rogue49

I am an independent.
My political tendencies are both libertarian & progressive.
But I don't lean toward any specific party.

That being said...
Why is it that most Republicans are so oriented towards cutting taxes,
yet have helped break the budget.

Reagan did this,
and G.W. Bush is doing this currently.

While they claim that Democrats are for big government.
My attitude is "money spent is money spent".
The recent war not withstanding. (an action I support, although I would have liked it handled better politically)

This is simple math
You shouldn't lower your income, while increasing your spending.
If you do lower your income, then make sure that your spending is under control.

Otherwise you go bankrupt...and isn't this something most Republicans are against anyway?

Or is it that the "actual" economy is so illusionary
that discretionary spending is not really necessary.
The money will come, when the money will come,
and if this is so...then why are we worried about "big government"?

I used to be a Republican when I was young,
and then I figured out they despite their rhetoric, they spend money just as fast if not more than the "other side".

While I'm not for any specific party,
I've become more & more anti-Republican as time goes on.
Why?
Because their actions don't match their words.
And the policies don't make logical or fiscal sense.
It's all about giving to the "big guy", and everyone else can fend for themselves.

Can someone who claims themselves Republican explain this?
Not espouse the rhetoric of the party,
but explain the actual actions, policies & fiscal actions of their representatives.

I would truly appreciate a perspective.
Thank you.

(**BTW...this is not supposed to be a trolling thread
but a true political discussion on the aspects of one specific party
Let keep this rational)

Liquor Dealer

The way I've always looked at is that Democrats normally want change simply for the sake of change while Republicnas are normally opposed to change unless a real benefit can be acheived. Thus making them appear to be more conservative than Democrats - There is really very little difference, in my opinion, between the expresed beliefs of the parties themselves - the difference seens to be in the candidates the parties seem to attract and the candidates seem to lean much farther to the left or right than does the party itself.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

matthew330

I think this is a question for onetime2 (or any other economist). As a republican - no i can't explain that. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either. That's admittedly an area where my "party" seems to be lacking.

It's funny though because i've often said that i'm not so much republican as i am anti-liberal (the older i got the more anti-liberal i got, like you). I think (as probably most do) that politicians are in general jackasses. In a nutshell i'm republican because a) I know both theories and not only subscribe (mostly) to the republican theory, but generally despise liberal theory and b) I see a boatload more hypocrisy in the way the liberal theory is put into practice (the only reason i don't elaborate is because that's not what you asked).

As i said before I'm not sure why republicans have such a difficult time with it. but what exactly are the implications of having a budget deficit? Also, I would hope that the fewer tax dollars the government had, being that there's so much wasted, it would easily be made up by trimming the fat.

Sorry i couldn't answer your question - I'm looking forwarded to the responses as well.

matthew330

I forgot my original question for you:

Political theory is just that, a theory. You ascribe to one of the available / or a combination, but how any of the representatives elected choose to put their political affiliation into practice, does not change the theory itself. Especially of all the different aspects/issues involved, whether or not the budget is balanced doesn't seem to me to be enough to sway my whole political thought (though it is admittedly annoying), because as i said before I don't know what the consequences are.

apechild

By reducing future revenues an administration can impede the growth of government under leadership of subsequent administrations.

That said, there's a lot of political opportunism involved. Many voters tend to think myopically, and are extremely short-term oriented. Take as an example all the talk about the rise in unemployment during the early part of Bush's term. While any reasonable, informed individual recognizes the rise in unemployment to be the result of secular economic trends that began long before Bush assumed office (and were only marginally influenced by fiscal policy anyway), the majority of voters still tend to attribute job growth with the policies of the current administration.

Bush knows this, so he enacted measures of tax relief to help inject some stimulus into the economy, while increasing spending to help meet his domestic goals and placate some of his opponents. As we head into the 2004 elections, Bush can claim that he rescued the economy, passed a prescription drug benefit, increased education spending, prosecuted the war on terrorism, made our country safer, and his message will resonate with a great many voters.

