Would someone please explain to me....

Since the GDP is defined as "the total value of final goods and services produced within a territory during a specified period" My best educated guess without first hearing what Rush has to say about it is yes. The percentage of national debt to GDP would be in line with inflation for the specific dated period. But, I seriously think that because we are working off of percentages, Inflation will always be accounted for.

I believe I heard from sources not related to EIB that N. Korea is in the market for a civillian nuclear reactor. You oughta be able to get a few dollars for one of those.

No this has nothing to do with sex but I wanted you to see the response. I didn't get the subject "You don't have to justify what's right" but some comments on your post follows.

You said,

"Let me start by saying that its a privelage to help pay your benefits in return for your service to our country."

Kind words, but you owe me nothing, nor does anyone else. I feel that national service -- not necessarily military service -- should be mandatory and is a duty for able-bodied folks. We'd see fewer wars. What the public pays for our retirement, is a crying shame. I would gladly sacrifice all of it, if other non-disabled vets would also and *if* this nation would really do something about the national debt. It is unconscionable to lay that kind of debt on our grandkids. I would like to keep the healthcare though. =0)

On Davis-Bacon, your logic is convoluted and I'd like to know where you got those facts. Someone is going to a lot of trouble to justify Bush cutting the $9 minimum in an already poor area, so I smell a rat. Who told you that? I worked contruction a little in my foolish youth and what you say doesn't make sense. for instance,

"> A subsidiary of Haliburton recieved a no-bid contract to rebuild in N.O."

True, as bid Bechtel, another mega company and Bush supporter. Ammo for you to throw at "liberals": The Shaw Group was also awarded a big, no-bidder and they are led by the Chairman of the Louisiana Democratic party. =0)

">> Not one dime of money will be handed out for the reconstruction of the "Katrina disaster" until sometime next year. Many contractors cannot go this long without cash flow, making most U.S. contractors unqualified for the task."

That is partially spun and partially untrue since:

- "Next year isn't that far off.

- Any contractor with a government contract of that scale is "golden" and can access an enormous line of cheap credit with a phone call.

- Contractors are seldom paid upfront, but usually upon completion of the project or as they accomplish different phases of the project. They are business people.

" Haliburton can eat this for quite a long period of time. Since New Orleans needs to be rebuilt now, and since Haliburton IS good at what they do, they are among the most qualified anyway."

True, but the problem I have with "no-bid" contracts is that they are handled the entire contract by some civil servant spending *our* money. it would make sense to handle the urgent work as no-bid, while companies assess damage and bid...

"> The average worker will make between ten and twelve dollars per hour during the reconstruction. >> Not bad for unskilled labor."

Unskilled? They will not rebuild the area with shovels and wheelbarrows. They folks actually doing the reconstruction, operating engineers, electricians, masons, carpenters, plumbers, roofers, etc. would probably that they are at least as skilled as a trucker and I suspect their trades, took a while longer to master that it took us... Why is anyone emphasizing unskilled labor if not to alibi for Bush?

Frankly, even $10-12 is dirt cheap, so why did Bush jump in and kill the $9??? Dropping the $9 lowers the floor under wages and benefits the poor, suffering, corporations. Please tell me you didn't buy that?

> For the amount of money the U.S. has already agreed to spend on New Orleans, Each and every resident of the Crescent City could be handed Four Hundred Thousand Dollars cash for rebuilding their lives. You can buy a home anywhere in the United States for that kind of money, except maybe Delaware."

You miss the point again. It has nothing to do with the average resident of Nawlins. If they don't have good insurance, the gummint *might loan* them a little, but it is the business concerns who will get the attention and $$$. New Orleans is a vital as a port, and a hostoric tourist attraction to the state. If this administration turned it's back on the area, they can kiss the White House goodbye forever. they would insist on rebuilding it even if it were realtively valueless.

Hey, Bush just signed the worst transportation bill in history and it includes a $223 million dollar bridge (Gravina Island) to an island with 50 inhabitants. You could buy each a $4 million home on the mainland and I don't hear conservatives whining...

"Next I would like to ask you to clear something up. Is it your opinion that the number of people on government assistance helps to balance the U.S. on the Gini Index? Are you afraid that if these people become successful, the scale will slide too far to the 100."

