is it that these people are in love with him?

or is it the religion thing?

besson3c · Dec 18, 2007, 03:18 PM

It's an emotional investment thing (and very dumb thing).

subego · Dec 18, 2007, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Or, in other words "Bush may be doing something bad, but look over here... here are some other guys doing bad things! Over here I said!! Look over HEEERRREEEEE!"

Why do you always feel the need to jump to Bush's defense BadKosh? We're talking about his administration, not congress.

I personally think Bush is a monkey, but it's not like BadKosh chose an inaccurate statement with which to defend. Bush wouldn't have been able to spend that money pre-'06 without his cronies helping him, and he wouldn't be continuing to spend if the Dems were made of something stronger than balsa wood.

peeb · Dec 18, 2007, 03:40 PM

Right, Congress and others failed to stop him, and that makes them somewhat complicit, but the buck stops with the Bush Regime.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2007, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by subego

I personally think Bush is a monkey, but it's not like BadKosh chose an inaccurate statement with which to defend. Bush wouldn't have been able to spend that money pre-'06 without his cronies helping him, and he wouldn't be continuing to spend if the Dems were made of something stronger than balsa wood.

There is more to it than that. Every vote that seems to matter is consistently down party lines. It is hard to get 60% of the votes or whatever it is when congress is so sharply divided down partisan lines.

subego · Dec 18, 2007, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Right, Congress and others failed to stop him, and that makes them somewhat complicit, but the buck stops with the Bush Regime.

More so now. I'm still putting a fair amount of the pre-'06 situation on his buds.

Originally Posted by besson3c

There is more to it than that. Every vote that seems to matter is consistently down party lines. It is hard to get 60% of the votes or whatever it is when congress is so sharply divided down partisan lines.

It depends.

If you want someone to vote against party lines you need to give them something in return. Something big. The system doesn't run on moral epiphanies, it runs on people who want favors doing favors in return.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2007, 04:09 PM

subego: what you described seems to be what John Edwards is basing his entire presidential campaign on: fighting back against big corporate lobbyists.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Dec 18, 2007, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

We're talking about his administration, not congress.

Right, because you're in DIRE need of a civics lesson.

Bush, not his administration are not by themselves "the federal government" no matter how delusional you anti-Bush moonbats have become. Trying to take congress- you know, that actually spends the money- out of the equation on federal government overspending is just silly.

And sure, these are the people I want in charge of my healthcare- twits that can't even balance a budget NOW, let alone after they're (for some beyond-INSANE reason) given control over even more of the economy. Even the worst of the worst private business can run its affairs better than these morons with all the money in the world.

subego · Dec 18, 2007, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

subego: what you described seems to be what John Edwards is basing his entire presidential campaign on: fighting back against big corporate lobbyists.

I was thinking more of an internal quid pro quo.

"Okay, I'll vote against my party for your X, but you're gonna vote against your party for my Y."

besson3c · Dec 18, 2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Right, because you're in DIRE need of a civics lesson.

Bush, not his administration are not by themselves "the federal government" no matter how delusional you anti-Bush moonbats have become. Trying to take congress- you know, that actually spends the money- out of the equation on federal government overspending is just silly.

And sure, these are the people I want in charge of my healthcare- twits that can't even balance a budget NOW, let alone after they're (for some beyond-INSANE reason) given control over even more of the economy. Even the worst of the worst private business can run its affairs better than these morons with all the money in the world.

During his first term especially, Republican Congress was joined at the hip with the Bush administration... I should have been more specific though.

By the way, Republicans controlled both Congress and the Senate during most of this administration, so my threshold of tolerance for one sided rants toward the current congress only goes so far. Congress has failed us for far longer than since the 2006 election.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Dec 18, 2007, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

During his first term especially, Republican Congress was joined at the hip with the Bush administration... I should have been more specific though.

By the way, Republicans controlled both Congress and the Senate during most of this administration, so my threshold of tolerance for one sided rants toward the current congress only goes so far. Congress has failed us for far longer than since the 2006 election.

And yet you and others (who need Civics 101 BADLY) engage in one-sided rants blaming everything on Bush and anyone with an (R) after their name. And then in the typical truly bizarre fashion, you try and jump on a statement like BadKosh's that doesn't even mention any party, because he ISN'T part of your one-sided rant.

peeb · Dec 18, 2007, 06:40 PM

"Look over there! Look over there! Ignore the man behind the curtain!"

besson3c · Dec 18, 2007, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

And yet you and others (who need Civics 101 BADLY) engage in one-sided rants blaming everything on Bush and anyone with an (R) after their name. And then in the typical truly bizarre fashion, you try and jump on a statement like BadKosh's that doesn't even mention any party, because he ISN'T part of your one-sided rant.

Huh? Are you sure you don't have me confused with somebody else? I'm happy to bitch about Democrats, and I have several times. However, I feel that even the most objective person can rightfully say that the bulk of our current woes falls squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans because, well, because they have been calling the shots for most of this administration.