During the early part of his second term (assuming he's re-elected) he'll be able to pursue some unpopular measures at home, such as budget cuts to many domestic programs. He'll be able to reduce the deficit and won't have to worry about re-election. The deficit and reduced domestic spending will then be the subject of much debate during the 2008 election, at which point we all hope that spending on the war on terrorism will have abated, if not stopped altogether.

In summary, it's not about being a Republican, it's about being a politician.

Edited for clarity

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

onetime2

There's a lot in this to respond to. I'm not sure that I can put together a complete discussion of all the issues you allude to. I'll try to just take some that jump out at me. First off, I am a Republican. Not because I believe in every plank in the platform, but because *most* of the issues (I won't go into details since it would be too long and probably too boring for most) I feel strongly about are addressed by Republicans and ignored or opposed by the Democrats. I am in no way a spokesperson for the Republican party and wouldn't even attempt to justify all of its actions. I can only speak from my own perspective on the topics you raise.

That being said, I have no problem with government spending on needed programs. I do have a problem with programs that don't seem to show results and am opposed to continually throwing money at programs in the hope that it will get more efficient or more successful. There is an immense lack of accountability in government programs and an incredible amount of waste. Cutting this waste could easily provide for the programs that our country and its citizens need. Of course, given the nature of politics and the rhetoric of both parties, cutting out unnecessary programs is nearly impossible. Costs of almost every government program go up every year. Therefore, providing new, necessary services require either raising taxes or deficit spending. Raising taxes puts a direct and immediate burden on taxpayers. Deficit spending increases the costs of government but spreads that burden out over time.

The real solution is to eliminate waste. How do we get the government to take it seriously? Well, we can't until people get outspoken about it and vote those out of office who are fiscally irresponsible. That brings us to, what is "fiscally irresponsible"? Is it any time there's a deficit? Is it a certain level of deficit spending? A deficit, in and of itself, is not bad. The vast majority of us run deficits throughout our lives. Do you have a mortgage? A car loan? Student loans? Unless you have the income to pay all of them off at any given time, you too are a deficit spender. There’s nothing wrong with it so long as you don’t get over your head. That’s the same as the government. Is the deficit too large? It doesn’t seem so since the government isn’t in jeopardy of defaulting on payments. Does it make me uncomfortable? Yep. Would I stop creating needed government programs to allay my uncomfortable feeling? No, not yet.

Big government does not just refer to the size of government but the amount of power it exerts over your life. Offering an alternative prescription plan to seniors doesn’t give the government any more direct influence over my life. Creating a new national healthcare plan that impacts my current health insurance plan does.

As far as the drug benefit, I believe there is a serious need for it. I work in the pharmaceutical industry and know how many seniors have outrageous Rx bills each month. There are senior households out there paying thousands of dollars each month for prescriptions. There are many reasons why. Anything that helps these households is worth it to me. The success that America has seen in the last 100 years is in large part due to the work ethic and sacrifices that these people have made.

Is this the perfect plan? Of course it’s not. But it's a step in the right direction. No doubt time will show the flaws in this plan (just as it has every other plan) and it will need to be revised and perhaps even scrapped.

I guess it comes down to a few beliefs that I have. The first belief is that the government can provide for the needs of the country with the taxes that are already being paid to them. The second is that deficits are not as bad as they’re made out to be. And I guess the third is that there are some things worth going into debt over.

As I said, I’m sure this doesn’t cover all the issues, but it’s a starting point for discussion.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Sparhawk

It is going to come back and bite them in the ass, that's for sure. My preference is sooner, while the baby boomers are still working, rather than later, when I'm at my peak working years.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

HarmlessRabbit

On KQED this morning, they had a really good panel discussion about the new medicare benefit. One of the panelists said that he thought the administration's (read: neoconservatives) long-term strategy was to cut "untouchable" benefits like social security. He said that the way that they are going about that strategy is to cut taxes and increase spending, thus creating a fake fiscal crisis. Under that crisis environment, the public will accept cuts to social security that would be unthinkable during good times.

