Digg - 8 years of "Conservative" Repulbican governance = $$$DEFICIT

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.

477 Comments
Who Dugg It?

HartgE46, on 09/18/2008, -11/+91...with easy to read Charts and Graphs!

inform everyone.
- Pstmann, on 09/19/2008, -1/+25Borrow and Spend Republicans, need to go!
- oldgal, on 09/19/2008, -3/+4I personally object to entitlements being lumped into the total deficit. The federal government started "borrowing" from the entitlement funds to cover the national debt interest payments, and I do not believe they have ever paid back with interest...I will have to research, but I think they just make sure there is enough in the entitlement account to cover current obligations. The entitlement funds should be accounted for separately, with separately stated deficits and any loans outstanding to the feds accounted for separately. To say that the entitlements are part of the federal deficit is to say that your FICA and Medicare withholdings are really just income tax withholding, and then the entitlements become just a welfare give-away program for old people, and that is socialistic, so it is time to kill the program.
  - kd1s, on 09/20/2008, -0/+2You are correct, they rob Peter to pay Paul such as it were.
    
    Social Security would be solvent today had they not borrowed against the future so heavily. But you have to remember that Republicans of today are heavily influenced by the Grover Norquist philosophy.
    
    He's the one that so hates the U.S. Federal Government that he wants to "shrink it down so it is small enough to drag into the bathroom and drown in the bathtub".
    
    I hate what the Fed has become under the watch of Republicans. Were it not for the overall influence of corporate interests we'd have a solvent retirement fund, full medical for everyone, be able to fix our crumbling infrastructure, etc.
    
    I'd actually like to see the New England states secede from the union this time around. It really is a different country here.
  - oldgal, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3Funny, I feel the same way about the west coast and I am wishing Canada was not so gosh darned cold.
    The republican party of old and the liberal party of old understood that corporations are a serious driver of the economy, but that small businesses are equally so. They understood that infrastructure (e.g. roads, electrification, legal protections, technology, accountability, a well-educated workforce, a healthy work force...) form the base that empower businesses to be successful. And that aesthetics (e.g. parks, clean air, clean water, excellent health care, equality of opportunity and reward, safe food sources....) empower the citizens of the country to be successful. The parties merely disagreed about how to achieve these goals. Now it seems that we are only good at putting labels that abuse semantics on things and yelling about whether those labels represent good or evil, and calling each other names based on those beliefs.
- RRJackson, on 09/19/2008, -14/+2Take a look at our nation during WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam. Newsflash: Wars cost money.
  
  At least we're getting something out of this war. WWI? 100k Americans dead because Bosnians are whackjobs. WWII? 400K dead Americans to defend communism. Korea? 400k dead Americans because our military wasn't allowed to go ahead and take China at the end of WWII. Vietnam? 60K dead Americans because our military wasn't allowed to go ahead and take China at the end of WWII. Iraq? 4000 dead Americans fought to conquer Iraq and annex it as our outpost in the middle east.
  - roddack, on 09/19/2008, -2/+6WWI we should never have never gotten involved in which means WWII would likely never have happened which means we wouldn't have seen the USSR come to power and we wouldn't have has a Korea of Vietnam which means we would have 600k people still alive just in the US
  - RRJackson, on 09/19/2008, -4/+3@roddack
    
    Exactly.
  - fluxion, on 09/19/2008, -2/+7newsflash, more of that debt came from Bush's tax cuts. rather than funding his own stupid little war he pushed it off on the next guy.
    
    fiscal conservative doesnt mean you spend money you dont have for wars and tax cuts, then let someone else foot the bill.
  - SpudgeBoy, on 09/19/2008, -2/+6And the most important thing about WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam was that the rich weren't given tax cuts during those wars, because it would be STUPID and cause us to GO BROKE. are you getting it yet? Probably not.
  - RRJackson, on 09/19/2008, -10/+1Yeah, they taxed the hell out of the nation and the resultant stagnation of the economy led to the "Made in Japan" boom that made Japan a dominant force in everything from automobiles to consumer electronics.
  - HartgE46, on 09/19/2008, -2/+5And what might I add are we actually "getting" from this war? Give me a F'n break. We were lied to and deceived into this war. I don't ever care what you think we might "get", it was all because one administration was hell bent on controlling a region. They're supposed to work for US remember? Not they're old pals in Houston.
    
    Ooo, maybe Hurricane Ike was God's redemption against Bush and his War Mongering Reich of good ol' boys? Funny how the NeoCon Religious Right doesn't spew that kind of BS out of their mouths... oh yeah that's right, God only punishes homoqueersexuals and minorities.
    
    Blind Faith = Ignorance
- magus_melchior, on 09/19/2008, -2/+6Watch the right wing shout, "SEE!? It was the Democrats' entitlements!!!"
- boydrew, on 09/19/2008, -8/+5Who approves the budget? Congress which includes the Democrats who have held the majority for the past few years. Everyone is to blame in this game. We are just the losers.
  - magus_melchior, on 09/19/2008, -1/+12Stop spreading this ignorant "fact".
    
    In order to stop an Executive branch out of control, you need enough votes to override his vetoes. 233 seats in the House is 53%; 50 seats in the Senate is barely over 50%. In order to override a veto, the Democrats would need a two-thirds supermajority-- 66%.
    
    In addition, 60 votes are needed to stop a filibuster in the Senate. With the Republicans stubbornly sticking to their party, I doubt the Democrats could do much with only 50 votes against the opposition filibuster. And with Lieberman and other Blue Dogs siding with the Republicans on national security issues, all the GOP Senators have to do is shout "National Security!!" and they would have enough to kill a Democrat filibuster.
  - Batfishy, on 09/19/2008, -2/+7They've had the majority for 2 years, not a few. And it takes a long time to clean up big messes that took 12 or so years to make.
  - sleazycheese, on 09/20/2008, -5/+1@magus_melchior
    
    boydrew is right. The President proposes a budget, but it's up to (the now democratically controlled) Congress to write it. Bush, by the way, has never vetoed a budget.
    
    In fact, Bush rarely vetoes anything -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States ...
    Besides, many of the bills that he vetoed would have further increased spending. Are those the same vetoes that you're opposed to on the grounds that the Republicans are spending too much? In other words, you're for reducing the size of government, but only when it's not done via a veto by President Bush?
- republicker, on 09/19/2008, -4/+1War is peace freedom is slavery conservative is liberal blah blah blah.
- sampanc, on 09/20/2008, -1/+1And now it's Canada's turn to get in on the fun as we elect our majority Conservative government. We apparently didn't learn from our Big Brother down south learn that republican/conservative economic reform doesn't work in the long run and has unpredictable consequences. We were actually paying off our debt a little before our conservatives took over and had good budgets too (well huge surpluses, which are wrong but still :-P).
richirwin, on 09/18/2008, -13/+124Good one.

More evidence against the "fiscal conservative" myth.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-07-27 ...
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/19/2008, -2/+38Myth? Are there still people who believe Republicans are fiscally conservative? I'd love to know who they are and go slap them.
  - Logrusmage, on 09/19/2008, -24/+5So the answer is to elect liberals who will spend even MORE?
    
    Who the ***** came up with this answer? We're choosing between big government and big government. Yay.
  - Delphium226, on 09/19/2008, -2/+27Ah yes, the much parroted 'liberals spend more'. Rememebr, at the end of Clintons years there was a $559 billion surplus.
  - WasabiBomb, on 09/19/2008, -2/+14Logrusmage- go back and look at the historical record. Deficits and spending has always gone down during Democratic administrations, and UP during Republican administrations.
    
    The only ones who say that Democrats are "tax and spend" is the Republicans. Why is that, do you think?
  - Murdats, on 09/19/2008, -0/+10how could anyone spend more then those conservatives who start expensive as hell wars, sure they may not spend money on anything important like the society they are supposed to run but they do spend more.
  - Logrusmage, on 09/19/2008, -15/+0Clinton was also far more fiscal than the last few GOP Presidents, and he raised taxes like hell. Spending has NOT always gone down during Democratic Presidencies. What an asinine statement.
    
    You realize DEMOCRATS have been the war mongers of the past right? Jeez.
    
    Both parties suck ass. They BOTH over spend. Just because on taxes to kindasorta compensate for their spending (which doesn't always work) doesn't mean that NOT SPENDING has been tried.
    
