US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions

No, I was always talking about the dept. You were the one who tried to switch it over to budget increases. But since you mention it, funny how Clinton can raise spending 8% per year, make minimal to no cuts on important social programs, and still reverse the national dept while your God increased it by only 3% and still put us into record numbers. Another issue that you fail to mention is how many cuts to important social programs were cut by him. I did notice however that Billions have been allocated for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska by its Republican congressman and most of the people there don't even want it. Even the republicans are saying that your man has yet to veto anything. I guess that he doesn't have to as long as he keeps taking from the poor and defenseless to pay for the "right wing" pork barrel spending.

Sorry TBone, the national debt increased each year Clinton was in office. You keep buying into the projections of the time and believe there was a surplus of $'s sitting in a huge vault somewhere.

Important social programs? To whomever is on the receiving end they are always important.

Billions? You read too many leftist propaganda headlines. The Mat-Su Valley is the 2nd fastest growing area outside of Anchorage. This bridge will connect the two instead of having to drive all the way around the Cook Inlet/Knik Arm. It is not a bridge to nowhere as the propaganda tries to tell those that know nothing of the region.

You won't allow him to veto anything. You want those 'needed' social programs. If Bush vetoed anything with any social spending you and your liberal ilk cries foul every time. Your social programs are costly and are pork barrel spending. You really think Dems are low on the pork barrel spending ladder? lol

LOL, Wrong. What I saw was the yearly increase go to zero by his last year in office, go look it up. Oh never mind, Ill do it for you

that the curve was beginning to reverse until Bush Jr took office.Spin all you want Miles, the numbers say it all and there is no fuzzy mathon the bottom line.

This is correct and you have more than proven to everyone in here that you really don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.

Oh yea, astronomical growth, LOL.

There is a ferry that does this as well and it is nowhere near capacity. The bridge is not necessary and is nothing more than pork barrel spending.

Hahahahahaha, how am I going to stop him. He does pretty much whatever he wants regardless of public opinion.

social spending you and your

More bullshit. He is cutting away at those social programs, no veto needed, especially with the right controlling congress. You watch way to much FOX news.

Once again, you talk out of you selfish ass. Hear that Budd, the money being spent to help keep you alive is nothing more than pork barrel spending.

At least the Dems pork barrel spending helps people to live, not just make some senator look good building a bridge to nowhere.

Numbers? You showed some individuals own personal graph. Want numbers? Heres some for ya.

Look under prior years. Please show me where the debt ever stopped increasing. Wheres the surplus TBone? I made the statement that the debt INCREASED every year Clinton was in office contrary to your BS and most liberals who have no clue. My statement is CORRECT! Can you spin it to show me where it didn't increase every single year and where the surplus is?

And you have proven that you are nothing more than a socialist who thinks government is responsible and should take care of all everyone needs and problems.

Thats your opinion based on the fact you've never even been there. Whats worse is your belief that a transportation infrastruction should come last when developing a region. Thats a common method and one that causes massive problems. The valley is growing and the ferry won't handle the demands for the already planned communities.

He is? How is he cutting anything? He doesn't write spending bills. You need to go retake some government classes...probably socially funded ones for you!

Thats complete BULL. Lets have a look at who the most well known pork barrel spenders are.

Top of the list, Robert Byrd of W. Virginia. His nickname from waste watch groups such as

was King Of Pork. Hillary Clinton for her defense of the absurd CDBG project. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin who on her own website proudly brags about how much $'s she's won for the state for various projects (none were to help anyones health or assist the poor).

TBone, Dems are full of pork barrel spending. They have been for decades. Your wishfull BS that Dems are all great is a bunch of crap. The richest pigs in congress are mostly Dems. The poorest of congress are mostly Reps. Get a clue!

Did you actually look at those numbers Miles. They kinda go along with the chart. Hell, Bush as caused greater increases in a month than Clinton did in a whole year.

LOL, it is hard to say where the surplus went but we are now at all time highs and at a severly increased rate. How is that possible if Bushy baby is so conservative. Sounds like fuzzy math to me.

Really??? Where did I say that? The problem Miles is that greedy people like you cause many of the problems that the gubberment has to try and deal with.

Oh yea Miles, I forgot, some of your 10,000,000 relatives must live in the area, LOL.

