Re: The massive national debt...a deliberate repug hoax?
james
Figaro <figa...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>There's a disturbing theory floating around that the buildup of the massive national
>debt is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Bush administration to scuttle public
>help programs like Social Security and Medicare by simply drying up the money needed to
>fund them, using the debt as an excuse.
At some point, the person who continues to lend money to a deadbeat must
assume some responsibility for their not being repaid.
Tom Quarlous
wrote:
>
>
>"Accumulation of massive debt is the number one priority of the Bush Administration - a
>deliberate, managed move toward its goal of an "ownership society" in which all aspects
>are privatized." ...Bill Willers
>http://www.smirkingchimp.com/index.php
>
>There's a disturbing theory floating around that the buildup of the massive national
>debt is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Bush administration to scuttle public
>help programs like Social Security and Medicare by simply drying up the money needed to
>fund them, using the debt as an excuse.
>
>According to Bill Willers in his article 'Breaking the bank: The rightwing road to
>America's privatized future', the repugs will achieve their dream of total
>privatization by plunging the nation into such a monetary disaster that many, if not
>all, government-funded programs will have to be turned over to the private sector,
>a blood-chilling scenario considering the bankruptcies, corruption, and corrosive greed
>characteristic of corporate America today
>
>
>
>While we all pay attention to Bush's war in Iraq, we may be ignoring his other war...
>the war on the American worker.
>
>
>Figaro
Paul Krugman has been warning about this intention for more than three
years.
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
process, that is starting to accelerate.
Aaron Hirshberg
james
Figaro <figa...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>In your usual pointless way, you make a comment that has nothing to do with the
>subject. Do you keep a file of these pompous, pretentious little tidbits just for this
>purpose?
Hey, if there's a national debt, then there's a creditor stupid enough
to lend it. I wouldn't loan you five bucks knowing you can't pay me
back. And if I had a lapse of reason and did loan it to you, and sure
enough, you can't pay me back, I'd STOP lending you money.
Salad
I have been believing that the bush mandate to break America financially
is in full swing for longer than 3 years. It's obvious to all that he
is attempting to bankrupt America. Millions of clowns want to slit
their own throat financially and voted for his bullshit
Curly Surmudgeon
>
> "Accumulation of massive debt is the number one priority of the Bush
> Administration - a deliberate, managed move toward its goal of an
> "ownership society" in which all aspects are privatized." ...Bill
> Willers
> http://www.smirkingchimp.com/index.php
>
> There's a disturbing theory floating around that the buildup of the
> massive national debt is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Bush
> administration to scuttle public help programs like Social Security and
> Medicare by simply drying up the money needed to fund them, using the
> debt as an excuse.
Somehow I cannot conceive of Bush being that Machiavellian. Bush simply
doesn't have that many brain cells to rub together.
> According to Bill Willers in his article 'Breaking the bank: The
> rightwing road to America's privatized future', the repugs will achieve
> their dream of total privatization by plunging the nation into such a
> monetary disaster that many, if not all, government-funded programs will
> have to be turned over to the private sector, a blood-chilling scenario
> considering the bankruptcies, corruption, and corrosive greed
> characteristic of corporate America today
>
>
>
> While we all pay attention to Bush's war in Iraq, we may be ignoring his
> other war... the war on the American worker.
>
>
> Figaro
--
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:30:13 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
> <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:13:58 +0000, Figaro wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Accumulation of massive debt is the number one priority of the Bush
>>> Administration - a deliberate, managed move toward its goal of an
>>> "ownership society" in which all aspects are privatized." ...Bill
>>> Willers
>>> http://www.smirkingchimp.com/index.php
>>>
>>> There's a disturbing theory floating around that the buildup of the
>>> massive national debt is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Bush
>>> administration to scuttle public help programs like Social Security
>>> and Medicare by simply drying up the money needed to fund them, using
>>> the debt as an excuse.
>>
>>Somehow I cannot conceive of Bush being that Machiavellian. Bush simply
>>doesn't have that many brain cells to rub together.
>
> My Dear Sir, you don't really think Bush has anything substantive to say
> about how this country is run, do you? You really think he's anything
> but a stooge, a mouthpiece, a rubber stamp used to validate the actions
> of his handlers? Of course he can't conceive of anything that
> Machiavellian; he can hardly conceive of dropping his pants before
> taking a dump.
>
> Figaro
I like a good conspiracy theory and the Bush Administration is rife with
many but I still find this one a bit far-fetched. I'm not dismissing it
but reserve opinion for more info.
