1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Berks County, PA
    Posts
    629

    Exclamation Tax and Spend...Republicans!!

    Of all places, to my great shock and infinite pleasure, I found this on the GOP Propaganda Ministry official website (a.k.a. FoxNews.com):

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166682,00.html

    Text Below:
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Drunk With Power, Spending Like Drunken Sailors

    Thursday, August 25, 2005
    By Radley Balko

    The Washington Post reports that in 1987, President Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill passed by Congress because it had 157 "earmarks"— money set aside for Congress members' pet projects that would ostensibly be considered too wasteful to pass as laws on their own merit.
    Reagan made a show of his veto. It was a symbolic stroke against government waste, against the Democrats’ tradition of, for example, diverting every federal highway through West Virginia, then naming it after Sen. Robert Byrd.

    Fast-forward to 2005. Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. Early on a Saturday morning in August — the day of the week, and the month of the year, least likely to attract media attention — President Bush signed into law a highway bill passed by his own party with more than 6,000 earmarked projects.

    Bush signed the bill after sternly telling his party he'd veto any highway bill that spent more than $256 billion. He promptly "adjusted" that figure to $284 billion after complaints from party leaders. The bill Bush ultimately signed came at a price of $286 billion, $295 billion if you count a few provisions disguised to make the bill look cheaper than it actually is. Not exactly holding the line.

    The Republican Party's wholesale abandonment of limited government principles has been on display since President Bush took office. Government spending under the GOP's reign has soared to historic highs, any way you want to measure it. And in stark contrast to President Reagan — or even the president's own father—President Bush refuses to rein in spending. He hasn’t used his veto a single time since taking office — the longest such streak in U.S. history.

    What continues to amaze, however, is the sheer arrogance and hubris with which the Republicans have chosen to govern. As Congressman Jeff Flake — one of the few principled Republicans in Washington — told the Washington Post, "Republicans don't even pretend anymore."

    Consider that highway bill. The bill calls for nearly half a billion dollars to build two bridges in Alaska. One will connect the Alaskan mainland with a tiny island called Gravina (population: 50). It will cost U.S. taxpayers $230 million. In fact, when it comes to pork barrel politics, Alaska is the new West Virginia. That's because one of the state's senators — Don Young — chairs the transportation committee. The transportation bill is named after Young's wife. The second bridge the bill appropriates money for — another $230 million — will be called "Don Young Way."

    Robert Byrd would be proud.

    You'd think that a Republican like Young would at least be embarrassed about all of this. He isn't. He's shameless. Upon hearing that only one other lawmaker in the entire Congress had outdone him in securing pork barrel projects, Young told the New York Times, "I'd like to be a little oinker, myself. If he's the chief porker, I'm upset."

    Consider the case of Sen. Tom Coburn, another of the few in Congress willing to stand up to unrestrained spending. After a six-year career fighting waste in the House, Coburn won election to the Senate, and began putting administrative holds on his colleagues' wasteful projects. That didn't sit well with his fellow Republicans. Coburn's own party soon filed an ethics complaint against him.

    His transgression? Coburn continues his medical practice in Oklahoma in addition to his duties as a U.S. senator. That apparently, is a violation of Senate ethics. Diverting millions of taxpayer dollars to pet projects that bear one's name and help one get reelected is not an ethical violation, but practicing medicine is. The chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee who will hear Coburn's complaint is Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott. Lott recently told Roll Call that after 30 years as a U.S. senator, he has learned how to work around pesky do-gooders like Coburn. "I fold [pork projects] into bills where you can't find them," Lott boasted. "I've been around here long enough to know how to bury it."

    But perhaps the single member of Congress most afflicted with arrogance-of-power syndrome is Virginia Rep. Tom Davis. Davis headed up the GOP's campaign to retain control of the House in 2004, and today chairs the House Government Reform Committee. Earlier this spring, it was Davis' committee that began investigating the use of steroids in Major League Baseball. Of course, Congress has no constitutional authority to tell a private organization what its rules ought to be. No matter. When MLB asked Davis what jurisdiction he had to hold hearings, Davis sent a letter in reply asserting that his committee has jurisdiction “at any time, over any matter.” Any time, any matter. So much for limited government. And this from the chair of the committee in charge of keeping government in check!

    Davis later threatened sanctions against MLB if it allowed an ownership group, in which billionaire leftist George Soros held a minority stake, to purchase the Washington Nationals — a stunning, possibly illegal threat to impose legal sanctions against a private organization for doing business with someone Davis opposes politically. Just last month, Davis stuck a provision into a funding bill that would prohibit development of a housing complex in his home district. The congressman told Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher he feared “urban kind of people” moving into his district. This is exactly the kind of federal government edict over local affairs Republicans are supposed to oppose.

