Attention: Deficit!

[Tricky]

Is it time to do something about this?

Budget office projects U.S. deficit to hit $477 billion (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/index.html)

In its annual wintertime economic outlook, lawmakers' nonpartisan fiscal analyst also estimated that the deficit would ease to $362 billion in 2005, according to numbers obtained by The Associated Press.

The budget office also estimated that deficits for the decade ending in 2013 would total nearly $2.4 trillion. The August report foresaw deficits totaling $1.4 trillion over 10 years.

Is the sheer size of these numbers causing people to become numbed to them? How long can we continue to rack up such debt before we hit the wall?

Hard to believe that we had a surplus when this decade started. And it's getting worse. The projected deficit for the next decade has nearly doubled since August. Oh, but consumer confidence is up, so we're okay.

[Tmy]

Funny how the Dems "Tax and Spend" tagline causes people to freak out but the GW's "Borrow and Spend" doesnt seem to be a big deal. The country has a credit card mentality. Buy now worry about the bill later.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
Funny how the Dems "Tax and Spend" tagline causes people to freak out but the GW's "Borrow and Spend" doesnt seem to be a big deal. The country has a credit card mentality. Buy now worry about the bill later.

They both cause me to "freak out."

[a_unique_person]

Fact is, that since Dubya doesn't want it to be a big issue, it's not. A few areas of the media will mention it from time to time, the information is freely available, but you won't get any Fox channels hammering it until people feel it is the end of the world unless the problem is fixed.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Fact is, that since Dubya doesn't want it to be a big issue, it's not. A few areas of the media will mention it from time to time, the information is freely available, but you won't get any Fox channels hammering it until people feel it is the end of the world unless the problem is fixed.
It's not an issue because not a single candidate has offered a plan to reduce it. Even the Dems who want to raise taxes have new spending programs far exceeding the tax increases they want.

But that little issue isn't nearly as important as how good they look flipping pancakes or sitting in a diner they wouldn't dream of going near in a non-election year.

Bush won't put the brakes on Republican spending because they need to bring home the pork (it's free, right? :rolleyes: ) in an election year.

It's the American way - gimme gimme gimme!

[jnelso99]

Is the sheer size of these numbers causing people to become numbed to them?

On Saturday Night Live some time ago, Dennis Miller said something like this on his "Weekend Update" (working from memory so it's probably not what he really said):

The deficit is expected to hit two trillion dollars in the next few years. To help you visualize it [pulls out a dollar bill] imagine this is a ONE TRILLION dollar bill. To pay off the deficit, it would take TWO of these suckers! Makes you think, don't it?

[Number Six]

A half a trillion here and a half a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about some serious money.

I really don't understand it that well. I mean, from a common sense standpoint it seems absolutely crazy. As a regular person you think "Don't run up bills that you can't pay" but for whatever reason the government just operates differently.

I think one thing economist-types point to is that what really matters is what percent of the GDP the deficit is and I think I read that while that percentage was high it wasn't alarmingly high yet. But still you think a country could run up surpluses in better times to make up for the worst times, which inevitably come along. We've had a relatively large number of workers (the baby boomers) relative to retirees for a long time. Those people (a) were paying taxes, (b) not taking Social Security and (c) not using many health resources since they were fairly young. And despite all that we've racked up a $5 trillion or so debt. What happens when all those people retire and those three things I listed are reversed?

The US pays something like $200 billion in interest on its debt each year. People made a big deal what a huge amount of money the $87 billion spent on the Iraq war but if the US had no debt then there'e be enough money for two or three of those _every single year_. (Not that I'm saying the US ought to have two or three wars every year...I'm just using it as a point about money.) How can it not be in a country's interest _not_ to have debt so high? Maybe I'm missing something in all this. Economists that spend their lives studying this stuff don't seem to get alarmed about it all so maybe when you figure out all the details it's just not as bad as it seems.

[Cain]

Number Six wrote:
(Not that I'm saying the US ought to have two or three wars every year...I'm just using it as a point about money.) How can it not be in a country's interest _not_ to have debt so high? Maybe I'm missing something in all this. Economists that spend their lives studying this stuff don't seem to get alarmed about it all so maybe when you figure out all the details it's just not as bad as it seems.

Actually the IMF recently issued a report sharply criticizing the U.S.'s fiscal outlook. That's suprising for two reasons: 1) The IMF is basically controlled by the US. 2) The IMF usually critiques third world countries.

It charged that our debt threatens the financial stability of the world economy. It could raise interest rates as much as 1%.

The report warns that the United States' net financial obligations to the rest of the world could be equal to 40 percent of its total economy within a few years — "an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country," according to the fund, that could play havoc with the value of the dollar and international exchange rates. -- NYT, Jan. 8, 2004

Republicans are probably operating off a "starve the beast" mentality: A huge debt will constrain government spending.

[a_unique_person]

The fact is, governments do and can run up large debts, and do so reasonably. The fact that Dubya just did without blinking an eye just indicates the lie of the horror of how bad government debt is intrinsically.

Of course governments have to manage debt, like all of us do, but the fixation on condemming any debt, in any colourful terms that come to mind, is just a result of trying to remove attention from the intention of undermining a democratic government that has a useful (regulated) role in people's lives.

The amazing thing about Dubya's deficit is that it is being blown on about the most wasteful of all spending targets, the military.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The fact is, governments do and can run up large debts, and do so reasonably. The fact that Dubya just did without blinking an eye just indicates the lie of the horror of how bad government debt is intrinsically.

Of course governments have to manage debt, like all of us do, but the fixation on condemming any debt, in any colourful terms that come to mind, is just a result of trying to remove attention from the intention of undermining a democratic government that has a useful (regulated) role in people's lives.

The amazing thing about Dubya's deficit is that it is being blown on about the most wasteful of all spending targets, the military.

Your wording is strange, you say governments then you switch it with 'Dubya.' So are you attacking government in general or just Bush? Because, here in the U.S. the president does not have absolute authority over spending, to attribute a deficit (or a surplus) to a president is silly.

[Ladewig]

Borrowing is not inherently bad. If the government (or individual) borrowed money at 1% interest rate and used the money to improve infrastructure or make the place safer, then it could be called a wise move. Unfortunately, I don't see our government accomplishing those types of things very effectively.

The goofy statements and actions by both parties make me wish that there were a qualifying exam for the office of president. A bit of geography, history, diplomacy, economics, and a honking big section on Constitutional law.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tricky

Hard to believe that we had a surplus when this decade started. And it's getting worse. The projected deficit for the next decade has nearly doubled since August. Oh, but consumer confidence is up, so we're okay.

Just a guess here, but do think that maybe the 2000-2001 recession + 9/11 had anything to do with the current deficit? If you honestly think a dem in the white house would be running a surplus right now, you'd only be fooling yourself.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The fact is, governments do and can run up large debts, and do so reasonably. The fact that Dubya just did without blinking an eye just indicates the lie of the horror of how bad government debt is intrinsically.

The lie of the horror?? That appears to be a double negative.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Of course governments have to manage debt, like all of us do, but the fixation on condemming any debt, in any colourful terms that come to mind, is just a result of trying to remove attention from the intention of undermining a democratic government that has a useful (regulated) role in people's lives.

Conspiracy theory alert!

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The amazing thing about Dubya's deficit is that it is being blown on about the most wasteful of all spending targets, the military.

Yes, defense of the nation during war is such a waste. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BTox


Just a guess here, but do think that maybe the 2000-2001 recession + 9/11 had anything to do with the current deficit? If you honestly think a dem in the white house would be running a surplus right now, you'd only be fooling yourself.

Only, the consistent message to the public from conservatives is that deficits make recessions worse, and if Democrats try the liberal Keynsian solution of spending your way out of a deficit, then they are sending America to Hell in a Handbasket.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BTox


The lie of the horror?? That appears to be a double negative.



I was going for the language award.

The consistent story from the conservatives is that Deficits are a liberal 'evil'. Yet, when it suits, the conservatives will run one up without blinking. The deficit under the Reagan 'wonder years' was larger when he left than when he started.




Conspiracy theory alert!



Yes, defense of the nation during war is such a waste. :rolleyes:

So tell me, which terrorists are about to rain ICBMs on the US so that it needs a new generation missile defense system? How much more secure is the US now that it has taken out a dictator who was no threat to it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by WildCat

It's not an issue because not a single candidate has offered a plan to reduce it. Even the Dems who want to raise taxes have new spending programs far exceeding the tax increases they want.
Rolling back the tax cuts would do a lot towards reducing the deficit. I'm not aware of the "spending plans" the Democrats have that would erase that. Funny that Bush's first budget actually counted on surplusses continuing, yet he immediately put plans in place that would eliminate those surplusses (meaning the tax cuts.) It was voodoo economics at its worst. (His daddy would be so proud of him.)

Then came the war. Even when it became obvious that very few other countries would support us either politically or economically in this war, he did it anyway. Perhaps he was planning to make up the money by stealing their oil, but so far all we've seen is tremendous outlays not only for military, but for "rebuilding". Yeah, Halliburton is doing great, but at the expense of taxpayers.

