Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Disappointing presidential silence about illicit drugs

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Disappointing presidential silence about illicit drugs

Published February 27, 2005 (Clarence Page - Chicago Tribune)

I was surprised, but hardly shocked, to hear that President Bush all but admitted to illicit drug use during a conversation that was secretly taped. I am only disappointed by the sleazy way the disclosure was disclosed and by the president's reluctance to set the record straight.

Like many of the rest of us parents, he says in the tape that he doesn't want to talk about any of his alleged past drug indiscretions because he doesn't want youngsters to do the same.

Unfortunately, experience shows, silence is a self-defeating way to discourage kids from drug use.

And in Washington, where public ignorance feeds endless mischief, silence also can lead to well-meaning but wrong-headed legislation.

In case you missed it, Bush suggests on the tapes that were recorded when he was the governor of Texas that he smoked marijuana in the past. He also dodged a question on the tapes, whose authenticity the White House does not dispute, about whether he had used cocaine.

The New York Times broke the story in a Page 1 report on Doug Wead, a Christian activist who has published a book based in part on conversations with Bush that Wead secretly recorded in 1998 and 1999. Wead has since expressed regrets over releasing part of the conversations without Bush's permission, a move on the treachery scale that rivaled Linda Tripp's bugging of her chats with Monica Lewinsky. Wead has since announced that he is donating the book's proceeds to charity. Ah, nothing concentrates your conscience like having a nation of millions call you a sleazebag.

Fortunately for the president, the tapes' contents have done less damage to Bush's reputation than to Wead's.

My disappointment comes with Bush's refusal, so far, to speak openly and candidly about his past drug and alcohol use and how he recovered. He says he does not want to answer the questions "because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."

Take it from me, Mr. President, a lot of today's teenagers think you "smoked and snorted," as one of my son's high school classmates put it, anyway. Your silence does nothing to defuse their suspicions. For the record, our president has never acknowledged using drugs, despite repeated questions from nosy reporters during his days as Texas governor. He has acknowledged a drinking problem that he appears to have kicked, to his credit, through the wonder-working powers of his religious conversion.

His party-animal days involved nothing more than "just, you know, wild behavior," he told Wead, although he did worry, apparently with justification, that his opponents would revive allegations of cocaine use.

Bush's reputed "wild" days hardly make him unique among us, his fellow Baby Boomers and post-Baby Boomers. Unfortunately too few parents have a clue about how to come clean with our own kids in ways that can help them to avoid our mistakes--and worse.

A national survey released by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, coincidentally a few days after the disclosure of the Wead tapes, found that the number of parents who report never talking with their children about drugs actually has doubled in the last six years, to 12 percent in 2004 from 6 percent in 1998.

And while many of us parents say we've talked to our kids about drugs, that's not what a lot of our kids are saying: 85 percent of the 1,205 surveyed parents said they had talked to their children at least once in the last 12 months about drugs, but only 30 percent of teenagers said they've learned much about drug risks from their parents.

We need to share more straight talk, not silence, with our kids.

And more straight talk from the White House on down would help government to avoid doing greater harm, like the provision that Congress passed in 1998 that bars college students or applicants with drug convictions from receiving federal financial aid. If ever there was a case of throwing obstacles in the way of young people who are trying to improve their lives, regardless of past errors, this is it.

The provision's author, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), says he intended the bill to apply only to those convicted while they are students or loan applicants, not to earlier convictions. He also has been trying to correct that error with a new amendment, although the wheels of Congress have been grinding exceedingly slow in that process.

In the meantime, we have a president who refuses to talk about his own drug history, whatever it may be, and a Congress that continues to discriminate against aspiring college students who are honest about their own past drug use. That's nuts. We, the people, need to talk. Then Congress needs to act. Leadership from the White House will help, Mr. President. Your silence will not.

Posted by: Joeychgo

What can he say? Best thing for him policitally is to say nothing and hope the whole thing passes him by.

Posted by: Kbob

"Just say no"

Posted by: Styles

I want to know one thing ! Johnny do you have a voice of your own or are you Clarence Page? Because this is the second left wing biased editorial you have posted?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Hang around awhile Styles. You'll see alot of left-winging coming from Johnny's corner.