Define successful? Do you really think that pushing folks off government assistance and into some mundane job is going to result in a slew of entrepeneurs? You and I aren't on welfare but I don't kid myself, nor should you, that we'll ever be hugely successful. Getting more income into the hands of the average worker **lowers** the index. Tailoring tax laws for the affluent **raises** the index.

You've told me above and below tht you can't afford a house in your home state, so you still don't understand income inequality and the index. I'm not trying to be snotty, but I never lie to myself. I''l leave the dilusions of grandeur to the trucker driving past the homeless guy... =0(

"Is that why you support govt assistance? No, its not. Why do you support it?"

The main reason is because our federal government is an of our smallest form of government -- the family. In a normal family, and even in some of the most primitive civilizations, you do not cast out someone simply because they are too young, are sick, lame, crazy or too elderly to do a full days work. If you're a "Christian" your Lord told you to care for them, but that is a basic tenet in most other religions. It is put in their for folks who probably wouldn't otherwise have the common sense to help the downtrodden.

Every other advanced nation supports the downtrodden and they realize that many of those on assistance are too young or unable to work. Similarly, they realize the bit about capitalism, "full employment," and players on the bench

You need to study government assistance a little, because you're obsessed with it and that is part of the conservative Mantra, i.e., that it is the freeloaders who are ripping off the masses of "hard-working folks." You need to learn the basics of "welfare" (reformed by which president?), and the demographics of the folks on welfare. I know the media hands you the black chick with an attitude and with 6 illegitimate kids and drivers believe that is the face of welfare. I'm baffled why you focus so much on the welfare cases and not other forms of greater government waste...

"Next, I dont believe I misquoted fmr. Sen. Edwards. He said what he said. I didnt misunderstand it either. I understand what it means to me. But to his credit, its the closest thing to an agenda that I've heard from the left in a while. Normally, they would take euphoric pleasure in slamming the right, but when you ask them what they would have done differently....nothing. Looking back, I did misquote him. I added a "y" to "wealth". I dont see the difference. I still stand by my opinion."

You're confusing yourself in your paragraph above. =0) Read your initial post, then read his words in context. Your quote "Americans did not want a wealthy society, but the wanted a working class society."

Most Americans realize that they won't amass enormous wealth, but they would like the opportunity to work and realize the American dream.

" Government assisted healthcare?"..." Give me my $22,500 per year in my paycheck (non taxable of course) and let her burn, baby! In the end, I will come out ahead, and I will become wealthier."

If you believe that your company (Perdue?) is coughing up over $22K for your healthcare, you're wrong. If you have the bank account to sustain yourself and your family through a major illness or injury, I salute you. You are the exception and I suspect you're young and single. Few people reading these word could do it and most would be bankrupt -- which make me think of "compassionate conservatives" slamming the bankruptcy door on little dumb people... Why? We've beat this topic up before and most folks here buy into to the party line, so you have company. Search healthcare and look for my name. Bottom line is that we pay more for worse healthcare than other advanced nations. I see a fight brewing between corporations like the automakers and the medical/pharmaceutical/insurance industries.

"Why do I rent? Easy. Around here you pay $150,000 to live in the ghetto. A decent house in a decent area starts at $225,000. For $325,000, I can get into the resort areas. Guess what I'm saving for."

Long ago, it was ingrained in Americans that kids would do better than the parents. Each generation would have it a little bit better. Now things are reversed and each generation will usually do a little worse. You should be *enraged* that I can buy a decent house. Ponder this: we're both two guys doing the same old blue-collar job. I have no advantage in skills, education, ability, you-name-it. Why is it that even young, college educated folks can not move into my (or your) generic neighborhood? Want the answer?

Income inequality. The people at the top aren't any smarter or harder working than they were thirty years ago, but they are better positioned to change their incomes and tweak the tax codes to favor them... Their income has skyrocketed over the past decades. You are powerless and by time you save a little more for the down payment on an overpriced place, the price will jump higher still. Think about it; your income climbs 10% and the price of the house climbs 10%. You gain $5K and the house went up another $20K, if you're lucky -- and it jumps each year! Go ahead, blame the "Hos" on welfare...

Fact is, every kid should shut off the ****ed TV and play a few games of Monopoly with mom and dad. They could all learn about politics and get the "Family Values" **** out of their head.

" Will I quit driving? No. But if I have to, I walked away from a career in automotive with 5 ASE certifications and 3 GM certs. I'll make it."

