Moskie

I think this is something that deserves a bit more discussion here. What is everyone's opinion on Bush's spending habits?

As I am with most everything Bush touches, I'm skeptical. Huge deficit, tax cuts, and a *lot* of spending. I don't see how the numbers add up. It's starting to make the economy look squeeky clean now (with a re-election campaign right around the corner, no less), but what assurances do we have that America's checkbook will be balanced in the coming years?

And how does his policies fit in with Republican ideals and agendas? Any republicans here agree with McCain's assessment, where he says the Republican led government is "spending money like a drunken sailor"? (Article here)

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

reconmike

I thought this thread was going to be about, perfume for his wife,
new shoes, maybe a hustler magazine.

Bush can not spend a dime without congressional approval. Which means there are democrats voting for the spending also.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Moskie

Fair enough... I'm open to this not being a partisan issue. However, if the spending turns out to be the best thing ever to happen to the country, do you think it will be attributed to a bipartisan Congress? Doubtful.

So the question can still be posed though. Political parties aside, is the current spending that the government is partaking in a healthy idea?

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

Sparhawk

There were republican majorities in both houses last time I checked.

More troubling are the GIGANTIC spending bills congress *has* to pass because otherwise the government will shut down, and are filled to the brim with pork and kickbacks to campaign contributors.

Phaenx

A deficit isn't trouble unless it accumulates quite a bit, I'll also add that contrary to what Democrats say, we didn't magically get a deficit when Bush won the Whitehouse.

The idea behind tax cuts and spending is to not have a huge mountain of cash collecting dust in the treasury, you want it in the hands of your citizens, changing hands, exchanging goods. If you spend money right, you can make more money.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Macheath

Anyone read about Paul Krugman's 'starve-the-beast' theory? Badically amounts to cutting taxes on the highest incomes (while trying to avoid any sustantive tax cuts for the middle class), creating deficit and spending like a sailor on all the wrong things so as to put a squeeze on federal spending. This forments further popular antitax opposition to 'big Government' and takes the Government back, through the sheer necessity of a planned fiscal crisis, to its pre-Roosevelt size.

I'm trying to gather up more information on this idea, but here's an initial source:

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html

james t kirk

UMM, then you are in big trouble because annual deficits get put into the "debt"

And right now, the US debt is staggering. About $125,000 for ever single household in the USA.

Clinton was running surpluses. Bush and company changed all that by giving out large tax cuts to the richest and least deserving indivduals.

If there was any money "collecting dust", common sense would dictate that it be used to pay off the national "debt"

Ustwo

The only time liberals complain about spending is when they arn't the ones getting to sign the check.

Sure as a conservative replublican I don't like all the spending going on, but god help you if you mention lowering the rate of growth (not cutting) of the democrat intitlement programs.

The problem isn't with the conservatives, the problem is we don't have enough conservative republicans.

__________________
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.

Kadath

Viva la differance!
The best defense is a quick and brutal offense, I guess. Using "liberal"/"conservative": the best way to derail a discussion.

__________________
it's quiet in here

lordjeebus

Right on!

It's simply to tempting to pander to your constituents by using your majority influence to increase spending for them. Not enough voters are impressed by spending-cutters because they don't think they feel the direct results of fiscal responsibility.

juanvaldes

this is going nowhere fast. Keep it civil folks.

onetime2

Four years of surpluses at the end of a decade with the greatest performing economy in the history of the world is not exactly a stellar performance.

US debt as a percent of GDP is comparable to other developed nations' debt and we have far better prospects for the future than most of them.

Common sense with regard to money lying around would be to invest it rather than retire national debt since the interest rates paid by the government are less than what investments typically earn.

**edit** Oh and the "tax cut to the wealthy" spiel is getting old. On one hand Bush critics claim that the tax cuts only went to the wealthy while on the other, to explain economic growth, they claim it's due to tax cuts. You can't have it both ways as the increase in spending from the "wealthy" could never have such a dramatic impact on GDP.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

rogue49

Ustwo...let's not blame the liberals here.
Let's blame the ones who are currently spending.

