My reference was to the chart.

Regardless, over the past 12 years one cannot separate Bush's party from his congressional control.  He's had carte blanche to enact whatever he wanted.  And we've all paid the price.

That may be an oversimplification, but this is just an online forum, not a doctoral dissertation (despite my posts to the contrary, hehe). 

Yet, his point is very common right now.  I've read numerous pieces recently wherein the current economic collapse is seen as a full repudiation of Reagan's "trickle down economics" as well as the laissez fair capitalism of Ayn Rand.  In the same links I provided earlier, it clearly showed the gap between the upper 1% and everyone else has grown MUCH wider now under Bush.  So those tax breaks that were supposed to help the wealthy reinvest in infrastructure, employees, new business, etc. apparently were not used for that at all.  The majority of it, apparently, according to the numbers, just went into their pockets, and even more tragically, overseas.

Now, again, I am not against anyone making money.  But there comes a time when it is clear a policy approach is NOT working, neither as it was pitched, nor for the country as a whole.  The "top down" vs. "bottom up" analogy that Dozer speaks of is coming up a lot in conversations and so it may be that the pendulum is swinging back right now.  I sure hope it is.

Now, NO ONE is advocating even French Socialist, let along Marxist philosophy here, but McCain/Palin tried the "the Socialists are coming! the Socialists are coming!" and that didn't work any better than the race baiting.  At least for 52% of Americans.

So, it's my belief that after seeing how Americans were just forced (against their stated will) to buy out almost the entire financial sector, the taxpayers aren't going to accept "we can't afford basic universal healthcare for all".  And that means a little Socialism is very likely coming to America.  As far as I am concerned, it's long overdue.

A very selected choice of charts and figures.  During any war in the US history the debt as gone up considerably as the attached charts from the same source shows. Just look at the figures during the WW2 years.  However, as a % of GDP the debt now (prior to the recent housung bailout programs is actually lower than during much of the Clinton years. (As a note, I certainly give him credit for reducing that but he also was not fighting a war)

http://www.grabup.com/uploads/d559ffa3c6d79bfd0b01e8972000b3b2.png

As for the Chineese debt it is only 3% higher than it was in 1997 under Clinton and China is a far different coubtry now than it was then,

http://www.grabup.com/uploads/c3a2c5c9c18725ecb4e5ecfaec68fdc7.png

I'm not debating the issue you bring up, and of course, I agree with your facts.

But I was asked to show HOW Bush's policies have affected the debt and the economy, etc. so I did.  And these issues - the preemptive and needless invasion of Iraq, and the tax cut that put us underwater from a cash flow perspective - were his babies. 

There is a reason that the CEO of GM does not automatically get the Chairman of the Fed job.

I did miss that (the thread is a busy one).  I appologize for not seeing your post you reference.

That is a matter of opinion not fact.  But we do have the fact that ObamaBiden gave virtually nothing to charity over the past several years (despite making millions) and that traditionally, conservatives (those professsing to be) give more to charity than do liberals.  We are talking about walking the walk - not a dissertation of who did what to whom in the economy.

Correction: You dont see or admit any.

ONly to a delusional or highly partisan person.  We are still in Kosovo (an illegal action virtually identical to Russias invasion of Georgia), and the chinese sure dont think there is nothing there.

You said seances.  Are you denying it now?  Clearly you are using selective editing.  That is your problem.

Um, no it is not.  It is the bastardized version.  Check out what the founding fathers created.  Hardly what you are alleging here, and you are dead wrong even then.

And you think tingling legs are Journalism?    Dream on.  Drudge never called himself a journalist, just a breaking news site (and he has the track record to prove it).

You mean, like Social Security Reform?  You mean, like reigning in Fanny & Freddy?  You're a one-man myth machine, Ex.

There's no debate over the cause of the economy being in bad shape right now? Really? 

Your premise is that national debt has gone up - to which you blame tax cuts - and that is what caused the economy to worsen.

That's your argument is it not?  

There is certainly no consensus as to the slowing economy's cause. There are lots of different hypothesis's in which you named one - yours. There's certainly a debate.

The difference is that your proof is simply that Bush has a low job approval rating (almost as low as the Democratic congress).

That's not proof, that's feel-good partisan fantasy. 

I think you are simply projecting your emotions onto others.

I don't know if you're serious or just oblivious. You have repeatedly tried to use your vast, famous, experience as proof unto itslf that your opinions are better than other people's opinions. And I have no problem with that if the person chooses to identify themselves.  Like you said, I'd rather let the facts speak for themselves but you seem to go out of your way to bring yourself into the discussion but also desiring not to identify who you are. 