It all seems a bit too conspiracy theory to me. People seem just as likely to hold onto their benefits more tightly during hard times as they would be to let them go. In Japan, for example, even during a long term depression people have been fighting against government cutbacks. In france people have waged strikes for shorter work weeks even in the face of a soft economy.

So, while I don't but into the guys line of reasoning, it's certainly an interesting, and logically sound, way to explain the perplexing behavior of the bush administration.

rogue49

It almost sounds as if most of the people who have replied as "Republicans",
are actually more Libertarian.

Now that I can relate to...because if they don't go to extremes in their idealogy,
this is where I thought the Republicans would have been it they were like I used to believe.
And this doesn't include their moral "self-righteous" crusade they have catering to to "christian-conservatives"

And there has to be "some" progressive policies, because the government DOES need to help those who NEED help.
But some don't need help...they can help themselves.

Basically...the fat of government needs to be trimmed,
and believe it or not it's not the progressive programs that need cutting.
It's the military-industrial ones.

For example...if you just saw what Boeing got away with,
or the Army Corps of Engineers...geez...and that's just the tip of the ice burg.

With both main parties...I've seen much spending.
Dems with Agriculture & Unions
GOP with the military & corporate entities
it just differs where they spend it.

But don't give every "big guy" a loophole,
don't get rid of your income.

And it's one thing to have some debt...but to blow it away like we have.
We do need to keep things in perspective.
We do need to use some common sense.

And like when we keep our selves from getting that little something extra,
we should apply the same here
And like we keep ourselves from eating out all the time,
we should apply the same here

Just because it makes us feel good doesn't make it right,
just because the companies would like to have more profit doesn't many we should always make it easier.

But in the end...if you SAY it...then dammit DO it.
Don't say save, then spend
Don't spend, and then don't save.

There is a limit...when will it break?

Ustwo

Remember a successfull revolutionary is called a founding father

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

yournamehere

You forgot those three famous words:
"<i>Read my lips . . . </i>"
Makes it a hat trick.

__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

irateplatypus

i am also a registered republican with libertarian tendencies. its true, i'm more anti-liberal (in many ways at least) than pro-republican. anyway...

It does seem that both parties spend money like crazy, w/little thought to how it affects the budget. However, given the choice between the two, I prefer the Republican's sponsorship of the military and industry over the Democrat's emphasis on social programs. The investment in industry at least makes sure the money rejoins the private sector. Also, this policy is what makes the U.S. lead in so many technological and medical fields. True, some companies are getting superfat contracts from our tax money. But, there are some definite positives to the results we get from that investment.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

james t kirk

Ah yes, one of my favourite topics.

Financial irresponsibility.

First off, being Canadian, I have a bit of a different perspective then some of you. Myself, i am socially quite liberal. I believe in Government staying out of the morals business, I believe in our universal health care, in financing education (Canada spends more on education than any other G7 nation.) and I believe in foreign aid (not blowing them up) to the poorer nations because poverty causes anger causes violence which sooner or later bites YOU in the ass.

But economically, i am quite conservative. More so than most of you it would seem.

I do not believe in the concept of a free lunch. If you want something, you have to pay for it. I do not believe that governments should be running fiscal deficits, EVER.

Did you know that in Britain, it is virtually against the law for the country to run a deficit. Yep, it's called the "golden rule". Gotta like that one. Basically, it says that the government can not run a deficit unless that deficit is for investment purposes and will be paid back with interest. And "investment" is not considered to be the daily running expense of the country either. If the ex checker needs more money, they raise taxes accordingly. If they need less, they lower taxes. There is also no such thing as a "tax return". Once it's gone, it's gone.