Focus on the present
Focus on the truth

It doesn't matter who does it
Overspending is overspending

Keep to the question
Give us the solution
Because it's obvious those in control right now, don't know how to keep their spending habit in control.

james t kirk

Well yes and no. Who do you want to compare yourself to?

Britain has no debt. (It's illegal to run a deficit in the UK)

Canada's debt rate is less than that of the US.

Germany's debt rate is less than that of the US.

France and Italy, both have rediculous debts.

Japan is a financial basket case.

I hear you and i understand the concept, but if you ever listen to any investment expert they will always tell you that if you should come into some money, it is best to pay off your debts.

Not all debt is bad, i understand that, and I do it myself, but there has to be a limit. I have borrowed money to make investments, but they are investments. There in lies a fundamental difference. I am not borrowing cash to finance my day to day operations of my household. I might borrow to buy an asset, but not to buy food.

I am also trying to pay my debts down.

Here's a link to US federal DEBT, not deficit, DEBT.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm


Here's a link to stats can for the situation that i am more familiar with...

http://142.206.72.67/03/03a/03a_005d_e.htm

2wolves

The current "Politicians Gone Wild" spending spree is actually about starving the beast, and making political hay doing it sub rosa, so that the federal Government of the United States has to be down-sized in a permanent fashion.

Amusing really as those who are committing this fraud believe that devolving power to the states is fine and dandy until the states serve up a big ol' mug of STFU then the federal state is not so bad.

Meanwhile the pork is shipped back home as sausage.

Bread and circus, pay no attention to the chubby causasians selling your children down the river.

2Wolves

onetime2

You are absolutely right in your descriptions but there is a lot of room for interpretation as far as the "day to day" operations classification goes. Is the new medicare bill a "day to day" operation or an investment? If it decreases the number of days in the hospital for seniors or decreases numbers of procedures that would otherwise have been picked up by the government anyway, it would be an investment. The same thing could be said about countless other programs that have contributed to the national debt.

I fully believe that the debt should be paid down, but not at the expense of the things that need to be done by our government to insure our nation's future.

As far as comparing debt levels internationally, you also need to compare economic performance and potential. Are the countries with low levels of debt outperforming us in terms of economic growth? No, not really. Does the US government have a poor credit rating? No. Is there a real threat that we will not be able to pay when the bonds that finance this debt are called for payment? No.

Can we continue to spend indefinitely without fear? Nope. Does the government need more of the tax payers money to operate? Hell no. If anyone thinks that increased taxes will lead to less debt, they haven't learned from history. The more money the government takes in, the more it spends. People need to demand, through their voting, that the pork gets cut, that non-performing programs be terminated, that politicians are held accountable for spending our money. You may say this flies in the face of my support for Bush's spending. I say it doesn't because I want the unnecessary programs to be eliminated not the programs we need.

The big spends from Bush:

Homeland security, we need.

Defense spending, we need.

Drug benefit for seniors, we need.

Funds to rebuild Iraq, we need.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

prb

The problem is not just that the government is engaged in reckless deficit spending -- "credit card purchasing" with the debt passed on largely to later generations; the problem is also what we are spending the money on. Most of the deficit spending now going on is targeted to benefit the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals in the form of "give-aways" intended to increase campaign contributions to those doling out the money. The government is simply shuffling money without receiving anything in return that can be invested for the future benefit of generations to come. There is no investment in infrastructure, no demand for corporate accountability, no regulation of unfair business practices, no protection of the environment, no effort to spur free market competition, and no real measures to provide educational reforms or relieve the pressures caused by increased healthcare costs. What the government does with money it takes in, or what it demands for money it doles out (whether in tax cuts, grants, or government spending) matters immensely. We are creating a huge national debt and have little to show for it except a huge national debt and mounting critical needs.

2wolves

National Missle Defense, we don't need.

Homeland Security, lot's and lot's of unfunded mandates. We've been shuffling deck chairs for two years.

Drug benefits for everyone except what was delivered was corporate welfare. Again.

A real international human intel capability, we need. Terrorism is stopped by police, not soldiers, not satelites and certainly not crony capitalism.