    If you're arguing that the Democrats don't spend, then you are arguing that they are conservative. ***** LOL. Make up your mind, is conservatism bad or good?
  - NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/19/2008, -1/+7Yeah, clinton was also severley limited by a much more conservative congress (relative to today)... welfare reform for example was basically shoved down his throat by congress and the opinion of the people. Several of you are still making the false association that republicans are conservative, the Roves, Hasterts, Frisks, and Bushes of the world have completely severed real ties to conservatism, of course they still like to pretend, but popularity polls have shown the conservative base isn't falling for their BS, hence 3 people per state voted in the republican primaries. If Obama would talk about government reform instead of adding more, McCain/Palin would be losing by 20 points.
  - azAZ09, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1They are "fiscally conservative", but they are not "fiscally sound" or even "fiscally responsible".
  - JamesPDX, on 09/19/2008, -0/+6@Logrusmage:
    
    So let me guess even though you say that both parties suck ass you are still going to vote Republican because you are a Republican and that is how you are told to vote right?
    
    I would be surprised if you voted 3rd party.
  - biotch, on 09/20/2008, -0/+2Logrusmage,
    "Spending has NOT always gone down during Democratic Presidencies."
    
    Clinton raised discretionary spending less than Reagan, Bush sr, and Bush jr.
    "***** LOL" it all you want. Its a verifiable fact.
    
    Being conservative is a broad term encompassing the notion of spending less. However it has actually now historically defined itself as, "claiming you spend less but then spending enough to break the deficit record 3 presidents in a row" (ie Reagan, Bush sr, and Bush jr.)
    
    Sources:
    debt by party
    http://i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg
    
    Spending
    http://www.factcheck.org/defending_spending_bushs_ ...
    
    Spreadsheet including reagan and bush spending
    (all of which outpace Clinton)
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets ...
- RealHyperX, on 09/19/2008, -34/+2Only a liberal quotes USA today. LOL! You guys are ***** dumb.
  - Pstmann, on 09/19/2008, -1/+15Only a lying dick doesn't respond to the charges at hand!
  - Pstmann, on 09/19/2008, -2/+7Only a lying dick doesn't respond to the charges at hand!
  - biotch, on 09/19/2008, -1/+10wow what a convincing argument ... well sourced too!
  - Delphium226, on 09/19/2008, -1/+8Sorry, you're right, we should go more on faith and unsubstantiated and nonsenscial claims like you cons do. Our bad.
    
    /s
  - oldgal, on 09/19/2008, -0/+8At least liberals generally provide their sources, as opposed to elitist conservatives who are sure their opinions should stand unopposed but are too arrogant to share their knowledge with us riff-raff.
  - richirwin, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4The numbers, as stated on the graph, came from the Office of Management and Budget, reporting directly to the President.
    
    Now, let's talk about somebody who is ***** dumb.
    
    RealHyperX.
    
    There are really 2 choices here.
    
    (a) You did not read the article, yet you felt compelled to comment. That's "***** dumb."
    
    (b) You read the article but did not comprehend that the budgetary numbers come from the President's cabinets. That is also "***** dumb."
    
    Either way, RealHyperX, you have proven yourself to be (a) a republican and (b) ***** dumb.
    
    That's redundant, btw.
  - AngelaQ, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1@richirwin
    
    (c) He read the article and understood, which means it was necessary to make up lies and smears as a distraction.
- pintomp3, on 09/19/2008, -0/+29my personal favorite:
  http://www.mypolls.us/republican.national.debt.jpg
- NJank, on 09/19/2008, -4/+7hey... it's hard to maintain a budget when you're busy battling the evil terrorists day in and day out.
  - Delphium226, on 09/19/2008, -0/+10Yeah, how's that going? Where's Osama? 3000+ 9/11 dead would like to know.
  - SlapTard, on 09/19/2008, -1/+4Osama? He's in Pakistan.
- Wargalas, on 09/19/2008, -16/+5Ummm....Democrats could have done something about this during the 6 years they had a minority, and certainly could have done something about it in the 2 ***** YEARS they've had a majority.
  - RDinSB, on 09/19/2008, -0/+17Its a slim majority in the Senate, they can't get past the filibuster, and in fact the Republicans have used the Filibuster since the Democrats got 50 seats more than the Filibuster has ever been used in its history: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2 ...
  - pintomp3, on 09/19/2008, -1/+15LOL, you are blaming the democrats for 6 years when they had no power in any of the branches? even the last two they have a slim majority, but republicans still have the executive and judicial. god you are ***** stupid.
  - Wargalas, on 09/19/2008, -5/+2@pintomp3
    
    Please be quiet, men are talking.
    
    As a side note, Democrats have had the ability to filibuster throughout the past 8 years. Please do a bit of research before you talk, it makes you look smarter then you truly are.
    
    It's a slim majority in the Senate, but a very clear majority in the House. You need both you know.
  - Bith8654, on 09/19/2008, -2/+4@wargalas: Wow way to be a pompous ass. First of all, filibustering from the Democrats wouldn't actually change anything, it would only stop right-wing bills from passing, you would still bitch at them for not fixing the world. Second, yes you need a majority in both the House and Senate, but pointing that out only really hurts your cause. They have a slim, easily filibustered majority in the Senate, and though a bigger majority in House, it's not overwhelming. If, according to you, you need both, then they don't have both if they are constantly filibustered in the Senate.
    
    "In the fall of 2007, the 110th Congress' 1st session broke the record, for filibuster cloture votes, topping 70 as of Nov 15, 2007. It is on track to triple the number of such votes in 2008's 2nd session."
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#United_Sta ...
  - Wargalas, on 09/19/2008, -2/+2@bith8654.
    
    I have a history with Pintomp3, so kindly keep that opinion to yourself.
    
    First off, don't give me that line of ***** about "filibustering wouldn't change anything", then turn around and tell me that it would stop right wing bills. If they can stop one bill, they can stop ALL bills.
    
    Secondly, Nancy Pelosi and her ilk promised to make things all better, end the culture of corruption, reduce spending, end the war in Iraq, and a host of other promises, that she and other Democrats have completely failed to keep.
    
    Even things that Nancy Pelosi has complete control over, she hasn't done a damned thing about. The "culture of corruption" bit. Here we have Christopher Dodd, William Jefferson, and Charles Rangel, ALL suspected corrupt members of her own party, and she does nothing about it.
    
    So you'll have to excuse me if I've gotten the opinion that Democrats in power are a bunch of spineless cowards who'll say and do anything to maintain power...I wonder how I got that impression?
  - sullivanst, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3Yeah because government shutdowns do everyone a whole bunch of good.
    
    Wargalas: you're both a pompous ass and a dumbass.
  - JenniferInMO, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3Uh, hello, they sure as hell tried, but in the MINORITY you can't get through anything. They may have had a majority and they sure as hell have tried to pass reasonable bills, but they were threatened with a filibuster and a presidential veto every time they did. It is the Republicans who are squarely to blame for the past 8 years. Period.
  - Wargalas, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1What's the matter Sullivan, don't like it when people point out facts?
- uppitydiggers, on 09/19/2008, -11/+2So it's a myth that there are conservatives who prefer to see less government spending and the cutting of garbage programs and departments (DoHS & the wars, as an example) all around?
  
  Love to know how you arrived at that one. Unless you seem to think that those in office represent all conservatives perfectly. Which would be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, considering that we already know that liberals are divided into separate camps
  - Bith8654, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3Well when that specific nominee SAYS they are "fiscal conservative," and they gain the acceptance of their entire party, yes it's easy to believe they are all the same. Unless the republican party repeatedly chooses someone that doesn't represent them every time or just chooses a liar on purpose, I don't understand how someone that is so far off from representing so-called "conservatives" could get nominated every time.
  - uppitydiggers, on 09/19/2008, -1/+0So you're saying that Obama has gained the acceptance of his entire party, and represents the ideals of every Democrat?
    
    Goddamn, there sure are some ballsy sweeping generalizations being made here.
  - TheSpook, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1In God we trust.
- snakeeyejoe, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5Sorry to say many in this country will totally ignore any facts and figures coming from anyone but Fox and Rush because of point #2 - http://www.peppermintpie.com/Politics/RepProp.htm
  - uppitydiggers, on 09/19/2008, -2/+1The same goes for people who will totally ignore any facts and figures coming from anyone but Huffington and Olbermann.
  - richirwin, on 09/20/2008, -0/+2Huffington and Olbermann are as popular as Fox News and Rush?
    