Bush's nomination of Harriet Meirs implies that Bush retains a lot of
control over the office. Few would have even had her on the short list.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Conservatives are neither.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
God Bless my Land Yacht
news:11kqojh...@corp.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:13:58 +0000, Figaro wrote:
>
>
>>
>> "Accumulation of massive debt is the number one priority of the Bush
>> Administration - a deliberate, managed move toward its goal of an
>> "ownership society" in which all aspects are privatized." ...Bill
>> Willers
>> http://www.smirkingchimp.com/index.php
>>
>> There's a disturbing theory floating around that the buildup of the
>> massive national debt is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Bush
>> administration to scuttle public help programs like Social Security
>> and
>> Medicare by simply drying up the money needed to fund them, using the
>> debt as an excuse.
>
> Somehow I cannot conceive of Bush being that Machiavellian. Bush
> simply
> doesn't have that many brain cells to rub together.
I agree. The only thing he's managed to pull off his entire Presidency
is tax cuts for the rich. As far as cutting spending, I think he'd like
to do that, but he doesn't have the skills of a statesman to pull
something like that off.
If you follow history, you'll see that any time you give one party
control of both houses of congress and the Presidency, then get out your
checkbook, because you're going to pay through the nose. It really
doesn't matter what side of the isle gets control. The result is the
same.
entropy
"God Bless my Land Yacht" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:sOj3f.37743$q81.21891@trnddc06...
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
> news:11kqojh...@corp.supernews.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:13:58 +0000, Figaro wrote:
>>> "Accumulation of massive debt is the number one priority of the Bush
>>> Administration - a deliberate, managed move toward its goal of an
>>> "ownership society" in which all aspects are privatized." ...Bill
>>> Willers
>>> http://www.smirkingchimp.com/index.php
>>>
>>> There's a disturbing theory floating around that the buildup of the
>>> massive national debt is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Bush
>>> administration to scuttle public help programs like Social Security and
>>> Medicare by simply drying up the money needed to fund them, using the
>>> debt as an excuse.
>>
>> Somehow I cannot conceive of Bush being that Machiavellian. Bush simply
>> doesn't have that many brain cells to rub together.
>
> I agree. The only thing he's managed to pull off his entire Presidency is
> tax cuts for the rich. As far as cutting spending, I think he'd like to
> do that, but he doesn't have the skills of a statesman to pull something
> like that off.
and patrons that conceived the grand plan. To these shylocks and
moneychangers it is just business. Hell members of their Zionist clan are
in very powerful positions in every office of this government. Never forget
that G. W. Bush is just a showdog following instructions.
Curly Surmudgeon
True, and reason to vote for third parties. Both the Demopublicans and
Republicrats have shown themselves incapable of moderate action, both are
intent on instituting an authoritarian state. The only difference between
them are their pet programs that they'll force upon us using our own tax
money taken at gunpoint.
God Bless my Land Yacht
The only problem is, the only third parties of any note have been those
who were either farther right than the Republicans or farther left than
the Democrats. Both parties are already too far in either direction as
far as I'm concerned.
Curly Surmudgeon
I don't find the Libertarains to the right of Republicans although the
Greens do seem to be pretty leftist. However in defense of the Greens I
do appreciate their integrity.
Don't forget the other parties though, Reform, Constitution Party,
American Socialists, etc. There's one out there for almost any position
in the multi-dimensional political spectrum. I'm proud of being a
patriotic anarcho-libertarian but understand that not everyone will agree.
That's the great thing America had going for it previously, a bit of
respect for other opinins and positions. The Republicans have killed that
but maybe, just maybe if we work at it, that tolerance can be regained.
The problem is that the Federal Government is getting invoved in cutting
edge issues which piss off close to half the population no matter what
decision is taken. If the electorate aren't of a supermajority on an
issue then the Executive and Legislative should stay the hell out of that
issue, it's tearing America apart.
So be a member of the Fascist party, or the Whimpering Liberals, or
whatever party and be proud of it. Just stop trying to use the inherent
coercive power of government to further your personal agenda upon those
who believe differently.
Curly Surmudgeon
Uhm, that tirade wasn't aimed at you, God Bless my Land Yacht, but at
those who do advocate abusive use of federal authority.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahem!
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:13:58 +0000, Figaro wrote:
>
>
>> [...]
>> There's a disturbing theory floating around that the buildup of the
>> massive national debt is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Bush
>> administration to scuttle public help programs like Social Security and
>> Medicare by simply drying up the money needed to fund them, using the
>> debt as an excuse.
>
> Somehow I cannot conceive of Bush being that Machiavellian. Bush simply
> doesn't have that many brain cells to rub together.
>
But his bother and PNAC member Jeb Bush does:
| We must create [an economic] crisis in order to ensure that there
| is no alternative to a smaller government.
| [...]
| To bring about a genuine political realignment, Republicans must
| kill the Government Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs -- the very
| Goose they have fought so hard and long to possess.
| [...]
| Money is the key to the growth of big government, and the
| lack of it is the tool with which smaller and more efficient
| government can be fashioned.
---- Jeb Bush, Imprimis Magazine 1995
http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/1995/June95Imprimis.pdf