2Wolves

onetime2

I guess the largest economy in the history of the world doesn't count.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

prb

The largest economy in the history of the world is being floated on a sea of debt. You don't understand that? I could live in a lavish house and drive a Rolls if I wanted to max out my credit line. The debt would still someday be due.

onetime2

The US is far from maxing out any credit line and there is currently no doubt that the markers will be paid. If you can afford to make the payments indefinitely then you can afford to drive your Rolls Royce.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

2wolves

Tongue in cheek: "How long have you warked for Visa?" Seriously, doesn't being in debt eat at you? Owing your labor and skills for years for Walmart crap. Shuck that fit.

2Wolves

Sparhawk

At some point the bubble will burst. I'd rather the baby boomers still be working to help clean up the pieces.

Ustwo

You mean the welfare state is just a front for big business? My god we keep shoveling money into federal programs which have failed year after year, decade after decade, all for the "public good" and you blame the very businesses that generate the wealth which the government taxes in order to fund these black holes?

Do you think ending 'corporate welfare' will do anything beyond causing more jobs to leave the country and lowering over all tax revenues? Just where do you think the tax money comes from? The top 50% wage earners in this country pay 96.03% of the taxes.

__________________
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.

Ustwo

The solution, vote for more CONSERVATIVE Replublicans. An R next to your name doesn't make you a conservative any more then a D makes you a liberal. Get to KNOW these people, see how they vote, and react.

__________________
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.

onetime2

LOL, Visa, good one.

As far as being in debt, it only bothers me if I feel that I've gotten over my head. The only time I really did was while in college but even that wasn't a big deal. I do have to really want/need something to spend a big chunk of money that I don't pay for outright and the enjoyment or utility I get from it more than makes up for the short term debt. Overall, I have a healthy, positive net worth so I figure if I decide to shuck it all, drop out of society, and travel I'd be walking away with a fairly full pocket.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

Valid point and I agree. That's why people need to make a stand about spending now but not a stand against all spending. It needs to be focused.

Attacking spending on valid projects only serves to prolong the current cycle since it will have to be done no matter what. Cut out the waste. Cut out the crap that keeps getting the lifetime Senators and Representatives elected year after year.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

2wolves

Wow, a number of different memes here. The corporate welfare state has used directly and indirectly more tax dollars then the social one. The numbers are out there is you care to look.

Defining "Return on Investment" with social welfare is more difficult than in a corporate scenario, and if you see the taxes actually paid by big business on their profits it's no where near what individuals pay. Like Iraq all you hear about are the failures and abuses, not the triumphs.

So the individuals are earning the wealth that generates the tax revenue, not the corporations, by your figures. Buttresses my argument. Remember corporations have no soul and don't love you back.

2Wolves

Sparhawk

I'd also like to say that the vast, vast majority of Americans do have debt, but in their day-to-day operations they run surpluses, because they are making payments on that debt. Paying just the interest, or even scarier, spending outside of your means, is something that hurts you, sooner or later.

Back on topic: If the "starving the beast" theory helps you all sleep at night, more power to you...

__________________
"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."

ashap

I think he is trying to hide bigger issues through his spending spree. I personally find it irresponsible how much of a deficit he is racking up. Reagan proved that deficit spending is a short-term fix that always catches up to you in the long run.

james t kirk

Exactly.

The question is is Bush doing the same thing?

Is Bush and company spending like drunken sailors because they know that there is an election in one years time and last time when daddy bush was up for re-election it was the economy that bit him in the ass.

Remember "it's the economy stupid" that ended up sinking daddy's boat.

Maybe Jr. figures he will avoid that pit fall by spending money he doesn' t have now in order to bolster the economy and help with his re-election chances. Then, once his re-election is accomplished put the screws to everyone?

Hmmmm, i wonder.....

onetime2

Somehow missed this one from you 2wolves...

As more and more countries develop missile technology AND it becomes easier to come by (check out the guy in Australia who built his own missile with perfectly legal parts) a missile defense system is fully justified in my opinion.

As far as the corporate welfare statements, that's just nice sound bite politics. How can corporations not be better off by selling more of their products? How can the seniors be worse off by getting benefits they don't currently have? It's not a perfect bill but it's a hell of a lot better than anything else that's been proposed because it actually passed congress and will be signed into law.

