Bush administration projects record 2009 deficit

[Hog1]

I no longer am naive enough to believe that any politician or group of them has as an agenda, a genuine desire, and feasible plan to accomplish the general reduction of a govt (and the attendant waste) that is becoming more and more disfunctional, and an ever growing burden to the citizenry of the US.
TOOO much money involved, crossing too many hands.
I will vote, and I have been more personally involved than ever before in calling my elected officials, etc.
HOWEVER, I think the saddest testmonial of all is that, in the most powerful country on earth, that Obama, and Mccain are the best we can field?????

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

WASHINGTON (AP) — The next president will inherit a record budget deficit of $482 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate released Monday.

More...

A Democrat-controlled Congress will do that.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I wouldn't say the threat of terrorist strikes is one of our biggest problems. However, it is made to look like our biggest problem, so that the powers can control the people through fear.

Terrorist strikes are and will continue to be a major threat for the forseeable future as long as fundamental Islamists are teaching that the U.S. is the "great Satan" and openly declare jihad against us. I guess 9/11, the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, Khobar (sp.) Towers, numerous attacks against U.S. embassies are just "made to look like problems". Let's not forget the subway attacks in England or the train attacks in Spain, all very real. When we take the view that these attacks are not a threat and ignore the problem it only grows worse.

1.) Foreign Oil
-- The price of oil has risen more dramatically during Bush's term than at any other time in history. Demand is through the roof. I would guess a lot of the demand for oil is coming from our government and their operations in Iraq. The Bush administration lied about Iraq. That one's on them -- not the American public. While Bush isn't responsible for all of the increased demand, he's certainly responsible for a large part of it, and he's not doing anything to help the situation. He's only made it worse.

Bush got bad intel due to our Human Intelligence network being dismantled by the Clinton Admin (not to say he still wouldn't have made poor decisions with better intel) and made some strategically poor decisions in the execution of the Iraq War. However if he lied, so did a majority of the Congress and several leading Democrats.

This rise is similar to the spike during the Carter Administration. Many factors go into the oil price, the actual use of oil by the U.S. military is not even on the radar as a major factor. The major factors spiking the oil price are increased demand from China, India and other developing countries (I believe U.S. demand has gone down slightly or remained constant over the last year or so) and unrest/instability to the oil supply, Iran/Israel potential war, Venezula - Chavez, political instability in Nigeria. The U.S. involvement in Iraq has been a constant since 2003.

Our problem with the dependency on foreign oil is still the same, spike or not in oil prices. Congress hasn't approved (Repub or Dem controlled) drilling in key areas where we know there are vast reserves, new refineries, new nuclear power plants, greater research into new power sources other than combustible engines. This should've been addressed aggressively after the spike in oil prices and the Mid-East turmoil in the Carter years and hasn't been.

Decreasing dependence on foreign oil will also greatly reduce the U.S. dollars from funding many governments hostile to the U.S.

2.) Government Overspending
-- From the article:
"House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., said the new deficit figure confirms 'the dismal legacy of the Bush administration: under its policies, the largest surpluses in history have been converted into the largest deficits in history.'"

This administration spent $482 Billion (with a 'B') over the budget -- in one year! Never has this country overspent so much -- never. The previous record of $413 Billion was also set by Bush, in 2004.

It's hard to imagine how anyone could excuse Bush for that.

Nothing like using a quote from a Democrat to state a case against Bush....Pretty hypocritical of the Chariman of the House Budget Committee to blast Bush for the budget deficits. His committee forwards the final House version of the approved budget to the House floor for a vote. The CONGRESS must pass the budget, they have the ultimate control on the Gov't purse-strings. For him to blast Bush on this is ridiculous, it's like two guys robbing a bank, getting caught, and the gunman who went into the bank puts all the blame on the getaway driver. They are both very responsible.

3.) Social Programs
-- I wouldn't just say social programs are one of our biggest problems. It's too general. Social programs can be great, and it's a shame that most of America's social programs are worthless. This is definitely not Bush's fault, but this problem pales in comparison to the previous two.

Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid are the biggest expenditures of the Federal government each year (close to 50%). By no means are these problems that pale in comparison to the other two. The solutions will take some work, but we've got to take action now and not push this off on future generations.

I agree that the public is ultimately responsible. However, our government doesn't work the way it is supposed to, and what we are left with is what I like to call a "Virtual Monarchy". The people who make most of the important executive decisions -- the Presidential Cabinet -- are appointed, not elected. In addition, for any citizen to truly do their duty as a participant in the democracy, they would have to spend all of their time doing it. There is far too much going on in government every day.

But the President that appoints the cabinet is elected, and the Congress and Judicial systems do have significant oversight of the Executive branch.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I no longer am naive enough to believe that any politician or group of them has as an agenda, a genuine desire, and feasible plan to accomplish the general reduction of a govt (and the attendant waste) that is becoming more and more disfunctional, and an ever growing burden to the citizenry of the US.
TOOO much money involved, crossing too many hands.
I will vote, and I have been more personally involved than ever before in calling my elected officials, etc.
HOWEVER, I think the saddest testmonial of all is that, in the most powerful country on earth, that Obama, and Mccain are the best we can field?????