Now I have a lot of disagreement with how Clinton reduced the govenment. I thought some of his cutbacks were unnecessarily cruel and poorly thought out. Plus, he also pandered to the rich. The gap between highest and lowest paid people grew more under Clinton than in any other time in US history. Believe me, I'm not a Clinton lover. But he had a better knack for seeing the bottom line than any president in years, possibly in history. I don't personally believe that the bottom line is always the most important thing, but it is important. What I see from Bush is no regard for the bottom line, and no clue as to how to manage the budget. He's throwing away the country's future in order to reward his rich croneys.

We're still paying for the Reagan years, principally the S&L bailouts. It seems we will also be paying for the Bush years for some time to come. If the country survives them.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I was going for the language award.

The consistent story from the conservatives is that Deficits are a liberal 'evil'. Yet, when it suits, the conservatives will run one up without blinking. The deficit under the Reagan 'wonder years' was larger when he left than when he started.



So tell me, which terrorists are about to rain ICBMs on the US so that it needs a new generation missile defense system? How much more secure is the US now that it has taken out a dictator who was no threat to it.

North Korea?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

Rolling back the tax cuts would do a lot towards reducing the deficit. I'm not aware of the "spending plans" the Democrats have that would erase that. Funny that Bush's first budget actually counted on surplusses continuing, yet he immediately put plans in place that would eliminate those surplusses (meaning the tax cuts.) It was voodoo economics at its worst. (His daddy would be so proud of him.)

Then came the war. Even when it became obvious that very few other countries would support us either politically or economically in this war, he did it anyway. Perhaps he was planning to make up the money by stealing their oil, but so far all we've seen is tremendous outlays not only for military, but for "rebuilding". Yeah, Halliburton is doing great, but at the expense of taxpayers.

Now I have a lot of disagreement with how Clinton reduced the govenment. I thought some of his cutbacks were unnecessarily cruel and poorly thought out. Plus, he also pandered to the rich. The gap between highest and lowest paid people grew more under Clinton than in any other time in US history. Believe me, I'm not a Clinton lover. But he had a better knack for seeing the bottom line than any president in years, possibly in history. I don't personally believe that the bottom line is always the most important thing, but it is important. What I see from Bush is no regard for the bottom line, and no clue as to how to manage the budget. He's throwing away the country's future in order to reward his rich croneys.

We're still paying for the Reagan years, principally the S&L bailouts. It seems we will also be paying for the Bush years for some time to come. If the country survives them.

I don't know why you only blame Bush for this; he didn't exactly make an executive order to force the spending through. The legislature passed the spending spree and they are as much if not more responsible for it. As for Democrats, they said 400billion dollars on Medicare wasn't enough. Let’s face it, Rep/Dem they both want pork and don't care how things get paid for. I don't see anyway out of this other than smaller government.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


North Korea?

Raining? If they ever try to fire one, it is more likely to end up crashing on themselves. The only purpose it serves is to frighten people. Kim is too comfortably ensconsed in his paradise to end it all with an attack on the US.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Raining? If they ever try to fire one, it is more likely to end up crashing on themselves. The only purpose it serves is to frighten people. Kim is too comfortably ensconsed in his paradise to end it all with an attack on the US.

Most likely, but you asked which terrorist would. He can as can Iran. Of course it would be the most suicidal move in the history of Earth. However, something tells me stability is not one of their traits.

[sorgoth]

200 billion? TWO HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS IN INTEREST?

And people are saying sending a man to the moon would be a waste?

[Regnad Kcin]

Of course the money lenders who stand to gain that 200 bil interest payment like things just the way they are.

BTW, Tricky, love the thread title!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't know why you only blame Bush for this; he didn't exactly make an executive order to force the spending through. The legislature passed the spending spree and they are as much if not more responsible for it. As for Democrats, they said 400billion dollars on Medicare wasn't enough. Let’s face it, Rep/Dem they both want pork and don't care how things get paid for. I don't see anyway out of this other than smaller government.
With his wonderful majority in both houses and his carte blanche because of 911, Bush got practically everything he wanted. The Democrats have been in disarray since the Clinton debacle, and Bush has never been denied anything he pushed for strenuously. Especially the tax cut. That, IMO, is the main thing that has led to the current deficits. He has rewarded his rich supporters very well at the expense of our country. History will tell the final results. I truly hope I am wrong in my belief that these deficits will punish us for years to come.

[subgenius]

Where is that Republican sponsored Balanced Budget Amendment?
(Sound of crickets)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

With his wonderful majority in both houses and his carte blanche because of 911, Bush got practically everything he wanted. The Democrats have been in disarray since the Clinton debacle, and Bush has never been denied anything he pushed for strenuously. Especially the tax cut. That, IMO, is the main thing that has led to the current deficits. He has rewarded his rich supporters very well at the expense of our country. History will tell the final results. I truly hope I am wrong in my belief that these deficits will punish us for years to come.

They won't punish 'us', just the many.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tricky

With his wonderful majority in both houses and his carte blanche because of 911, Bush got practically everything he wanted. The Democrats have been in disarray since the Clinton debacle, and Bush has never been denied anything he pushed for strenuously. Especially the tax cut. That, IMO, is the main thing that has led to the current deficits. He has rewarded his rich supporters very well at the expense of our country. History will tell the final results. I truly hope I am wrong in my belief that these deficits will punish us for years to come.

Deficits are good. You see, when there is a deficit we won't spend as much, because we won't want a bigger deficit. Spending is bad.

There are those that think spending is bad only because it leads to deficits. They are wrong. Spending, especially social spending, is just wrong, just like homosexuality is just wrong. Social spending is spending money that doesn't belong to you on people that are too stupid or lazy to be rich, even though they had the same chance as everyone else. This is like theft, and theft makes the baby Jesus cry.

(I'd like to think that is a strawman of the admistration's stance on the deficit, but I'm not real sure. I could have sworn I heard this more or less exact argument a year ago.)

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Only, the consistent message to the public from conservatives is that deficits make recessions worse, and if Democrats try the liberal Keynsian solution of spending your way out of a deficit, then they are sending America to Hell in a Handbasket.

Never heard the first part. In any event, the last recession was very short lived - only 4Q at most.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

With his wonderful majority in both houses and his carte blanche because of 911, Bush got practically everything he wanted. The Democrats have been in disarray since the Clinton debacle, and Bush has never been denied anything he pushed for strenuously. Especially the tax cut. That, IMO, is the main thing that has led to the current deficits. He has rewarded his rich supporters very well at the expense of our country. History will tell the final results. I truly hope I am wrong in my belief that these deficits will punish us for years to come.

This thread is a good place as anywhere to ask: How much did the tax cut actually cut and over what period of time? Who are the rich -- as in at what point do the people become rich?

[peptoabysmal]

For even better shock value go to this page and refresh the browser a couple of times:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I was going for the language award.

Cool. You might have a winner there!


Originally posted by a_unique_person
So tell me, which terrorists are about to rain ICBMs on the US so that it needs a new generation missile defense system? How much more secure is the US now that it has taken out a dictator who was no threat to it.

It only takes one ICBM to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. As far as Saddam being no threat to the U.S., that's only your opinion.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tricky
Especially the tax cut. That, IMO, is the main thing that has led to the current deficits.

Does not compute, as the tax cut is only costing ~ 100 billion as of 2003.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron

This thread is a good place as anywhere to ask: How much did the tax cut actually cut and over what period of time? Who are the rich -- as in at what point do the people become rich?
You might ask that. You might ask the philosophical question "What is rich". You might ask everyone to go out and provide links. That is fair. But I'm lazy. I don't want to go out and find links. But I think it is common knowledge that the Bush tax cuts favored the high-income brackets. Without question, they reduced the government's income. Whether or not they were "good for the country" is debatable, but I personally feel that they were short-sighted attempts to pump up the economy at the expense of long-term economic health.

It is not surprising that people tend to think in terms of "what have you done for me lately". It is one reason that the Republicans put such effort into destroying Bill Clinton. He had done a lot for people lately. Maybe it wasn't his doing, but it was obvious that the public must be distracted from how good things were. So they used whatever tactics they could, since they could hardly attack him on issues.

Bush learned from this. He learned not to get involved in things that might be personally embarrassing. He learned that you can do anything you want as far as taking money from rich people goes, so long as you don't rent out the Lincoln bedroom. He learned to keep his hands clean. If dirt is to be done, it must be done by others. And if deficits are to be agreed upon, well hey! Congress did it! Not him!

Bush is not a smart man. But he is the figurehead of one of the most clever and well financed political machines of all time. It should not be surprising that his political machine has raised so much money that they don't even need the government mandated campaign funds. They have plenty of money. It didn't come from ordinary citizens like you and me. But you and I will ultimately pay for it. We will have to deal with the deficit. We will have to deal with health care costs. We will have to deal with pollution. We will pay for it in dollars disproportionate to our income, but that is not the ultimite cost. We will pay with our lives. But that's okay, because we're not rich.

