NBC News: Holiday Season Is “Ho-hum”
Well, that’s the way Campbell Brown characterized the holiday season outlook for retailers this year during her lead story on NBC Nightly News last night.
But lo and behold…..what’s this?? (hat tip – Drudge)
Holiday retail spending up 8.7 percent – Reuters
Amazon announces best holiday season ever – Amazon press release
Maybe Campbell Brown meant the economy of New Orleans that was ruined by President Bush? Or the economy of Baghdad that was ruined by President Bush? It must have been something terrible that the President did somewhere….. but it wasn’t the USA economy which has been booming all year. But you wouldn’t know it if you watched NBC News!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
54 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
All I know is I spent more this year than in the past, and judging from the 60gig video iPod my partner gave me… so did he.
Comment by JonAtlanta — December 27, 2005 @ 8:48 am - December 27, 2005
Oh big deal Holiday sales are up…woopee! You can’t judge the whole economy on that….you think Katrina victims spent more then last year? NO! Already in Phila. there have been 2 heat related or lack there of,deaths. People using kerosene because they couldn’t afford natural gas prices…and it will get worse. Boy you people on here would kiss Bush’s ass if he had a spastic colon!
Comment by JRC — December 27, 2005 @ 9:05 am - December 27, 2005
I think JRC is one of those people who, if Bush cured cancer, would slam him for all the out-of-work oncologists that would result.
Comment by V the K — December 27, 2005 @ 9:35 am - December 27, 2005
So much for the so-called “War on Christmas” huh? Guess that Faux News report on how they fabricated “war on Christmas” was hurting holiday sales was just bs.
Comment by RealValues — December 27, 2005 @ 9:36 am - December 27, 2005
And another thing, even though I spent more on Christmas (long i) than I intended to, thanks to Bush’s tax cuts (especially the larger child exemption and the larger adoption tax credit) I’ll be able to pay for it.
Funny thing about this ‘War on Christmas.’ For the last few years, my uber-trendy left-wing friends have all been, frankly, bragging about how they don’t celebrate ‘Christmas,’ some even going so far as to call it a ‘racist holiday,’ and instead they’d brag about observing Saturnalia, or Solstice, or Kwanzaa, or Festivus. And they would insult the idea of celebrating Christmas as low-brow, unworthy of sophisticated types like themselves (as opposed to pagan child-sacrifice rituals or sitcom holidays).
Then, suddenly, Fox does a report and all of a sudden they’re all like. “What war on Christmas? Who ever said anything against Christmas?”
Comment by V the K — December 27, 2005 @ 10:02 am - December 27, 2005
Yeah – And just because the war isn’t SUCCEEDING FULLY, i.e. just because left-liberals haven’t been able to take over the world, that’s conclusive proof there was never any war.
Hmmm… What kind of narcissistic fantasy thinking is involved in that?
“If there was a war on Christmas, yall would know it; we’d have won of course.”
Comment by Calarato — December 27, 2005 @ 10:20 am - December 27, 2005
Look, all I am saying is that Fox News ran a special before Christmas claiming the “war on Christmas” was hurting retail sales, and now GP says that Holiday spending is up 8.7%. So which is it?
By the way, if there is a war on Christmas, then Christmas is winning. There was a time that you didnt start seeing Christmas stuff in store until after Thanksgiving, now it shows up before Halloween. Yep, if there is a war, Christmas is kicking ass. Of course, I guess that story wouldnt sell any of John Gibson’s new book.
Comment by RealValues — December 27, 2005 @ 11:12 am - December 27, 2005
I don’t know if the Fox program claimed what you claim it claimed… but accepting it for sake of argument… How do you know retail sales shouldn’t have boomed 10% or 11%? (Given how great unemployment is? How much the Bush economy has been booming for the people?)
But the real “war on Christmas” as I understand it is the new levels reached (recently or in 2004-2005) in trying to eliminate open mentions of Christmas in the public sphere or public life.
Comment by Calarato — December 27, 2005 @ 11:18 am - December 27, 2005
(how great the unemployment rate has been, I mean…currently 5.0%….clearly below its 30-year mean)
Comment by Calarato — December 27, 2005 @ 11:18 am - December 27, 2005
Also, note, that after decades of complaints and lawsuits against Nativity Scenes, against Christmas Carols being sung in school, against Christmas trees in schools and public buildings, and coercing school boards to take ‘Christmas Break’ off the calendar in favor of ‘Winter Vacation,’ — all it took was for Christians to push back a little bit for the left go into hystrionics.
Comment by V the K — December 27, 2005 @ 11:21 am - December 27, 2005
In NYC everyone said ” Merry Christmas”,and the city was sparkling with every imaginable kind of decoration. Religious and secular. As always.
