Comments on WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

Go to Why can't I sue the whole country? - Add a comment - Go to WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

Very well done and thoughtful post!

posted by Dyl_Pickle on January 1, 2005 at 4:39 PM | link to this | reply

Not to change the subject

Kooka, but I just wanted to let you know that I truly pray that you have a blessed New Year. I've submitted my farewell blog (in Just Passing Through), so it should make you happy.

posted by PastorB on December 31, 2004 at 6:16 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka is surely not kooky!

He makes many great points that I agree with. I, like you, don't seem to be able to get excited about many of our politicians whom I feel should be watching better over my interests. I am a conservative, but I have voted for Democrats here in my area becasue they were better candidates for the jobs at hand. I thank you for reading me and I will be reading here and you much more. Thanks for that!!

posted by sarooster on December 31, 2004 at 6:02 PM | link to this | reply

I agree totally, Sarooster. It's always a case of the "sum of the parts"

being more at issue than one particular person or persons.

Politicians are always what they are: politicians. I just don't really get wound up over one or the other, although I'm what you'd call a "moderate conservative". Although Kooka and I differ in opinion on some issues, he and I get along well, and I value his opinion, actually, as Kooka is very passionate. You're also gaining my attention with this discussion, and I've begun visiting your blogs also.

I love good debates!

posted by KlaraRoberts on December 31, 2004 at 12:03 PM | link to this | reply

Thanks Klara,

I am not saying that the Republicans are any better in this deal than the Democrats even though I am very conservative. What happened was we had the Congress under the Republicans who held the line on spending. I am sure President Clinton wanted to spend more and he sent Congress his budget with his desires. The President's budget is basically dead on arrival. When we have the Congress and the Presidency held by the same party it's much easier to get programs and money spent the way they want. I think we are seeing that now. I think the Republicans could spend a lot less than they do. I am going to put a large part of the blame on Congress and I will put some of the blame on the administration becasue they have used their political power to their advantage. I don't call that criminal though. I call it saavy. It's happened all through the countries history and I don't think it will cease anytime soon.

posted by sarooster on December 31, 2004 at 11:57 AM | link to this | reply

Hi Kooka. Sorry it took a while to get back here. I was half dead last

night when I commented, and didn't even remember it until just now.

Sarooster has really done his homework, as here's what I've found:

First off, Kooks, you were right, we did experience a surplus during the Clinton Admin. My apologies there (I am the victim of too much info here, as I have two employees, one highly conservative, and the other highly liberal, who write political and government pieces, and I listen to too much of this daily). No excuses though, so I found two pieces on all this that will help clear up any confusions.

Although the surplus went up in 1998, it was as Sarooster said, due primarily to the efforts of Newt and the GOP majority. Here's a link, I know you'll like these Kooks:

www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html.

And this next link is an independent assessment firm that doesn't take sides with either DEM or GOP issues and fries them both really:

www.americanprogress.org.

BTW, Kooks, your writing is superb these days and you present a much milder, balanced view, which I do enjoy!

Talk soon!

posted by KlaraRoberts on December 31, 2004 at 8:34 AM | link to this | reply

I can see good points to both of your arguments, Klara and Kooks!

I really don't think the President can force the Congress to do what he wants. The Republican Congress that took over in 1994 with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America was what got the huge deficits down. We still spent more, but the rate of growth did not go up as much as it had before. The Democrats kept up the pace of spending no matter what else went on. That stopped in the mid-90's. We still wasted plenty of money; we just did not waste as much as we had before. President Clinton tried his best with the national health care issue and others to get his agenda enacted, but it was not to be. We can all remember the gridlock in the government. The Democrats thought they were going to do the Republicans in with that. The Republicans have only solidified their power since then. Today with a Congress that spends out of control we are back to huge deficits. If they would just hold the line the President couldn't do anything about it. Actually the deficits are not as bad as they look on a percentage basis. I don't hold anything against Clinton for the personal stuff he did. That was his business. I also don't think his accomplishents were that great either from a governing standpoint. Bush is not doing the best job of governing, but he has the backing of the Congress. That's a whole lot of words to not say much! I can shorten it all by saying I think the folks who the people elected to represent us better get on the ball and do thier job. Thanks for listening to this rant!!

posted by sarooster on December 31, 2004 at 8:18 AM | link to this | reply

I will surely do some research into those numbers, Kooka.

And if I'm wrong, I will correct that.

However, blown out of proportion is another issue entirely. Can we not say the same for the issues surrounding George B.? If we are to say that one issue is blown out of proportion by certain groups, than we can almost be certain that groups of the opposite mindset will do the same.

Clinton himself appeared on several newscasts lying about his activities, thus adding fuel to the fire. Honestly, if he would've been honest or kept quiet at least, less damage would've been done. The Conservatives honestly didn't hold a gun to his head to do that. He was his own worst enemy, Kooks. I watched that debacle and wanted to shrink with shame.

I have clients in other countries, Kooks, and for me, he will always remain the worst president we ever had, as we were made a mockery of by his actions.

posted by KlaraRoberts on December 30, 2004 at 4:28 PM | link to this | reply

Klara

Not sure where you get you numbers form, but it is well known that during the Clinton administration the deficit was eliminated. Bush started his term with a surplus which is what really is the most upsetting.

As for the BS that happened during the Clinton administration, that was blown out of proportion by the Conservatives who were after him. Yeah, Clinton is a poor roll model and did some stupid things, but the one's going after Clinton were the ones who made our country look bad. The big joke was 'WHy do the American people care about his sex life?' Many other countries have enough sense to ignore such things, unless they can directly impact a leaders ability. Most of the problems came from those who were seeking fame by bring Clinton down. I find Bush to be much more of an embarrassment to our country than Clinton was.

posted by kooka_lives on December 30, 2004 at 4:12 PM | link to this | reply

I'm like Sarooster, Kooka.