[peptoabysmal]

This is from the Tax Foundation: (http://www.taxfoundation.org/home.html)

*sorry about that*

I posted a big ugly table and it looked horrible so I took it out.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

You might ask that. You might ask the philosophical question "What is rich". You might ask everyone to go out and provide links. That is fair. But I'm lazy. I don't want to go out and find links. But I think it is common knowledge that the Bush tax cuts favored the high-income brackets. Without question, they reduced the government's income. Whether or not they were "good for the country" is debatable, but I personally feel that they were short-sighted attempts to pump up the economy at the expense of long-term economic health.

It is not surprising that people tend to think in terms of "what have you done for me lately". It is one reason that the Republicans put such effort into destroying Bill Clinton. He had done a lot for people lately. Maybe it wasn't his doing, but it was obvious that the public must be distracted from how good things were. So they used whatever tactics they could, since they could hardly attack him on issues.

Bush learned from this. He learned not to get involved in things that might be personally embarrassing. He learned that you can do anything you want as far as taking money from rich people goes, so long as you don't rent out the Lincoln bedroom. He learned to keep his hands clean. If dirt is to be done, it must be done by others. And if deficits are to be agreed upon, well hey! Congress did it! Not him!

Bush is not a smart man. But he is the figurehead of one of the most clever and well financed political machines of all time. It should not be surprising that his political machine has raised so much money that they don't even need the government mandated campaign funds. They have plenty of money. It didn't come from ordinary citizens like you and me. But you and I will ultimately pay for it. We will have to deal with the deficit. We will have to deal with health care costs. We will have to deal with pollution. We will pay for it in dollars disproportionate to our income, but that is not the ultimite cost. We will pay with our lives. But that's okay, because we're not rich.

I'm amazed at your response. You should be a politician if you answer all direct questions like this! Not only did you not even come close to answering my question but your rant somehow included bashing Republicans for going after Clinton, insulting Bush's intelligence and insinuating that his efforts are only for the rich.

Any time you want to actually answer my question, though, it would be appreciated.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I'm amazed at your response. You should be a politician if you answer all direct questions like this! Not only did you not even come close to answering my question but your rant somehow included bashing Republicans for going after Clinton, insulting Bush's intelligence and insinuating that his efforts are only for the rich.

Any time you want to actually answer my question, though, it would be appreciated.
You're welcome! Do I have your vote then?

But to answer your question, let's say "rich" is the top 1% of total wealth. The tax cuts benefitted this group more than any other. You might say, "Well of course. They pay more taxes", which is often (but not always) true. They also get the most benefit out of the infrastructure that makes them able to amass such wealth. They should pay more and should pay a higher percentage. I'd guess that if they had a choice of paying higher taxes or having a lot less wealth, they'd pick the former.

[Samus]

Grammatron: I don't know why you only blame Bush for this; he didn't exactly make an executive order to force the spending through. The legislature passed the spending spree and they are as much if not more responsible for it. As for Democrats, they said 400billion dollars on Medicare wasn't enough. Let’s face it, Rep/Dem they both want pork and don't care how things get paid for. I don't see anyway out of this other than smaller government. True. Indeed, both parties want to spend money, it's just that one wants to raise taxes while the other runs deficits.

I see nothing wrong with a publicly held debt. In fact, I not only consider it necessary, I also consider it healthy. Just as the average U.S. citizen has debt (any or all of: mortgage, car payments, credit cards, student loans, etc.), the federal government sometimes needs to borrow to fund its programs.

Deficit spending, on the other hand, is not always a good thing to have. The cyclical nature of the economy dictates that even if government spending was fixed (or rather, followed exactly the rate of inflation), we would still run deficits some times, surpluses other times. It would depend on the economic strength and corresponding tax revenues.

What is being done now is irresponsible spending, and I do put a good portion of blame on the Bush administration. He didn't need to sign every spending bill that came to his desk, but he did. He is in no way a fiscal conservative, which is what he campaigned as. To get the funding he wanted, he simply approved all the spending the Democrats wanted as well. It's what happens when the two parties scratch each others' backs.

That said, I see no indication in any of the candidates for '04 (Bush or the Dems) of a willingness to trim government spending. They just keep promising more programs. More health care, more prescription drug benefits, more education spending, more everything. How exactly does this stuff get paid for?

But we don't care. As long as the government tells us we're doing alright, there's no need to suspect we're actually shooting our collective foot with massive deficit spending and an out-of-control public debt.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tricky
Is it time to do something about this?

Budget office projects U.S. deficit to hit $477 billion (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/index.html)



Is the sheer size of these numbers causing people to become numbed to them? How long can we continue to rack up such debt before we hit the wall?

Hard to believe that we had a surplus when this decade started. And it's getting worse. The projected deficit for the next decade has nearly doubled since August. Oh, but consumer confidence is up, so we're okay.

For better or for worse, the deficit issue has always bored voters.

Ross Perot was as close as anyone ever got to actually dealing with the issue. As I recall, he got 18% of the popular vote and about 2/3 of those supporters were seriously concerned about the deficit.

Do the math. 2/3 of 18% is 12%, so 12% of the voters (about one in eight) were concerned enough about the deficit to cast a vote for a real outsider.

That says a lot!

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Tricky

Rolling back the tax cuts would do a lot towards reducing the deficit. I'm not aware of the "spending plans" the Democrats have that would erase that.
Have you read any of their policy statements on their election web sites? New spending galore.

The only criticism the Dems had about the $80 billion medicare drug benefit was that it wasn't nearly enough! (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/08/politics1526EST0656.DTL) That stance alone would overshadow any tax increase they propose. (And yes, repealing the tax cuts is a tax increase!)

Now I have a lot of disagreement with how Clinton reduced the govenment. I thought some of his cutbacks were unnecessarily cruel and poorly thought out.
Please show examples of any gov't reduction in spending during the Clinton years. I suspect you're one of those who call a reduction in spending increases a reduction in spending. How much do you think the gov't should grow every year? Won't this demand an ever-increasing amount of taxes to be collected? When will it ever be enough?

And it should be pointed out that tax increases do not necessarily equate to more taxes being collected. Too low a rate and not enough taxes get collected, too high a rate and it stifles growth thus reducing taxes collected. Somewhere in ther middle is the optimum tax rate - high enough to pay for gov't but low enough to encourage growth.

Since everyone wants to put the blame on the POTUS for deficits, why not give him a tool to actually manage said deficits? One that nearly every state's Governor has? I'm talking about the line-item veto of course. Would require a Constitutional Amendment, but I for one would support it. Would keep Congress from tacking on billions of $$ in pork to the "Stop Child Rape Act of 2004" as a hypothetical example.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tricky
Is the sheer size of these numbers causing people to become numbed to them? How long can we continue to rack up such debt before we hit the wall?

Hard to believe that we had a surplus when this decade started. And it's getting worse. The projected deficit for the next decade has nearly doubled since August. Oh, but consumer confidence is up, so we're okay.

Hard to believe that back in the 80s, the left was screaming about Reagan's deficits and how our grandchildren would be working off the debt 100 years from now. But like you said, we started this decade with a surplus.

Now how did that happen?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Hard to believe that back in the 80s, the left was screaming about Reagan's deficits and how our grandchildren would be working off the debt 100 years from now. But like you said, we started this decade with a surplus.

Now how did that happen?

We elected a Democrat. :p

(too easy, had to do it)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly


We elected a Democrat. :p

(too easy, had to do it)

And a Republican Congress, which is where the purse strings are. :)

[Snide]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Hard to believe that back in the 80s, the left was screaming about Reagan's deficits and how our grandchildren would be working off the debt 100 years from now. But like you said, we started this decade with a surplus.

Now how did that happen?
Seriously? Because we had a surplus budget AND still had the debt.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Snide

Seriously? Because we had a surplus budget AND still had the debt.

And a booming economy instead of the deep depression predicted.

Message to Dems: You can't tax yourself into prosperity. Never been done.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tricky

You're welcome! Do I have your vote then?

But to answer your question, let's say "rich" is the top 1% of total wealth. The tax cuts benefitted this group more than any other. You might say, "Well of course. They pay more taxes", which is often (but not always) true. They also get the most benefit out of the infrastructure that makes them able to amass such wealth. They should pay more and should pay a higher percentage. I'd guess that if they had a choice of paying higher taxes or having a lot less wealth, they'd pick the former.

I thought my question was direct and straight to the point, I guess I was wrong because once again you did not answer any of it. As such, allow me to elaborate on it.

1) How much did the tax cut actually cut?
As in how much money in dollars was expected not to be collected from people.

2) Over what period of time does this tax cut take place?
I understand it wasn't just one giant cut but rather a series of cuts over a period of some years, how long exactly I do not know, hence my question.