In London, (last year) Piccadilly was ALL Disney
Comment by hank — December 27, 2005 @ 11:32 am - December 27, 2005
Ah yes, Campbell Brown, another leftist mouthpiece spewing negativism, doom and despair. Fortunately, the so-called “mainstream” media’s credibility rests several leagues below whale manure so her babble will be largely discarded or ignored.
Comment by Richard Platt — December 27, 2005 @ 2:09 pm - December 27, 2005
The problem with these reports is that they don’t take into consideration what happened the rest of the year. If the economy overall was down 9% from where it was last year and Christmas sales happen to be up, then theoretically the economy is still down. Vice Versa if the economy overall was performing at a better rate than last year, and Christmas sales were down, the economy would still be up.
People tend to overreact to a small snapshot. It is like determining what a picture puzzle looks like with just the border completed.
Comment by Mogenda — December 27, 2005 @ 3:39 pm - December 27, 2005
Already in Phila. there have been 2 heat related or lack there of,deaths. People using kerosene because they couldn’t afford natural gas prices…and it will get worse.
So, JRC, how do you feel about drilling in ANWR? Or is preventing oil drilling in a barren, desolate hellhole for the sake of honoring Gaia more important than providing the poor with fuel oil? How about those windmills Ted Kennedy prevented from being built beyong the horizon off Cape Cod? How many homes would those have warmed.
#13 — GDP >4%, unemployment ~5%, both far better than any EUrotopian socialist workers’ paradise.
Comment by V the K — December 27, 2005 @ 3:49 pm - December 27, 2005
Whoops, I missed that “news” story entirely. Does NBC still have a nightly news broadcast? I thought they folded up the their tents on news and journalism a long time ago… oh wait, they turned over their special journalism decoder rings to the Today Show staff… that where the REAL news stories are covered… I forgot, sorry.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 27, 2005 @ 4:35 pm - December 27, 2005
Funny…I seldom watch NBC ‘snooze’ but as soon as Campbell made that dumb statement…I banged the kitchen table, the cat jumped 3 feet into the air, I shouted a few expletives and almost threw the remote at the TV….but it is new and did not want to buy another one…
Comment by Benj — December 27, 2005 @ 4:50 pm - December 27, 2005
I know you guys are intelligent… but this “War on Christmas” crap is sprewed by Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter… doesn’t that pretty much negate its credibility?
Comment by Come On! — December 27, 2005 @ 5:26 pm - December 27, 2005
Senator Lincoln Chafee , Rhode Island
Running for US Senate in Rhode Island
Republican
Whenever the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community has needed a strong Republican voice in the Senate to speak up for our rights and stand in the way of discrimination, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island has answered the call. Time and time again, Senator Chafee has proven his commitment to equality for GLBT Americans by voting his conscience and lending his voice to fight discrimination, not just in Rhode Island, but wherever it affects our community.
Now Senator Chafee needs our community’s support more than ever, and it’s our turn to stand by a man who has stood by us since being elected to the Senate. Already locked in a tough race for reelection, Senator Chafee is now facing a primary challenge from the right in the form of Cranston, RI Mayor Steve Laffey, who recently announced his bid to unseat the moderate Republican Chafee. A staunch conservative, Laffey was quoted in the Providence Journal saying he agreed with President Bush’s opposition to marriage for same-sex couples. We need to do our part to ensure that Senator Chafee has the support he needs to withstand a right-wing challenge and retain his seat in the Senate where he can continue to serve our community.
Chafee is an original cosponsor of several key pieces of legislation supported by the Human Rights Campaign. He was one of the first Senators to support the Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act, a bill that would rescind the unfair tax on domestic partner health benefits offered to employees by many fair-minded American companies. He is currently the only Republican cosponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, which would guarantee the right of permanent partners of U.S. citizens to stay with their partners without threat of deportation. Last year, when the Senate tried to enshrine discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by adding an amendment prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples, Senator Chafee was one of only a handful of Republicans to cast his vote on the right side of history. Fighting on behalf of equality for all GLBT Americans, Chafee is also a current supporter of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, and he has cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to protect our community from job discrimination.
https://www.hrc.org/candidateFundraising/index.cfm?fuseaction=candidateProfile&electionCycleID=55&fullList=0&cfid=9419413&cftoken=31197010
Christopher Shays , Connecticut
Running for US House in Connecticut
Republican
A strong ally: Republican Chris Shays is serving his ninth term in Congress and during that time he has distinguished himself as one of the strongest bi-partisan leaders in the fight for equality. Shays stands on the front lines, advocating for our community where few others can, in the Republican Caucus. Shays is a key ally in HRC’s work to advance fair-minded legislation.
Shays’ solid support for our community is clear-cut. As the Republican lead co-sponsor of ENDA in the House, he is a leader in our fight for employment protections. He is also a cosponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, which is a strong hate crimes measure.