We're pretty polarized here. A few on the left and a few on the right. Not many in the middle. Although I am not sure there is a middle anymore anyway.

Posted by: Styles

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Hang around awhile Styles. You'll see alot of left-winging coming from Johnny's corner.

We're pretty polarized here. A few on the left and a few on the right. Not many in the middle. Although I am not sure there is a middle anymore anyway.

Well I lean to the right, I'm not full blow right but you have to choose the lesser of two evils and Kerry was the devil I tell ya

But these types of situations will undoubtedly come up just because of our two party system.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Styles

I want to know one thing ! Johnny do you have a voice of your own or are you Clarence Page? Because this is the second left wing biased editorial you have posted?

I just think this editorial sums up my feelings quite nicely. As I've mentioned before in another thread on this subject, I think that the fact that people have to hide and be afraid of being crucified for being honest is a VERY SAD statement about our society in this country. I honestly can't blame BuSh for his position of silence, it is a product of the political environment in this country (from BOTH sides of the aisle). At the same time, I'm very dissapointed BuSh doesn't have the balls to stand up and be a MAN about this and show some REAL leadership that 'yall 'think' he is so well endowed with.

Styles, look around, I've posted WAY more than just TWO editorials. Your assessment of "left wing biased" is just a matter of your perception. Would you care to elaborate on what about this editorial is "left wing biased", OTHER than the fact it is not flattering to your "hero"? Sometimes, the TRUTH hurts!

Posted by: barry2952

Here's something to sink your teeth into Style. GWB is the "Worst Preident Ever".

And I'm not even a liberal.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

I just think this editorial sums up my feelings quite nicely.

Be honest. You've never met a liberal, Bush-bashing editorial you didn't like. Like Clinton should be out giving seminars against adultery or something.

Posted by: Styles

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

I

Styles, look around, I've posted WAY more than just TWO editorials.

[sarcasm] Oh some how I got the feeling you posted more than two editorials [/sarcasm] but what I did noticed is that you posted TWO from Clarence Page??? IMHO I take any thing that Mr. Page says with a grain of salt! He is one of the biggest hypocrites I have read in a long time. Such as the oxymoronic editorial that you posted about Bloggers etc...

Check this out..

---
Page discussed the credibility problems journalists face and the public opinion of the media in his speech titled, "Media Ethics is Not a Contradiction."

"I'm a member of a misunderstood minority," Page said. "I'm a journalist."
---

I would not even call him a journalist!!! He is a columnists, there is a big difference between the two. A journalist reports facts in an unbiased manner as were a columnists gives an opinion about how he/she perceives the world or a given situation (again IMHO lefty's live in their own world) I admit Bush is not the greatest guy on the planet nor the greatest leader and so are alot of republicans and dems in general, even though both political parties will admit to no wrong doing including Bush, but he is our commander in chief period. Kerry did the same thing as well.

Quote:

Your assessment of "left wing biased" is just a matter of your perception.

thats a very funny comment or are you that naive? Mr. Page is big time lefty, he is a liberal democrat and regularly speaks at symposiums, sponsored by the School of Liberal Arts and other Liberal organizations. Man are you guys are too afraid to be called liberals or what ? Or would you prefer the term with a little spin such as a moderate-socialist? lol

Posted by: Styles

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Here's something to sink your teeth into Style. GWB is the "Worst Preident Ever".

And I'm not even a liberal.

Thats nice you are intitled to your own opinion and Preident is spelled President.

Cheers,

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

And I'm not even a liberal.

Um, I hate to say you blew your cover a long time ago.

Looks like Bush' plan to triangulate on the Democrats and steal their supporters is going to work. It is a great plan and slowly but surely we are siphoning off Dem supporters one by one.

1) Going after the young kids by offering up Social Security reform.
2) Allowing the Latinos a pass into the US with guest worker status. I may want to get back into manufacturing with that piece of legislation. Just think, $5.15 an hour with no bennies. Someone ring the till for me please.
3) Moving class action suits into federal court where the damages are less, neutering the lawyers and their fat fees.
4) Rewriting civil service regulations to further weaken the unions and reduce the amount of dues paid in, thereby decreasing the lies and deceits that we see at election time trying to brainwash the electorate.

I mean when you look at it, good 'ol Dubya has a chance to stand with the greatest to ever have sat in the oval office chair (not under it like Monica).