What happened to your comment about "self-motivated?" To hell with "making it," you deserve to live the American dream. Believe me, I'd have a serious talk with my kids if they said they want to "make it" in trucking. The fact is that you possess two skills that would have given you a good live a few short decades ago, but that window of opportunity has slammed shut and folks can't figure out why. We are easing toward those welfare cases and not Mr. Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

" - I'm guilty of misreading what Hey_You wrote,(got this bad habit of reading very quickly)"

Hey_you is an enigma. I know little about him except that he's a good person, and a very well-informed and logical one at that. Hey_you studies his sources and doesn't post **** he's heard from talking heads or the trucking herd. While the rest of the lemmings are running over the cliff, he is probably going the other way. If he posts something, you can take it to the bank.

"... but in the limited capacity that I understand corporate conservatism, I understand that what he wrote is broad criticism and is widely used by people who arent really interested in politics at all, but just disapprove or Pres. Bush."

Conservatism **is** corporate and has *always* been the business-friendlly party. This "wedge-issue" thing is a recent thing, beginning with opposition to civil rights, and later fueled by the religious right. It is Bush's deeds that draw criticism - not his person. I'm bafled by the fact that Americans support or slam someone because they "like" him/her because of what they hear or how they look on TV. =0(

"- I did not advocate a low minimum wage. I said it is what it is...minimum...for a minimally skilled worker. Maybe if U.S. corporations weren't taxed to death by Uncle Sam, and they weren't gouged in the a-- by medical insurance providers, and they didn't have to keep millions of dollars worth of lawyers on constant retainer for the pud looking for a fast buck, maybe then we wouldnt need a federal minimum wage."

Puh-leeze. Corporation don't pay a dime in taxes -- the consumer of their goods and services pays it all. As for those other expenses, the corps don't pay them either -- you do when you consume.

"- There is such a thing as a blue collar conservative."

Really? I haven't met a driver in the last ten years who could really explain why he was a fan of conservatism. They blindly support (actually few vote) the party fed to them, right or wrong. They don't pay attention what "their" party is doing or saying, but can give me a slew of reasons why they hate the Dems.

Need proof? Well, why do drivers go nuts supporting Bush when he's done exactly the opposite of what he ran on?

I've never been a conservative -- or a liberal -- but I was a registered Republican until I renewed my CDL, the last time. Why was I registered with the conservative party? Four main reasons:

- Nationalism is a basic tenet of conservatism. It is the liberal who loves to embrace the foreigners and roll out the red-carpet for them. I am in no way a racist and I actually admire those from other countries (since they don't get caught up in BS and know $$$ drives the nation), but... I want them to come here legally and not undermine a working man's living wage. Amnesty for cheap labor is **liberalism** people.

- Smaller, less intrusive government. Sadly, the last few Republican presidents haven't given us that either and it was Clinton who actually did some cunning. Bush? Read the papers...

- Modest foreign policy and minimal use of the military for stupid adventures.

- Fiscal responsibility. That is probably the most important reason, because without it, government ceases to function as it should. Bush? Read the government's website.

Notice that I didn't mention "Family values", guns, gays or any of tha wedge ****. That stuff has no bearing on the future of my family if I do my job as the dad. There were several tenets of Conservatism that I strongly disagree with -- like keeping things the old way and opposing change -- which is nuts. We definitely need change bigtime. Again, the bottom line is that this Neoconservatism isn't conservatism and is actually driven by liberals who switched parties for a purpose. No, it wasn't family values...

"The last thing I'll comment on is corporate media. If you hear someone parroting conservatism, it aint comin' from corporate media, and specifically not from television."

That is precisely where it's coming from and it spreads by word of mouth. Look at: "socialism," "failed social programs," "redistribution of wealth," the stupid "ad hominum" (Hitlery" above) attack political sayings, and such. That is vintage Limbaugh (and I've listened for years,) but soon picked by the Hannity's, O'Reilly's, etc. Drivers didn't coin those phrases and many don't even understand them. They can't explain their own buzzwords.

Want to know how they pop up and where they originate from? They are the product of "focus groups' and are carefully designed to shortcircuit reason. The leader in formulating that garbage is Mr. Frank Luntz. The pioneers is this kind of BS politics are Mr. Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and Karl Rove. "Attack and never back off," "Feed them simple buzzwards and catchphrasees that they can remember." that is the name of the game. Hey, did clinton have a Rove-type guy in his corner? Yep, and he was a Republican. Can you name him.