As a co-sponsor for the Tax Equity for Health Care Plan Beneficiaries Act, Shays is also working with HRC to strengthen our families. Currently, domestic partners pay federal income taxes on health insurance provided by a partner’s employer. Responsible employers who offer domestic partnership benefits are also forced to pay higher taxes. Thus, the employer, as well as the employee, is penalized for making a sound business decision that contributes to stability in the workforce. This smart piece of legislation would remedy this inequity for GLBT families and fair-minded employers.
Shays also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and any similar effort to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. As a Republican, Shays is uniquely positioned to outreach to moderate Republican members in the House, and we will need their support in order to defeat this discriminatory amendment if it comes up for a vote.
https://www.hrc.org/candidateFundraising/index.cfm?fuseaction=candidateProfile&electionCycleID=54&fullList=0&cfid=9419413&cftoken=31197010
Comment by Ian — December 28, 2005 @ 9:30 am - December 28, 2005
Hey V of the K — OMG you had me laughing! What kind of insane analogy – Bush curing cancer??? LOL LOL LOL Im surprized he can even read. He’s one of the most uncaring Presidents in decades…unless its a Photo-op then he pretends to care. What happened to the Bru-ha ha over “Rebuilding N.O. – the Nations Biggest Project in years”??? People still sleeping in tents and cars, or no where??? What’s 1 positive thing President Dick-head has done??? Name one that has benefited the neediest of Americans? The man can’t speak off the cuff without stumbling like a 1yr old trying to walk. Besides all that – I find it amazing how you people can support a man who wants DISCRIMINATION WRITTEN INTO THE VERY DOCUMENT THAT DEFINES OUR NATION AGAINST YOU….that’s Pathetic. The analogy to me is….Jews who “Kinda” agree with Hitler that maybe “they are” less then everybody else…or Blacks who say ” Well we may have to sit in the back of the bus, but at least it’s cushioned” My GOD – I can see agreeing with TRUE Conservative principles…but this administration FORGOT THOSE LONG AGO. I was even thining of possibly voting for McCain IF he ran in 2008, but NOT now after I find out he’s backing Rick Santorum for Re-Election…I mean, even McCain has to realize what a slime-ball Santorum is…no matter what party he’s in.
Comment by JRC — December 28, 2005 @ 10:18 am - December 28, 2005
Let’s see, JRC, you and your fellow gay liberals supported writing discrimination into state constitutions; you called it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and you gave candidates who supported it millions of dollars.
Amazing how you can spew your mouth left and right, but run like a scared rabbit when confronted with that fact.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2005 @ 10:45 am - December 28, 2005
#19 — JRC, I have given Bush more criticism on spending, on his failure to secure the borders, and other domestic issues than you and the rest of the liberals on this forum combined have ever given Democrats. And when I criticize, I do so on the basis of substantive criticism of policy, not childish namecalling like “Bush is so stoopid he talks like a one year old.”
Also, one notes Bush got better grades at Yale than John Kerry, and didn’t flunk out of law and divinity school like Al Gore. So, if Bush is stupid, what does that say about your heroes? Also, Bush has an MBA from Harvard. Do you have an MBA from Harvard, JRC?
I also note you ignore the questions posed to you in #14. Typical lefty. Capable of spewing gratuitous, juvenile insults with great abandon, but completely incapable of answering a direct, substantive question.
Comment by V the K — December 28, 2005 @ 11:16 am - December 28, 2005
JRC calls Bush “the most uncaring president ever.” (What? More than other “liberal”–i.e. State-socialist–presidential bogeymen of “heartless laissez-faire,” Hoover, Coolidge, and Reagan? When did the “Hive’s” party-line change on that? Just wondering.) Now, we all know what people like JRC mean when they say that THEY are “caring” and “compassionate”–i.e., “willing to spend other people’s money.” In which case, from all his “compassionate conservatism” (i.e., “me-too Republican” nanny-statism,) I’d say Bush is as “caring” as JRC and other “librules.”
Comment by Bilwick — December 28, 2005 @ 11:55 am - December 28, 2005
If the left could get past their blind ignorant hatred, they’d see that domestic policies have moved much further left under Bush than Clinton.
Comment by V the K — December 28, 2005 @ 11:59 am - December 28, 2005
Your point, “V the K,” is why the recent “librule” outrage over domestic spying–and of course I mean outrage over domestic spying when conducted by a Republican president–amuses me. My reaction: “Oh, yeah, right–because if there’s any group opposed to Big-Brother-ism and the expansion of State power, it’s ‘liberals’!” If you’re going to increase the power of the State to Leviathan proportions, don’t be surprised or feign outrage if a gang opposed to yours gets control of Leviathan and “abuses” its power.