    Interesting.
- oldgal, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4And the one you never see when looking at governmental expense is interest payments on the national debt (bottom chart item): http://www.federalbudget.com/
- Loxahatchee, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3http://digg.com/business_finance/Welcome_to_the_US ...
- Marty1h, on 09/19/2008, -3/+1There is a difference: Dems are Tax and Spend, Republicans are Borrow and Spend. Pick your poison. Dr. Ron Paul, write him in November 4th.
  - siszam, on 09/20/2008, -1/+2Ron Paul is another greedy Republican.
- digitronix, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1Speaking of conservatives...
  
  http://digg.com/world_news/Thanks_Compassionate_Co ...
- wonderworm, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3This article is actually very generous to the Republicans. The actual 2008 estimate deficit should be aroundt 250 Billion dollars more than the 500 or so Billion that is stated. This is because Bush "borrowed" an extra 250 Billion from the social security fund in order to report a lower deficit number for 2008. ie: fudge the numbers.
  
  More creative lies from the top. That's what they do best.
tucsonsun13, on 09/18/2008, -10/+107with a post like this emerging every week for the last 5 years +, you'd think Americans would get it and vote their interests. Unfortunately, many of them are essentially illiterate.
- jmpeagle, on 09/19/2008, -1/+33people seem to associate lower taxes with lower government spending even though there seems to be no correlation.
  - tbredofsin, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3Actually, people seem to associate lower taxes with paying the government less of their money. For good or ill, this sounds like a really good deal to the average American.
  - quandrum, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Well, there was for most of the 90's when we had Pay-as-you-go rules.
    
    But thankfully the '02 Republican's destroyed the most meaningful fiscally conservative law we had. (Brought to you by the '92 democrats BTW)
  - gnocchi1442, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1Actually the correlation goes the other way. When taxes are cut, people feel like they're getting a bargain on government. Spending tends to go up.
- ScienceDoc, on 09/19/2008, -3/+40Read "What's the Matter with Kansas". The neocons turn people against their own economic self interest with religion.
  - macweirdo42, on 09/19/2008, -1/+18Exactly - not to mention, when you start promising tax cuts, all worries about fiscal responsibility fly out the window, regardless of whether you can afford them or not.
  - ghuytro, on 09/19/2008, -0/+12Good overview of this excellent book at Wikipedia:
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_w ...
- macweirdo42, on 09/19/2008, -1/+25It's this kind of ***** that is exactly why John McCain vehemently opposes the Bush tax cuts. They're just completely irresponsible. We need more Republicans like McCain.
  
  ...
  
  Oh, he changed his mind about the Bush tax cuts? Never mind.
  - Pstmann, on 09/19/2008, -3/+5The only possible silver lining from a McCain election win would be that all the crap he has espoused lately is just cover to get his "base" behind him. Then he goes back to the "somewhat" sane person he was years ago.
    Hopefully we don't have to even get that far though.
- pipipie, on 09/19/2008, -2/+11...with posts like this...
  
  You forget that more than half the voting population don't really look at the internet for any news or infomration. They are more than happy messing with the rabbit ears to get the news at 11.
- liuite, on 09/19/2008, -1/+3illiterate or ignorant? surely the illiterate can listen to arguements and interpret for themselves. the ignorant ones don't know when they've been had.
- harrisbradley, on 09/19/2008, -2/+2The true 'illiteracy' is when you think there is a difference between the two major parties.
- danthepiercer, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2illiterate? ignorant? how dare you?!
  this is America my friend, and in America we dont have to care about all of your uppity queer commie *****... like politics or the environments and all that stuff.
  we got people on the TV who know all that gay ass ***** and tell me and my friends all we need to know to keep commies like al quaeda loving barack OSAMA out of the white house. (he was born in indonesia you know, and thats in africa. so i dont trust him)
  newspapers suck, the only thing i read in the newspaper is the free tv guide that comes on sunday. besides, they all say the same ***** about hating our president and saying hes dumb and *****. ***** pussies, theyre just mad cuz he wants to kick some ass! but he told em one time, hell yes he did. good ole dubya was like 'the newspapers are like your opinions man...and i dont read em'. i'd like to think that im as smart as the president, and if he thinks that the newspapers are opinions then so do i.
  and dont start talkin ***** about all your 'independent news blog media outlet internet source', we dont watch that commie liberal CNN ***** around here...no sir, not in this trailer park, not on my watch.
- JamesPDX, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1Most of it has to do with being brainwashed by the fair and balanced Fox Noise.
- Dszerox, on 09/20/2008, -1/+0No, unfortunately they think voting for a Democrat will fix things...
azAZ09, on 09/18/2008, -20/+52The trickle-down approach, and unquestioning worship of the holy-rollin' free market gospel, are the fundamental flaws behind the myth of fiscal conservatism. Runaway waste fraud and abuse, from the big government party that pretends to be the small government party also plays a role
- lordbeaker, on 09/19/2008, -7/+13Let's not forget what their free-market approach has caused in terms of no oversight to tainted foods that are killing humans and animals just about every month now, and making thousands ill because of no regulation. And the outsourcing of jobs to basically export slavery.
  
  I can't believe I still even talk to my friends and family who still believe in this crap.
  - Logrusmage, on 09/19/2008, -9/+7You're an idiot. You obviously don't know a THING about economics, or you'd know that its impossible to regulate corporations to prevent outsourcing. They outsource BECAUSE they're regulated, moron.
    
    You really think the government could do a better job than these corporations? It worked so very well for the USSR and CHina didn't it?
    
    I wonder why CHina is becoming a strong economic nation... as it copies our free market capitalism. Hmmm...
  - WasabiBomb, on 09/19/2008, -4/+6China is also destroying their environment, and they've got more people living in poverty than the US. I wouldn't use them as an example of the free market in action, if I were you.
  - Logrusmage, on 09/19/2008, -5/+5First of all, they had ONE HELL of a lot more people living in poverty before they started moving towards a free market. Their middle class has BOOMED since they threw out a lot of their old commie ways.
    
    As for the environmental thing, that has more to do with the sheer ***** of people in China and the amount of industry that exists there. Yes, China is destroying their environment, being accelerated into the industrial age with that kind of people-concentration can do that.
  - macdady843, on 09/19/2008, -4/+3@ lordbeaker
    
    Jobs are outsourced because unions bicker and moan about their workers not getting $30 and hour to push a broom or be a janitor. So then the corporations say ok ***** you if you think you're too good for this job and you need more money for an uneducated position then we'll ship it overseas to someone who appreciates our employment opportunity. Not too difficult to understand. Walmart understands it pretty well as they are non-union and look at them, they're doing pretty good. A shining example of capitalism at its best.
  - logandurand, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2How can you use "tainted foods" as an example of a market failure when the US has the FDA? Sounds like a government failure to me.
    
    As for outsourcing, how is that a bad thing? Who are you to tell people who they can/cannot hire?
  - jrstinkfish, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3@macdady843:
    
    We're sending our janitorial jobs overseas? That's a long trip to throw orange sawdust on vomit. And if Wal-mart workers unionized, you're saying that Wal-mart would send those jobs overseas? Again, a long way for a guy to travel to be a store greeter.
    
    Most of the jobs being outsourced are technology jobs. And they're not being outsourced because workers are asking too much -- they're being outsourced because Indians will work for a few dollars a day. But just wait -- once they have a firm grip on our workforce, they'll start to ask for more, and these corporations who took the easy way out and ***** over American workers in the process are going to have quite a problem on their hands. I can't wait.
  - macdady843, on 09/20/2008, -4/+1@ jrstinkfish
    
    I was just trying to make a point that unions ask for more money for these employees than they deserve.. obviously i know that janitorial jobs aren't being shipped overseas.. and if walmart did unionize they wouldn't outsource either, but you would see it quickly fall from the list of companies that are able to offer competitive prices for their product because their cost of doing business would go wayyyy up. They would in turn pass costs down to the consumer and those bargains wouldn't be so much of a bargain anymore.
- masterkenobi, on 09/19/2008, -6/+9I ***** miss Bill Clinton.
  - Logrusmage, on 09/19/2008, -8/+5Bill Clinton got us into this economic ***** by asking Freddie and Fannie (which were already quasi governmental agencies) to please give loans to poor people... who had no way of paying them back because they're either SOL, or ***** stupid (usually the later).
  - WasabiBomb, on 09/19/2008, -0/+7And the Republicans took the idea and ran with it. And then they deregulated everything.
    