2) Who are the rich; at what point do the people become rich?
How much does someone need to make to be considered rich or the better yet, who are the recipients of the tax cut, the percentage of the population and their minimum income.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by WildCat
*snip*
Please show examples of any gov't reduction in spending during the Clinton years. I suspect you're one of those who call a reduction in spending increases a reduction in spending. How much do you think the gov't should grow every year? Won't this demand an ever-increasing amount of taxes to be collected? When will it ever be enough? *snip*

Well in Clinton's defense, he did enact welfare reform, which resulted in reduction in spending during government. The critics were yelling that the streets would be swimming in poor, yet it did not happen. I for one am shocked!

[Snide]

Let's review this whole exchange:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Luke T.


Hard to believe that back in the 80s, the left was screaming about Reagan's deficits and how our grandchildren would be working off the debt 100 years from now. But like you said, we started this decade with a surplus.

Now how did that happen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Snide

Seriously? Because we had a surplus budget AND still had the debt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Luke T.


And a booming economy instead of the deep depression predicted.

Message to Dems: You can't tax yourself into prosperity. Never been done.

Now let's take a close look at part of the last bit:

And a booming economy instead of the deep depression predicted.

It's arguable as to whether this accurately represents the position taken by "the left" in the 80s. That point notwithstanding, such a prediction was (would have been) based on a continuance of the 80s deficits. Something along the lines of, "Balance the budget, or else there will be a deep depression."

Imagine a personal financial counselor recommending to a client that they'd better get a grip on their finances. "Start paying off those credit cards, and spend less than you make, or you're going to go bankrupt!"

The client starts paying off the credit cards and spends less than he makes over the next ten years.

Ten years later, the client says, "Hah! You're prediction was wrong! I didn't go bankrupt! Funny! You were screaming at the debt I ran up, but now I have a surplus! Now how did that happen?"

If you can see the abomination of logic on the part of the client in this hypo, then perhaps you see it in your responses above.

I'll spare you're very last sentence close scrutiny. You're entitled, it's too much of a blanket statement to answer "true" or "false" to, and it's beside the point I'm making here anyway.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Grammatron

I thought my question was direct and straight to the point, I guess I was wrong because once again you did not answer any of it. As such, allow me to elaborate on it.

1) How much did the tax cut actually cut?
As in how much money in dollars was expected not to be collected from people.



There were a series of tax cuts. Bush's original tax cut proposal was sold on the grounds that a surplus meant the government was taking too much of your money. Throughout debates, and you can check the record, he maintained that we could keep a surplus (a smaller surplus while cutting taxes).

The expectations of the tax cut vary because they depend directly on assumptions about the economy.

Later Bush said he cautioned in an earlier speech that we could be plunged into red if there was a "recession, war, or national emergency," shortly adding that he "hit the trifecta." Spinsanity has searched and found no record of this warning. It's probably a lie.

2) Over what period of time does this tax cut take place?
I understand it wasn't just one giant cut but rather a series of cuts over a period of some years, how long exactly I do not know, hence my question.

The capital gains tax was cut, I believe. The estate tax ("death tax") has been suspended and different income tax reductions will be phased in over the next ten years (although Bush wants to make these last two permanent).

Is the estate tax directed at the rich? Well, it only affects 2% of people. Republican lies convinced many that "family farms" would be stolen (they could not cite a single incident). Democrats proposed legislation that would exempt the first 100 million dollars of an estate from taxation (even getting moderate Republicans on board, like Specter and maybe McCain). It was rejected.

Bill Gates' father was especially vocal in opposing the estate tax and I'm sure there are op-eds co-written by him readily available on the Internet.

2) Who are the rich; at what point do the people become rich?
How much does someone need to make to be considered rich or the better yet, who are the recipients of the tax cut, the percentage of the population and their minimum income. [/B]

?

(another post)
Well in Clinton's defense, he did enact welfare reform, which resulted in reduction in spending during government. The critics were yelling that the streets would be swimming in poor, yet it did not happen. I for one am shocked!

How much did it reduce spending?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cain

*snip*

How much did it reduce spending?

If I was to answer your question like you did mine it would be a rant about how some people abuse welfare system, how most are able workers and do not even look for jobs. I would also cite someone about how people would suffer on an epic scale. And of course, it wouldn't answer your question. So I will wait until you answer mine before I answer yours.

I will repeat my question and bold the most important point that I want answered.

1) How much did the tax cut actually cut?
As in how much money in dollars was expected not to be collected from people.

2) Over what period of time does this tax cut take place?
I understand it wasn't just one giant cut but rather a series of cuts over a period of some years, how long exactly I do not know, hence my question.

2) Who are the rich; at what point do the people become rich?
How much does someone need to make to be considered rich or the better yet, who are the recipients of the tax cut, the percentage of the population and their minimum income.

[subgenius]

Seems like some republicans don't like deficits either:

Bush just signed the Medicare measure into law last month. While it was moving through Congress, Bush, White House officials and congressional Republican leaders had assured doubting conservatives that the bill's costs would stay within the $400 billion estimate.

Some conservatives voted against the legislation anyway, and many of them are already angry that Bush has presided over excessive increases in spending and budget deficits.
...
Bush's new budget will also estimate this year's budget deficit at about $520 billion, the congressional sources said. That would easily surpass the $375 billion shortfall of last year, the highest deficit ever in dollar terms.
...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040129/D80CL8D84.html

[Cain]

http://www.micruscorp.com/images/headache.jpg

*sigh* You're so unbelievably dense.



Expectations vary because the financial outlook changes. Shortly before Clinton left we expected over a 5 trillion dollar surplus, but that was based on optimistic expectations. Bush's tax cut, the first one at least, was 1.6 trillion dollars. Then there was 674(?) billion dollar cut later.

Look, there's more than one tax cut. The initial one, I believe, is gradually phased in over ten years. The "cost" will change with the country's financial outlook.

2) Who are the rich; at what point do the people become rich?
How much does someone need to make to be considered rich or the better yet, who are the recipients of the tax cut, the percentage of the population and their minimum income.

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/TaxMargin.html

The highest income tax rate for 2003 is 35% and applies to people with incomes over 312,000 dollars. (But if we're takling about "the rich", one must also consider estate and capital gains taxes)

According to the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute (they collaborate on tax policy), less than one percent of people filing fall into the highest bracket.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000547_TaxFacts_072803.pdf


My question again:
How much money have we saved in government spending since "welfare reform"?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cain


*sigh* You're so unbelievably dense.



Expectations vary because the financial outlook changes. Shortly before Clinton left we expected over a 5 trillion dollar surplus, but that was based on optimistic expectations. Bush's tax cut, the first one at least, was 1.6 trillion dollars. Then there was 674(?) billion dollar cut later.

Look, there's more than one tax cut. The initial one, I believe, is gradually phased in over ten years. The "cost" will change with the country's financial outlook.



http://www.dinkytown.net/java/TaxMargin.html

The highest income tax rate for 2003 is 35% and applies to people with incomes over 312,000 dollars. (But if we're takling about "the rich", one must also consider estate and capital gains taxes)

According to the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute (they collaborate on tax policy), less than one percent of people filing fall into the highest bracket.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000547_TaxFacts_072803.pdf


My question again:
How much money have we saved in government spending since "welfare reform"?

First, let me thank you for the insult as nothing shows a good argument like insulting someone for asking a question. You seem to be the best at that around here, kudos to you for that.

The government saved and estimated 65+ billion dollars over seven years. Essentially what the reform did is cap the spending at 35% increase over seven years instead of the original 50%.

If I read what you wrote correctly...let me just bold it over here: "Bush's tax cut, the first one at least, was 1.6 trillion dollars. Then there was 674(?) billion dollar cut later. " That's 2.2 trillion dollars in tax cuts, can I get a source on that?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Cain
...Later Bush said he cautioned in an earlier speech that we could be plunged into red if there was a "recession, war, or national emergency," shortly adding that he "hit the trifecta." Spinsanity has searched and found no record of this warning. It's probably a lie. Interesting. I can vividly recall reading that the "trifecta" line was uttered again and again in speech after speech (many of them cited in the passage). If I can recall where I saw this, I'll post the info.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Interesting. I can vividly recall reading that the "trifecta" line was uttered again and again in speech after speech (many of them cited in the passage). If I can recall where I saw this, I'll post the info. He took credit for saying it, when in fact it was Al Gore who did.

Edited to explain further: Bush used the trifecta punchline, setting it up with the claim that he had stated the three conditions. But he hadn't...it was Gore.

[Cain]

If I read what you wrote correctly...let me just bold it over here: "Bush's tax cut, the first one at least, was 1.6 trillion dollars. Then there was 674(?) billion dollar cut later. " That's 2.2 trillion dollars in tax cuts, can I get a source on that? [/B]

Let me be clear in saying that Bush proposed a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut. He sold it as costing only 1.6 trillion, but hidden costs (e.g. interest on the debt) pushes it upwards.

See economist Paul Krugman's book _The Great Unraveling_.