    Local officials told Fisher that Davis has said privately he fears too much development in his district will attract too many Democrats, which could one day imperil his reelection.

    Republicans swept into office in 1994 on a radical platform promising to dramatically scale back the federal government, bring accountability to Capitol Hill, and put a check on the power and arrogance that runs rampant in Washington. Today, they embody that power and arrogance.
    If you’ll remember, it was Hillary Clinton’s plan for universal health care that inspired much of the backlash that put the Republicans in power. Today, the leader of the Republican revolution — Newt Gingrich — has publicly aligned himself with Hillary Clinton to call for a larger government role in health care.

    That’s about as apt a metaphor for what’s happened to the “Republican Revolution” as any.

    Radley Balko maintains the The Agitatorweblog.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    And does this really surprise anyone. The new motto for the GOP should be "Do as we say, not as we do".

    I cant wait to see the right wingers try to put a positive spin on this.

    YooHooo, were waiting.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    487

    Default

    I cant wait to see the right wingers try to put a positive spin on this.
    Hey man spade is a spade

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Hmmm, sure is quiet in here...
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    487

    Default

    Too dam busy beating each other over in the Cindy Sheehan thread

  6. #6
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobsnyder
    Of all places, to my great shock and infinite pleasure, I found this on the GOP Propaganda Ministry official website (a.k.a. FoxNews.com):

    [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166682,00.html[/u[/I]


    Why would anyone want to reply to a statement as ignorant as this one is?

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper45
    Why would anyone want to reply to a statement as ignorant as this one is?
    Typical.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  8. #8
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave1983
    Typical.

    One could say the same of you. I won't, however.
    It just is more apparent every day that the "left" is more about "carving" the news, etc... to their liking. If it doesn't agree with what they "percieve" as accurate, they accuse Fox News of being the GOP mouthpiece, and so on. Having an article, such as the one posted should indicate they present both sides of an issue. A good thing I would say. Some of the most liberal viewpoints around are presented on Fox News, and quite regularely.
    Besides, with the exception of Robin Meade, CNN is left far behind with attractive female newscasters. (the last statement was meant as a joke)


    Just so it's clear, the left I am referring to are some posters on this forum. The news agencies, in my opinion, all manufacter stories to fit their goal; headlines, and a bit of dramatization in order to gain viewership. All, again in my opinion, need a BS filter to get the whole of a story.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper45
    One could say the same of you. I won't, however.
    It just is more apparent every day that the "left" is more about "carving" the news, etc... to their liking. If it doesn't agree with what they "percieve" as accurate, they accuse Fox News of being the GOP mouthpiece, and so on. Having an article, such as the one posted should indicate they present both sides of an issue. A good thing I would say. Some of the most liberal viewpoints around are presented on Fox News, and quite regularely.
    Besides, with the exception of Robin Meade, CNN is left far behind with attractive female newscasters. (the last statement was meant as a joke)


    Just so it's clear, the left I am referring to are some posters on this forum. The news agencies, in my opinion, all manufacter stories to fit their goal; headlines, and a bit of dramatization in order to gain viewership. All, again in my opinion, need a BS filter to get the whole of a story.

    So, is the subject tax and spend republicans or FOX news?

    Im just interested to see if the supporters of the GOP here have anything to say. I hope that its a bit more indepth then its just the leftist media and its continuing smear campaign.

    BTW, I can assure you, Im far from typical. Nor am I a liberal. I affiliate myself with neither party. Im still waiting for one that supports my views
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  10. #10
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave1983
    So, is the subject tax and spend republicans or FOX news?

    Im just interested to see if the supporters of the GOP here have anything to say. I hope that its a bit more indepth then its just the leftist media and its continuing smear campaign.

    BTW, I can assure you, Im far from typical. Nor am I a liberal. I affiliate myself with neither party. Im still waiting for one that supports my views


    I was addressing the ignorant statement that headed the intial post, that's all I wished to talk about. I am not a republican, not by any strectch of the imagination. There are many things the republican party does, and says, with which I disagree.
    A post was made, and I addressed a portion of it.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Default no real answer hear

    I haven't answered this yet because of the fact that this is not based entirely on fact. This is one bloggers spin on what the highway bill is about and what he perceives as Rep. lies, I have not been able to validate or disprove his figures yet but in my opinion I find it remarkable that someone would take an op-ed as truth. He puts out alot of accustations but offers no proof.
    He attacks the congressman from Va about the baseball thing. Do you know how many people have called their congressman about this stuff. tons! and congress is always stinking thier heads where they shouldn't.
    In my opinion, this article is noting but an opinion piece and not a news article.
    Come on guys, this is the best you can dig up to attck conservative policies? Look for the last 25 months there has been steady job growth. Unemployment is hovering near 5%. Lower than it ever was dureing the previous administration. The Federal Deficit is almost half what it was last year and the number continues to go down. Even with a war.
    I am against pork barrel Spending. No matter who does it, but we are all guilty of it on both sides. People want the FEds to pay for stuff, and if congressmen don't get it for them they just elect someone who will. It's not right but it happens.
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,275

    Default

    It isn't just Faux Jazeera that believes the current GOP majority is giving away the farms, the highways, and everything else in between. The current economy is Americans making a lot of money selling each other houses with money borrowed from the Chinese. Be interesting to see when that day of reckoning arrives.