    If what Clinton did was so bad, why didn't the Republicans FIX the damn problem in these last 8 years of unfettered power?
    
    Republicans need to man up and stop blaming a guy who hasn't been in power for almost a decade.
  - masterkenobi, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5From what I could tell, it was actually caused by the subprime mortgage crisis that actually happened around 2006-2007.
  - Logrusmage, on 09/19/2008, -5/+0Did I say the Republican's were any better? No I did not. They could have ended it. They didn't. So ***** them.
  - stagmire, on 09/19/2008, -1/+8"Bill Clinton got us into this economic *****..."
    
    Seems like you had 8 years to fix the problem then. What gives?
  - darkened, on 09/19/2008, -7/+1It takes approximately 8 years for an major economic shifts in law to show in reality which is exactly correlated to this time frame hmmmm
  - masterkenobi, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4@darkened
    
    I actually heard it was 4 years. Hmmm....
  - stagmire, on 09/19/2008, -1/+3"It takes approximately 8 years for an major economic shifts in law"
    
    And yet it took about 2 seconds for the announcement that the Fed would buy up ***** RE paper to send the DJIA on a rebound. Explain.
  - azAZ09, on 09/19/2008, -1/+3@Logrusmage
    I might not be an expert in economics, but I am well qualified to deconstruct, sift through and expose empty false rhetoric.
    
    In your case your example works against your own argument. Even though China is moving toward capitalism, it is not fully there. Do they have more or less regulation than the floundering markets? At a guess-with no time to look it up---I would say more regulation under a totalitarian government that still makes a pretense of communism.
    
    But the root argument is not about Chinese communism vs, capitalism, or even a critique of capitalism. It -IS- a critique of the put the fertilizer on the flower of the plant approach to capitalism. It-IS- a critique of the ***** "trickle-down" economic theory that middle and lower middle-income conservatives accept unquestioningly like a bible-whackin' televangelist or revival preacher's literal-truth.
    
    Peel back the tent-flap bubbuh, The preacher is a Con-artist. If you pray at the alter of Reaganomics, or propagate the lies that conservatives prefer small government, without questioning and analyzing beliefs, then you have bought the preacher's slick act hook line and sinker.
    
    I may not be an economist, but I have read "Wealth of Nations", and see the flaws in thinking that "enlightened-self-interest" alone can govern. Smith did not believe in total deregulation either.
    
    Yes I believe the government COULD and SHOULD do a better job at some tasks than corporations. One of those tasks should be policing corporations, and protecting American citizens from them.
    
    You might call me liberal or progressive or whatever, but real progressive principles---and not the conservative characterization of them ---stand a much better chance of reaching our common goals of restoring education, health, prosperity, safety, justice, integrity, and a future of innovation to all Americans-- not just a lucky privileged few.
    
    I even think progressive policies stand a better chance of achieving some of the holy grail goals of conservatism--- fiscal responsibility, smaller responsible government, stronger military, greater security, and better conditions for business, and economic growth.
    
    Give the appropriate means of production back to the people, and everything will prosper
  - azAZ09, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3@darkened
    Eight years? Based on what theory or evidence? This sounds like Limbaugh Logic to me.
    
    You know, Fox News said McCain could sooth market fears overnight like magic with a few words.
    
    Eight years is most likely *****. Eight year delay would have made the so-called Dot-com crash George H.W. Bush's prior to the Eternal September before anyone heard of a dot-com, and the recession under Reagan would have been caused by Nixon/Ford not Carter.
    
    It seems as though the big bailout had an immediate response. A real drop in gasoline prices from getting tough and educating Big-Oil would have an immediate effect.
- Spektr4, on 09/19/2008, -1/+8Yeah. $3 trillion added to the national debt after eight years, and what do we have to show for it? Did we get national health coverage? No. Did we get rebuilt infrastructure? No. Did we get an improvement to our energy situation? No. Have our schools improved? No.
  
  We. Got. Nothing. $3 trillion added to the debt, and nothing to show for it. How anyone could consider voting for a Republican right now is incomprehensible to me. You got bought off with a pathetic tax cut, while most of that money went to millionaires. And the small gain you got from that tax cut is gone due to inflation. Don't reward failure on election day.
nycjap, on 09/19/2008, -11/+22you'll get 'em interested with "pie"...

unfortunately, as soon as you follow up with "chart", you'll lose 'em.

you can put a pie on a chart, and it's still a chart, i say.
- honeybrass, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Unless its a frizbee!
- Hrodrik, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/09 ...
  - Bith8654, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Wow, they should make a skin in Excel's pie charts based on actual pie.
displacednomad, on 09/19/2008, -12/+19I cried.

No, seriously. We have little future left.
- prisoner24601, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3I had to give this a digg despite being a Republican. Bush did nothing about this. He should have vetoed EVERY budget in the last 8 years and sent each one of them back to the hill with "sorry guys, this isn't balanced and we can't keep mortgaging our grandkids futures anymore" but not only did he NOT do that, he made it impossible to put any pressure on congress to make America live within its means by starting an expensive war.
  
  If we *really* needed to get rid of Saddam, then we should have sent a busboy with a silencer to do it. Seriously, is there any single person anywhere in the world the CIA couldn't get with a budget of $1 million? OK, fine, some. How about with $10 million? Not many. OK, pick the single most security-paranoid banana-republic dictator in the world that you can think of. Some real third-world thug surrounded by his paid off gang of mercenaries and armed-to-the-teeth buddies who is flush with petrodollars and buys himself lots of tanks and planes and bunkers, etc. Can you REALLY think of even one of those guys that the CIA couldn't pay off SOMEBODY (or group) to take out for... say... $1 billion dollars?
  
  So let's see here, so far we've spent (depending on which of the many somewhat different, but ALL absolutely *astronomical* figures you want to use) maybe $900 billion. So give the CIA $1b to have the guy removed "one way or another" and save $899 BILLION dollars. Oh, and by the way, thousands of our troop deaths, many thousands of Iraqi troop deaths, and over a MILLION Iraqi civilian deaths.
  
  I'm not, by any means, saying that "assassination is morally acceptable" by this. I'm simply saying that if the US president decides to kill Saddam, then try not to do it in the most idiotic way possible and create astonishing further loss of life and destruction.
  
  And, oh, by the way, in the meantime we've wrecked our economy too. Thanks for that. Fantastic work here guys.
  
  Right now, I'm astonished that BOTH Obama and McCain aren't out hitting every stop they make with "I want you to know I WILL BE the balanced budget president and we WILL reduce our national debt under my administration."
mysticalone, on 09/19/2008, -6/+18LOL what is everyone worried about? Take a second and look into your wallets. You see that? Not 1 credit card, but many credit cards. So all we got to do is pay off our national debt with another national credit line. Wait, when my folks did this... On second thought maybe we should pay it off soon.
- displacednomad, on 09/19/2008, -2/+10I am happy to say that as of next week my one and only credit card will be paid off. Now I use only debit and cash to make purchases.
- masterkenobi, on 09/19/2008, -0/+7@displacednomad
  
  Congratulations! Recovering from a large credit card debt takes a huge amount of discipline and is by no means an easy task. I know from experience.
- Pstmann, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3^^^^ Good for you, I haven't paid all my credit off yet but I have destroyed all my plastic and will not be using it again.
- Solkre, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4I did it earlier this year, now I only use my credit card for purchases I want some protection on.
  
  I'd keep one around for renting hotel rooms and stuff like that. Money holds on debit cards can suck.
- masterkenobi, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4It's actually fine to use your credit card. It's a convenience, and I buy stuff online all the time. The key though, the BIG key, is to pay off your credit card bill at the end of every month. You tend to watch your spending more when you know that it will be directly be coming out of your paycheck at the end of the month.
idarkiswordi, on 09/19/2008, -10/+16It is terribly sad how bad this country has been run for 8 years. Crime after crime against our liberties, the tax system, the basis for war, yet almost all go uncontended. How did we become such a nonvocal society? What happened to the spirit of yesteryear's protest? Why did we let Bush sneak in and dry rape us in the ass time after time only to end up gargling his balls while on the dirty floor of a truck stop restroom? :( (too far?)
- RealHyperX, on 09/19/2008, -13/+2Democrats ***** this country up. Not Bush. Small businesses are kicking ass because of his tax decreases. You libtards don't know *****.
  