What is the need for these planned communities. Where are these people going to work? Why would you want to build up an area that has about 1 month of warm weather a year? You whine and complain about our dependency on foreign oil and then you want communities build where energy requirements would be at an all time high??? You are too funny Miles.

LOL, feel free to stick your head in the sand Miles. Like I said, he doesn't have to, his right wing majority in congress is doing it for him. All he has to do is sign his name and ignore the right wing pork that goes along with it.

But the Reps claim to be responsible and only spend what they have and yet, the most rapid increases in the national dept are ALL under republican presidents and the projected highest under this one.

Debt went up EVERY SINGLE YEAR Clinton was in office. Got it yet TBone or are you still living in the liberal dream world of surpluses?

How can there have been a surplus during Clintons years when every single year of his term spending exceeded revenue? Dang liberal spin and you bought it and won't give up on it even when proven wrong by your own numbers (graph).

Greedy? I work for a living and am paid for it. Just cause your ilk wants some of my money doesn't make me greedy. Makes you jealous and lame.

More than just a ferry boat.

In Anchorage most likely as well as newly developed businesses.

If thats true then so is Anchorage. We're talking about a region just opposite across the knik arm. Maybe 10 miles from Anchorage. The current problem is the only way to that region is by a ferry or drive the 70 miles or so around.

Now possibly you're talking about the other planned bridge out of Ketchikan. That city is a very rapidly growing city. I don't know what you mean by only a month of warm weather there. It doesn't get alot of snow. Mostly rain. Ketchikan is backed by mountains. Little room to grow except across the channel. Whats more, the airport is on the opposite side and the only way is by ferry. That airport is rapidly becoming a busy place.

So Anchorage or Ketchikan should be kept from growing? All time high? We're talking about far southern Alaska TBone. Not the Artic Circle.

Ah, so you excuse the pork barrel Democrats because they don't claim to be responsible anyways. Now thats some funny stuff right there!!

LOL, perhaps you need to poke your head out of your world of denial and see the bottom line. Any way you try and spin it, the dept is at all time highs in both amount and rate of increase and the only ones close to this rate of increase was Reagan and Bush Sr. You keep claiming that Bush Jr only increased spending by 3.5 while Clinton was closer to 10 but the rate of increase curve in the national dept does not support either one of your claims, unless of course, the tax cuts have a much stronger negative affect on the dept level than you would ever admit to.

Creative accounting can make things appear to be different that they were. Who knows where the money went, do you? The graph does indicate that the rate of increase was substancially reduced during the Clinton years which you also refuse to look at, LOL.

LOL, yea Miles, you work but you decide how much you are paid and it is the amount you pay yourself compared to your workers and the complete lack of concern for your workers that makes you greedy.

Justification is a wonderful thing, even when it is complete BS.

That is not what I asked. What is the need for these planned communities EXISTANCE? And BTW, more than one boat can be used.

Again, why build there and if people want to live there, then they should deal with the situation the way it is or raise the money through state and local taxes. Why should my money be used for crap like that.

I am not talking about Anchorage but even there, how many outdoor swimming pools do you see in peoples back yards.

What is your definition of rapidly? And if the area is rapidly growing, then the cost of the infrastructure needed to support it should be paid by the people benefiting from it in the form of local taxes and builder impact fees.

Why should I support this growth? How does it benefit me? In actuality, it hurts me in the higher cost of fuel. If people want to live their, they should pay for the infrastructure themselves or deal with what is currently there.

It doesn't excuse anything, just puts things into perspective. The right keeps making the claim that they are the responsible party which is being proven to be complete BS. While cutting medicade and welfare, they still manage to raise the dept to record levels at record rates of increase. And where is the money going, to the wealthy, of course.

So you are still in denial about the debt going up every year Clinton was in office? You are still in denial that since spending exceeded revenue each and every year Clinton was in office there was no surplus? Your only defense is to attempt to change the subject to Bush.

You have no clue as to how the Gov. gets its money. You seem to think its all a matter of tax rates. Raise the rates, they get more $'s, lower them and they get less right TBone? You need to take another look beyond your simple comprehension based soley on tax rates. Current revenues are at their highest levels ever. The deficit is not from too low of tax rates as you seem to believe.

