Mobo123

Pat Buchanan, one time speech writer for Nixon, and generally one of the scariest men on the planet, is astonishingly accusing Bush of not running a fiscally sound economy.

I dread this man, Buchanan. However, I am pained to state that i agree with a small portion of what he wrote. How can we keep borrowing and spending money we dont have, increasing the deficit to unheard of proportions? The deficit is over one TRILLION dollars now. In four short years, bush turned a surplus into the largest deficit in our nation's history.

To our conservative friends on the board, what do you say to this? My opinion>>> impeach the motherf*cker.


/http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42518


An American who can't say no
Posted: January 24, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Historians celebrate his predecessor Truman and his successor JFK as near-great. Yet, Eisenhower is ignored. A positive-passive president, he is called, at best an average president.

Yet, what did Ike accomplish? He took office in 1953 and in six months ended the no-win war in Korea. With a million illegal aliens here, he ordered them home in "Operation Wetback." They went.

He built up U.S. armed forces to where we were invincible. When the Hungarian Revolution erupted, Ike refused to send troops beyond the bridge at Andau. America stayed out, and the revolution was snuffed out by Soviet tanks. But there was no war between America and the Soviet Union.

When the British, French and Israelis launched an invasion to retake Suez from Nasser, who had nationalized it, Ike ordered the Brits and French out, threatened to sink the pound if Prime Minister Eden balked, told Israel's David Ben-Gurion to get out of Sinai or face the wrath of the man who had commanded D-Day. All obeyed.

Ike gave us peace and prosperity, balanced the budget, and went off to play golf at the all-men's Burning Tree Country Club, where this writer was a summer caddy. Once, as I was walking out the long driveway at Burning Tree to walk to River Road, to hitch-hike back to D.C., the president's limo approached.

I put out my thumb, and got Ike's famous smile and a wave as he passed by. Ike was a leader who could say no. He was what we needed after the disastrous tenure of Harry Truman, who had left office with an approval rate of 23 percent.

Today, America is a country that cannot say no. The backslapping of Republicans notwithstanding, we do not have a true or tough conservative in the Oval Office. There is no conservative party in Washington. And we shall pay a historic price for it.

Under President Bush, the U.S. government collects 16 percent of the GDP in taxes and spends 20 percent. We have a deficit of close to 4 percent of the economy.

Yet, as the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson writes, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – which already consume 7 percent of GDP – will rise to 13 percent in 2030, i.e., the federal take will rise to 26 or 27 percent of our economy.

Thus, the problem. If the feds are taking in 16 to 17 percent of GDP, but spending 26 to 27 percent of GDP, how do we close the gap? Do we raise taxes 10 percent of GDP, or raise the deficit to 10 percent of GDP?

As Samuelson writes, just to close the coming gap in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would require a $700-billion-a-year tax hike. That would sink the economy.

Now, consider our foreign debt, the largest in history.

In 2004, the U.S. trade deficit will come in near $600 billion. In November, at $60 billion, it was running at $720 billion a year, with the merchandise trade deficit approaching $800 billion.

We are borrowing 6 percent to 7 percent of GDP abroad to finance our purchases abroad. Japan and China are lending us the hundreds of billions we need each year to cover our purchases of foreign goods. Why are our lenders so generous? Because it enables them to siphon our manufacturing base out of America, into Asia.

By putting us into bottomless debt and hooking us on their products, they are making us a dependent nation – dependent on them.

Why do we Americans not use our own savings, if we feel we must buy beyond our income? Because the average American saves nothing, about 1 percent of what he earns. Never before have our people been so deeply in family debt, on credit cards, mortgages and car loans.

From every standpoint, America is a nation over-extended, living beyond its means, mortgaging its future for the present.

Then, consider our military commitments. President Bush is expected to ask Congress for $100 billion in supplemental funds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars. As we do not have the money, we shall have to borrow to fight these wars.

Beyond the fiscal cost, there is America's strategic deficit. With 150,000 troops in Iraq, 40 percent of them Guard and Reserve, with 9,000 in Afghanistan, our 500,000-man Army is stretched to the limit. Our Navy is falling below one-half the 600 ships of Ronald Reagan's Navy.

Yet, the Bush Doctrine calls for us to fight Iran and North Korea to keep them from going nuclear. The neocons want Syria attacked. Beltway elites are raising their fists at Russia and demanding Ukraine be brought into NATO. Meanwhile, China appears to be building its forces for the ultimate showdown with Taiwan.

America is a nation over-committed, over-extended in every way. And the IOUs are coming due.

arch13

I feel a creeping sensation of fright at the fact that I agree with this artical.
This just might mark the first time in my life that me and Mr. Pat Buchanan agree on something.