I agree with what you said the problem is that Americans are turning more and more to the goverment to solve their/our problems. The fact is that goverment only adds to the problem instead of solving them. The federal gov needs to stick to roads, military, and maybe a few other things and let the state goverment solve the problems of each states needs. Some people may think I have left off education but all the federal goverment does is eat away the funds. So for every dollar we send to them they send back a little change and they really have done nothing to improve education. McCain And Obama both are just running on platforms to expain the federal goverments role in our lives and its not going to help one bit.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I agree with what you said the problem is that Americans are turning more and more to the goverment to solve their/our problems. The fact is that goverment only adds to the problem instead of solving them. The federal gov needs to stick to roads, military, and maybe a few other things and let the state goverment solve the problems of each states needs. Some people may think I have left off education but all the federal goverment does is eat away the funds. So for every dollar we send to them they send back a little change and they really have done nothing to improve education. McCain And Obama both are just running on platforms to expain the federal goverments role in our lives and its not going to help one bit.

YOU are correct!
Every time I hear a phrase or utterance that implies "the Fed should take care of that", it makes me cringe

[firstdown]

Her is a good example of how the federal goverment is getting us with SS. The city of Galviston TX. opted out before congress passed the loopole to stop them and its a sweet deal for them. Here is just some of the numbers:

Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return — more conservative than Galveston workers have earned — all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:


Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return — $1,500 instead of $853.
Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security — $4,540 instead of $1,645.
Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County’s disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan — by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration — claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.

Here is a link to the entire story:
NCPA - Brief Analysis #514, Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform

[724Skinsfan]

Why did Congress pass the loophole to stop them? Is it because it takes away from today's money that the Galveston residents would be paying into SS?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Why did Congress pass the loophole to stop them? Is it because it takes away from today's money that the Galveston residents would be paying into SS?

Yes they opted out while they could and congress closed that loophole pretty quick. I guess they knew other cities or states would do the same when they saw the success they where having.

[dmek25]

the problem with privatized social security is that you will still have millions of Americans that will make bad choices with their money. and then guess who gets to bail them out? that's right, our gov"t

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Well, I guess your reasoning doesn't work very well, considering that Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House (as well as the Presidency) during 2004 -- the worst budget deficit since 2008.

Republicans controlled the Senate and House from 2003 to 2007. When exactly do you think the housing market and gas prices started going to shit? Dems have had control for one year, the previous 4 years controlled by Republicans, and you want to blame the Dems? LOL.

For the record, I consider myself a Republican. However, I'm not partisan, and I blame those who I think are responsible -- regardless of political affiliation.

i think if people in Washington would live by these words, and get off the blame game, our political system would work alot better. nice quote

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

the problem with privatized social security is that you will still have millions of Americans that will make bad choices with their money. and then guess who gets to bail them out? that's right, our gov"t

Dude, read the article. They are in fixed Annuities which guarante 4% return even at the fixed rate they are doing better then SS. But they have been averaging 6.5% and they have to participate. No one is saying do away withe retirement savings we just want alternatives that are much better then the current Federal system. If a financial advisor did with your money what the federal goverment has done with SS they would be thrown in jail and the key thrown away. Just read the article when you have the time and I think you may learn that the current system sucks. If I'm correct your young 25? and you should be the biggest supporters of changing this system so you don't have to throw your money away like I have had to do. I want to retire by age 65 and if I could have taken the money that goes to my SS and put it in a fixed account I could have retired at age 60. I would have something like tripple the monthly income and could have left a nice chunck for my children. Can't do that with SS.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Terrorist strikes are and will continue to be a major threat for the forseeable future as long as fundamental Islamists are teaching that the U.S. is the "great Satan" and openly declare jihad against us. I guess 9/11, the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, Khobar (sp.) Towers, numerous attacks against U.S. embassies are just "made to look like problems". Let's not forget the subway attacks in England or the train attacks in Spain, all very real. When we take the view that these attacks are not a threat and ignore the problem it only grows worse.

You have misunderstood me. I never said that terrorism is "not a problem", or "made to look like a problem". I said it is "made to look like our biggest problem". There is a big difference between what I said, and what you are arguing against.

As far as I can tell, terrorism hasn’t increased dramatically in the past 10 years (or even 30 years). Terrorism has always existed, and it always will. There will never be an end to the “War on Terror”. Except due to Bush’s neglect for foreign relations, we are not at any greater risk for terrorist attack now, than we were 10 years ago. Just because we have been attacked isn’t proof of anything. Everyone gets attacked, and it’s been happening for a long time. America was overdue. So, now that averages are finally catching up to us, everyone wants to make it seem like we have this new major threat that never existed before.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Bush got bad intel due to our Human Intelligence network being dismantled by the Clinton Admin (not to say he still wouldn't have made poor decisions with better intel) and made some strategically poor decisions in the execution of the Iraq War. However if he lied, so did a majority of the Congress and several leading Democrats.