  What has your democratic congress done over the last year or two? Not a ***** thing.
  - enclaved, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4...
    poor guy
  - displacednomad, on 09/19/2008, -1/+6As much as I don't like Democrats, I also don't like Republicans. Both parties are responsible for this nation's being in a mess. Please don't point to one party, as both have representatives in government.
    
    I do have to agree that the Congress has accomplished nothing over the past year. But you should remember that the Democratic control over the House and Senate is paper thin. To think that we have a Dem Congress is stretching it. The Repubs are just as responsible in their preventing the majority from accomplishing anything. Remember that.
  - longshotep, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1Democrats AND Republicans ***** up this country, our current state of affairs are not mutually exclusive. This is the American peoples fault for electing these representatives.
  - Manther, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4Get a clue dude. How did democrats ***** up?? Small businesses might be doing alright, but big businesses are bending you, and our government, over and throwing it in us. Just like Enron at the beginning, financial companies now, and if we don't fix it, who knows who's next.
    
    And just tell me what exactly you think a democratic congress can accomplish in 2 years with a Republican president who has given himself more power than any president before him has had, except maybe George Washington, that wouldn't make more sense to wait until his lame duck ass is out of office, so they're not just wasting everyone's time on a bill that just going to get vetoed. Please, open your eyes.
  - Pstmann, on 09/19/2008, -0/+6"What has your democratic congress done over the last year or two? Not a ***** thing."
    
    What did the Republican Congress do for the 6 years before that?????
    Well they did quite a bit;
    Raped worker protections.
    Raped the environment.
    Raped the agencies that protect our food, medical, product safety.
    Took from the poor and gave to the rich.
    Started a false war.
    Screwed up the "right" war.
    Weakened Federal "read, taxpayer" oversight of financial, banking, food, chemical, housing, health-care , etc. etc.
    Shat on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    
    Basically Republicans kiss the ass of multi-national corps and give everyone else a bucket of lies and IOU's. So no matter if the Dem's haven't done much (and true) they haven't I will never vote for a Republican again. Dem or 3rd party for me from now on.
  - RealHyperX, on 09/19/2008, -5/+2Pstmann - false war? I can't argue with you. What ***** false war? Iraq happened because Hussein kept ***** with us. Bush took all the risk for very little benefit. You guys wont understand that. Raped the environment? The ***** you talking about again? What river has set on fire lately? Worker protections? OSHA has more regulations on hand than before, workers are healthier and better off than before. Yes, the unions had to trim a lot of fat to compete with Japan - which in the long run - is making all products better. You guys are just so far gone, you have no idea. So far removed from reality that it is just simply amazing.
  - macdady843, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1@ Pstmann
    
    Raped the environment? Let me enlighten all of you who are too stupid the realize that taxing CO2 emissions is just a scheme for the re-distribution of wealth from wealthy countries to poor countries because they feel it is not fair that America is at the top. CO2 makes up 0.03% of our atmosphere (that's 3 hundredths of a percent if you missed that) and your telling me that it is a significant factor in global warming?? That's just stupid. Man-made global warming is a hoax, Mr. Sun up there is doing way more to our climate then a little CO2.. not to mention decaying plants which let off 80% of our CO2.
    
    http://www.friendsofscience.org
    
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml= ...
    
    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo ...
  - Jpesci, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5RealHyperX get a clue. Did you read this article? You can't provide tax cuts and increase military spending and not expect to be rolling in deficit. Where were we after Clinton; where are we now? And you want 4 more years.
  - SpinningHead, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Where do you get this stuff?
    From the Small Business Association 1996:
    The rate of unemployment fell from 6.1 percent in 1994
    to 5.6 percent in 1995. Consumer prices were stable, employee compensation
    increased and, for the sixth consecutive year, corporate profits were up.
    The number of business bankruptcies and failures continued to decline: bankruptcies
    dropped from 50,845 in 1994 to 50,516 in 1995 and failures declined
    from 71,558 in 1994 to 71,194 in 1995.
    Overall, business prospered, particularly small businesses. Small-business-
    dominated industries added jobs at a rate greater than 1.6 times the
    national rate of increase of 1.6 percent. Small firms grew most in the retail
    and wholesale trade and service sectors.
    
    SBA 2004: The low-interest-rate environment spurred
    corporate bond issuances and generated a massive wave of mortgage refi nancing
    activity by households. Equity markets also began to rally; however, the
    climb in stock prices that continued for the rest of the year failed to revive
    the equity capital markets for small fi rms—the initial public offering (IPO)
    market and venture capital markets remained depressed in 2003.
- lordbeaker, on 09/19/2008, -1/+22 way conversation has been removed from our press. There's this thing called the "Fairness Doctrine" that worked pretty well in this day and age of one way information. It seemed to be the final wall for the Right Wing to control the masses.
  
  At least we have the internet to voice our opinions but does that seem to be working at all?
  
  We need to step out in the open and let our voices be heard or it's basically done.
- theutopian, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Bread and Circuses. Bread and Circuses.
- ChinkInMyArmor, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Yesteryear's protest has been pushed to the other side of town and cordoned off.
honeybrass, on 09/19/2008, -4/+23How long till I'm using dollar bills as wallpaper?
- kefkaantakrist, on 09/19/2008, -2/+0You tell us...
  
  I don't think hard currency has grown as fast as "total money" (including the stuff that just exists as data in a computer).
  
  It's kinda funny to think about... not only is the dollar not backed by gold anymore, it's not even backed by paper dollars anymore. But I do think that, at least in theory, so long as money is only lent in exchange for equal valued assets there would be no inflation.
- Hrodrik, on 09/19/2008, -1/+8You think you'll have the luxury to decorate? You'll probably have to use them for heating.
- bicyclethief, on 09/19/2008, -1/+5Wallpaper or toilet paper?
  - BriscoeJr, on 09/20/2008, -0/+0Actually money isn't made from paper it's about 25% cotton and 75% linen. It's actually more of a cloth than anything.
- sereusx, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1I know people who papered their bathroom walls with dollar bills....very cute too! Done already!
- evilangela, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1From the look of things, a few weeks.
  
  I wish I was joking.
cognizance8, on 09/19/2008, -18/+4http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=3 ...
- sindex, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3Interesting. Not at all related, but interesting.
  
  See, this article is about the deficit, not about the current banking crisis.
- digitalcaffeine, on 09/19/2008, -2/+10Which totally overlooks the fact that the Republicans, led by your Phil Gramm, gutted all the regulations, replaced them with a swizzle stick, and then left office and went to work for the companies he just opened the door for. There is more than enough blame to go around for the situation we find ourselves in now, but blaming Clinton for trying to help get more people into homes isn't cutting it. Blame the markets for being too greedy for their own good, blame the regulators for being asleep at the wheel, and blame Congress (specifically Gramm) for opening the barn door and inviting the foxes in.
  - lordbeaker, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2And Republican John McCain then signs Gramm as his chief economic campaign advisor.
    
    But I guess he's used to screwing over the masses back in the Keating 5 days, so he should be in good company with Phil at the helm.
    
    And let's not forget Gramm giving us all the ENRON loophole.... that worked out just lovely.
beabis, on 09/19/2008, -28/+22Republican or Democrat it's all about plundering the USA by passing legislation that will make your friends rich so they will take care of you once you leave office. There is no fix until civilization falls and we start all over again.
- oldhick, on 09/19/2008, -1/+6Far from true. Revolution.
- ulmedas, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5I cannot wait for Armageddon. Bring it on...I have my Armageddon team training right now. Supplies are being stowed. Our secret forest log cabins are built and stocked with ammunition and an extensive library. I will look really silly if we get out of this mess without facing the end of civilization.
- OliveStreet, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1I'm with you, beabis.
- winnestow, on 09/19/2008, -4/+1you are being dugg down because you are asking liberals to share the blame. liberals can never be blamed, they are only victims.
algaeturd, on 09/19/2008, -7/+66Let's see....a useless war that costs trillions of dollars we didn't have to achieve something we didn't even need, ignoring the American infrastructure and social welfare of the country...WOW, who'd have thought we'd end up in the ***** as a result of this horrible management?
- stretch611, on 09/19/2008, -2/+18Don't forget that at the same time this unnecessary war started, tax cuts where given to the people that needed them the least and wasteful spending was increased significantly. (Not to mention things like no-bid contracts.)
  - defwheezer, on 09/19/2008, -2/+10The Plan was to drain the wealth of the people into the hands of the elite while at the same time killing Government (via bankruptcy). Goals achieved. Now we have a new Guilded Era where super rich do not have to worry about the uppity Lower classes "Regulating" through good governance.
  - stonewall123, on 09/19/2008, -0/+9Yeah no kidding.... for a bunch that pride themselves in modeling govt after business and fiscal conservation how can they honestly allow no bid contracts for so many billions. Also, can you imagine if we had taken those several trillion that were flushed down the toilet and channeled that into something useful like a manhattan project for renewables energy and energy independence? It would make us impervious to foreign oil influences AND it would drastically reduce or even eliminate the $750 billion or so we pay to import foreign oil every year. If the price of gas doesn't go up ( and it will) at current prices we could spend well over 6 trillion for oil over the next presidency. That's alot of $$.
  - logandurand, on 09/19/2008, -3/+1Bush cut taxes for people who had disproportionately high rates compared to the rest of the nation (nobody deserves to have 30-40% of their income taken away from them), and lowering the capitol gains tax gave everybody more money. Of all the dumb ***** Bush has done, his tax cuts aren't among them.
- Spektr4, on 09/19/2008, -1/+3Situation: good economy.
  Republicans: Economy is good, lots of money flowing in, let's cut taxes.
  