    Wednesday, May 11, 2005

    Hey, big spenders
    By any measure, Republicans have grossly expanded the federal government

    by Stephen Slivinski
    Director of budget studies at the Cato Institute.

    For at least the past four years, the actions of the Republicans at the federal level have not reflected a political party that is at all interested in making government smaller. Ten years ago, Republicans stood on the principle that reducing the size of government was an end in itself. They pledged to eliminate entire Cabinet- level agencies. The first House budget passed in the wake of the historic electoral victory of 1994 zeroed-out the departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce. Over 200 federal programs were set to be terminated.

    What's happened since then? Of the 101 largest programs that were initially killed by Republicans, all but 19 have risen from the dead. The combined budgets of these living dead programs have grown by 27 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1995. More than half of that growth occurred in the last four years.

    The budgets of George W. Bush's first term reversed whatever small budget gains were achieved by fiscal conservatives during the Clinton presidency. The size of the federal government has grown from 18.5 percent of GDP - where it was on the day Clinton left office - to 20.3 percent of GDP today. The 33 percent growth in the budget during Bush's first term is about as large as the growth of the budget during Bill Clinton's entire eight years in office.

    In fact, during the past four years, President Bush has presided over the largest inflation-adjusted increase in spending since Lyndon B. Johnson - and that does not include the skyrocketing costs of the new Medicare drug benefit that the president loves to brag about.

    Some argue that most of this spending is driven by increased defense expenditures required to fight the global war on terrorism and to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made anti-terror spending a budget priority. Yet when you strip away spending on defense, homeland security and entitlement programs and adjust the rest for inflation Bush still ranks as the biggest spending president in 30 years - only Nixon is a bigger spender. Bush actually outspends Johnson by this criterion.

    Bush's new budget does very little to change this situation. While it does include reductions in non-defense programs to make room for increases in defense spending - 154 domestic programs would either be eliminated or cut - Bush's budget knife does too little slicing in overall terms. The cuts and program terminations amount to a minuscule fraction of total federal spending: They equal only 0.3 percent of the overall budget. And not a single Cabinet- level agency will be smaller in real terms than it was at the beginning of Bush's first term. Every president of the past 40 years found at least one agency to cut during his administration.

    Republicans were better at controlling spending when they didn't have control of the White House. Between 1995 and 2001, spending on non-defense programs did not grow as much as Clinton wanted, mainly as a result of Republican opposition. In total, the difference between President Clinton's non-defense budget requests and the final outcome for fiscal years 1996 to 2001 was minus $57 billion.

    That's not the case under Bush. Instead of a Congress and White House battling to keep spending under control, Republicans are fighting over how fast government will expand. Congress sent to the president's desk budgets that cost a total of $91 billion more than he requested between 2001 and 2005. And Bush refused to veto any of those bills.

    The Republicans seem to have decided to devote little energy to cutting government spending. They have already run out of excuses for why they haven't scaled back government. With a firmer grasp over control of Congress and a re-elected and confident president in the White House, Republicans have a golden opportunity to finally get government under control.

    If they don't cut spending, it won't be because they can't. It will be because they don't want to.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Default interesting

    Now, I am not about to defend alot of President Bush's spending. I personally think that welfare and alot of social programs should be cut immediately. But, I do find it interesting that the writer of this opinion piece fails to mention that despite the fact that Congressional Spending is up, the deficit that was so massive last year is 2/3 of that this year. From about 453 billion to 370 billion. Interesting how that tax cut thing works.
    I wish alot of the crap would be cut out of the budgets. I think we should quit funding the NEA and some of these bogus programs. I do not have a problem funding art museums but giving people grants to make poop paintings is excessive. I want them to can social security for those that are under a certain age and let us take the 15% of our incomes and poersonally invest it.
    I am a true conservative. I want gov't to make laws and provide for our safety and security nothing more. Anything more than this is beyond what the founding fathers set up. Social programs are not a part of the Constitution.
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    From about 453 billion to 370 billion. Interesting how that tax cut thing works.
    This is truly a remarkable moment. A conservative claiming 370B worth of debt is okay because it is better than 453B.