Or you can just go to google and type "1.6 trillion tax cut"; "674 billion tax cut"

The government saved and estimated 65+ billion dollars over seven years. Essentially what the reform did is cap the spending at 35% increase over seven years instead of the original 50%.

Now may I ask your source for this statistic? (Hopefully it's not Robert Rector.) "Welfare Reform", as I know, replaced AFDC with TANF, and gives more control to states. People are only allowed to be on the system for five years (life time), or an individual state can restrict that to two. Critics contended this would be bad in time of recession because the people most desperately in need of benefits would be tough outta luck.

let me thank you for the insult as nothing shows a good argument like insulting someone for asking a question. You seem to be the best at that around here, kudos to you for that.

Oh, any time. Although, maybe before asking the next straightforward question you can first consult the one true god (http://www.google.com) .

I did do this with the little side topic of welfare reform and the only thing of interest I could find was a Republican paper/memo: In both 1995 and 1996, Clinton vetoed welfare reform (the first bill would have saved $94 billion over seven years; the second would have saved $64 billion over seven years) -- despite having promised to "end welfare as we know it" during the 1992 campaign.

It's the same seven year projection (written in 1998).

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/smallgov-jt.htm

Is your statistic the same projection from seven years ago?

[subgenius]

Gee, even Rush don't like it. Other than true bush believers, doesn't that make it unanimous?

It's Not Working!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012904/content/the_big_theory.guest.html

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by subgenius
Gee, even Rush don't like it. Other than true bush believers, doesn't that make it unanimous?

It's Not Working!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012904/content/the_big_theory.guest.html

Bush is taking a very risky gamble on the GDP going up. It terms of spending a percentage of the GDP, he has yet to out-do his dad or Clinton. But revenues have declined right along with the GDP and if you add that to the tax cuts, things start looking real bad.

[subgenius]

I guess this really makes it unanimous, except for his most ardent apologists who don't realize he doesn't even mean what he says:

Bush to Back Off Some Initiatives for Budget Plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/politics/01BUDG.html?ei=5062&en=1431820cb32a583c&ex=1076216400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

I guess its the old run it up the flagpole routine.....have we stopped saluting yet?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius
I guess this really makes it unanimous, except for his most ardent apologists who don't realize he doesn't even mean what he says:

Bush to Back Off Some Initiatives for Budget Plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/politics/01BUDG.html?ei=5062&en=1431820cb32a583c&ex=1076216400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

I guess its the old run it up the flagpole routine.....have we stopped saluting yet?

I don't get your point here, are you rather he spends more?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't get your point here, are you rather he spends more?
I are rather we not pay so much interest.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius

I are rather we not pay so much interest.

It's simple then, stop the government from spending and we'll catch up with the debt in no time.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It's simple then, stop the government from spending and we'll catch up with the debt in no time.
OK, cool. Let's do that.

[Zero]

Oddly, the spending increases no matter who is in office, this is truly a case of bipartisan cooperation! Of course, anyone with a brain would prefer "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend", but then again, when was the last time we saw a real fiscal conservative? Clinton?:p

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Snide
It's arguable as to whether this accurately represents the position taken by "the left" in the 80s. That point notwithstanding, such a prediction was (would have been) based on a continuance of the 80s deficits. Something along the lines of, "Balance the budget, or else there will be a deep depression."

Well, let's take a look at the position taken by the left today.

http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/


Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?

The kids.

Some things never change.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Well, let's take a look at the position taken by the left today.

http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/



The kids.

Some things never change. Way to miss the mark on my response.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Oddly, the spending increases no matter who is in office, this is truly a case of bipartisan cooperation! Of course, anyone with a brain would prefer "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend", but then again, when was the last time we saw a real fiscal conservative? Clinton?:p

Why would I prefer to have more money taken from me and spent on stupid crap to having less money taken from me and spent on stupid crap? The preference should be on less spending, not more as long as we tax enough.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tricky
Is it time to do something about this?



[b]Budget office projects U.S. deficit to hit $477 billion (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/index.html)



Is the sheer size of these numbers causing people to become numbed to them? How long can we continue to rack up such debt before we hit the wall?

Hard to believe that we had a surplus when this decade started. And it's getting worse. The projected deficit for the next decade has nearly doubled since August. Oh, but consumer confidence is up, so we're okay.


deficit up to $521bn

I was listening to how President Bush has unveiled his budget for the 2005 fiscal year, squeezing non-defence (inc. agriculture and environmental protection taking the biggest reductions) spending in an attempt to reduce the record budget gap.

trillion dollar plus tax cuts, while the tax base erodes away with loss of full time jobs

trips to Mars

7% increase in military spending in the next year

funding the Missile Defense program (inc. in military budget surely)

more spending on Iraq, whose costs in 2004 were $85bn plus

the new Medicare drug benefit, which is now expected to cost $534bn over the next eight years, as opposed to $400bn when it was passed in December.


Aren't republicans traditionally fiscally conservative?

maybe Bush expects to find money trees on Mars.

by this time next week the deficit will be up to $565 billion or more at this rate!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Why would I prefer to have more money taken from me and spent on stupid crap to having less money taken from me and spent on stupid crap? The preference should be on less spending, not more as long as we tax enough. Sure, if you say so...shall we cut pork, or slash real programs, though?

Remember, also, taxes aren't a burden; taxes are the dues that we pay to be Americans, and we should pay them with pride, and then demand they be spent wisely.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Sure, if you say so...shall we cut pork, or slash real programs, though?

Remember, also, taxes aren't a burden; taxes are the dues that we pay to be Americans, and we should pay them with pride, and then demand they be spent wisely.

I don't remember any required fees I had to pay to BE an American. This is news to me. Also, I hate to repeat what some said on this forum, but I don't pay taxes, they take them from me.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Sure, if you say so...shall we cut pork, or slash real programs, though?

Remember, also, taxes aren't a burden; taxes are the dues that we pay to be Americans, and we should pay them with pride, and then demand they be spent wisely.

Also, I'm all for slashing pork programs. Let's start with bailouts to corporations and move to bailouts for people.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Snide
Way to miss the mark on my response.

Way to miss the mark on what the left thinks the solution to deficits is. Your response implied they believe the answer is to cut spending. It isn't. Their answer is to increase taxes. Have you ever known a democratic candidate for president who didn't say they weren't going to raise taxes? I haven't. Have you heard any of them advocate cutting spending like in the credit card example you gave? I haven't. Except when it comes to defense spending.

"He won't tell you. I just did." Fritz Mondale, 1984. I laughed my tail off when I was watching the convention when he said that. I knew right then he blew it. And sure enough, he lost the election in the biggest landslide ever.

Listen to the Democratic candidates today. Same thing. Except Lieberman.

[Snide]

Luke, please re-read our discussion. You miss the point, then introduce statements irrelevant to what I've said.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Way to miss the mark on what the left thinks the solution to deficits is. Your response implied they believe the answer is to cut spending.

You answered my assertion not by denying it, but by making an assertion against me. An incorrect one, at that. All my response suggested and/or implied was that the Left of the 80s wanted us to deal with the defecit/debt, which can only be accomplished by spending less than you take in (make). I submit, therefore, that I did not miss the mark. Please show me my words which would indicate otherwise.

It isn't. Their answer is to increase taxes. Have you ever known a democratic candidate for president who didn't say they weren't going to raise taxes? I haven't.


Well, this isn't what we've been discussing. But, to answer, yes. Mondale: Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you, I just did.

Have you heard any of them advocate cutting spending like in the credit card example you gave? I haven't.


Missed it again. I didn't say, "Cut spending." I said, "Spend less than you make." That's how a surplus happens, like under our last Democratic president.


Except when it comes to defense spending.

"He won't tell you. I just did." Fritz Mondale, 1984. I laughed my tail off when I was watching the convention when he said that. I knew right then he blew it. And sure enough, he lost the election in the biggest landslide ever.

Listen to the Democratic candidates today. Same thing. Except Lieberman.

I noted Fritz's quote, but I think you got your history a bit wrong. The rest is more irrelevance.


Anyway, I was eighteen at the time, and I remember also thinking he'd blown it, because the public didn't want to hear such candor, regardless of whether it would prove to be prophetic. (It sorda did and sorta didn't...but I don't want to run off on a tangent. :))

To help make myself clear, my only point in our conversation is that you said, as if to prove the critics of the defecits of the 80s wrong:

And a booming economy instead of the deep depression predicted.
I reminded you that if it was predicted, it was on the premise that it would happen if we didn't do something about the deficit.

We did do something about it, under a Democratic president. My credit card scenario then described your position accurately (WTTEO: "You're prediction was wrong!").

Please show me where I am incorrect, and I will retract if indeed I am.


edited for clarity in this line: "I reminded you that if that's what was predicted, it was on the premise that it would happen if we didn't do something about the deficit."

[Roadtoad]

Hoo-boy. Tricky, you don't screw around when you start a thread, do you?