  Situation: bad economy.
  Republicans: Economy is bad, needs stimulation, let's cut taxes.
  
  Situation: war
  Republicans: Never been a tax cut in a time of war? So what, let's cut taxes.
  
  We're on the other side of the Laffer Curve. This policy isn't working. We're basically screwed, because Bush wanted to give trillions worth of tax cuts to millionaires. And watching voters vote for these clowns, against their own self interest, knowing what's going to be the result, is awful.
ScienceDoc, on 09/19/2008, -8/+46The neocon philosophy starts with telling lies. It ends with them taking your money. Watch McSame on the campaign trail. His story changes every day.
Hetman, on 09/19/2008, -12/+37This is exactly the problem with a two party system. Niether candidate is a true fiscal conservative. And you can easily see that due to our weak economy. Regardless of who wins, they are going to increase the size of our government, increase the power of the government, and increase spending in our government. And that is the last thing we need.
- oldhick, on 09/19/2008, -11/+13You get dugg down for pointing out third parties. Digg is Obama or get out... Sucks.
  - mithrasinvictus, on 09/19/2008, -4/+2No, i dugg him down for suggesting democrats are as fiscally irresponsible as the republicans.
    There might be many similarities, but this is not one of them.
    RTFA.
  - oldhick, on 09/19/2008, -1/+3Its article, just an article. If you actually believe one party is more fiscally responsible than another than you're lost. Both burn through money like it grows on trees.
  - mithrasinvictus, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1And facts are facts.
    They might both spend, but not at the same rate.
  - oldhick, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2Facts are facts indeed. You can't hide that the two parties working together got us in this mess. Its as if people on Digg truly believe this country is run by an all powerful emperor who creates the budget, appropriates money, and then spends it...
    Facts are facts indeed.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/19/2008, -7/+9Yeah, you're dugg down why?... for pointing out the truth.
- jasoninoakland, on 09/19/2008, -6/+9We'll see. Clinton was effectively a fiscal conservative; he brought down government spending and gave us a budgetary surplus (until Bush reversed that - and NOT all of his growth in spending is defense-related). My suspicion is that Obama will follow in Clinton's footsteps. He's far more fiscally conservative than people give him credit for.
- Calinthalus, on 09/19/2008, -5/+11Clinton wasn't fully fiscally conservative. He brought down government spending by gutting the military. He also strengthened the Community Reinvestment Act which helped lead to what we have today with Freddie and Fannie. Of course in interest to fairness....Bush tried (in 2003) to make the CRA even worse for the economy..but it never passed.
  
  Clinton was more fiscally conservative than Bush...but that's really not saying much.
  - NSResponder, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2" He brought down government spending by gutting the military."
    
    Not even close. He slowed the rate of growth of military spending to some extent, but "gutting"? No.
    
    -jcr
  - Spektr4, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2You have no concept of what our military spending is, do you? Furthermore, it was the first Bush and his defense sec Dick Cheney who argued rhetorically for the "peace dividend" which was savings due to scaling back the military after the cold war.
    
    Right now, we need more cuts in military spending. I don't often agree with Ron Paul, but I'm with him on this point.
- Hetman, on 09/19/2008, -5/+5He wants to increase social programs and increase government AID to foreign country. How is he going to possible balance the budget for that. And he still has to deal with Iraq and as far as I am aware he still has a 16month withdraw time fram, Which is still pretty long. That is not to mention the fact that we are going to keep soldiers their training and helping out for an unspecified series of time. Clinton is also partly to blame for our housing and banking crisis right now. He was the one that encouraged risky investments. Anyways I want to vote, but I want to vote for someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But I do not think that is going to happen.
- senlei23, on 09/19/2008, -4/+5this shows/explains why it is not just one party to blame while demanding who you should or should not vote for. THANK YOU!
- TSK05, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1Socialism is the biggest government of them all. You know which candidate that is.
gmacnay, on 09/19/2008, -6/+38McCain always stated no or less regulation and now blames the Market for being greedy. You can't have it both ways.
- EntropyFan, on 09/19/2008, -2/+2Well, actually, you can.
  I'm not saying McCain did get it right, but regulating the correct things, not more things, is the way to do it.
  - gmacnay, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Not when it comes to Finance. Did we not learn anything form the Savings and Loans scandals?
- winnestow, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1All the regulation in the world won't do any good if the managers (gov't) don't follow the laws.
webyatri, on 09/19/2008, -0/+12Yeah I don't like to spend a lot. I will cut my spending. I don't know how my credit card debt became 50,000 dollars.
- NJank, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3you forgot:
  
  "Oooo... a shiny." *cha-ching*
oc3lot409, on 09/19/2008, -18/+4In before "Those damn Repulbicans".
- aftern9ne, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1In before spell check.
- oc3lot409, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1huh. My spell check sucks about as much as the sub's.
Smokeydabear, on 09/19/2008, -14/+26Yet we keep ***** voting *****-assed republicans into office.
- defwheezer, on 09/19/2008, -1/+4"we"?
- Elranzer, on 09/19/2008, -0/+6Not me, buddy. Bush was not my pick at all. In fact, I'm of the opinion that anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 should immediately check themselves into an insane asylum.
- mrsbrown333, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1as far as 2000 and 2004....i dont think bush won either time.
  - sleazycheese, on 09/20/2008, -1/+0Pathetic.
karizmat, on 09/19/2008, -9/+3
- mmortal03, on 09/19/2008, -7/+4But who did Clinton tax to obtain the surplus? Sure, he balanced the budget, but to who's detriment was it?
  - bobcat7407, on 09/19/2008, -13/+4How did Clinton balance the budget? The national debt went up every year under Clinton. The 'surplus' is a myth.
  - ulmedas, on 09/19/2008, -2/+6Well it was not to the detriment of every citizen in the country, that is for damned sure. Do you want no taxes or a balanced budget? You cannot have both in this system.
    
    And frankly, if someone is making 2000 times the national average, they should pay more taxes. They make their money off of our backs, they can damned well put something back into the system to make sure we are taken care of when our backs go out. Not that the extremely wealthy are paying more (proportionally) than the rest of us. In fact, it's the other way around. Warren Buffet famously pays about a 17.7% tax rate, while his secretary pays about 30%. Mr. Buffet intentionally does not take any deductions and pay the max that he should pay. I can in not way imagine that this is fair.
  - bobcat7407, on 09/19/2008, -2/+2Don't they put back in to the system by paying those of us that work for them? You say they make it off our backs, but it's not like anyone works for free.
  - ulmedas, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1@bobcat: the national debt and a balanced budget are two completely different things. The debt increased because of interest. Clinton's goal was to balance the budget, so there was more money coming in than going out. I think everyone's ultimate goal was to use the surplus (you know, that extra money beyond expenses) to pay down the national debt.
  - bobcat7407, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1@ulmedas
    The debt increased because there was still a deficit. I know that was Clinton's goal, but it didn't happen.
- displacednomad, on 09/19/2008, -1/+3Buried comment and reported as offensive. Please don't link to porn in the comments.
- bobcat7407, on 09/19/2008, -7/+4Who cares about estimates? Events like Sep. 11th change things.
  - lordbeaker, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3And what about Pearl Harbor?
    
    seems to me you have forgot the o'l "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" slogan. You remember what this country did after that attack? We gave a S$%@!, sacrificed buying goods, put our taxes into building a social net and worked harder to make this the strongest nation in the world. We were not told to just keep on shopping.
    