We are a nation over extended, and the buck no longer stops here so to speak.
They say leadership is a reflection of the elctorate. If that's true, then that explains why our contry has no problem mortgaging it's future. When the avaerge baby boomer has little savings, buy's mostly on credit, and lusts for the newest goods, then our nation is just a refelction of that.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

Hardknock

I've been reading more and more stories about how the economic bubble is going to burst, how Greenspan is being forced into a corner with those interest rates and the fact that the average American has tons of debt. Frankly, it's starting to scare me a little bit. Our dollar is sinking into the toilet, while the Euro is rising, and China and Japan are buying up our debt and at the same time, indirectly owning America.

Welcome to the next 4 years.

Mojo_PeiPei

I don't think it's merely just an issue of Bush and his lack of being a true conservative. Had Kerry been elected things would have been just as bad if not worse if you factor in the Mass. "liberal" plans, such as national health care which would have effectively raised the deficit by 1+ TRILLION dollars. Government along with regular America needs to come back to this sound piece of economic advice... "Live within your means."

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

irateplatypus

i firmly disagree with the President on this as well.

it's a two-fold problem.

-on one hand, the public has no problem letting future generations take care of the debts they create today. it's an ethical shift in the electorate that could have grave consequences for our country and the world in the decades to come. we can't go on forever spending more than we have. we can't use more resources from our environment than are replenished. the honeymoon can't last forever, it will catch up to us.

-secondly, we have politicians who perceive the public's carefree attitude towards spending and use that to fill the budget with pork and their own pet projects to boost support with their voting constituency. this has the effect of making anyone who advocates fiscal restraint perceived as a vicious person who has no compassion for those who live off social programs or excessive defense spending.

the only times when i think it is acceptable to live within a deficit spending budget are times of war. the money should be spent to win the conflict as quickly as possible... restraining our forces in a committed battle by being thrifty will only prolong the conflict, raise casualties, and cause a larger long-term expense. that being said... i think its unreasonable for the public to expect that life at home should continue without change in times of war. the impact on the budget can be lessened if the non-essential items (and there are many) on the budget are trimmed during times of war.

also, blaming the current president for the systemic problems our country has with living within its means is a copout.

__________________
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

Zeld2.0

But what "could" have happened is impossible to say - did anyone expect Clinton to go about balancing the budget despite him being a liberal?

Labels mean jack, its what does happen that happens, and letting the debt go to the next generation is not only bad and stupid, but the fact they think its okay does not help at all.

drakers

Bush + fiscally sound economy = oxyMORON!!

Mojo_PeiPei

Labels mean jack, true. But plans such as Kerry's medicare were his platform, I doubt he would stray from it's implementation.

Plus Clinton wasn't that "Liberal". Actually, economically he was as conservative as they come, balancing the budget and pushing for things like NAFTA.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

martinguerre

" Plus Clinton wasn't that "Liberal". Actually, economically he was as conservative as they come, balancing the budget and pushing for things like NAFTA."

He wasn't when he was elected...which is the real genius of it all. He sat down with Greenspan, and asked...what do i do to make the economy go?

The asnwer? Certainty. The markets love predictability. That means lowering the deficit, slowly pulling in spending, and stable/midly lowering interest rates.

The result of Clinton following that advice? Some of the best years america has ever seen. It's a pity Dubya hasn't followed suit.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

drakers

It's a big pity, because this economy just plainly sucks, and it should be the legacy of Bush's presidency. Idiotic economic responsibility.

Mojo_PeiPei

Inherited economic recession + 9/11 = a tough ride for any economy

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Charlatan

That's just making excuses... let's face it GWB just can't manage the economy... He just keeps spending what he doesn't have.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Mojo_PeiPei

The economy, minus the deficit is one of the strongest that we've ever had. He's now recovered ALL of the jobs lost from the recession and his first term, productivity and efficency are at all time highs, as well as growth. All he has to do, like the rest of government is start living within his means, the only thing really holding us back in the debt.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

degrawj

holy crap. that's like, the end of America. but hey, we elected him, so we only have ourselves to blame.

Mobo123

Do you really believe that? Maybe the numbers are close but what about the type and quality of jobs available now? Wages have fallen drastically; more and more employees have been laid off and rehired as "independent contractors" that is, they dont get any benefits at all. There are more low paying jobs in this economy than ever before.

Clinton was right. It's the economy, stupid.