I thoroughly agree that this is now a pointless war, and our monies would be better put to use elsewhere, more explicitly, in our own homeland.

But the deficit is the result of years of not only this administration, but the ones that went before it. Historically this is documented, as with the Clinton administration the deficit was at a frightening high already. And who would ever forget the Clinton administration with the debacle of notoriety that was presented to the world during that administration. That is one period, I personally, would like to forget, and quite frankly, I felt any President was better than that. We looked like fools to the world. How could we maintain any semblance of normalcy and propriety in the world with that nonsense playing across the media in all parts of the world each hour of each day?

Congress approves much of the spending. No president operates in a void. Four years and the election occurs again. No one person will destroy the country.

posted by KlaraRoberts on December 30, 2004 at 3:56 PM | link to this | reply

sarooster

So in your opinion congress is at fault for falling for Bush's lies? Bush is innocent even though he pushed it through and out right lied to congress. It should be obvious to anyone that Bush's main goal have been nothing but personal. He may be lining the pockets of some of those who oppose him, but that matters little to him. As long as he is making those who back him rich he is doing what he is trying to do.

You see I hold the one who commit the act that led to the problems, not the ones who fell for the lies and BS who allowed. While I would say congress should have done a better job of controlling our great idiot in chief, it is more Bush's fault than anyone else's.

I agree that congress should have stepped in, but it didn't. Although Congress was in favor of doing the war the right way, not Bush's way. It i well known that Bush told them he was going to do one thing, but instead rushed it all and justified him doing things the stupid and costly way that helps to bring money to those who are supporting him. Many, many Bush supporters are and already have made a good deal of money from Bush's policies, while the country has paid greatly for it.

posted by kooka_lives on December 30, 2004 at 3:46 PM | link to this | reply

I can agree with some of what you say, but not all of it.

I imagine many liberals and people on the opposite side from the President stand to gain from some of our countries policies. So I don't think lining people's pockets are at the top of anyone's agenday. I still think Congress has to step in and tell the President, any President, no from time to time. They are the ones who set troop strength and money for the military. So they can stop it. All the government saw the same intelligence as the President and Vice-President and no one stood up until several years after the fact to say anythign. Even John Kerry and John Edwards gave the President the authority to go to war. And we did. So the blame has to be passed around to all involved, but I still blame the Congress for the most part.

posted by sarooster on December 30, 2004 at 1:01 PM | link to this | reply

sarooster

I am not worried about the past here though. That has nothing at all to do with what Bush is doing here and now. Bush convinced Congress to back him in his personal little war. If Bush had not pushed us to go to war, then we would not be in as deep of debt and the debt itself would not be for such a waste of money. Congress are the ones who approved the very open budget for this war, because Bush and Cheney were able to convince them that such a thing is what was needed. If congress was doing its job, they would have stopped Bush from getting his war. They did not stop him and so now we are going deeper and deeper into debt Bush's personal war.

It matters not who approved the money, it is still Bush's doing that has led us down this path. As I said, if we had gone into such debt over something that might actually help the country out, then I would have no real problem about it. A wart with Iraq is only causing more problems world wide and are not coming close to helping in of the problems here at home. The war is one of the main things that is causing this debt. Bush started this war for his own personal reasons. Bush is beyond a doubt accountable for this. Stop defending the idiot and see that he is doing all is his power to not help our country at one bit, but instead is lining his and others' pockets with his agenda.

posted by kooka_lives on December 30, 2004 at 10:47 AM | link to this | reply

I think your view of history is much distorted. You can easily look up and

see where our budget deficits have accumulated for decades while the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, the body that controls the money in our country. I put the money problems in our country squarley on the Congress, who can stop the madness pretty much at any time. The President can only ask for them to spend the money. If they would hold the line, no matter who was President, we would not have the debt. In my mind the Republicans of the 1990's were far better stewards of the money then anyone in the last 60-70 years. What we have in Congress today are people from both parties wasting money. You are correct in that our children will pay later on. The blame has to be laid at the feet of the people who vote on the money bills, not the people who ask for the money. I don't think it is fair to say you don't care about the past when literally trillons of dollars of debt have been run up by a Congress that never quit spending.

posted by sarooster on December 30, 2004 at 10:18 AM | link to this | reply

sarooster

I'm sorry, what planet are you living on? Bush is at fault very much for the debt we are in right now. I know of no one who has not blinded themselves willingly who can not see this. Bush has been spending billions on this war, which is nothing more than his personal agenda. I wouldn't be as upset by the debt if it had been created doing something that might help our country, but not if it is all over a very pointless and self-destructive war that has and will only benefit a very select few (Most of whom are Bush supporters). So for Bush has done nothing at all to help our country out, only bring it down.

I don't really cae about the past myself. Although it does seem that some of the most popular and most affective presidents in history have been Democrats while some of the easy to forget or known for their mistakes have been Republicans. I am not a Democrat at all and have some issue with their views. I guess I am a liberal, although there are various issues there that I do not agree with. I am not at all concerned with the past and who did what, but I am looking at the present and the future. I am tired of the conservatives who seem to wish to destroy my children's futures before they have a chance at them.

posted by kooka_lives on December 30, 2004 at 9:02 AM | link to this | reply

Come on man!

The Democrats ran this country from the 1930's to the mid 90's and rarely had a balanced budget, putting us trillions of dollars in debt. Our percentage of debt now is not as great as it has been in the past. Come out and just say you hate George Bush and conseratives, but please don't try to tell me the debt we have in our country is all Bush's fault. The Democrats ran up budget deficits for years!

posted by sarooster on December 30, 2004 at 3:58 AM | link to this | reply