    But now we don't have any industrial manufacturing over here anymore. We exported that too. Point is, we just don't seem to care anymore, and the 1% of this country love us for it.
  - bobcat7407, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1I don't disagree with you at all lordbeaker. Our culture now wouldn't be very willing to sacrifice anything for the good of the country. And we can't manufacture many of ourgoods anyway. I was just saying that estimates are often wrong, whether because of changes, events, or even because they're based on false information.
- Quintios, on 09/19/2008, -5/+4I'm sure those budget experts predicted two wars too, huh?
  
  Mae and Mac were started during the Clinton administration to make loans easy to get. When you take away risk, you take away responsibility. And now here we are. Somehow everyone here thinks Bush is All-Powerful and taught and enabled people to take exotic mortgage loans to get more house than they could actually afford. It wasn't Bush, it was the legislation enacted before Bush took office and the people who were too greedy to settle for WHAT THEY COULD ACTUALLY AFFORD. People getting 400K loans on a 50K salary. Please.
  
  I predict a new all-time low on my digg point total here. Oh well.
  - Pstmann, on 09/19/2008, -1/+4Clinton (the appeaser) is partially to blame as is everyone who started deregulating the industries back 40 years or more.
    History repeats itself not because no one learns a lesson but that some Armani suited pitchman convinces that the last collapse/disaster/war/ was just an aberration and the lesson we did learn is actually nothing more than "fear" paralyzing us from reaching our full potential.
    
    So we end up repeating the cycle over and over.
- absurdist, on 09/19/2008, -1/+4From Wikipedia:
  
  "Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market."
  
  "The Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970 created Freddie Mac. The goal was to create a secondary market for conventional mortgages, as indicated in the Fannie Mae charter."
  
  Do you have to work hard at being that stupid, or does it come naturally, Quintios? Or is your copy-paste spam the current Repub talking point?
ericjohnson0, on 09/19/2008, -28/+6"Repulbican" cute...

So, subby... didn't quite make it out of 5th grade, eh?
- BoneheadFarker, on 09/19/2008, -3/+7It's a typo...get over it.
- internetcoward, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3no real argument just a typo?? cute, didn't quite make it out of the 5th grade either eh?
- bodisatvah, on 09/20/2008, -1/+2You're a ***** waste of humanity, ericjohnson0
nastronomical, on 09/19/2008, -19/+12http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0 ...

September 11, 2003 < lookie here
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
- FLUX, on 09/19/2008, -8/+7The truth hurts huh libs
  - JavanSClark, on 09/19/2008, -4/+5What have you done to improve our economy? Oh wait... nothing. How are you going to pay for a 10 billion dollar a month war? How are you ignoring the fact that the war on terror is a major drain on our economy? The gas prices also are not Democratic fault. So, Neo-Con, how are we supposed to fix this problem? Let me guess. Trust in God because he loves America most. Amirite?
  - Delphium226, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2@JavanSClark
    
    Don't expect a coherent reply from these numbskulls. They don't do debate, just brainfarts.
  - lordbeaker, on 09/19/2008, -2/+0Yeah, your president seems good at letting terrible ***** just happen and then act like a wife beater would to his spouse... come in and say he will stop doing it when the cops come in, then start the beating again once they leave.
    
    He's only good at reading some damn cue card and doing nothing from there. Except maybe take a way a few more liberties our Liberal Founding Fathers gave us.
  - SlapTard, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1Pfffffttttttt!!!!
    
    Excuse me...
  - Elranzer, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2Yeah Flux. Those last 8 years of Bushonomics were the LIBERALS' fault!!
- OliveStreet, on 09/19/2008, -4/+2After reading this article, especially the first paragraph, it sounds like Bush might have had a clue that something was seriously wrong with the two agencies, and whatever it was he did to fix the situation, he failed miserably at it. (No surprise there) I'm sure you're happy to have voted for him. Twice.
  
  I bet you also preach that jesus is the one true god in between your blow-job-soliciting escapades in the public washrooms.
- astroslut, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2Good to see someone else knew this, what good it does us now, I don't know.
  
  But please just use the link and maybe a few quotes, I hate posting of an entire article in a threat, but I still dugg.
- MorganMghee, on 09/21/2008, -0/+1I didn't have to read very far to find the flaw in your post's theory. Dems didn't take control of congress until '06, and even then with 2 crucial members not available to vote most of the time (illness) and one 'joseph lieberman' failing to vote with the party on crucial matters, meant and still does mean the majority title is one in name only. They have the power to pass votes on issues that enjoy bi-partisan support, but those issues are few and far between. In your posted example, the pres' put his idea forward during a Republican lead congress, and still couldn't push it through during the 3 years he enjoyed the Rep lead congress.
LordPhilMil, on 09/19/2008, -16/+16Ohh, don't pretend he is conservative. "compassionate conservative" is not conservative. McCain is the same, pretends that if you ignore the trillions of elephants in the room, they don't exist. While Obama pretends that a hike in government spending, a cut of taxes and an increase in rich taxes will "balance" out. As we all know, paying high taxes IS patriotic!

Neither of them will help this 9 trillion debt with 30+ trillion in entitlements thats comming our way.

Nationalized Banks, The First Empire of the States is going to fail like all other empires do (except the Star Wars one of course), by being bankrupted.

GG America, no re.
- mzx639, on 09/19/2008, -4/+8Obama will/would not help the debt either.
  - lordbeaker, on 09/19/2008, -2/+1Helping the working class of this country will repair the debt. You need people to buy goods, but you can't expect that if they can not even afford food, gas or healthcare.
  - mzx639, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah, that philosophy did wonders for the U.S.S.R.
  - shawn57187, on 09/19/2008, -2/+0The Soviet Union suffered more from poorly planned and enacted economic reforms than from generally "helping the working class." China is currently attempting the same liberalization of the economy using a different methodology and succeeding quite well.
    
    The USSR economic reforms are called Perestroika. Read about it:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika
  - mzx639, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3The U.S.S.R. is failed socialist state, just like all of the rest.
- secrity, on 09/19/2008, -5/+7There is not, and there will never be, such a thing as a "compassionate conservative".
- digitronix, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/world_news/Thanks_Compassionate_Co ...
ericjohnson0, on 09/19/2008, -16/+8And since when is Dubya a conservative? He's the re-animated clone of another Texan, LBJ:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34096.html

"Those figures come by way of the American Enterprise Institute's Veronique de Rugy, who has calculated that George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending in his first term by 35.1 percent. To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ—the Texas legend who created the Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War—only boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What's more, the gap between Bush and LBJ will only grow. De Rugy notes that the final outlays for fiscal year 2005 (the last budget signed in Bush's first term) aren't in yet. As a result, she has to use mid-session review numbers, which are invariably smaller than the final amounts."

Why do you people think the Right pretty much abandoned Bush?
- ironhide, on 09/19/2008, -1/+4I'm more of a texan than chimpy. At least I was born there.
  - ericjohnson0, on 09/19/2008, -1/+3As much as you and I disagree on things, rarely if ever will you catch me defending Bush.
- secrity, on 09/19/2008, -2/+4Bush is a Republican and LBJ was a Democrat.
  - brstilson, on 09/19/2008, -2/+3Republicans and Democrats are the same party.
- azAZ09, on 09/19/2008, -1/+3"w" is a conservative, but conservatism is what's wrong.
- Bodhinature, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Abandoned Bush?! All I see is Right Wing apologetics all day long! McCain supports the Bush Doctrine all the way and voted with him 90% of the time! Abandoned my ass!
iheartrendering, on 09/19/2008, -13/+6FECES!
giraffedude, on 09/19/2008, -3/+9Professional looking title.
chrissku, on 09/19/2008, -10/+28George Bush may very well be the first President in the modern era to be able to claim that he left office leaving the country in MUCH worse shape than it was in when he started. Well done George. Bravo.