Bush is stupid. It's the military and fuck the economy.

arch13

Yes Mojo, and all those jobs have been replaced my low income part time jobs or retail positions that carry little to no benifits. Most corporations will not provide health insurance to an employee until they have been employed 24 months as apart timer. At current minimum wage, an employee cannot live off a part time job at 20hrs a week long enough to recieve that.
401k's and company investment help are not availible to part timers either. The Fed has already pointed out that most jobs "replaced" have been replacing medium income full time with low income part time. The numbers look good becuase the reports don't divided between full and part time, or quantify wage cuts by those who do gain a new full time job.
We have a world for those laid off and coming out of college where Healh insurance is not even an option based on cost, not owning a car is not an option when most of the jobs availible exist at shopping centers as part time employment, college debt from education costs has not kept pace with inflation, and the inability to save is directly influenced by the inablilty to find a job that will pay more than living expenses monthly. If that's the current situation for the next generation, and the current generation is living on credit and the garuantee that we'll pay back their debts, we have bad mojo coming (get it?)

Fiscal responsability is a shared one. Both the population and government have to practice it. I see neither the current middle aged generation (read:baby boomers) nor their elected officeials doing so. I see an economy that is lacking in jobs with reasonable chance for advancement , the ever present fear of those that still cling to the lower edge of middle class of being let go of to save on healthcare and salary costs, and the market for those with no job experiance that is nothing but part time employment with no benifits.

That is not a healthy outlook on the economy for the long term.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

uncle_el

agreed.

i'm not a republican, nor conservative, but i do agree with buchanan on this issue. he actually came out with a book a few months back about this issue (amongst other things), but i'm thinking that it didn't do so well.

it's interesting, given that the stereotypical conservative is about smaller government, and keeping government spending down...

__________________
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of inprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. - Malcolm X

Justsomeguy

I don't understand his argument concerning health care and social security. The problem with social security has been escalating every year. I would assume a major reason for it is because the increase in average life expectancy. Social Security just needs to be re-evaluated by people that understand it. Politicians are not the people that understand the problem.

The same really applies to health care. No proposition has really attempted to tackle the current problems. I don't think you can really say Kerry or Bush had THE answer to health care problems. Not even a decent approach really. I also do not think anyone could really say the proposition by several democrats in '03 on health care were reasonable approaches. Again, politicans just are not going to solve the problems concerning the health care industry.

I just really do not understand why people treat these issues as though they derived from a particular president. Or why people think the president can solve these problems. To me, it's kind of like the unemployment rate. It's not even really related to the presidency, yet you always hear about how the unemployment rate is up or down with a particular president.

arch13

You are absolutley correct that neither of those the problems are the fualt of any president.
I'm a centrist democrat, and I was bothered a great deal by mr Kerry's suggestions of Universal healthcare.
Howver, fiscal responsability on the part of spend the government does control is basic common sense. I don't even see the need for social security for all if people wold actually have their own responsability to save. I'd even argue that it's existance lull's poeple into a false sense of secuirty on their own irresponsability. Most near 62 grew up in a time in this country when a job was decent pay, you could afford to buy a house and raise a family, afford two cars, and have health and savings from work. That they grew up with those options and still choose to spend more than they make is disgusting.

What the president can do, is cut benifits, impose sanctions on business's that help to add to the trade deficit, limit how many jobs a company can set as contract to avoid health and 401k with their employee's, and impose sanctions on conties that flood our market with goods (refered to as "offloading")
He can direct his party, which as the majority, to rein in new spending, and designate a portion of income to go towrds repaying current debt.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

drakers

That is actually a pretty funny quote, because the debt is the biggest we've had ever in our nation's history. I don't think you understand how LONG it will take to decrease that little debt your talking about. Oh yeah and about all those new jobs we have, those are mostly min. wage jobs which are even at an accurate wage when you look at inflation (should be around $8). And president Bush never really responded to raising, just avoided the contention of how low it is.

Ilow

Are you serious with this? Shoot, MY economy is fine minus my student loans; heck, once I subtract all of my other debts I'm at 100% pure profit! We have to pay the piper sometime, and it isn't going to be pretty. The lack of fiscal respponsibility Bushie shows is maddening.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

shakran

You have captured the republican economic thought process perfectly. They ignore anything on the negative side of the ledger. Bush admitted it when he said "I don't care about the deficit, I care about jobs" (which was transparently bullshit since he doesn't care about businesses outsourcing jobs to India).

I don't have much of a problem with Buchanan. I don't agree with just about anything he says, however, he's never hid what he really thinks. If he says he believes in something, you can pretty much take it to the bank that he believes in it. None of this "hide the real me" bullshit that politicans on both sides of the aisle are famous for doing.

And I'm not surprised that he finds Bush to not be conservative enough. I've talked with a number of republicans through my job who have told me the same thing. It surprised me at first, since Bush is more conservative than even Reagan was, but I've gotten accustomed to it now.