How could there ever have been a surplus when by your own figures spending exceeded revenue every year Clinton was in office. You are still in complete denial and will never ever admit the truth even when faced with it from YOUR own figures. Are you big enough to admit there was no surplus?

Bush is no conservative. Never has been.

Your fuzzy math which has led you to believe there was a surplus despite deficit spending all of Clintons years.

Oh thats true. Creative accounting is why you still believe there was a surplus despite deficit spending.

Instead of admitting you are wrong about the existance of any surplus you try to water it down, spin it a bit as above. I told you months ago that the rate of increase was reduced, not the deficit. Your response was more ranting about a surplus and how I was wrong. Well TBone, you ready to admit that there was no surplus so we can move on to other subjects?

I see. In the perfect liberal world there will be no growth in any region because its not needed. Communities are built because of the demand for them. More people = the need for more housing.

So you admit to being greedy with your money. Do you drive on the highways around your area that were paid for by federal $'s? Oh ya, they were all state funded huh? You're a dang liberal hypocite TBone.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying people shouldn't live in Alaska? Tell us TBone, what is it you are trying to say about growth in Alaska?

What complete BS. Every state in the country gets federal highway funds yearly. The vast majority of this countries highways and bridges are built with the help of federal $'s. I ask again what is your beef with growth in Alaska vs. anywhere else?

There you go again with your own greed. Spend only if it benifits TBone. You benifit from federal $'s spent in your area although you might try to deny that.

It is not a defense, just a response to your constant whining about how the dept didn't do down with Clinton when the real problem is how fast it is going up with Bush.

LOL, it is a matter of taxes.

For the most part in todays world, that's correct.

More spin and fuzzy definitions. If current revenues are at their highest levels ever AND Bush is only raising spending at about 1/3 of what you said Clinton did, then why in the hell is the dept level also at all time highs in both amount and rate of increase? Now lets see an actual answer instead of more of your typical spin.

Then why did the Republican party nominate him for his current postition? Are they just a bunch of idiots or did they need a fall guy while they rape the middle class to feed the rich?

How do you think the drop in the rate of increase happened without a surplus?

communities

Back to the liberals fault cry again, huh Miles? How lame. Now you are saying that all planned communities are formed out of need? Do you really think that we are all this stupid or is it just you? While true need is one reason, it is more like some developer(s) building inexpensive housing up there because of the low cost of land, no impact fees, and little to no cost for inspections and the low price drawing people up there? There is a big difference between supplying needed housing because of a shortage and building to draw people to another area because of cheap housing.

LOL, get real Miles. Every state is allotted money for highway and bridge programs based on the population and size of the state. This is just a political pork barrel spending to make the representitive look good and is a complete waste of my money. Of course, you don't see it that way because it is money being used to make the rich richer at the cost of the poor and to you, that is fine and dandy.

No, what I'm saying is that despite your bullshit, the weather there is not Shangri-La as you would have us believe and the added need for heat over other areas in the country will further increase our dependence on foreign oil.

Sorry Miles but this isn't the same thing and you know it. I have no beef with the growth but the cost of that growth should be supported by those benefiting from it such as the builders and the owners. BTW, there is a big difference between federal aid and the free ride that this bridge is.

LOL, what a case of PKB.

Yea, right. At is more to your tune, just like this bridge, federal tax dollars to make the rich richer and a right wing politician look good.

I deny no such thing but my area is already established and had already been before the big federal dollars arrived.

Bush wasn't the discussion until you changed the subject to avoid answering a question. Ok so it's not a defense of yours. Then are your ready to admit there could never have been any surplus? If you still hold onto your claim of such then please explain how.

Whats that mean TBone? Tax rates or what?

Then you are VERY wrong and is why you are so confused on this. Tax rates were cut right? Take a look TBone. Tax revenues are now at their highest rates ever. You still think its simply a matter of tax rates? You're too simplistic in your thinking and is why you have the views you do. Tax revenues are UP now!!!! They are at their highest levels ever TBone. Now can you understand how it all works?

Look at the total tax revenues in years 1999 through 2003 here. They increased every year despite the tax cuts. You keep trying to argue based on your own personal bias rather than anything factual. Do some more research on your own and look back further if you desire. Revenues have been increasing TBone. Not decreasing as you seem to think tax cuts would do. No clue TBone!!