Comment by Bilwick — December 28, 2005 @ 12:32 pm - December 28, 2005
Finally, you guys seem to be getting it. GWB cut taxes another $100 billion, but spent $258 billion on new highways and bridges in Alaska. Where the $158 billion shortfall will come from is anyone’s guess. Obviously, it will have to be added to the $5 TRILLION that GWB has added to the national debt. Of course, we could end the $1.7 billion/week war. You know, the one where WMD was a cause celebre! Never mind that there never was WMD. But, despite all the evidence to the contrary, GWB has already declared “victory.” Tell that to the 2100+ dead, 18,000 maimed, and 30,000 dead Iraqis. I wonder what it must feel like to have 160,000 “liberators” from Iraq “saving” the U.S. for “democracy” (you know, walking in the others’ shoes). Liberators or invaders? I’m not sure I’d like all them foriegners “liberating” my country. Because of GWB’s profligate spending and irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy, someone will have to pay for the mounting deficits. Being gay, we don’t have our children to worry about. But the other option is to have the Federal Reserve start printing more money. Naturally, inflation will wreak havoc, but that’ll come later. So Holiday spending, modeled after our own government, is up. Yes, many had to “charge” those purchases to pay back later, but isn’t that what GWB has taught us to do? Only if those purchasers cannot afford to pay back their profligate spending, the Republicans have eliminated bankruptcy as a way out. But what does one do with a bankrupt nation? Print more money, and hand the debt off to our descendants. That really is leadership.
Comment by Stephen — December 29, 2005 @ 1:39 am - December 29, 2005
#2
Already in Phila. there have been 2 heat related or lack there of,deaths. People using kerosene because they couldn’t afford natural gas prices…and it will get worse.
So when should we expect Ted Kennedy to sell his oil at reduced prices? Not only that, but when should we expect him to pay taxes on his oil?
#5
And they would insult the idea of celebrating Christmas as low-brow, unworthy of sophisticated types like themselves (as opposed to pagan child-sacrifice rituals or sitcom holidays).
You left out the Kwanza holiday which was founded by a TORTURER and rapist. Then again, liberals celebrate the criminals and piss on the victims.
#17
I know you guys are intelligent… but this “War on Christmas” crap is sprewed by Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter… doesn’t that pretty much negate its credibility?
Ahh. So if it’s not funded by MorOn.org, reported by Dan Rather or The DNC TImes, made into a “documentary” by Fat Bastard etc. it’s not true?
#25
Yes, many had to “charge” those purchases to pay back later, but isn’t that what GWB has taught us to do?
Hey! You found another item that never existed until after January 2001. Wow! I sure didn’t know that nobody ever did that before.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2005 @ 3:09 am - December 29, 2005
#25 — Stephen, buddy, this is, what, the 6000th time you’ve posted your “Bush sucks because he spends too much money” rant. The fact that Bush spends money like a crackwhore with a stolen credit card isn’t exactly news to anyone here.
What you have never done on any of the 5,999 previous occasions when you spew your paranoid rants is explain what the political alternative is since Bush’s political opposition is hell-bent on outspending him… by vastly greater amounts.
Comment by V the K — December 29, 2005 @ 8:59 am - December 29, 2005
And, Stephen and JRC, make sure you thank your Democrat buddies for blocking Social Security reform. Boy howdy! Now I get to spend the rest of my working life having 12.6% of my income confiscated to pay for a retirement program that’ll be bankrupt before I reach retirement age. Yea!
Comment by V the K — December 29, 2005 @ 12:12 pm - December 29, 2005
What! NBC doesn’t want to acknowledge the economy might be pretty good right now?
Is this any suprise? The day after the latest Iraqi elections, I blogged about the almost complete lack of election coverage on the MSNBC web portal. The only story about it was a story downplaying the importance of the election, and MSNBC couldn’t bother to write the stopy themselves; they linked it from the WaPo (and we have seen how accurate they have been lately). There is a saying about news coverage that I tried and apparently failed to coin while getting my BS in Telecommunication (includied journalism “training”). It’s a play on the “No News Is Good News” meme —-
“Good News Is No News”.
PS. Keep in mind the current economic numbers don’t include those who are considered self employed, whos employment and personal income is not included in the government s economic measurements. And consider that the advent of the information age has opened the door to those who want to be self emp;oyed. There has been a silent explosion of people who are performing work-at-home type jobs, who earn a good income but are not included in many of the polls and economic measures you hear about.
Comment by sonicfrog — December 29, 2005 @ 1:33 pm - December 29, 2005
VdaK, you nailed those weasels (2, 5, 17, 25) to the wall. Nice going. Concise, sweet, dead-on.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 29, 2005 @ 2:48 pm - December 29, 2005
Interesting how JRC types only see doom and gloom unless a liberal president is raping them without the Astroglide. When we have a president that actually has a clue of what’s going on, we’re supposed to be in hock up to our eyeballs.