Now let's make sure his retarded little brother McCain doesn't get elected. Haven't we had enough of the bad times?
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/19/2008, -11/+8Are you people all retarded? Bush, McCain, Obama.... it's all the same *****! Just look at who runs the near single digit approval rating congress, demotards! They're impotent, gutless, won't take responsibility for ANYTHING, promise breaking whores, and they can't form a single good policy idea. "Republicans are filibusterting....blah blah blah," yeah, that's how politics work.
  
  I mean you can vote for who you want of course, but this idea that democrats are going to 180 degree return our country, whatever, they are co-authors of the book of retarded. You can come to my state (CA) and see visible proof any day of the week for the last decade that full demotard power in each branch of government is just as devestating as Bush republicans have been nationally.
  - Delphium226, on 09/19/2008, -3/+7Sorry to burst your little self-masturbatory brainfart, but the dems don't have enough of a majority to achieve anything against an obstructionist minority. Tell me, were you as full of piss and vinegar when the repugs had control of all 3 branches and drove the country into the ground? No, I thought not.
  - stealthc, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3I was!
dupswapdrop, on 09/19/2008, -7/+13We need to deregulate the Republicans after all it's only fair they did it to us first! The assents of the Republican party should go to paying off the DEFICIT!
DangerCollie, on 09/19/2008, -5/+24Notice that tax cuts for the wealthy account for almost half of the current deficit. Boost those rates back up, slash spending on Iraq, cut DHS down to size and trim defense spending...that will get us back to where we can pay the bills. Then comes paying back the money we owe. What a freaking disaster.
- secrity, on 09/19/2008, -2/+11Also get rid of the DEA and then regulate and tax recreational drugs.
  - DiggDuggDunn, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5Legalize Marijuana and pay off the national debt!
    
    I remember that song!
  - logandurand, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Why not all drugs?
  - Lukesed, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1Who cares about the boring ones?
- DiggDuggDunn, on 09/19/2008, -11/+3So tax cuts for the wealthy that caused an increase to treasury receipts, yes?
  
  Oh......I forgot....It's not "fair" as per Obeemer.
  - MadKennyP, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."
    
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 ...
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 09/19/2008, -6/+7Or how about having the people who don't pay any taxes chip in a little?..... other than the sales tax they arleady chip in when buying tobacco, alcohol, and cable television.
  - magus_melchior, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1You can cut down a significant portion of that by, oh, I don't know, not smoking or chewing tobacco?
    
    Cut your own taxes and health insurance premiums (I'm fairly sure that "smoker" raises a few flags in their software)-- not to mention, cigarettes are damned expensive, especially when you smoke more than a few packs a week.
  - kerosion, on 09/19/2008, -2/+1I'm a bit confused as to who these people who don't pay any taxes are, yet I'm starting to hear that sort of phrasing used frequently. Do we have any sort of documentation available that describes who these people are and how they go about avoiding taxes? Are they the unemployed building tent-cities? Are they marginally documented immigrants whose earnings are difficult to track? Are they citizens guided by hired accountants and other financial advisers maximizing their deductions by pumping income through personally owned corporations and similar methods? At what pay scale of the economy do we find most of those avoiding their tax burdens? What are the demographics?
    
    I'd like to educate myself on the topic.
  - logandurand, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2@kerosion: In some of the lower tax brackets, people receive as much in tax credits from the government as they pay in taxes, effectively giving them zero taxes. Some even get more back than they pay - as if they had a negative tax rate.
gjvrieze, on 09/19/2008, -11/+17NOT conservative, neo-conservative spending, time for a Ron Paul conservative in the Oval!
MadKennyP, on 09/19/2008, -4/+16In February 2001, the Bush Administration projected that the federal debt would be $1.2 trillion in 2008 if their policies were enacted. In fact, however, under President Bush, the hard-won fiscal discipline of the late 1990s was completely squandered.

Instead of building up surpluses and retiring debt in order to prepare properly for the retirement of the baby boom generation, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress abandoned all pretense of fiscal discipline and let the debt skyrocket.

About $3.2 trillion (over one-third) of our $8.9 trillion total national debt was accumulated during the first six years of the Bush Administration.

Over 90% of the total national debt has been accumulated under the past three Republican administrations – Reagan, George Bush Sr., and the current George Bush. As of March 14, 2008, the total debt attributable to those three Republican Presidents is $8.45 trillion.
- Ryan32, on 09/19/2008, -6/+12Don't forget a majority of our problems have come about with a democratic congress.... And congress makes law... not the president.
  - FLUX, on 09/19/2008, -5/+9but the blind libs here don't want to see that
  - MadKennyP, on 09/19/2008, -6/+3WRONG. During the first 6 years of the Bush Administration, while REPUBLICANS controlled both the House and Senate, the government accumulated $3.2 trillion in debt.
    
    Also, as an example, when Reagan was in office, deficits ballooned. Democrats controlled Congress much of that time, but Reagan requested MORE spending than was passed by Congress.
    
    But the blind, like FLUX, don't want to hear that.
  - logandurand, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3@MadKennyP: The very evidence you provide shows that Democrats also raised spending, just less than Republicans did. Until I see a Democrat-controlled Congress cut spending, they're all the same in my eyes.
- DiggDuggDunn, on 09/19/2008, -3/+4You were sleeping in September of the same year??
  - mtjohnson, on 09/19/2008, -2/+3So was Bush...
macweirdo42, on 09/19/2008, -4/+16Obviously, it's not exactly as if the Democrats are much better, but the Republicans just flat-out lie about their fiscal responsibility, and that really pisses me off. No one elects Democrats thinking they're gonna be smart with money - which is why this makes me so angry. People DO vote Republican because the Republicans promise fiscal responsibility - less spending, smaller government, etc. But what do they do? As soon as they're in office they start expanding the government and suddenly develop a horrible case of diarrhea of the wallet.
- DiggDuggDunn, on 09/19/2008, -3/+4Well put!!
- citizen782, on 09/19/2008, -0/+8"smaller government"
  
  McCain just announced last night that he would like to create ANOTHER agency, the "Mortgage and Financial Institutions Trust". I agree we may need it but the concept of "less government" seems to be a fading Republican value replaced by teenage pregnancy. Hippocracy is not your friend.
  - TRScheel, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Those darn hippos are ruining everything
durden0, on 09/19/2008, -15/+14This article is half right. Overspending is the cause of our deficits, but the real culprit is the unconsitutional federal reserve, which allows unlimited printing of money to feed the government's need for cash. If the tax cuts had been followed by spending cuts, then the republicans would have been right. The answer is not higher taxes and more spending, it is lower taxes and lower spending.

Raising taxes will just cripple the economy further at this point.
- mithrasinvictus, on 09/19/2008, -2/+6Clinton brought down the deficit and the national debt.
  How did he manage to reign in the federal reserve?
  - backflipper, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2Clinton had a couple years with a surplus. The national debt most certainly increased over his presidency.
- MrUpsetter, on 09/19/2008, -3/+0Uhoh, a bunch of goldbugs, Larouchites and Ron Paul supporters just escaped from the lunatic asylum.
  
  They're easy to find though -- they're always posting bollocks on Digg.
BotchaMcCoola, on 09/19/2008, -13/+4Security spending we needed. And it has been effective in preventing another big 911 type crime. But note there is no mention of the war costs – a waste we did not need. Now we find out that the costs of that and the likely higher terrorist risks from it are not even the biggest problem. While our traitorous militarist government is trying to conquer third world Muslim countries they did not monitor the health of their own country.
- mcbarron, on 09/19/2008, -1/+4We *needed*? I doubt that. Terrorists have been around for a VERY long time. I suspect the majority of spending increases only affected the perception of security for the American public. Seems like a waste of time and money to me.
  - BotchaMcCoola, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1But wouldn't you admit we were pretty naive to let that kind get on planes or get 767 flight training?. Security is so tight now that even good Saudis can't study, do business, or vacation here. (Yes I know, lots of Saudis support terrorists, But many others are our friends too.)
- magus_melchior, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Needed security spending?
  
  You sure we need bottlenecks in airports, which would be prime targets for terrorists with bombs?
  You sure we need a beefed up military and more contracts to bodyguard/thug companies while we let our infra

8 years of "Conservative" Repulbican governance = $$$DEFICIT

submitted by

What is Digg?

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

8 years of "Conservative" Repulbican governance = $$$DEFICIT

submitted by

What is Digg?

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Related by Keyword

McCain: I'll Cut Deficits Like Reagan (Who Tripled Deficit)

Obama Eyes $310 Billion Tax Cut

Best 5 MacWorld Expo Rumors