I'll give you a hint TBone. Private sector spending has far more to do with total tax revenues than tax rates themselves. As private sector spending goes up then revenues go up.

Ask them. Fact remains that Bush is not and has never ever been a conservative.

Now that takes the cake TBone!! You are now attempting to equate a drop in the rate of increase to mean there was a surplus. LOL. Surplus means more revenue than spending. Lower rate of increase means just that. The two were closer but still spending exceeded revenue. Sheesh, you're confused on this one!! Lower rate of increase means surplus??? Care to explain your math to show a surplus while still having deficit spending?

So people should only live where you deem it to be Shangri-la? Where exactly is this magical paradise of yours that everyone must live so as to appease you? For many it most certainly is Shangri-la. That is exactly why they live there.

As for your notion that people should only live in moderate climates you are speaking complete BS. Anchorage and Ketchikan have warmer climates than most of the northeastern US. Whats more is your notion about oil consumption. Most up there heat with coal, wood being 2nd. Oil is down on the list below even electricity. Do some research before you try to make politically biased arguments.

Oh so now you think bridges should only be built with state $'s? You must be aware there are numerous bridges federally funded all over the country. Maine, Kentucky and Minnisota are all currently building federally funded bridges and they're not the only ones. But, Alaska is different because TBone's gotta jump on the liberal band wagon.

You're the one asking how it benifits you as if thats the requirement. Pure greed on your part there TBone.

Your area all built up before federal funds arrived huh? Then no need for federal funds now right? Then why has there been considerable discussion on a bridge over the Currituck Sound to be paid for with federal funds?

This once again did not answer the question so I'll ask again. If tax revenues are at their highest rates ever (and by your provided link, the are not) and Bush has only increased spending by about 1/3 of what you claim Clinton did, how is the dept at record levels and increasing at record rates? The rest of your crap is just that and nothing more now either answer the question or shut the hell up.

Tell me which of Clintons years were tax revenues ever higher than they are now?

You refuse to answer how there could be a surplus if every year under Clinton there was deficit spending (your figures but at least we agree on them).

Instead you keep trying to turn the discussion to Bush. Lets finish the current discussion which was with regards to deficit spending under Clinton to which you refuted and still insist there was a surplus.

Like I said Miles, you cannot answer the question because the bottom line simply say's that these tax cuts along with the war are bankrupting the country.

IOW's you're too small of a person to admit you were flat out wrong about any surplus and refuse to discuss it. Instead you change the subject to Bush.

Care to explain how these tax cuts are the reason for the deficit considering that revenues have gone up, not down. Instead of answering, you reply with your question above. TBone, if you do not understand what causes revenues to go up and down then any discussion on the matter won't be understood by yourself.

I must say that it is funny to watch you twist and spin on the rope that you hung yourself on. You cannot answer a simple question based on the facts that YOU claimed to be true and are now trying to spin it into something else. Please show exactly where I made all these claims about Clintons surplus. But since you brought it up:

if you want to argue, do it with CNN and as I said, creative accountingcan make gains look like losses and losses look like gains (just look atEnron). Then you can add the fact that Bush and the Republican party basedtheir tax cuts on that Clinton surplus....

The revenues are not much more than what Clinton had and with creative accounting, are they really valid. If you go back to YOUR link and look at

2001, 2002, and 2003 you will see that 2001 was pretty good but 2002 had a significant drop and 2003 still has not caught up to 2001, and this is with the creative accounting. So much for those "record " gains. I guess that the expenses have gone up MUCH more than the increases in revenues. So much for your bogus reduced spending increases by Bush and come to think of it, that is specifically what I laughed at you about.

Could you get any more lame. I fully understand what causes revenues to go up and down but many of the right wing assumptions simply are not happening. Pay scales are lower, many high tech jobs are outsourced, the gubberment turns a blind eye to the high level of illegal immigrants coming in (even with the risk of terrorism) which further reduces the average pay rate for hard working Americans, and investors tend to invest in the very companies that outsource their high paying jobs which does the exact opposite of what the right claimed it would do. Now are YOU going to answer the question or run and hide again? If the revenues are at record highs AND Bush is holding increases to about 1/3 of what Clinton was, how is it possible that the deficit is also at record highs and at a record rate of increase? Now be a man for a change and answer the question or just STFU for a change.