Music to my ears. Reagan, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Bush and Jefferson. The FAB five.

Go Georgie. One of the greatest Presidents ever! Not the greatest, just yet. Although he has more than 3 years to go to get there.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Styles

Thats nice you are intitled to your own opinion and Preident is spelled President.

We've had the spell checker comments here in the past and I think everybody agreed to give some latitude on grammatical errors. Thanks guys.

Posted by: barry2952

Quote:

Originally Posted by Styles

Thats nice you are intitled to your own opinion and Preident is spelled President.

Cheers,

OK [ pal ]. We'll be on the lookout for every typo you make and make sure we point it out to everyone.

BTW, there is no such word an "intitled". The word is spelled "entitled" just like SSI.

Posted by: Styles

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

OK [ pal ]. We'll be on the lookout for every typo you make and make sure we point it out to everyone.

That's kewl.... errrrr I mean cool lol

Posted by: barry2952

Just in case you missed this Styles:

"BTW, there is no such word an "intitled". The word is spelled "entitled" just like SSI."

Posted by: MonsterMark

Hey Barry!

I can't recall the guy's name but he was a former treasury secretary that has floated the idea about the gov putting $2000/yr, starting a birth into a private savings account for every newborn in the United States. The $2000 contribution would end at age 18 and then the money would continue to compound tax free until retirement. Based on todays dollars, a newborn entering into the program today would retire with $82,000/yr in benefits for 20 years.

Essentially, every newborn would retire a millionaire. All of this assumes a rate of return of 6%, which if you look at ANY 25 year period, the US stock market has outperformed the 6%. I think it is a great, great idea. We could even give the option of "rich" people putting in more than the 12.5%/$90,000 threshold. Maybe these rich people could 'sponsor' a less fortunate child by adding additional cash to a child's retirement program.

Of course, this program would have to be retroactive back 10 years so each of my kids would qualify.

Posted by: Styles

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Hey Barry!

I can't recall the guy's name but he was a former treasury secretary that has floated the idea about the gov putting $2000/yr, starting a birth into a private savings account for every newborn in the United States. The $2000 contribution would end at age 18 and then the money would continue to compound tax free until retirement. Based on todays dollars, a newborn entering into the program today would retire with $82,000/yr in benefits for 20 years.

Essentially, every newborn would retire a millionaire. All of this assumes a rate of return of 6%, which if you look at ANY 25 year period, the US stock market has outperformed the 6%. I think it is a great, great idea. We could even give the option of "rich" people putting in more than the 12.5%/$90,000 threshold. Maybe these rich people could 'sponsor' a less fortunate child by adding additional cash to a child's retirement program.

Of course, this program would have to be retroactive back 10 years so each of kids would qualify.

Could we say 33 years old that way I would be in

Posted by: barry2952

Each of your kids?

Let me ask you this? Why haven't parent's done this on their own? I recall putting $1,500 into the first IRA. If I had had children I would have put as much as I could away for them.

I like the idea, but it's kind of closing the barn door a little too late. Why does the government have to mandate common sense?

Posted by: barry2952

Quote:

Originally Posted by Styles

Could we say 33 years old that way I would be in

There is supposed to be a question mark after "old" creating a complete sentence. You would start the next sentence with a capital "T". Oh yeah, sentences generally end in periods.

Posted by: MonsterMark

This program would eventually faze out Social Security as we know it in 65 years. We wouldn't need SS anymore.

I my kids all have their own retirement programs. Only problem is Clinton wiped out 70% of their portfolios with HIS internet bubble and the accounts still haven't recovered.

I would much prefer seeing $2000 of my SS money be transferred into my kids accounts. Remember, the self employed have to pay matching, which means 12.4% at 90K, or $10 geeeze. I could even have one more kid that way.

And if you are the lib I think you are, this would be a great way for the middle and lower classes to participate in the American dream. Of course, this 'ownership' society that would be created would make everybody a Republican as you know. Even people who don't like 'W' would have to like him if this passed into law.

Posted by: barry2952

Back to the origins of this thread.

I believe GWB is a stupid liar and the tapes just prove it.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

There is supposed to be a question mark after "old" creating a complete sentence. You would start the next sentence with a capital "T". Oh yeah, sentences generally end in periods.