Does that mean that the Democrats are perfect? Of course not, but the fact of the matter is turds stink, and just because the Democrats also produce turds this does not take away from the fact that the Republicans have produced some whopper turds that have contributed their share of stink, and that is what this thread is about.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2007, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

"Look over there! Look over there! Ignore the man behind the curtain!"

Look! A BIRD!!!

ironknee · Dec 18, 2007, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

And yet you and others (who need Civics 101 BADLY) engage in one-sided rants blaming everything on Bush and anyone with an (R) after their name. And then in the typical truly bizarre fashion, you try and jump on a statement like BadKosh's that doesn't even mention any party, because he ISN'T part of your one-sided rant.

the last 6 years is on bush's watch. period.

crash do you see ANYthing of what bush has done that is bad? anything?

peeb · Dec 18, 2007, 07:54 PM

It's hard to see anything that he's done that's good.

nonhuman · Dec 18, 2007, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Look! A BIRD!!!

That dog has a poofy tail!!!

Here puff! Here puff! Hehehehe!

BadKosh · Dec 18, 2007, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Or, in other words "Bush may be doing something bad, but look over here... here are some other guys doing bad things! Over here I said!! Look over HEEERRREEEEE!"

Why do you always feel the need to jump to Bush's defense BadKosh? We're talking about his administration, not congress.

Find out HOW bills are created and work their way thru congress before being signed. Also you might re-read my original post without your ASSumption filter on to see where I defended Bush.

ironknee · Dec 18, 2007, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

It's hard to see anything that he's done that's good.

thinking...

he said we should go to mars!

BadKosh · Dec 18, 2007, 10:20 PM

We ARE going.

NASA - Exploration Home

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Dec 18, 2007, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Huh? Are you sure you don't have me confused with somebody else?

So you're not the one who posted the one-sided "in other words" bullcrap in response to something you clearly didn't even understand? Like BadKosh said, go back and read it again. You seem to have trouble with that.

besson3c · Dec 18, 2007, 11:14 PM

Let's just cut through all of the rhetoric and get to the bottom line, Crash...

You were obviously extremely emotionally invested in your horse, and no doubt you have had intense emotional hangups with anything resembling the left. Now that things are frankly at an all time low for your guys you have to take drastic measures to save face around here, and more importantly to justify your beliefs and existence to yourself so that you can carry on. Frankly, at this point any die-hard Republican such as yourself has little logical arguments that can be made that basically amount to rah rah Republicans, so you are left with purely emotional arguments and rather futile swipes such as your last post to me.

What I suggest is to take a step back and separate yourself from this stupid black and white world you seem to insist on perpetuating. You are not a Republican (unless you have been elected), you are a human being and an American. It is okay to find fault in your party of choice, and it is okay to disagree. Politicians are generally not moral beings, but people in it for their own interests, not yours. It is really silly to allow yourself to continue to be so emotionally invested in something that will not give back to you what you crave, especially not now. It's sort of like clinging to love lost and not moving on when your girlfriend dumps you.

Join the world of non-partisan thinkers, it is liberating.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Dec 18, 2007, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

*more hypocritical blather as usual*

Did you read up yet on basic Civics 101, as you were asked? Did you re-read the post you knee-jerked to, doing EXACTLY what you accuse everyone else of doing?

besson3c · Dec 18, 2007, 11:48 PM

If you have a case to make Crash, make it... I'm not interested in being strung along by you.

Kerrigan · Dec 19, 2007, 12:57 AM

peeb · Dec 19, 2007, 01:18 AM

I don't think I have ever seen a post from Crash that makes a coherent argument for anything. It's just an incoherent stream of propaganda.

BadKosh · Dec 19, 2007, 06:26 AM

Hmmmm....3500 pages of the spending bill, and the congress hasn't even read it - except the parts of pork THEY ADDED. Money for lawyers to 'protect' Illegals, but no money for our kids fighting in Iraq? They Passed it without reading it! Amazing. You must be proud bessie.

peeb · 06:43 AM

The thing is, Presidents do matter. Take a look at this, and let me know if you still want to try to excuse Bush.

If you want to look at absolute debt rather than deficit, here is the graph for that. We just can't afford more Conservatives.

BadKosh · Dec 19, 2007, 08:46 AM

God Peeb, you just DON'T get it! Bush either signs or doesn't , any bill the tax-n-spend Congress submits. He doesn't have line item veto to remove the pork, so the rest of the ass canyons we voted for put in all sorts of crap. OK so lets NOT sign, and the Gov't shuts down. Would you be happy with that? Don't blame ONE person when its the SYSTEM that is broken. WE share the responsibility because we voted in the wrong slime buckets.

nonhuman · Dec 19, 2007, 08:57 AM

Bush also sets the agenda during his terms and creates policy. If presidents didn't do that, it wouldn't be a very desirable position because there'd be very little power, and therefore money, in it. Why would people spend millions upon millions of dollars just so they can either sign bills into law or not, and sometimes not even have a say in that?