Fact is, there was no "liberal" political talkers in *any* major markets until just recently. Wonder why?

"I defy you to come up with a conservative news program on television."

I watch so litle TV away from mandatory viewing at truckstops that it is incredible. Nascar, football and that's about it. I enjoy reading and this net thing. A conservative news program? Piece of cake. Fox particularly, because they don't even try to hide but most of the rest will go "conservative" depending on the issue. The other guys you mention, I seldom watch. I hear the Geraldo/Smith/Hannity piece and it was also on the web. Sean was begging them to say what a great job FEMA was doing 6 days after the 'cane and Rivera/smith wouldn't follow the party line. Too funny, they were actually reporting instead of spinning.

"Maybe with the exception of the Washington Times."

Owned by "liberal" Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Please google it and tell me what a Bush-hater that guy is... =0)

" And then theres Rush. The conservative thorn in everyones side. Sometimes even conservatives."

He is a spinmeister of the highest order, a proven liar, a druggie and conservatives should wonder why anyone would pay that guy millions to tell them the truth. No mystery, he is convincing and worth every nickle he gets from corporate America..

" Anytime somebody posts something on here that makes a little bit of sense, they are coined as a droid of ol' Fuzzbaugh."

"Bit of sense?" Most agree with you, but in reality, you want to read things that conform to your world view. The pols and their handlers know we're dummies. They know we won't factcheck and really scrutinize anything that pleases our ears.

Sadly, I'm suspicious of anything a pol or talker tells me that strikes an emotional chord or just makes me feel too ****ed good. I feel that used car salesman arm arm aroung my back and slipping into my wallet -- you should feel that way too. Listen to "liberal" talkers", factcheck them and see who is BSing. Call their shows and see if you're screened like the Conservative shows. Then call a conservative show, disagree strongly and see if you don't get cutoff and if you can get back on in a few days... =0)


The "Liberal Media" myth and I'll wind this book up.

Facts:

- When surveyed, most journalists agree that they are liberals -kinda. You see, they claim to be "social liberals" (empathizing with the downtrodden) but they also claim to be "fiscal conservatives" (because they make 6 figure incomes and know the power of compound interest, not to mention having played Monopoly -- unlike truckers).

- If your boss has a "conservative' world-view, you automatically know how to emphasize or tone pertinent pieces of news -- if you hope to thrive in that corporation. You present the news, but you add those little "Katrina-like" flourishes to take the edge off harsh reality and massive screwups.

- The media is owned almost entirely by huge corporations led by millionaires. Your local "liberal" paper is in fact owned by Gannett and they own 99 papers in markets with almost no competition. They are not a warm, fuzzy, "liberal" corporation.

- Media is in business to make money and advertising (not your 50 cents) pays the bills. Say anything you want, but step on the toes of corporate advertisers and threaten their $$$ and the ads stop. No genius involved in figuring that out.

- No mainstream media, with the possible exception of Fox, presents only one side of the news all the time.* After all, in journalism school, they learned that real reporters are unbiased.

- The key is placement and how the news is presented. It it frontpage or near the front, "above the fold" in the paper? It is harped on (like Katrina0 or glossed over for the TV audience who has the attention span of a 2 year old. Yeah, even buried stories can be referred to and said to have been "covered." right.

- Viewers, especially, and listeners don't listen carefully and critically. They prefer "feel good" or in-your-face news that supports their wrold-view and don't understand all the words. They don't know the difference between factual news, political commentary (some spin) and entertainment ala Rush, Sean and Bill. Like channel 19, they heard it so it must be fact.

- Bottom line: Who is telling you about the "liberal media"??? Someone in the media, no? How smart is that? That ought to make you wonder a little. =0)

You are absolutely wrong in stating:

"As of August,2005, the national debt represents about 65% of the GDP, and is considered average."

Average? Maybe of the '40s and '50s when the country was paying off WWII and Korea.

"In 1946, under the leadership of Pres. Truman, it had risen as high as 122% of GDP and in 1981, under Republican Ronald Reagan, it had dipped as low as 32.6% of the GDP."