Ok guys. We get the idea.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Back to the origins of this thread.

I believe GWB is a stupid liar and the tapes just prove it.

I did my best to jack the thread. Oh well.

No where on those tapes did Bush lie, therefore, the tapes prove nada. In fact, for having a 'candid' conversation with a friend, I think they reflected very well on Bush, considering everybody knows that ANYBODY that grew up in the '60's, '70's, and '80's smoked 'pot' at sometime or another, maybe even did a line. Even the straightest kids I knew ALL tried it at least once. Peer pressure was too great. Of course, when all your friends are laughing their asses off, trying to catch a breath, and then feasting on HoHos, Twinkies and Cocoa Puffs, who could blame anybody for trying a little maryjane.

Posted by: Styles

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Why does the government have to mandate common sense?

Because liberals would not survive if the government did NOT mandate anything to them.

Posted by: barry2952

Quote:

Originally Posted by Styles

Because liberals would not survive if the government did NOT mandate anything to them.

I'm sorry, did that make any sense to anyone?

Posted by: barry2952

Bryan,

You've hijacked it again. I didn't say that Bush lied in this case. He just didn't tell the truth. If Bush were not a stupid liar how could he as "Annointed One" have been stupid enough to not just tell the truth. Maybe the words I'm looking for are "bad liar" in this case.

It wasn't just the '60s, '70s and '80s. Pot has been around in the American culture for much longer. My parents answered honestly when asked about their useage. That was the early '40s. I'd be suprised if GWB's father hadn't tried a puff or two himself. Just guessing there.

Posted by: Styles

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

I'm sorry, did that make any sense to anyone?

Ok let me explain...

Since the liberals have taken control of the government, the size of the US federal gov has grown, not shrunk, increased the national debt, cut our armed forces and passing more pork under their watch than anybody else in history. Liberlas believe in "tax and spend", "big gov is the answer" type policies.

Conservatives basically want as little Government intervention as possible. In other words, liberals will support a tax to rectify whatever major or minor social ill they hope to remedy: the environment and obesity are popular amongst them. Hey global climate maybe possibly changing, maybe possibly due to greenhouse gases? Tax hell out of gasoline and carbon. We'll definitely wreck the economy, but if we're lucky the environment might possibly improve enough to raise our self-esteem two percent.

Posted by: barry2952

Where's Phil when you need him?

Posted by: Styles

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Where's Phil when you need him?

as the good Dr. Phil would say...

Quote:

It's NOT ABOUT YOU!!! Now buy my book.

I listen way too much to Bob & Tom in the morrnings, since Dr. Phil has been the running joke for the past week.

15 mins I jump in my LS v8 sport and leave work woooohooo

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Bryan,

You've hijacked it again. I didn't say that Bush lied in this case. He just didn't tell the truth. If Bush were not a stupid liar how could he as "Annointed One" have been stupid enough to not just tell the truth. Maybe the words I'm looking for are "bad liar" in this case.

It wasn't just the '60s, '70s and '80s. Pot has been around in the American culture for much longer. My parents answered honestly when asked about their useage. That was the early '40s. I'd be suprised if GWB's father hadn't tried a puff or two himself. Just guessing there.

Heck, for the Dems and liberals out there, it is fine to have a pot-smoking (I did not inhale), wife-cheating (I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman), ball swinging (I prefer boxers to briefs), friend murdering (all my friends die mysteriously it seems), saxophone playing perp in the White House. What is wrong with children looking up to the most powerful man in the world without dragging all the dirty laundry out? Bush's responses were well thought out and appropriate.

I will continue to defend our President at every turn until he finishes his term in the White House. He has restored dignity and class that was sorely missing for 8 previous years that a Dem occupied the Office.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Styles

I listen way too much to Bob & Tom in the morrnings

Bob and Tom are great. Funny as h e-double L.

And Phil is another member of the board, not the quack Dr.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Styles

Ok let me explain...

Since the liberals have taken control of the government, the size of the US federal gov has grown, not shrunk, increased the national debt, cut our armed forces and passing more pork under their watch than anybody else in history. Liberlas believe in "tax and spend", "big gov is the answer" type policies.

Care to share whatever that is you're smoking?