Let's not forget, Bush is our Commander in Chief. Ultimately, he is responsible for all military operations. Remember Enron, when the CEO claimed he didn't know the CFO was cooking the books, and therefore he was not responsible? That argument didn’t work for him, and it doesn’t work for Bush either.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

This rise is similar to the spike during the Carter Administration. Many factors go into the oil price, the actual use of oil by the U.S. military is not even on the radar as a major factor. The major factors spiking the oil price are increased demand from China, India and other developing countries (I believe U.S. demand has gone down slightly or remained constant over the last year or so) and unrest/instability to the oil supply, Iran/Israel potential war, Venezula - Chavez, political instability in Nigeria. The U.S. involvement in Iraq has been a constant since 2003.

You mention unrest and instability as possible factors which drive up the price of oil. You imply that instability caused by the Iraq war can't be driving up the price of oil, because that war has been ongoing for five years. However, the Iran/Israel conflict could be driving up the price? The Iran/Israel conflict has been going on since the Islamic Revolution in Iran -- 1979. So, why is the Iraq war not a factor for driving up the price of oil? The Iraq war is causing more instability in the Middle East, and therefore the oil market, than anything else you mention. You’re right about China and India – their increased demand only compounds the problem. However, demand for oil is always growing. It always has. As a result, production increases as well. China and India’s demand for more oil is just status quo – the Iraq war is not.

It is obvious that our military is using more oil fighting in Iraq, than it would be otherwise. Furthermore, United States oil consumption rose 3.5% between 2003 and 2004 (couldn't find figures for beyond 2005). We don’t know for sure if that consumption increase was due to increased oil consumption by our military, but I think it is quite likely. Also consider that the US consumes more oil than any other country, and a 3.5% increase in our consumption is certainly on the global radar, and a major factor.

Although this increase was 4 years ago, it still affects the oil market today because we haven’t yet decreased our consumption to account for the 2004 increase. Average US oil consumption rose about 0.75% per year on average before 2004. So, in that year, our oil consumption rose 2.75% more than usual.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Our problem with the dependency on foreign oil is still the same, spike or not in oil prices. Congress hasn't approved (Repub or Dem controlled) drilling in key areas where we know there are vast reserves, new refineries, new nuclear power plants, greater research into new power sources other than combustible engines. This should've been addressed aggressively after the spike in oil prices and the Mid-East turmoil in the Carter years and hasn't been.

Decreasing dependence on foreign oil will also greatly reduce the U.S. dollars from funding many governments hostile to the U.S.

I can’t argue with that. Although, I’m not an advocate for more drilling – that just delays the problem.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Nothing like using a quote from a Democrat to state a case against Bush....Pretty hypocritical of the Chariman of the House Budget Committee to blast Bush for the budget deficits. His committee forwards the final House version of the approved budget to the House floor for a vote. The CONGRESS must pass the budget, they have the ultimate control on the Gov't purse-strings. For him to blast Bush on this is ridiculous, it's like two guys robbing a bank, getting caught, and the gunman who went into the bank puts all the blame on the getaway driver. They are both very responsible.

The fact that this guy is a democrat means nothing to me. Don’t discount what he says, just because the guy is a democrat.

You’re right – congress should share in the blame. However, the budget process begins with Bush, and it is his budget proposal which is the foundation for the approved budget that is sent to the floor. Bush needs to be more responsible (as does congress). He can’t submit a piece of shit budget and then blame congress for approving it (which he isn’t as far as I can tell – it just works both ways). The bottom line is: Bush submitted his request, and congress approved it because that’s what the President said he needed. If they didn’t approve it, Bush and the Bushies would have blamed congress for executive failures because they didn't approve their budget. “We didn’t get our budget, so we couldn’t do what we needed to do, blah, blah, blah…”

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid are the biggest expenditures of the Federal government each year (close to 50%). By no means are these problems that pale in comparison to the other two. The solutions will take some work, but we've got to take action now and not push this off on future generations.

Just because these social program are our biggest expenditures doesn’t mean they are our biggest problems. Frankly, I like seeing the majority of government money going back to the citizens. I agree these programs can be improved, but I think there are more important issues to deal with, like defense spending.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

But the President that appoints the cabinet is elected, and the Congress and Judicial systems do have significant oversight of the Executive branch.

Just because the president is elected, doesn’t mean the citizens have any sort of real control over the cabinet.

Sorry for the long post...

[That Guy]

i've read on galveston before, and i wish i could opt out... right now, i'll opt out of SS and medicare and invest that money myself into health/life insurance and IRAs/Roths/401k and be much better off.

i hate throwing my money away knowing i'll never see it again.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by That Guy

i've read on galveston before, and i wish i could opt out... right now, i'll opt out of SS and medicare and invest that money myself into health/life insurance and IRAs/Roths/401k and be much better off.

i hate throwing my money away knowing i'll never see it again.

Well if your employed you only see half the money getting thrown away. I'm self employed and I have to pay double for both me and my wife and it kills me each month to see how much SS takes from my family. For those who don't know how it works. Half is paid by the employee and the employer pays the other half so self employed pay it all.