When are we going to call in our debts from their Euro-Socialist buddies? That’s what I want to know.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 30, 2005 @ 6:19 am - December 30, 2005
#30 — Thanks, but those guys make it too easy. Take this:
Finally, you guys seem to be getting it. GWB cut taxes another $100 billion, but spent $258 billion on new highways and bridges in Alaska. Where the $158 billion shortfall will come from is anyone’s guess.
1. $100 Billion tax cut? Where does that come from? The value of the tax cuts passed in 2001 was estimated at $1.35 trillion over ten years. So, maybe you get something around $100 B annually. But The Highway Bill was over five years, so that’s not quite an apt comparison.
2. The Highway Bill was $286 Billion, not $258 Billion.
3. The Highway Bill is national, not just for Alaska.
4. Stephen seems to be saying that $100B Tax Cut minus $258 B Highway Bill equals $158 B deficit. But, doesn’t Stephen’s worldview require that he add the tax cut to the Highway Bill?
5. The Senate tried to remove the spending on the Alaska Bridge to Nowhere from the Bill, but it was blocked. Every Democrat in the Senate voted to leave the spending in! (But, of course, this is Bush’s fault.)
When your opponents can pack five paragraphs of ignorance into two sentences, it makes putting them in their place pretty darned easy.
Comment by V the K — December 30, 2005 @ 9:42 am - December 30, 2005
V the K acknowledges that GWB has added $5 TRILLION to the national debt, and the “conservative” or “republican” congress has not passed a balanced budget in over five years. In the face of mounting debt, GWB and friends cut taxes another $100 BILLION. So can we all agree that GWB is definitely NOT a conservative? Nor a republican?
Let’s not forget GWB’s “gift” to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries at taxpayer expense. It’s called Medicare Part D. It does very little to help beneficiaries, but it’s a boon to both special interests. And if you think we already in debt over our heads, wait till the bill comes in when these corporate subsidies (i.e., welfare) kicks in. Of course, this kind of corporate welfare mirrors the very same thing GWB did for the petroleum industry. It’s not enough that gas and oil companies raised retail prices to expand R & D, but the largess of this Administration to “help them out” further with grants and credits in finding other opportunities is the antithesis of free-market principles and small government. So can we agree that these practices are neither conservative nor republican?
What about GWB’s disregard for the Fourth Amendment? Is that part of the “conservative” agenda? I can understand wiretapping non-Americans without a warrant, but FISA has declined only FOUR wiretaps out of 18,000. So there’s no excuse that the imperial presidency abrogates the Constitution for his imperial purposes. If the democrats had control of the Senate, GWB would be impeached.
Why are Americans dying and being maimed, along with Iraqis, when GWB declared “victory” several years ago? I suppose it all depends on what “victory” means, and whatever GWB means is not what the rest of us mean. But at least Osama bin Laden is behind bars (sorry, I mean Saddam Hussein). OBL, curiously, is still on the loose, but by gawd’s revelation, we captured another “evil” one. More ironic is the statement by retired military people who claim the U.S. cannot win this war — the one GWB has already declared “victory” over. Methinks our Leader is sorely out of touch.
So THIS is conservatism? Republicanism? You could have fooled me, but the REAL conservatives, like Hayek, Mises, Oakshott, Levi-Strauss, etc. would NOT recognize the past five years as anything like conservative. Just HOW can someone who has outspent LBJ be deemed a “conservative?” Who arrogantly trespasses the Constitution? Who creates a war of invasion on a peaceful, sovereign nation? Or nominates a Harriet Miers?
Oh, it’s the liberal’s fault.
Comment by Stephen — December 31, 2005 @ 2:53 am - December 31, 2005
V the K acknowledges that GWB has added $5 TRILLION to the national debt,
Really? Where? Exact quote and line, please, Stephen; we’ve had enough of your perpetual lies.
Let’s not forget GWB’s “gift” to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries at taxpayer expense. It’s called Medicare Part D. It does very little to help beneficiaries, but it’s a boon to both special interests.
Cutting the amount seniors have to pay for drugs annually by thousands of dollars is “very little”?
Of course, this kind of corporate welfare mirrors the very same thing GWB did for the petroleum industry. It’s not enough that gas and oil companies raised retail prices to expand R & D, but the largess of this Administration to “help them out” further with grants and credits in finding other opportunities is the antithesis of free-market principles and small government.
So when do you plan on abolishing the Small Business Association, whose entire purpose is to provide grants and credits to help out businesses? After all, Stephen, ANY government aid to business, according to you, is “the antithesis of free market principles”.
What about GWB’s disregard for the Fourth Amendment? Is that part of the “conservative” agenda?
The problem is, Stephen, that crypto-moonbats like yourself read the Fourth Amendment as being secure against ANY searches and seizures. The key word in there is unreasonable searches and seizures. Calling a terrorist is more than “reasonable” grounds for suspicion, and I want to know NOW what they’re saying, not 72 hours later when there’s a smoking hole in the ground.