You have stated over and over there was a surplus. Yet each and every year Clinton was in office there was deficit spending.

Talk about creative accounting. None the less the Gov.'s own records show spending exceeded revenue every year. There was no surplus and you continue to try to argue there was. It was only a projection.

You think raising taxes at this time would help the economy, help create jobs, help raise salaries and do all sorts of other wonderfull things for our society? If so, care to explain your resoning?

As for illegals I agree with you there but its not just the Reps. Dems especially in the border states have continued to open the flood gates to them.

I realized your problem TBone. You have confused budget surplus or budget deficit with actual spending vs. revenues.

Take a look here.

Tell me what years in which Clinton was in office did the debt go down indicating a surplus? Creative accounting huh? Will you ever realize there never was any surplus based on actual revenues vs. spending? You have yet to show me any actual revenue and spending figures to support your continued claim of some surplus. Just a CNN story that says there was. Sorry TBone, I'll take the actual figures of what was spent vs. revenues taken in during those years.

Like I said, show me where. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

It was not a projection, it was a budget surplus. Unfortunately, there is no law that forces congress to stay within its budget and the continued deficit shows that they didn't. BTW, who was and still is in control in congress?

You keep forgetting that the taxes were not raised, they were lowered and your own information (that you happened to delete, imagine that) shows a significant drop in revenue right after it. The point is that they should have been left alone until the congress actually fell within its budget restraints and defenintly not be lowered during a time of war. The record increase in both the actual and projected deficit as well as the massive cutbacks in programs shows these cuts to be the wrong answer. Putting the taxe rates back where they were would have no effect on the current state of the economy other than increase funds to the programs that were cut such as education.

Care to back that up. BTW, I'm still waiting for that answer. Now who is the one trying to change the subject, why the same person it always was, YOU! But I'll ask again (so that you can delete it again). If these tax cuts are resulting in record revenues (which is false) and Bush has managed to keep spending increases to around 1/3 of what you claim Clinton did, then why is the deficit at record levels and at a record rate of increase?

I did show you the numbers. I've shown you the numbers many times over the months. Some from the Gov.'s own website. In fact, there isn't a single credible source that shows a single year where revenues exceeded spending during Clintons years. Care to show me a credible source which shows yearly totals for ACTUAL revenues and spending through those years that show a surplus? Don't show me projections, just actual figures.

Ahhh....at least you now admit it was a budget surplus and not actual $'s spent or received. So now you also admit that Congress did not stay within the budget....guess what TBone, that means NO SURPLUS ever existed. There was never a time that the deficit went down except on someones piece of paper that nothing more than just that...a piece of paper.

So all a president has to do is set a small budget that is lower than revenues and theres a surplus regardless of how much was actually spent? Too funny!

The drop was short lived and was far more because of the economy drop than the tax rate drop. Revenues go up and down as the economy does far more than from rate changes. You really think keeping high taxes when the economy is sagging is a good idea? Federal revenues would have been lower, not higher as you keep assuming. You fail to realize that tax revenues are now higher even though the taxes were cut. Opposite of your absurd logic.

It means nothing of the sort. What it does mean is that spending is too high. You keep trying to work it from the wrong end. Revenues are now UP with the LOWER tax rates.

Bull. Having high tax rates while the economy isn't strong will cause reduced revenues, not higher as you keep trying to assume. A stronger economy is what drives revenues higher far more than any rate hike could do.

I was waiting till you finally admitted there was no surplus except on paper in the form of a budget and not ever what actually occurred. Congrats, you finally admitted that even in your own watered down version in an attempt to save face.

Change subject? You mean back to what it was all along before you kept trying to switch it over to Bush? lol

It's the difference between the two TBone. Revenues rose faster during Clintons term because of a growing economy. Spending under Clinton averaged 8% increases every year. Under Bush Jr. it has been 4% on average (1/3?? must be the new math). It's public record TBone. Instead of whine about it, look it up. Oh ya, you have no interest in actually learning. Your bias just tells you to argue. At least you admitted there never was a surplus. Congrats on that.