In Canada, our gov't under a brilliant finance minister (recently elected Prime Minister) has eliminated our deficit and been running surplusses for the last 7 years. Prior to that (under the conservative corrupt government of Brian Mulroney), we had one buffoon after the other buffoon running bigger and bigger deficits each year, spending money like drunken sailors. We have now been paying down our debt even.

The US debt is now at all time records, and getting larger next year, and larger the year after that. Right now, every American household owes something like $125,000 in national debt. Allan Greenspan has repeatedly spoken out against deficit spending, but no-one seems to be listening. Right now, interest rates are at historically low levels. But if inflation rears its head, Greenspan will raise interest rates (he will have no choice) and this will have a HUGE impact on the interest payments the US is currently making, which will in turn require more taxes to go paying just the interest. It's the snowball affect.

What is rediculous is that Americans already pay the lowest taxes of any industrialized nation. Far lower in fact. Americans think they pay big taxes, but in reality, you don't. You just like to bitch about them.

Here's an intersting link with a comparison of tax rates...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/001201.html

The reality of it is very simple, sooner or later, something will have to give. If you want all the toys, you have to pay for them. Running deficits is just short term thinking since the average joe is not even quite sure what it means, let alone feels the impact. All he knows is that with his tax cut, he could go out and buy a new colour TV.

I will bet you that a national sales tax will be coming to America soon. (That's what they did here.) They basically said, "we have a crushing debt load and this tax will be used to pay it off." (Well, that one is yes and no.) The one thing about consumption taxes is is that they are hard to avoid. Sure, you can pay the guy who does your roof cash, but for the most part, you pay the national sales tax.

As i said, there is no such thing as a free lunch. You have to pay for it sooner or later.

rogue49

While I "might" agree that we pay low federal taxes,
this is on top of the SS tax
AND the state taxes
AND the other fees etc. out of our paycheck.

At the rate I'm at right now, basically 50% of my pay goes to various entities and programs.
(please note I don't own a home where the morgage rate can be written off)

But I don't know about those Netherlands rates from your link
You mean to say at about 46 thou, you get ONLY 10% of your income afterwards?

That's just silly.

I don't mind the simple math, and I don't mind taxes
but I would like some freedom to live.

There is a balance to everything.

Ustwo

The problem with the republicans is that the majority isn't strong enough right now.

We have to many 'Republicans' who are more interested in pork to show their constituents then being a fiscal conservative. With the margins so thin, we HAVE to work with this asses rather then telling them to stick it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

rogue49

Sorry Ustwo...I think they would probably be even more corrupt if there was even more of a majority.

I've found this every time there is one.
Close calls, might make it slow to solve anything,
but at least they keep each other in check.

Ustwo

I agree partially. Its the KIND of republicans getting elected that make the difference. I am also one of the liberterianish republians we have so many of here. Hell I'd even vote libertarian except for the giant flushing sound it makes.

Trust me I am almost as frusterated as you are, but I just go with the lessor of two evils for now. For me, its not worth making a statement to the republians in power by switching my vote, if it means the democrats get elected.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

james t kirk

Well, I have to pay:

Provincial sales tax - 8% on purchases
Goods and Service Tax (federal sales tax) - 7% on all purchases
Property taxes $3600 per year (not deductable either)
Canada Pension Premiums (Don't know what it is)
Unemployment Insurance (Don't know what that is either)

So don't feel too sorry for yourself, you still pay less taxes than any other G7 nation by far.

Unless US GDP does some very impressive climbing in the future, you are going to be faced with a very real deficit problem.

You are either going to have to do a massive services cut (including the military) or start paying more taxes.

Take your pick, it's simple math

rogue49

Well...I think I would like a scale down in "certain" military projects
more so than closing any base.
One's potential use vs. actual projections of power that help the local economy & our soldiers.

I'd like to get rid of most subsidies...if you can't make a profit at it...get the fuck out.