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Looks like Bush' plan to triangulate on the Democrats and steal their supporters is going to work. It is a great plan and slowly but surely we are siphoning off Dem supporters one by one. ...............

2) Allowing the Latinos a pass into the US with guest worker status. I may want to get back into manufacturing with that piece of legislation. Just think, $5.15 an hour with no bennies. Someone ring the till for me please.

So you LIKE the idea of slavery, eh?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

So you LIKE the idea of slavery, eh?

Oh, absolutely. My business helped to raise of generation of Latinos (Mexican/Americans). I gave good jobs to mom, dad, sis, cousin, grandma. It didn't matter. No discrimination. If you showed up and wanted to work, you could. 6 or 7 would pile into a car, drive 20 miles and be promptly at work at 6:00. They would work 50-60 hours if needed to (overtime, of course). Lived 6-10 to a household and shared the living expenses. Sent wads of cash back down to Mexico so they could buy and build homes with the money they earned in the US. Now I paid way over minimum wage but back home in Mexico, if they made $.50-75/hr, they were lucky. Slavery? I bet you couldn't get one of them to say they were a slave. A couple of employees even bestowed the honor of naming their kids after me.

Slavery??? I laugh. How far have we come when not even 70 years ago, I person would work all day just to get something to eat. And look at 80% of the worlds population. Do you really think any of them would think that being in America and getting paid $5.15/hr would be considered slavery? Kidding right? Or, if you're not, you don't get out much.

Posted by: TownCar97

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Care to share whatever that is you're smoking?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Ike, Nixon and Ford were republicans. This would pretty much even the playing field.

Look at it this way,

911 happened

This messed up the economy big time,

Then all of the debacles about Enron and other companies.

Hence, Government needs to start spending.

Also, why do you think the deficit was so high at the beginning of that chart.

FDR the biggest lib of them all.

Although arguably the greatest president of all time, he did drive the deficit up because of the market crash as well as the war.

Just look upon GW as a mini FDR, only with more well thought out programs for social security construction.

TownCar97

Posted by: Styles

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Care to share whatever that is you're smoking?

Cute Grph considering it only shows GDP (narrow minded if you ask me) And if I dared to share what ever I smoke you just might see MIB in black helicopters over your house.

Now for some real numbers not from just one source

look at the peak spending under Bush Sr. 431,989,899,919.78, and the least spending under Clinton, 17,907,308,271.43. That's 4%, or a 1 to 24 ratio. Interesting huh

compare this with Employment for the same period to see if any correlation can be made.

While it may be tempting to think government deficit spending influences employment, the opposite is likely true - the more people who are employed, the more revenue the government gets through taxes.

The Consumer Price Index measures inflation. It tracks the price of goods (bread, milk, etc.) over time. This particular chart uses 1967 as it's base year (100 points). This is a sort of cost-of-living index. Looking at this chart, you can infer that you need to make around 5.5 times more money now than you did in 1967 to live the same type of lifestyle.

National Debt, Adjusted for Inflation

First I calculated the Consumer Price Index to use 1950 as it's base year. Then, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) I calculated the national debt to take into account inflation (Debt/CPI).

In 1950's dollars, our debt is currently $887,445,036,515.72 or 887 billion dollars, which is 3.45 times the size of the debt in 1950.

Here's just the inflation-adjusted debt from 1950 - 2003. This graph paints a very interesting picture about the past few administrations.

notice the years there spanky

Gross Domestic Product, or GDP is a measure of all of the goods and services produced within the United States. It differs from the Consumer Price Index in that this measures what we produce (and we can infer, consume), versus the cost of living. So while everyone can have a flat screen TV and an SUV (high GDP), the Consumer Price Index is the cost of living - bread, milk, and so on.

Gross Domestic Product, 1930 - 2003

To put the whole debt thing in perspective, here's the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the USA from 1930 to the present. Luckily, our growth actually has been a "hockey stick" and looking at this graph, the debt starts to seem somewhat more rational. There's simply more money floating around.