Why are Americans dying and being maimed, along with Iraqis, when GWB declared “victory” several years ago?
One wonders if you ask the same questions of Kosovo, and I doubt it.
But, at any rate, we were and are victorious. Saddam Hussein’s army, one of the largest in the world, was destroyed and disbanded; Saddam himself was out of power; and the Iraqis were set on the road that leads them to being the second constitutional democracy in the Middle East after Israel.
Now, as for those “retired military men”, those were the same ones who said the following:
– Saddam would use WMDs against our troops
– Tens of thousands of Americans would die in the initial assault
– Iraqis would never vote
– The Iraqi forces could never be trained
– The Iraqis could never write a constitution
– The insurgency would chase the US out in a year
As for Osama bin Laden, if he is still alive, he is in a cave somewhere cursing, Stephen; cursing because you and your fellow moonbats’ shrieking has utterly failed him. He was certain that his cells could blow up the Brooklyn Bridge because the fear of Bush-haters like you and Harry Reid would keep the Bush administration from making reasonable searches and tapping his communications. He was sure that he could exploit the Cindy Sheehans and her supporters like you of the world to get US troops out of Afghanistan and give him free rein again. Above all, he was positive that you and your fellow moonbats were still in enough control that if the US fought, it would fight completely ineffectively (Kosovo) or run after receiving a pinprick (Mogadishu); in no time at all, he’d be back to crippling battleships with rubber dinghies because he KNEW, Stephen, that you and your fellow idiots hated Bush so much, you’d throw common sense out the window in the process.
Problem is, Bush isn’t Clinton, and he doesn’t care what you think or how much you hate him.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2005 @ 10:36 am - December 31, 2005
Stephen, I agree with many of your points, but some corrections there. First, Republicans and conservatives in the past have supported tax cuts, even with a booming deficit. Also, it’s the House of Representatives that has the power of impeachment (by majority vote). The Senate has the power of conviction (by 2/3 vote) if there is an impeachment. Although some Democrats have tried to initiate impeachment proceedings, even at this point, a Democrat majority wouldn’t impeach Bush. Also, although I have never been a proponent of this war, I wouldn’t call Iraq a “peaceful, sovereign” nation. And their former leader is one of the most vicious, murderous thugs alive today.
With regards to the mountain deficits and debt, one formula that seemed to work was to have different parties in the White House and in Congress. During the Reagan years and the Clinton years, revenues increased by roughly the same amount. The one difference though is that the spending increases during the Clinton years was much less, which eventually gave us a couple of years of budget surpluses. Although the House during the Reagan years was Democrat, there were enough conservative Democrats that supported Reagan’s agenda, so spending wasn’t curtailed. During Clinton’s presidency, most of the time there was a Republican Congress, so not all of Clinton’s spending initiatives passed Congress.
Comment by Pat — December 31, 2005 @ 10:52 am - December 31, 2005
#33 — 6,001 times ranting about Bush’s fiscal profligacy. 0 explanations of why the Democrats (who want to spend vastly larger amounts of money) are a viable alternative.
#35 — The one difference though is that the spending increases during the Clinton years was much less, which eventually gave us a couple of years of budget surpluses.
Wrong. The National Debt increased in every year of Clinton’s presidency. The only budget “surpluses” were forecasted in out-years, and depended on wildly optimistic predictions of economic growth and fiscal restraint. Not that I am excusing Bush. His domestic spending policies have been atrocious. (But, what Stephen never acknowledges, is that John Kerry wanted to spend more than $2 Trillion more than Bush.) But I don’t give credit to Clinton for surpluses that never actually happened.
Comment by V the K — December 31, 2005 @ 11:46 am - December 31, 2005
V the K makes an excellent point, Pat. What the Clinton era produced was budget surpluses.
The problem with that, as he points out, is that budget surpluses are relatively easy to create; all you need do is to be optimistic with your revenue inflows or expense outflows, or both.
For instance, what a lot of people don’t realize is that a significant source of income for the Federal government is corporate tax revenue, which is based on corporate earnings. Remember what was going on with corporate earnings in the ’90s? What can loosely be defined as “fudging”, as I recall — and those were the numbers being used to predict Federal tax revenue. This was part of the reason the Clinton-era SEC was so loath to investigate earnings (Republican Congresscritters with more lobbying money than sense was another).
Next up was payroll tax, which constitutes a third of Federal revenue. Again, how many workers did Enron, et al. employ to do what ultimately ended up being worthless? One of the dot.coms I interviewed with in the Dallas area employed 200 people for one year of payroll tax revenue without producing a single product — just a massive database of website addresses that had to be completely updated every ten days, lest it become obsolete, and a warehouse full of ugly peripherals that no one wanted. ZERO value, yet HUGE tax revenue projection — all of which vanished when the venture capitalists wanted something to show for their $200m and didn’t get it.