If you scale down the military spending (the pork, not the substance)
and get rid of the subsidies.
http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_11.html (BTW, I don't support the group, it was just a nice chart from a google search)
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ds021397.html (BTW...this a decent org...Libertarian)

Then you should actually have more than enough money to spread to the needed departments.
Maybe even enough to satisfy the "classic liberal"

Although I'd still say the best stats & info I've seen come out,
and are unfortunately not followed up on enough is from the GAO.
(General Accounting Office...the investigative branch of congress)
Geez...the waste they find out about is scary.

But I think...the Republican party needs to stop catering to "big business" so much.
and look what's good for the people overall, and thus the nation.
They would be able to pull the rug out from under the Dems feet if they did so.
Just like they did recently with Medicare.

How do the liberals & Dems compete with that?

Now...if they can just get their spending habits under control,
and trim the fat off their pork....or even better eliminate pork from their diet.

james t kirk

Well, it sounds to me like you don't want really touch the military, which is fine, but you will have to be willing to pay (a lot) more in taxes at some point in time.

You said you don't think it necessary to close military bases, well, if you really want to make any meaningful difference you will have to do a lot more than close just some bases.

Supposedly, the US annual military budget is 379 billion dollars, but the US deficit is 500 billion and rising. A few token cuts to "certain military projects" isn't going to make any difference.

You already spend more than every other country in the world combined on your military spending. You don't think that's a little out of whack?

500 billion is a lot of money and it doesn't include Iraq either. This is rather frightening. How long can you go on at this rate?

500 billion is a lot more than just "pork". It's just plain nuts.

Ustwo

You do know the vast majority of the US federal budget does not go to the military dont you?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

smooth

I don't know how accurate this statement is. The closest and easiest thing I could find was this:



http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

According to that 47% goes to military expenditure. Then they have a breakdown:

I don't know anything about the site, it's just one of a number of charts that I found. If someone has a better one or some other information, please post it so we can compare the hard numbers instead of resorting to attacking the ideology of the site.

rogue49

OK
First...you can NOT get rid of everything (although a few things)
you need to scale down most areas.

Second, Kirk...where are you getting your numbers and how are you doing your math/accounting?
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1168/1/154/
Because 2003 isn't over yet, it says that for 2002 we had a $159 billion deficit.
And you don't just get rid of the whole thing with just one chop.

I'm not proposing, getting rid of the military, I do see the need for it.
I'm saying get rid of the projects & programs that were pipe dreams
The military has to stop looking at self-preservation,
and start looking at efficiency...and if you think the surrounding you have now are stark,
then get rid of the other things, and then redistribute a bit to your area.
(unfortunately, I know govt. spending doesn't work this way, but it could...here's to some hope)

Let's say you just do some simple math.
Take the $159 billion deficit from above
Then get rid of the pure spending subsidies list in the article I linked to above: 60 bil (because I hate them)
And not touching the non-military or past-military budget listed above (thank you, smooth)
You're saying that we can't find a bit over 99 billion (in unnecesary projects & pork)
out of a current military budget of 459 billion?
That would still leave a substantial amount of 360 billion.

(BTW...I'm SURE that we could easily find even more to wittle down out there, that's totally unnecessary...leaving even more)

I'd say that would be more than enough.
We'd be in the black, and we'd slowly gain significant amount over time
by attrition & paying on the deficit. (redistribution of payments)

Let's get the Republicans that are in control of congress & the administration,
to stop spending, and start trimming
like they spout off about.
(I want action, not words...I've got enough smoke up my ass to make a rack of ribs)

And yes, it might have to come from their pet projects.

And BTW, tell them to stay the fuck out my life too. (Mr. Ashcroft)

james t kirk

I am getting my numbers from CNN.

Here's the link....

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/news...security_pain/


Here's another link, again to CNN

http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/27/news/economy/budget/

I think your figure of 159 billion deficit on that unheard of link was prepared by former Aurther Anderson / Enron accountants for George W Bush.

james t kirk

I don't care less about chopping the military actually. All i am saying is if you want to buy all those nice toys, you have to pay for them at some point.