In 1946 The debt hit 121.7% of the GDP due to WWII, it's currently (as of 2003) at 62.4%.

hmmmmmmm

Sources of Information

* Budget of the United States Goverment
*
o Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005
o
+ Historical Tables
This site has lots of information on the past budgets.
o Joint Economic Committe Study "Budget Surpluses, Deficits and Government Spending"
* The US Government's Debt
*
o
Bureau of the Public Debt
This is where I got all my debt information, and they have
o
+
The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It
current "debt clock"
+ U.S. Treasury - FAQs: National Debt.
o The CIA World Factbook - United States
Has lots of information about the USA, including the External Debt.
* Population estimates
*
o Population Estimates Archive
To get the number of people in the US.
o US Population Clock
Up to the minute population estimates.
* Employment & Unemployment Rates
*
*
o Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey Homepage
o
+ Employment status of civilian noninstituational population, 1940 to date
*
Gross Domestic Product
*
o Bureau of Economic Analysis: National Economic Accounts
This site has the current GDP
o
+ Bureau of Economic Analysis - Historic Gross Domestic Product estimates
o Joint Economic Committee Study "Budget Surpluses, Deficits and Government Spending"
* The Consumer Price Index (Inflation)
*
o Consumer Price Index
o
+ U.S. All Items, 1967=100
* The Value of Gold
*
o World Gold Council > value > research & statistics > homepage

Other Interesting Links

* U.S. public debt (Wikipedia)
* Federal Spending and the National Debt
This site has an interesting graph on How Congress Spend Your Money
* In Depth Analysis of American Income and Taxation
An excellent look at what it truly means to be in the "top 1% of wealth" and how much is paid in taxes by them, oh, and everyone else too.
* Central Bankers Against Gold - The Demonisation of Gold 1933-1980
This website describes rather succinctly the events that led up to the abolition of the debt ceiling that allowed us to reach our current levels of debt. It's somewhat biased.
* A History of the U.S. Debt Ceiling - 1940 to Present
A good chart outlining when Congress raised the debt ceiling.
* Individual Tax Statistics - Time Series (IRS.gov)
* Centrists.Org: Where Will the Deficit Go From Here? New Long-Term Budget Projections
* U.S. Budget Information
This site has lots of interesting information on money in America covering everything from consumer debt to economic indicators to foreign trade.
* Death and Taxes: A visual look at where your tax dollars go.
This is the single best chart of where money is being spent that I've seen online.

Posted by: barry2952

While whoever wrote this piece made some valid points I'd like to know what this has to do with the topic "Disappointing presidential silence about illicit drugs"?

Please return to the topic.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Sorry Barry, I was taking issue w/ Styles' errant remark ("Since the liberals have taken control of the government, [they] .......... increased the national debt......"), which he so eloquently helped prove was not true.

Style's first graph just further emphasizes my point, which is that he is WRONG about liberals increasing the national debt. Clinton (the only liberal president in my voting years) turned around the debt racked-up by 3 terms of Reganomics, then in LESS THAN 4 YEARS, BuSh Jr. blows it all and then some!

His 2nd graph helps emphasize the fact that employment was at an all time high during Clinton, only to be turned around by BuSh Jr.

His 3rd graph is nice info.

His 4th graph again illustrates that Reaganomics caused the most substantial growth in adjusted debt, and it was during Clinton's term that the growth in adjusted debt was turned around and headed back in the right direction, only to be BLOWN by BuSh Jr.

The 5th graph shows that GDP is pretty much a function of our growing working population and inflation, that's nice.

The 6th graph is the same as the graph I posted, debt as a % of GDP. So he apparently concludes that he was wrong in his assertion as well.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

While whoever wrote this piece made some valid points I'd like to know what this has to do with the topic "Disappointing presidential silence about illicit drugs"?

Please return to the topic.

There is nothing worthy to comment on because nobody is disappointed with President Bush's comment about past drug use. He handled the question better than previous Presidents, VP's and other Presidential contenders.

I can always move all the comments regarding the gdp and national debt into another thread if you guys want.

That way we can keep this a Bash Bush thread as it was intended.

Posted by: barry2952

What a great idea. We should start a forum just for that purpose.

BASH BUSH! I like that.

Posted by: eL eS

OK what I learned from this is that it is ok for liberals to take my money and give it to a baby poppin crack head but not ok to support my family and secure this country!

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by eL eS

OK what I learned from this is that it is ok for liberals to take my money and give it to a baby poppin crack head but not ok to support my family and secure this country!

WTF are you talking about? Forget to take your meds?