Again, untrue. Reagan did have one low year, his first in 1981 when the % of GDP was 32.5 (not.6 and I'm reading off the government's table7.1 - Federal debt). Problem is, that was on Carter's last budget which ends in Sep '81. Reagan's budget takes at the start of the fiscal year, 1 Oct, '81 and it was all downhill from there. Lotsa black chicks had kids and went on welfare... =0) At the end of his terms, Reagan handed Bush I a deficit that was 53.1% of GDP. Yes, there was a time lag as those "trickle-down taxcuts and lost revenue kicked in. Bush ("Read my lips, no new taxes" but the had to raise them to stanch the red ink) ran it up to 66.1%.

"Interestingly enough, in 1996 under the reign of Bill Clinton, the national debt was right at 67.3%,"

He inherited a deficit at 66.1% I believe and handed this Bush 57.5%...

" meaning that things have actually improved a little under the leadership of Pres. Bush.(65%)"

Leadership? This guy has never vetoed a spending bill, said his agriculture bill of a few years ago was an embarrassment in a moment of rare candor, questioned why he signed the second and third cuts for the rich, signed the porkiest transportation bill isn history (in "wartime"), pushes the "Death tax" extension and refuses to raise taxes now for a host of good reasons.

If you compare Bush II to Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower, you're right about the numbers being "average"... If you look at what he was handed by Clinton, then, after what, 3 rounds of taxcuts to the affluent, a slew of "service jobs," and a huge $$$ GWOT (why?) the trend has been down each year he has been in office.

"As far as the lower and middle class bearing the burden of corporate tax cuts, this is simply not true. In 2001, the latest year of available data (according to the dept of treas);"

Post your source in a URL. There is always a time lag on stats but 4 years??? Citizens for Tax Justice studied the tax cuts and said the burden fell most heavily on the middle class. Please disprove them. Bush took office in ***2001*** so the tax cuts they're raving about would have been those implemented under Clinton... Someone's blowing smoke up your behind DCH.

F'rinstance,

"In 2000 and 2001, under Pres. Bush,......."

Pretty cool how he cut taxes before he got in office. =0)

"It looks to me like the tax cuts and the national debt are mute points. It also looks as though the Bush Administration is not as bad with out of control spending as we thought."

Moot, not mute. "Mute" is what the conservatives want to do to anyone who sees through their BS.

If Hey_you, Alan Greenspan, and a heap of educated financiers around the world, say we've got a problem, we have a problem -- even if there were in fact no problem. Why? Because they're smart guys and investors listen to them and it make it tougher for us to peddle debt. If the rest of the world doesn't buy our debt -- we have a self-fulfilling prophecy...

We have a $7.3 trillion dollar problem and that is $7.3 trillion:

- we need to run the country on.

- must pay interest on.

we've had (USA) 6 times when we reduced our Debt and had surpluses.
prior to these years.

1819
1837
1857
1873
1893
1929
they all lead to rough economic times

asking about comparisons with inflation adjusted dollars....i was just curious on how the numbers would compare, it would not change the percentages....

most of those debts in the past where when we were generating trade surpluses.....if you take our national debt, and stack it with our trade deficits, you will realize we are on shakey ecconomic grounds....

good thing we have all those liberals making movies...one of the few industries that have not gone overseas,(yet)...

You're chewing on male bovine excrement and you should have recognized the flavor. =0)

Ah Yesman, you know I'm bored if I'm reading you post, but it was just too bogus to pass up. Who sold you that story? Get your money back.

You said,

"we've had (USA) 6 times when we reduced our Debt and had surpluses.
prior to these years.

1819
1837
1857
1873
1893
1929"

Really? It seems historians have it wrong since they say that Andy Jackson was the first prez with no debt and that was in 1835 & '36. Before that we were paying off the Wars of Independence and 1812... You should have caught that because it jumps right out at you.

Besides that, there was **no surplus** in any of those years you listed according to President Bush's Office of Public Debt. I believe the lowest debt in any of those years, according to the same site, was 1837 at $336K (Thank you Jackson).

So you expect us to believe you when you say,

"they all lead to rough economic times" ???

If your mythical surplus theory was true, how did they lead to rough times? Wht was the connection? For example, Google the reasons for the tough times in 1929... Caused by surplus? Some folks compare those days to today...

Here would be a better explanation: In the year immediately before all recessions and depressions, Americans drank milk. Clearly milk contributed to tough economic times. Does that sound about right? =0)

Who sells you that stuff?