I am not quite sure how a new multibillion Nimitz class carrier - (the USS George Bush no less) is needed really.

Do you know that just the INCREASE in US military spending this year is more than any other nation on earth spends annually on defence. That's just the increase. I believe the No. 2 nation on earth in defence spending is Britain, and they spend less than just the 2003 US increase.

I don't know what percent 500 billion is of the total US Federal budget. If it was 10%, it would seem to me that an easy way to solve the problem would to carry out a 10% cutting across the entire spectrum of government. Every department gets chopped 10%.

rogue49

Personally, I would prefer to use actual numbers from previous years,
rather than projections...those are are little more sketchy,
and can be politically skewed.

The funny thing is even the conservatives within their own publications
are upset at the spending that the GOP is doing.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2025-7591r.htm

More self-control is necessary from the party to get their budgets straight.

reconmike

Honestly you are a Canadian and I really dont care what you think about what my government is spending on defense, if we think we need it then we do.
The world basks in the safety we provide, or as the old addage goes:

better safe than sorry.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Ustwo

Yea it was the first google hit, but since its a anti-war site, and they redefine what the budget is I don't think I'd trust it all that much

They take out social security as a trust fund (its not though it should be) and then claim 80% of all debt payments is due to the military, which is just silly, and finaly lump any VA benifit as a military expense.

Mind you I wouldn't CARE if it was 50%, because at least defense is a job the government is suppose to do, unlike wealth redistrubution.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

rogue49

Just for clarity sake let me put this up on the article I was last referring to.

I was just wondering what the conservatives on the board
thought of this article about GOP spending,
it's written by a conservative from a conservative-oriented paper.
This is about NON-defense spending.

Personally, my attitude is spending is spending.
Defense or non-defense...we have to pay for it sometime.
I'd rather keep things at a sober level.

BTW...Kirk...those figures for 2002 were right on the money
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002...cit25oct02.htm
However, I was wrong on one thing...official figures for 2003 are out.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/20/usbudget201003
$374.2 billion WTF!!
(I think the 500 bil tag you were referring to was the $455 bil projection from last summer
or perhaps a projection for next year.)

But still...You've got to be kidding me.
OVER DOUBLE the last year's deficit.
Even subtracting the $89 bil requested for the Iraq mission, this is still a significant expenditure.

Maybe it's time for the Libertarian party to get their call,
at least they would be up there helping to rein in this gross amount.

Peetster

I'm embarrassed I voted for some of these people. The out-year estimates are unrealistically low. It's pure pandering to the retiring baby boomers. Bah.

Ustwo

I think it sucks.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Peetster

The article or the spending?

james t kirk

As i said, you spend whatever you want on defense or anything else. Your defense spending is skewed to the absurd in my opinion, but that is your business you are correct.

All i am saying is that if you want to spend more on defense than every other nation in the world combined, you had better face the music and pay for it.

You as a country can not go on spending more and more money each year that you don't have. It's simply bad economics.

This concerns me because i do have investments (as paultry as they may be) and if the american economy goes into the dumper seriously because of this debt, WE ARE ALL IN BIG TROUBLE.

As a fiscal conservative, like Allan Greenspan, I don't believe in deficit financing unless it is an investment that will pay a divident and be repaid in a timely basis. Merely financing the day to day running of the United States is strictly short term thinking on the part of the Bush Administration to buy votes by mortgaging the future.

At some point in the future, there is going to be a very real budget crisis if this keeps up. By then, Bush will be long gone, and some poor S.O.B. president is going to have to tackle the debt and make some very politically unpopular decisions in order to address the damage that Bush is doing now. (I believe the expression is "the chickens have come home to roost.")

If you want to buy the toys, you should have the money to pay for it.

I would love to have a new Astin Martin DB7, but simple economics sayst that i can not afford it, so i don't go out and buy it.

james t kirk

EXACTLY.


I could be wrong, but i seem to recall hearing that the current deficit figurs did NOT include that 89B for Iraq. Not sure though