Human intel is being developed as we speak. Who do you think gathers that intel? It's former soldiers and government employees. Terrorism is best stopped as close to where it originates as possible. By the time the police are involved it's already too late since that means the terrorists are in our country and more than likely so are their weapons.


Is this really the argument that the only reason the economy is doing well is because of Bush's spending? Not even close. How does his spending keep interest rates low? How does his spending raise home prices? How about vastly improving productivity? It contributes very little to any of that and these are driving the economy.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Sparhawk

I think those billions would be better spent on many other things, one of which being our port security, a far cheaper and less watched entry into the states than through our skies and the space above us.

I wouldn't mind a link to 'guy in Australia'. Are we talking 'October Sky' missile, or something capable of delivering something dangerous?

onetime2

Sorry, my bad it's New Zealand. I knew it was one or the other and I picked the wrong one. Basically it's a guy who's making a cruise missile for $5k. He's well on his way and many people are taking him seriously. He's got a pretty damned good design.

Here's his site.

http://www.interestingprojects.com/c...le/diary.shtml

Port security absolutely should be improved but it shouldn't be an either/or proposition. Both are threats and both should be investigated and improved.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Sparhawk

Great link, onetime2, I wouldn't mind discussing it in another thread.

Here's my quick beef about these two distinct threats (ICBMs fired at the US vs clear lack of serious port security):

1) ICBMs fired from outside the US are easily pinpointed to point of origin, and we already spend billions on our own response mechanism for this threat (our own ICBMs)

2) I don't know the stat offhand, but only a terrifying minority of cargo containers that come into the US are inspected with any degree of vigilance.

So in terms of priorities, I know which one should be higher instinctively- the one that we have no defense against.

If you want to discuss this more feel free to PM me or start a new thread.

__________________
"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."

2wolves

N.M.D. is not being designed to stop cruise missiles, only the ballistic type.

Since we've done the M.A.D. thing for almost fifty years a country that has or develops ballistic nuc'sknows they'll get erased so you're back to a terrorist threat as a viable danger. Why spend billions & billions on a missile when you can buy an old seagoing freighter and just sail into a port? or for that matter just smuggle the weapon in (disguised as cocaine) and blackmail/jihad ensues.

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

onetime2

I agree that the MAD thinking doesn't apply since terrorists are not normally associated with a government or concentrated in one area. Research and development of systems to shoot down ICBMs will lead to the ability or at least progress toward the ability to shoot down shorter range missiles.

Again, I agree that ports need to be safeguarded, but there are only so many cities with ports. We need to protect all of our cities and that includes protecting them from missile threats.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

james t kirk

Missile threats from who?

Terrorists don't own missiles, probably never will. NMD is just donald rumsfled's folly.

But a determined terrorist could buy a nuclear warhead from the likes of north Korea and as 2wolves said, just put it on an old freighter. (I never thought of that angle.)

Even easier, just send it via UPS.

2wolves

Consider for a moment the population densities around coasts, you don't even need a port, or up a major river: New York, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Augusta GA (nuc plant there already), Boston. All of Hawaii. Or just sit in your ship and set off a very dirty bomb and allow prevailing winds to carry the message.

As for buying a bomb one could probably be found in or around a former Soviet vassal state.

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

onetime2

Okay, ignoring my point about the technology of a missile defense network being applicable to short range missiles, you are thinking only in terms of the present. National defense can not take this approach. There are overall trends going on in the world that have nothing to do with terrorism. In fact, it could be argued that the pre emptive invasion of Iraq has made this more of an issue than before as countries without nuclear capabilities rush to build them in order to make a pre emptive strike against them too dangerous. Throw in that missile technology is becoming more readily available and the expertise to build/use it is more prevalent than ever before.

I don't want to hijack the thread to be about which countries are most politically unstable and may have reason for missile attacks in the future but I will also throw out one more justification for research into missile defense. That's protection of our troops. The technology developed in this program can and will filter down to our troops on a smaller scale. Even if that only means that detecting short range, low flying missile firings is improved, it will mean valuable minutes for troops to get prepared.

Again, I am not arguing about whether ports should or should not be protected. It should NOT be an either or decision. There are plenty of non-critical programs that could be cut to allow for both.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.