Moreover, in terms of the outflows, the most obvious area is defense. Bush got bashed left and right for not having armor on Humvees, for not having enough flak jackets, etc., but no one in the MSM was asking the obvious question — since they were so necessary for our army to be equipped, why hadn’t they been bought previously, especially when we allegedly had a “surplus”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2005 @ 12:17 pm - December 31, 2005
An important point: The Clinton Economic Boom was built almost entirely on Enron-style schemes (see also Tyco, Global Crossing, Adelphia), and the estimated $2 Trillion bubble in tech spending to prepare for Y2K.
In fact, the Y2K scam didn’t just ripple through the tech sector. My brother did very well in 1999 in a business installing emergency generators for people and businesses who were convinced the lights were going to go out at Midnight, 12/31/1999. When 2000 came, business nosedived and he was laid off. The level of economic activity generated by Y2K was both massive and unsustainable, which was why Bush inherited a recession when he was elected, a situation worsened by 9-11.
Comment by V the K — December 31, 2005 @ 1:27 pm - December 31, 2005
#33
So there’s no excuse that the imperial presidency abrogates the Constitution for his imperial purposes. If the democrats had control of the Senate, GWB would be impeached.
The reality is that if the Dipshitcrats had control of the Senate, GWB would have been impeached for daring to win the 2000 election and you damn well know it. Bush has not abrogated the Constitution “for his imperial purposes”. If you and your liberal buddies actually gave a damn about it, you would know that he has stuck to the Constitiution. It would have been impeachable if he hadn’t the wiretaps and you damne well know that too.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 1, 2006 @ 4:31 am - January 1, 2006
A few economic points to NDT in #37
What the Clinton era produced was budget surpluses.
The problem with that… is that budget surpluses are relatively easy to create; all you need do is to be optimistic with your revenue inflows or expense outflows, or both
There is only one way to create a budget surplus. That is for income to exceed expenditures. Budgets are not just future predictions. After a budget year is over you compare budgeted income to budgeted expenses. Income did exceed expenses during the Clinton administration. It wasn’t some slight of hand trickery. That was the reason GW gave originally for tax cuts; the government was taking more money than it needed (and I totally agreed with him).
what a lot of people don’t realize is that a significant source of income for the Federal government is corporate tax revenue
Corporate taxes account for only roughly 10% of total federal tax revenue.
On a different note, I’d like to see a total elimination of all US corporate taxation. The US would then be much more attractive to foreign and domestic investments alike.
Comment by John — January 1, 2006 @ 10:08 pm - January 1, 2006
Income did exceed expenses during the Clinton administration. It wasn’t some slight of hand trickery.
John, please tell us during which fiscal years of the Clinton presidency did the National Debt not increase.
Comment by V the K — January 1, 2006 @ 10:30 pm - January 1, 2006
John, please tell us during which fiscal years of the Clinton presidency did the National Debt not increase
None of them. Having a budget surplus doesn’t automatically mean a decrease in debt. It is like getting a pay raise at work and spending it all on candy instead of your mortgage. I never said the national debt decreased. There is a difference between deficit and debt.
Comment by John — January 1, 2006 @ 11:33 pm - January 1, 2006
#42 — Ah, so, basically, even though the Government was still spending more than it took in under Clinton, it was still a “surplus” because a Democrat was president.
I guess it depends on what your definition of the word “is” is.
Comment by V the K — January 2, 2006 @ 5:42 am - January 2, 2006
That said, I give Clinton partial credit for reducing the deficit, although part of the credit must also go to the Republican congress that restrained spending and was vilified for it, and most of the credit to the Enron/Y2K economic bubble, which was unsustainable. However, it is simply dishonest to say that there was a surplus in any fiscal year of the Clinton presidency.
Comment by V the K — January 2, 2006 @ 7:12 am - January 2, 2006
#44 Yes, I give partial credit to Clinton, but more credit to the Republican Congress for their spending constraint that reduced the deficit and produced surpluses for two years. Although original budget numbers may be due to inflated forecasts, my understanding is that numbers are eventually finalized reflecting the actual outlays and receipts. When I checked about the national debt, yes it did increase even during the years of surpluses. I also saw that even with a Rebuplican President, that when the deficit was, say $400 billion, the national debt increased by over $600 billion. I only had Economics 101 in college, so I can’t explain the discrepancies, and I haven’t seen it explained by the Dept. of Treasury, which is the source of these numbers.
Comment by Pat — January 2, 2006 @ 8:36 am - January 2, 2006
Spending restraint was in place after the Republicans were elected to a congressional majority in 1994 and lasted until the last year of the Clinton presidency. Budget growth was averaging about 4% in those years but jumped about 9% for the last budget Clinton submitted.