I read a book a while ago about General Motors, and their loss of something like $5 billion dollars one fiscal year. One of the architects of that debacle was one Lloyd Reuss, (I think that's how you spell it), the man who at one point headed up the GM board. He declared that "The marketplace will save us." As it happened, it didn't, and he lost his job. (And a lot of GM employees lost theirs because Reuss was too stupid to figure out that when you are LOSING MONEY, you start looking at where you're losing it, and start asking hard questions.)

True, we had a Democratic President and wound up with a budget that was lowering the deficit. Give Clinton credit for having sufficient cojones to sign off on such budgets. But also give the credit to a Republican controlled Congress which started looking at where we were losing capital.

Unfortunately, we now have a President, with an MBA no less, who can't seem to figure out what Clinton couldn't miss. I'm more than a little galled by the idea that we're now going to get a presciption drug plan which will cost billions in tax dollars, but in the end is something NO ONE WANTS! (Sorry, I probably shouldn't have shouted.) We have more and more pork creeping into the budget, with some genuinely bizarre programs being set up, many of which are continuing programs which will probably never be phased out. Ever.

I mean, isn't this the sort of thing George was running against?

Did I miss something?

BTW: Check this (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/edwards-040202.html) out.

[subgenius]

Guess what?
GWB plans on sending you a big invoice if he gets re elected:

Noticeably absent from next year's request is money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. White House budget director Joshua Bolten estimated that another $50 billion would be needed to cover those costs next year. The White House expects to cover the war costs with supplemental funds after next fall's elections.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7858468.htm

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Snide
All my response suggested and/or implied was that the Left of the 80s wanted us to deal with the defecit/debt, which can only be accomplished by spending less than you take in (make). I submit, therefore, that I did not miss the mark. Please show me my words which would indicate otherwise.

So if you raise taxes, you think you are now going to be spending less than you take in? It sure sounds like that would work, only it doesn't. That is my point.

The left thinks they have the answer to Bush's deficit. And their answer is to raise taxes in the belief this will cause more to come in than go out.

My state is currently in the learning process on that issue. Too much going out, not enough coming in to cover it. It starts when they raise taxes to solve the budget problem. So businesses leave for greener pastures. Now the state no longer receives any tax money at all from the companies that left, or their employees who are now out of jobs. In fact, now they have a growing unemployment problem. The largest rate in the country. Which means even more people who need government assitance, which means even more going out than coming in. It's a vicious cycle, and yet they continue to try to solve the problem by raising taxes some more. They raised them TWICE last year, and there is another Measure being voted on today to raise them again. They just don't get it. There is not one major company left in this state because of their idiocy.

That's the Democratic way.

[Zero]

What confuses me is the religious devotion to tax cuts, and the anti-American(IMO) attitude that taxes are somehow evil. We have a surplus? Tax cuts. Recession? Tax cut. Rebound? Tax cut. War in Iraq? Tax cut. Janet Jackson's boobie? You guessed it, another tax cut!!

Why not cut politically-motivated pork, instead of social programs that work, and that people generally support?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Zero
What confuses me is the religious devotion to tax cuts, and the anti-American(IMO) attitude that taxes are somehow evil. We have a surplus? Tax cuts. Recession? Tax cut. Rebound? Tax cut. War in Iraq? Tax cut. Janet Jackson's boobie? You guessed it, another tax cut!!

Why not cut politically-motivated pork, instead of social programs that work, and that people generally support?

New JREF server? Tax cut! :)

I couldn't agree more on the pork thing. The problem is that with even generally supported programs, there is a lot of waste, too. It is my personal opinion that half our tax dollars are wasted. (No, Claus, I have nothing to back that up. It's just an opinion. ;) )


The American revolution was based in part on what are today relatively infintesimal taxes. "Taxation without representation..."

The government, telemarketers, door-to-door salesmen. I don't know about anyone else, but it feels like someone is always trying to stick their uninvited hand in my pocket, and I'm sick of it.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The American revolution was based in part on what are today relatively infintesimal taxes. "Taxation without representation..."

The government, telemarketers, door-to-door salesmen. I don't know about anyone else, but it feels like someone is always trying to stick their uninvited hand in my pocket, and I'm sick of it.

No argument there, but the fact is, Luke, people do it because it works. They have it down literally to a science. All anyone needs to do is claim a tax hike is "for the children," and you'd be damned hard pressed to get it eliminated. Ever.

[Zero]

Don't other countries pay alot more taxes than we ever have? Why are we complaining so much? Well, besides the government waste, that is?

I believe in lean government...but in a systematic way, cutting waste from everything, instead of just slashing dollars from certain programs. In other words, making every single decision about getting the most bang for the buck, instead of cutting funding off the top.

Here's a household example: I know people who have huge homes and giant SUVs, who wind up needing extra money. Instead of getting another job or putting their wives to work(=raising taxes), they cut out their kid's activities, dress them is shoddy second-hand clothing, and barely feed their kids and themselves(=cutting social programs). Eventually, they end up declaring bankruptcy, so they can keep the house and SUV. The wiser strategy would be to trade in the car and sell the house, and get something more in line with their ability to pay. In addition, they can shave a few bucks here and there on food and clothing without resorting to poverty-level spending.

Government is the same way, IMO. There is alot of money being wasted on things we simply don't need and that don't help anyone. Scrap that funding, as well as go "bargain shopping" in other ways besides cutting social programs.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Luke T.

So if you raise taxes, you think you are now going to be spending less than you take in? It sure sounds like that would work, only it doesn't. That is my point.

What I think about this policy is irrelevant. Only that some do.

The left thinks they have the answer to Bush's deficit. And their answer is to raise taxes in the belief this will cause more to come in than go out.

My state is currently in the learning process on that issue. Too much going out, not enough coming in to cover it. It starts when they raise taxes to solve the budget problem. So businesses leave for greener pastures. Now the state no longer receives any tax money at all from the companies that left, or their employees who are now out of jobs. In fact, now they have a growing unemployment problem. The largest rate in the country. Which means even more people who need government assitance, which means even more going out than coming in. It's a vicious cycle, and yet they continue to try to solve the problem by raising taxes some more. They raised them TWICE last year, and there is another Measure being voted on today to raise them again. They just don't get it. There is not one major company left in this state because of their idiocy.

That's the Democratic way.
All of this soapboxing is fine, but entirely irrelevant to anything I initially brought up. Remember, all I was responding to was the implication of this statement you made: Hard to believe that back in the 80s, the left was screaming about Reagan's deficits and how our grandchildren would be working off the debt 100 years from now. But like you said, we started this decade with a surplus.

Now how did that happen?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

The US commitment to maintain an occupying security force (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/04/iraq.main/index.html) of 138,000 in Iraq until the end of 2005 must be taken into account in regards to projections about deficit budgets, and debt in general.

Spending could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities in Iraq.

In Bush's August budget review, the Office of Management and Budget projected the current $5.9 trillion debt ceiling would cover obligations through fiscal year 2003. But the recession and costs associated with the terrorist attacks on September 11 simultaneously drained projected tax revenue and added billions in unanticipated spending, administration officials said.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/summarytables.html

The Pentagon told Congress the week of April 18th that it would need another $4 billion to get through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's on top of $87 billion approved in a supplemental budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for this year.



The White House is expected to ask for $50 billion to $75 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2005 fiscal year.
"It's a major new expense (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/iraq/8505472.htm?1c) that has to be accounted for in the budget," Robert Bixby

[shuize]

Luke T. and Grammatron's posts above pretty much reflect my opinion on the tax debate.

If I thought the Democrats would be satisfied with just a tax increase to reduce the debt and not increase spending I'd put every other political difference aside and pledge my vote to them for all time.

But I am as certain as it's possible to be about anything in this lifetime that if given back control of Congress the Democrats will not be satisfied with just increasing taxes but will see the possibility of increased revenue as a green light to spend even more.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
The Pentagon told Congress the week of April 18th that it would need another $4 billion to get through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's on top of $87 billion approved in a supplemental budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for this year.

Ten years of that and it could approach the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

And hope for a drought this year, otherwise another $50 billion in farm subsidies could kick in.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
The US commitment to maintain an occupying security force (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/04/iraq.main/index.html) of 138,000 in Iraq until the end of 2005 must be taken into account in regards to projections about deficit budgets, and debt in general.

Spending could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities in Iraq.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/summarytables.html

The Pentagon told Congress the week of April 18th that it would need another $4 billion to get through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's on top of $87 billion approved in a supplemental budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for this year.



The White House is expected to ask for $50 billion to $75 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2005 fiscal year.
Robert Bixby

For all the good it's achieved, they may as well have tied the dollars up in bundles and thrown them on a fire.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


For all the good it's achieved, they may as well have tied the dollars up in bundles and thrown them on a fire.

That sounds like it would cause global warming and here I thought you were an environmentalist.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
The US commitment to maintain an occupying security force (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/04/iraq.main/index.html) of 138,000 in Iraq until the end of 2005 must be taken into account in regards to projections about deficit budgets, and debt in general.