Is the responsibility for bad laws entirely the president's fault? No, of course not. Does the president have and exert tremendous influence over the legislative process? Certainly he does. Remember that the president of the United States is also the leader of his respective party. When people vote party line, that means they're voting with or against the president's policies.

If your position were the truth of it, how would No Child Left Behind be, in any way, Bush's education policy?

BRussell · Dec 19, 2007, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

WE share the responsibility because we voted in the wrong slime buckets.

No doubt about that.

Dork. · Dec 19, 2007, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

God Peeb, you just DON'T get it! Bush either signs or doesn't , any bill the tax-n-spend Congress submits. He doesn't have line item veto to remove the pork, so the rest of the ass canyons we voted for put in all sorts of crap. OK so lets NOT sign, and the Gov't shuts down. Would you be happy with that? Don't blame ONE person when its the SYSTEM that is broken. WE share the responsibility because we voted in the wrong slime buckets.

Exactly. He couldn't have vetoed every spending bill that the wasteful Congress sent him, could he?.Since we all know that Liberals can't manage their own budgets (hence the sub-prime debacle), and since Liberals control Congress now, they must have always, and we can blame them for all the bad things in the economy, while giving credit for all the good things to Bush.

I can hear besson3c's flawed replies right now. He will try confuse us with the "facts" that the Republicans were actually in control of Congress for much of that time, spent all that money, and Bush just rubber-stamped it all. Inconveivable! Conservatives stand for fiscal responsability, if there was wasteful spending going on then by definition Liberals must have done it! I guess "Liberal" and "Conservative" must mean different things in Canada, that must explain besson3c's confusion....

besson3c · Dec 19, 2007, 11:29 AM

Dork.,

It appears that Bush only exercises his veto power in vetoing child health bills, or whatever those recent bills were for... I'm sure the Democrats forced him to veto these, or something... I don't even know anymore, this is all so confusing - all of this Liberal and Conservative stuff you guys have in this strange land you call the USA. I've been afraid to ask people about this because I don't want to create any more flawed replies.

P.S. when are America's prime minister elections again?

Dork. · Dec 19, 2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

P.S. when are America's prime minister elections again?

Prime Minister Cheney still needs to decide whether or not to prorogue Congress and hold new elections.

peeb · Dec 19, 2007, 11:47 AM

You attempts to blame all spending on congress is just pathetic. You either don't understand much about how the system works, or you're just trolling. How do you explain the totally different behavior of Congress under Clinton (see graph above)?

besson3c · Dec 19, 2007, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dork.

Prime Minister Cheney still needs to decide whether or not to prorogue Congress and hold new elections.

Well, hopefully if that happens America's other parties will call for an election based on a vote of no confidence!

BadKosh · Dec 19, 2007, 11:57 AM

Don't blame ONE person when its the SYSTEM that is broken. WE share the responsibility because we voted in the wrong slime buckets.

Just look at the BS in the 3500 page spend all submitted by our irresponsible congress. Could THEY have done anything like NOT adding in 70 billion in pork?

Conservatives and Liberals both are to blame.

peeb · Dec 19, 2007, 12:02 PM

The system IS broken, but one person is the President. They shoulder the ultimate responsibility. Again, how do you explain the totally different behavior of Congress under Clinton (see graph above)?

besson3c · Dec 19, 2007, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Don't blame ONE person when its the SYSTEM that is broken. WE share the responsibility because we voted in the wrong slime buckets.

Just look at the BS in the 3500 page spend all submitted by our irresponsible congress. Could THEY have done anything like NOT adding in 70 billion in pork?

Conservatives and Liberals both are to blame.

This is a fair argument. I just have a problem with what seems to be reactionary Bush defenders. Perhaps they think that in attacking Bush we are glorifying the Democrats. Not so - and it gets tired to constantly remind people that I'm no Democrat fanboy either.

Politicians are politicians - let us not every forget this

peeb · Dec 19, 2007, 12:09 PM

For the third time, if all politicians are the same, how do you explain the totally different behavior of Congress under Clinton (see graph above)?

besson3c · Dec 19, 2007, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

For the third time, if all politicians are the same, how do you explain the totally different behavior of Congress under Clinton (see graph above)?

It was in their interest to vote the way they did, for whatever reason. It may have been because of Clinton's popularity and wanting to be reelected, it could be because of a lobby group, or it could be because Clinton was convincing, I don't know...

ShortcutToMoncton · Dec 19, 2007, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Out of mild curiousity about that last part of the graph, when the deficit starts to lessen a little: not being an American and thus unsure of election dates, can anyone tell me whether that corresponds with when the Dems gained control of Congress? If so...that would be a funny.

greg