Then, Bush took office and domestic spending exploded at double digit rates. Bush apologists claim this is because of new expenditures for Homeland Security, but I think that’s BS. Most of the growth in discretionary spending was in education, agricultural subsidies, and non-entitlement welfare spending.
Why did Bush start spending like a crackwhore with a stolen credit card? Two reasons: 1. I think his advisors told him massive spending was necessary to ward off recession, and 2. I think Bush was trying to buy support from Democrats and moderates by lavish social spending.
But everything that’s happened so far is just a drop in the bucket. This is the year the Prescription Drug Boondoggle hits the budget. If you think spending was out of control before, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Comment by V the K — January 2, 2006 @ 9:04 am - January 2, 2006
Also, note how congressional liberals screeched like stuck pigs because Republicans wanted to reduce spending growth by $40 Billion over five years. That’s like Michael Moore going on a diet by giving up parsley.
Comment by V the K — January 2, 2006 @ 9:05 am - January 2, 2006
AND, V the K, how the Democrats have screamed that Bush’s budget has “misplaced priorities” when he HAS increased educational, welfare, and agricultural subsidy spending, i.e. their pet projects.
A few repoints back to John: end-of-year comparisons are reconciliations, not budgets, and are also easily inflated by what one could call “off-the-book” accounting. A common way of doing so is treating Social Security tax revenue as real money that the government hasn’t already spent.
Next:
Corporate taxes account for only roughly 10% of total federal tax revenue.
I am aware of that fact. However, when you look at trillion-dollar budgets, 10% is no small number, and when you look at that no small number relative to the projected “surpluses”, you can see quite clearly from which a good chunk of it came.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2006 @ 9:54 am - January 2, 2006
A memo just crossed my desk showing the military is giving up $30 Billion in cuts from FY06-FY09. But heaven forfend that bloated welfare, education, ag subsidies, highway bills, welfare, or entitlement programs be shaved even a teeny weeny bit.
Comment by V the K — January 2, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - January 2, 2006
#43
Ah, so, basically, even though the Government was still spending more than it took in under Clinton, it was still a “surplus” because a Democrat was president.
and in #44
However, it is simply dishonest to say that there was a surplus in any fiscal year of the Clinton presidency
It has nothing to do with who was President and saying it happened is not dishonest. It is fact. We had supluses from 1998 to 2001. The government took in more than it spent during those years. For actual amounts, look here.
Again, you are confusing a yearly budget deficit/surplus with the total national debt. While a yearly deficit automatically adds to total national debt(you must borrow to pay for the cost of government), a budget surplus doesn’t automatically mean total national debt will decrease.
IMO, budget surpluses aren’t so great anyway. A surplus means the government is taking more money from me than it actually needs (or thinks it needs). President Bush made this a central theme of his 2000 election campaign.
We did decrease (pay back) part of the publicly held debt during that same time period. This is the part on which we actually pay interest with real money.
Comment by John — January 2, 2006 @ 10:43 pm - January 2, 2006
To Pat in #45
When I checked about the national debt, yes it did increase even during the years of surpluses. I also saw that even with a Rebuplican President, that when the deficit was, say $400 billion, the national debt increased by over $600 billion. I only had Economics 101 in college, so I can’t explain the discrepancies
To somewhat answer your question. There are two parts to the national debt; public debt and the amount owed by the government to the government(Social Security, etc.). The growing principal and accrued interest on these government accounts is included in total national debt in addition to the the actual amount of any yearly deficit
Comment by John — January 2, 2006 @ 10:55 pm - January 2, 2006
To NDT in 48
A few repoints back to John: end-of-year comparisons are reconciliations, not budgets, and are also easily inflated by what one could call “off-the-book” accounting. A common way of doing so is treating Social Security tax revenue as real money that the government hasn’t already spent
My bad. I should have said “actual” instead of “budgeted” in my original post.
As far as inflating revenues. You can’t inflate actual revenue. Yes, a significant amount of the revenue (40%) comes from payroll taxes and that money is included in determining the surplus/deficit but you can’t just fault Clinton for using those numbers These are the figures every administration uses. In addition, the total national debt figure includes the “off the book” amount of SS liability.
and this
10% is no small number, and when you look at that no small number relative to the projected “surpluses”, you can see quite clearly from which a good chunk of it came
I can quite clearly see that it was 10% of the surplus no matter how large a number it was.
Comment by John — January 2, 2006 @ 11:58 pm - January 2, 2006
LOL….is all right, John. We’re in agreement on the salient points; I’m not up to arguing semantics with someone I like.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2006 @ 9:48 am - January 3, 2006
Those are valid points and I have to say I agree.To much to do, Breanna
Comment by digital voip phone service — February 18, 2006 @ 5:01 am - February 18, 2006