Spending could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities in Iraq.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/summarytables.html

The Pentagon told Congress the week of April 18th that it would need another $4 billion to get through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's on top of $87 billion approved in a supplemental budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for this year.



The White House is expected to ask for $50 billion to $75 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2005 fiscal year.
Robert Bixby


oops; have to revise this as there has been an update Please Congress, may I have some more? (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/05/war.spending/index.html)

[WildCat]

Do I dare bump a 5 year old thread? :D

$477 billion seems quaint these days.

[Meadmaker]

Do I dare bump a 5 year old thread? :D

$477 billion seems quaint these days.

You're a cruel man, but fair.

[WildCat]

Bumping to compare/contrast with the recent thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=235194) where the current left wing of the JREF forum sees no issues at all with racking up huge deficits year after year. :p

[Neally]

The budget can't be balanced:

EW5IdwltaAc

[tyr_13]

Bumping to compare/contrast with the recent thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=235194) where the current left wing of the JREF forum sees no issues at all with racking up huge deficits year after year. :p

You know what's funny? That the reasoning has remained consistent. Besides your straw man about 'current left wing sees no issues at all' when in fact no one I've seen has said anything like that, we also have the fact that people were saying that borrowing for infrastructure and like is generally a good idea if you can get the rate low enough and that deficits aren't inherently bad.

So what changed? What the money was being used for. It looks like the nuanced stance of the various posters on 'the left' isn't as hypocritical as you'd like it to be.

[Beerina]

Well, up until the recent few years, I regularly pointed out that if we hadn't been borrowing tons and tons every year, and had run a balanced budget, the politicians would have had an additional $300+ billion a year to spend on something that wasn't interest payments on past borrowing.

Would have been nice. Didja get your money's worth over those years?

[WildCat]

You know what's funny? That the reasoning has remained consistent. Besides your straw man about 'current left wing sees no issues at all' when in fact no one I've seen has said anything like that, we also have the fact that people were saying that borrowing for infrastructure and like is generally a good idea if you can get the rate low enough and that deficits aren't inherently bad.

So what changed? What the money was being used for. It looks like the nuanced stance of the various posters on 'the left' isn't as hypocritical as you'd like it to be.
You didn't read that other thread, did you? There were actually people arguing for continued deficit spending and printing money to intentionally cause inflation to reduce debt.

[tyr_13]

You didn't read that other thread, did you? There were actually people arguing for continued deficit spending and printing money to intentionally cause inflation to reduce debt.

Yes. That doesn't conflict with anything I've said.

[Unabogie]

Bumping to compare/contrast with the recent thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=235194) where the current left wing of the JREF forum sees no issues at all with racking up huge deficits year after year. :p

I'm on the left and I'm been complaining about the deficit since Ronald Reagan exploded it. I do think deficit spending has its place during a depression, but now that we're in recovery I'm on the record as supporting the end of the Bush tax cuts. I'd phase them out if there were a choice, but since the GOP won't do anything but argue for a 20% cut in taxes for billionaires, there's no solution except to let them all expire. Why use a straw man here? I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on this.

ETA: Oh, and I want to drastically reduce the defense budget, but last I checked, 99% of all GOPers want that to grow (see Ryan, Paul). So exactly what is your point? I'm in favor of budget reduction and ALSO moving money away from billionaires and war profiteers and over to the folks who are still hurting from 2008.

[WildCat]

Yes. That doesn't conflict with anything I've said.
Do you think spending on infrastructure is automatically a good investment?

How about the infamous Alaska "bridge to nowhere"? It's infrastructure, so it must be a good idea, right?

How about high speed rail? Good infrastructure investnent, or a white elephant that will drain funds from other uses for decades to come?

[tyr_13]

Do you think spending on infrastructure is automatically a good investment?

How about the infamous Alaska "bridge to nowhere"? It's infrastructure, so it must be a good idea, right?

How about high speed rail? Good infrastructure investnent, or a white elephant that will drain funds from other uses for decades to come?

Hey, you do know there are great threads on all those things? I've not said that spending on infrastructure is automatically a good investment. I hope you knew that and weren't just strawmanning again.

[WildCat]

Hey, you do know there are great threads on all those things? I've not said that spending on infrastructure is automatically a good investment. I hope you knew that and weren't just strawmanning again.
Dude, you're the one who brought up infrastructure spending. Now you want to abandon that issue? Ok.

So is our deficit and debt (now equal to GDP for the first time since WWII) A Good ThingTM?

Should we spend even more?

[Meadmaker]

Well, I'm barely part of JREF forums these days, but this particular part of the left on JREF is not hypocritical.

I think Obama's policies on the deficit have been awful. I was willing to cut him some slack for a while, but four years of slack? When he had a filibuster proof majority for the first two years? And he could have raised taxes without even a passing vote?

No, I've been a deficit hawk since the days when I was complaining about Ronald Reagan's 200 billion dollar deficits, and when it comes to handling the deficit, Obama sucks.

[Howie Felterbush]

So tell me, which terrorists are about to rain ICBMs on the US so that it needs a new generation missile defense system? How much more secure is the US now that it has taken out a dictator who was no threat to it.

North Korea?


Raining? If they ever try to fire one, it is more likely to end up crashing on themselves. The only purpose it serves is to frighten people. Kim is too comfortably ensconsed in his paradise to end it all with an attack on the US.

This was kind of prophetic.

[lomiller]

Bumping to compare/contrast with the recent thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=235194) where the current left wing of the JREF forum sees no issues at all with racking up huge deficits year after year. :p

Cause it the Democrats who refuse to do anything to make up the nearly $1 trillion shortfall in revenue that has resulted from the economic downturn and various tax holidays enacted to deal with it...


As it turns out the structural deficits is pretty much where these projections from 2004 said it would be. This structural deficit still has to be dealt with at some point, but the fact remains that it won't be Republicans who do so. They will not cut defense spending, will get smacked down of they try to cut social security/medicare and there really isn't a lot of spending anyplace else and they have all promised not to raise taxes.

So the 8 year old issue with Republican incompetence remains the real issue with US deficits.

[Neally]

ETA: Oh, and I want to drastically reduce the defense budget, but last I checked, 99% of all GOPers want that to grow (see Ryan, Paul). So exactly what is your point? I'm in favor of budget reduction and ALSO moving money away from billionaires and war profiteers and over to the folks who are still hurting from 2008.That won't do it. It would be necessary to completely eliminate ALL defense and non-defense spending OR raise taxes by 50% just to continue to pay the current interest on the debt and cover mandatory spending on SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and of course those sacred cows can't be touched, which pretty much guarantees we are facing a Greece like situation.

[tyr_13]

Dude, you're the one who brought up infrastructure spending. Now you want to abandon that issue? Ok.

As an example of what people were actually arguing to combat your straw man characterization of the deficit arguments of 'the left' (which is significantly broad enough that you can pick different points from different people to condemn it), which you further straw manned into infrastructure investments being automatically a good thing.

So is our deficit and debt (now equal to GDP for the first time since WWII) A Good ThingTM?

Why do you keep saying 'A Good Thing' when that's not what anyone has argued? I think that it is sadly a necessary thing right now, but certainly not a good thing.

Should we spend even more?

In the near term yes, but cutting it down relatively quickly, letting tax cuts expire, and closing loopholes to raise revenues will have to come about too.

Situations change.

[lomiller]

That won't do it. It would be necessary to completely eliminate ALL defense and non-defense spending OR raise taxes by 50% just to continue to pay the current interest on the debt and cover mandatory spending on SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and of course those sacred cows can't be touched, which pretty much guarantees we are facing a Greece like situation.

The truth is that 2/3 of the US deficit goes away simply by ending the payroll tax holiday, returning to normal growth rates and returning unemployment insurance payouts to normal levels.

Every plan, Republican and Democrat alike depends on this as the primary mechanism for deficit reduction and then tinkers around the edge a bit. For Democrats the tinkering typically involves eliminating the Bush tax cuts, which would take care of a big chunk of what's left but you'd probably still need some adjustment to retirement age and maybe some smallish changes to SS premiums/payments.

Republicans plans involve fudging numbers and promising to spend less money without making any actual cuts. They do throw in cuts to programs they have an axe to grind against, but these are so small to begin with there are no meaningful savings from the cuts.

[ponderingturtle]

Bumping to compare/contrast with the recent thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=235194) where the current left wing of the JREF forum sees no issues at all with racking up huge deficits year after year. :p

Yep the deficits are too small, see all the republican plans to increase them.

[BenBurch]

Is it time to do something about this?

Budget office projects U.S. deficit to hit $477 billion (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/26/budget.deficits.ap/index.html)



Is the sheer size of these numbers causing people to become numbed to them? How long can we continue to rack up such debt before we hit the wall?

Hard to believe that we had a surplus when this decade started. And it's getting worse. The projected deficit for the next decade has nearly doubled since August. Oh, but consumer confidence is up, so we're okay.