I mean really, talk about hypocricy. I said our health care plan is good, you weren't willing to take my word for it, you wanted me to identify the plan.  Yet, when roles are reversed, you expect us to simply take you at your word that you're an expert on these topics despite what seems to me to be a very limited grasp of economics.

I am happy to have us debate "like equal men".  But if you want to do that, you're going to need to back up your partisan assertions with proof.

A Wiki page arguing tax cuts caused the debt is certainly a good start in proving that the tax cuts affected the national debt levels (though I remain quite skeptical because the evidence you showed is premised that the economy is zero sum and doesn't grow).  And at least you explained in your opinion why you think the debt affected the economy.

But what really struck me is how you've repeatedly made the argument that supporting higher taxes is somehow compassionate or that you're not selfish because you believe this.

As for who you are, I have known who you are since the first post in this thread because in your profile, admins can see first and last names on WinCustomize. I haven't disclosed who you are to maintain your privacy.  I have been gently trying to point out that your resume dosn't imply any sort of special business economic knowledge. But I'm happy to debate purely on the issues as long as you are willing to not try to back up your opinions with a rather unsubtle "I'm a rich guy so just take my word for it".

You say I'm misinterpeting you.  Fine, educate me.  What do you mean when you say that you're not selifhs in the context of supporting higher taxes?  What do you mean when you say that I'm a basically a good guy IF I pass on my earnings to my employees versus other types of spending? 

I agree with you 100%, though I hold the administration and the GOP controlled congress PRIMARILY responsible for the state we are in today rather than just the Democrats. 

Unfortunately, it's the Democrats who are going to be stuck with paying the check...or at least telling us how they suggest WE pay the check.

Yes, if you had clicked on the 52 hyperlink, it would have taken you to the footnotes of an article, pre-highlighting the footnoted source's name.  Clicking on THAT link takes you to that source.   To save confusion, this is the document cited.

http://www.cbpp.org/12-13-06bud.htm

Now this itself is an article with the table, etc. in it, but that table cites footnotes that discuss how the numbers were calculated from the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, etc.

However, it can appear as though this deficit calculation is conservatively LOW, as most sources are quoting a total DEBT (ed: corrected from deficit) of $10-11 trillion as of today, including the bailouts, and this article only discusses an increase of $2.3 trillion on top of about $5 trillion when Bush came into office.  But then again, this is dated 2006, so i assume the discrepencies are due to the intervening years plus bailout, etc.

Either way, MY OPINION is that the point is still convincingly made that we have been overspending compared to our revenues and if we hadn't have gone into Iraq and hadn't enacted the tax cut we might be much closer to debt free right now instead of at $11 trillion and climbing.  I can only imagine how strong our dollar would be right now, how much leverage we might have with the Chinese, how closer we might be to reforming Social Security and Health Care, etc., if we weren't so damn far in the hole.

I doubt that.  And no, no where can I find anyone talking about a deficit of 10-11 trillion

This is not a religious debate.  That's another thread. 

As for me, all seances, speaking with the dead, astrology, etc. have been shown to be un-proven and un-scientific at the least, hokum and confidence games at the worst.  There is not a single shred of evidence whatsoever that either of these are real in the slightest.  No one has EVER been proven to be able to talk to the dead and no connection between the positions of the planets, stars, and moons and human events has EVER been shown. To say otherwise is indeed ignorant of the scientific facts of how our world and universe work.  People's WISH that they be true does not mean they have any validity whatsoever.

Come now.  Russia preemptively invaded Georgia without UN or NATO mandate or support.  It's MUCH more analagous to our invasion of Iraq, though not nearly of the same scale, of course. 

As far as Kosovo, here is some useful information to show you the difference...

The Bosnian War as part of the Yugoslav Wars.

Which came after the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as crammed together after WW2, in much the same artificial fashion as Iraq was created by the British after WW1.   Note how impossible it has been to keep these artificial confederations together considering their divergent ethnic and religious lines?

Operation Deliberate Force was NATO's involvement under UN mandate to protect Bosnian refugees.

In other words, we were sent in to help end genocide with the full support of ALL of our allies on a mission that, to this day, is considered an American "good deed" in Europe (except among those who commited the war crimes, of course).

Therefore, I believe that to compare Russia invading Georgia with NATO and UN peacekeepers in Bosnia/Kosovo/etc. shows a complete lack of historical knowledge.