Time to raise taxes.

[WildCat]

As an example of what people were actually arguing to combat your straw man characterization of the deficit arguments of 'the left' (which is significantly broad enough that you can pick different points from different people to condemn it), which you further straw manned into infrastructure investments being automatically a good thing.
And what position did I assign to anyone that they didn't actually hold?

Why do you keep saying 'A Good Thing' when that's not what anyone has argued? I think that it is sadly a necessary thing right now, but certainly not a good thing.
Are you claiming that no one in that other thread advocared spending even more?

In the near term yes, but cutting it down relatively quickly, letting tax cuts expire, and closing loopholes to raise revenues will have to come about too.

Situations change.
You have recent examples of government spending getting "cut down relatively quickly"?

[WildCat]

The truth is that 2/3 of the US deficit goes away simply by ending the payroll tax holiday, returning to normal growth rates and returning unemployment insurance payouts to normal levels.
(citation needed)

Every plan, Republican and Democrat alike depends on this as the primary mechanism for deficit reduction and then tinkers around the edge a bit. For Democrats the tinkering typically involves eliminating the Bush tax cuts, which would take care of a big chunk of what's left but you'd probably still need some adjustment to retirement age and maybe some smallish changes to SS premiums/payments.
Please list the Democrats who want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, as opposed to just taxing "the rich" more. Because 80% of those tax cuts are from the middle class, not the rich.

Republicans plans involve fudging numbers and promising to spend less money without making any actual cuts. They do throw in cuts to programs they have an axe to grind against, but these are so small to begin with there are no meaningful savings from the cuts.
So you advocate cuts? Where and how much?

[WildCat]

Yep the deficits are too small, see all the republican plans to increase them.
I don't understand the tu quoque tone here, I never said the GOP had a good plan. Note this thread dates from 2004.

[tyr_13]

And what position did I assign to anyone that they didn't actually hold?

That posters on the left 'see no issue at all' with racking up huge debt. That's not true.


Are you claiming that no one in that other thread advocared spending even more?

Stop JAQing. That's not what I said, that's a straw man, that's not the same as more debt being a 'Good Thing'.

You have recent examples of government spending getting "cut down relatively quickly"?

Do I have any examples of something I think needs to be done fairly soon (as in in the near future) being done now?

WildCat, you're a poster who is perfectly capable of arguing rationally and comprehending what other people are actually saying. I don't believe for a minute that you're genuinely confused on this. You disagree, and that's fine, but you don't need to straw man this much at all.

[Meadmaker]

I'm perfectly willing to assert that every GOP President since Richard Nixon has been absolutely horrible on fiscal responsibility, but let's also cast blame where blame is due.

In the two years after Obama was elected, he had as close to a monopoly on power as you can get. He had the White House. His party had a clear majority in the House of Representatives. His party had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. There's no way he can say that whatever happened during those two years was anyone else's fault. He had no trouble getting his policies passed.

What were his policies? Cut taxes and raise spending.

(Note to our GOP friends: Obama cut taxes. Look it up.)

What were the results? Bigger deficits. Go figure.

[BenBurch]

...

What were his policies? Cut taxes and raise spending.

(Note to our GOP friends: Obama cut taxes. Look it up.)

What were the results? Bigger deficits. Go figure.

And you NEED that when you have what was actually the Second Great Depression and two ruinous wars to work out of.

Now that we have, however, time for tax increases. Big ones.

[WildCat]

And you NEED that when you have what was actually the Second Great Depression and two ruinous wars to work out of.

Now that we have, however, time for tax increases. Big ones.
If government had been more responsible in the past it would have been in a much better position to stimulate itself out of a recession. But because we spent, spent, spent, and spent during the good times rather than pay down debt we have no headroom left to take on so much more debt.

And lets face it, we got the government we deserved. We elected idiots who promised us ponies and didn't elect anyone who promised to pay down debt with new revenues rather than buy more bling.

Remember the "peace dividend"? There was about 3 seconds of talk of using it to pay down debt until it became about all the things we could spend it on.

[RandFan]

...says now is the time to spend. Austerity isn't working for Europe. There is no reason for us to do it now. Austerity is self defeating.

Dse1Vv6seOA

[RandFan]

I'm perfectly willing to assert that every GOP President since Richard Nixon has been absolutely horrible on fiscal responsibility, but let's also cast blame where blame is due.

In the two years after Obama was elected, he had as close to a monopoly on power as you can get. He had the White House. His party had a clear majority in the House of Representatives. His party had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. There's no way he can say that whatever happened during those two years was anyone else's fault. He had no trouble getting his policies passed.

What were his policies? Cut taxes and raise spending.

(Note to our GOP friends: Obama cut taxes. Look it up.)

What were the results? Bigger deficits. Go figure.To be fair, Obama crafted policies he could pass. I think he did the best he could. And it is clear that the GOP would not raise taxes. Last summer they were willing to let us go into default to avoid raising taxes.

[ponderingturtle]

If government had been more responsible in the past it would have been in a much better position to stimulate itself out of a recession. But because we spent, spent, spent, and spent during the good times rather than pay down debt we have no headroom left to take on so much more debt.


Yep, Republicans did a great job at turning a surplus into record setting deficits. But like every abusive relationship they have changed this time...

[ponderingturtle]

I just wonder how we will but the baby boomers back to work to pay off all these debts they ran up.

[Random]

In the two years after Obama was elected, he had as close to a monopoly on power as you can get. He had the White House. His party had a clear majority in the House of Representatives. His party had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. There's no way he can say that whatever happened during those two years was anyone else's fault. He had no trouble getting his policies passed.


There never was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. We had 59 Senators and Joe "I violently oppose this legislation that I supported yeaterday because I found out liberals liked it" Lieberman.

[Meadmaker]

Bush and Reagan liked to blame the Democrats for not letting them pass enough spending cuts. Bunk! Those guys had control. Their policies passed. They, or we, reaped what they sowed. Same with Obama. He put forward policies. They passed. Sure, today they couldn't get through the House, but he had his chance, and he chose not to take it.

He didn't even have to propose a tax increase, let alone pass one. The Bush cuts had a sunset provision. If Obama would have done absolutely nothing, they would have vanished in a puff of smoke, not to mention much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the GOP.

When a politician has the power to do something, and he doesn't do it, I figure he probably doesn't really want to do it.


I still don't anticipate voting for Romney. Their policy for deficit reduction is to cut taxes for wealthy people and stop giving medicine to old people. That's even worse.

I just wish there were a fiscally responsible choice on the ballot.

[BenBurch]

Yep, Republicans did a great job at turning a surplus into record setting deficits. But like every abusive relationship they have changed this time...

And somehow, this is always the Democrats' fault.

Because abusers always blame their victims.

[BenBurch]

There never was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. We had 59 Senators and Joe "I violently oppose this legislation that I supported yeaterday because I found out liberals liked it" Lieberman.

And the ONLY way out of this mess is for us to GET a filibuster-proof majority or to vote the Senate back to "regular order" and force all filibusters to be carried out by an actual Senator reading Atlas Shrugged into the record or similar - you'd be amazed at how easy it is to break a filibuster like that 4-5 days on.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If government had been more responsible in the past it would have been in a much better position to stimulate itself out of a recession.

I agree. Many of us Keynsians were decrying the Bush tax cuts when the economy was doing well. When the economy is growing decently, *that's* when you want to run surpluses and pay down the debt. Then in times of crisis (recessions, major wars), you can borrow.

[BenBurch]

I agree. Many of us Keynsians were decrying the Bush tax cuts when the economy was doing well. When the economy is growing decently, *that's* when you want to run surpluses and pay down the debt. Then in times of crisis (recessions, major wars), you can borrow.

Yes, Bush and the GOP did the exact opposite of what was good for the country.

If they were more intelligent, I would begin to think this was the purpose; to bankrupt us.

[ponderingturtle]

And the ONLY way out of this mess is for us to GET a filibuster-proof majority or to vote the Senate back to "regular order" and force all filibusters to be carried out by an actual Senator reading Atlas Shrugged into the record or similar - you'd be amazed at how easy it is to break a filibuster like that 4-5 days on.

Hard to do that with a 3 day work week.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, Bush and the GOP did the exact opposite of what was good for the country.

If they were more intelligent, I would begin to think this was the purpose; to bankrupt us.

Basicly yes. Debt is good for republicans for some reason so they want their to be more of it so they can run against it.

[Meadmaker]

Then in times of crisis (recessions, major wars, reelection campaigns...), you can borrow.

Unfortunately, politicians tend to see the world with the addition shown above in bold.

The rotten thing is that it works. We vote for these clowns when they promise less work for more pay.

[RandFan]

Basicly yes. Debt is good for republicans for some reason so they want their to be more of it so they can run against it.That got a chuckle from me at first. But, there is a logic to it.

[ponderingturtle]

That got a chuckle from me at first. But, there is a logic to it.

Makes Bush II make a lot of sense.