    You may be a true conservative. But Bush isn't.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Exclamation not quite what I meant

    No I don't mean to imply that 375 billion in debt is a good thing. It just so happens that when the economy happens to tank like it did, that in order to get it moving again, it takes the infusion of cash into it to get it heading in the right direction. Well, the gov't can't just print more money, so they have to go into debt to get the economy moving, it also takes tax cuts, but they can't cut taxes that far without killing alot of programs so debt is the only other solution. Hence we went into a deficit. Now the tax cuts and the infusion of cash into the economy are working and the deficit is beginning t reduce, heading towards zero. This is why the whole concept of a "balanced budget" is so misleading. Yes personally we should strive to be debt free and balance our own budgets, but the federal budget is soo much more complicated than that. This is why most conservatives do not have a problem with the deficit right now. We are working forward to the benefits. Now we have to struggle to keep the economy from growing too fast and creating inflation that is out of control. In this way President Bush is a Financial Conservative. I do agree though that he is not conservative enough on some issues for my liking. But his domestic economic policies are working, The economy is growing, interest rates are having to be raised to keep inflation down and we have had constant job growth for 25 months. This means the federal deficit will continue to drop. Now all we have to do is convince people that they have no right to free handouts and then we can really start to trim the budget down and eliminate fat.
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    I cant wait to see the right wingers try to put a positive spin on this.
    YooHooo, were waiting.
    Be gone, left wingers. I command you.
    And take Cindy Sheehan with you...whoops; wrong thread.
    CR
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    This is why most conservatives do not have a problem with the deficit right now.
    When does 'right now' end. Conservatives haven't had a problem with deficit spending since 1980. Then Clinton got elected to office and the mantra 'tax and spend' liberals was the norm. Clinton got as close to submitting a balanced budget as any recent president and he was excoriated for it by the GOP. The forecast of economic ruination was in fact just the opposite. The economy went through the roof and then some.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Default actually!

    Actually they were opposed to his budget not because it was close to being balanced but what he did to "balance it" His cuts on the military were far greater than President Bush Sr. had even poroposed. He was cutting constitutional mandated programs for social ones. Sure his numbers looked good but overall his budget weakened the important programs.
    It is funny that you bring up "since 1980". Being from the birthplace of President Ronald Reagan I have looked closely at what happened when he came to office. He inherited a horrible economy and world situation from President Carter. Inflation was out of control with poor economy. Interest Rates were through the roof. The Carter Administration kept crying for more taxes to reduce the deficit yet people were suffering from a +7% inflation. Plus interest rates were throught the roof. More than double what they are today. Yes President Reagan increased the size of the deficit for twofold reasons. 1 was to pump more into the economy along with some major tax cuts and what was the result. A large deficit for a couple of years that gradually dwindled and was getting pretty small until the next slow growth period in the gulf war time. President Bush Sr. tried to not introduce new taxes and he got hammered into raising some. Which cost him reelection. Then the Clinton administration allowed the economy to falsely grow unchecked with the dot com boom. He allowed an economy to grow on information services while hammering the manufacturing sector with increasing taxes and tarriffs. Then what happened. Because the dot com boom was not a real growth and the market corrected itself. With no buffer to protect it, the economy started to tank. This led to the start of a recession in 2000. President Bush Jr. immediately pushed through tax cuts, which increased the deficit but it provided stimultation to the manufacturing side and that is what caused the growth. Now as revenues begin to pick up the deficit begins to dwindle. This is how the goverment helps its economy along.
    The second reason was to build up the military to force the Soviets to squander their funds to match us. The net result for them with their economic system was that there wasn't any growth, he knew if he could just force them to allocate more funds to defense that they would bankrupt them. This is how He won the Cold War with out firing a shot.
    Now alot of people will say that President Bush squandered the so-called budget surplus when in reality there was no actual surplus. It was a projected surplus of over 10 yrs. The republicans at that time wanted to cut taxes to keep the economy stimulated but they were prevented from doing so because the Clinton Administration was so busy protecting his legacy of "being the only President to leave office with a surplus" that they failed to realize that the surplus was actually a sign of bad things to come, and in mid year 2000 the proverbial bad stuff hit the fan as the dot coms collapsed and the safety net of reduced taxes was not there to catch it.
    The Federal gov't will always function on a deficit. It is through its deficit that it maintains its control over the economy. It reduces it to a low number when times are good and it raises it when times are bad.
    This does not work for you or me. But the economy of the federal gov't is far more comlplex than even Mr Greenspan can fathom. He admits to it. He merely makes the calls as to what is believed to be needed. His actions areeducated guesses built upon econmic model after model. But when you have disasters like Katrina the model gets all jumbled up and you have to watch what happens to know how to correct it.
    You talk about President Bush allowing Gov't to get bigger. The fact is, is that the rate of the growth has been slowed by him. As a true conservative I think any growth is bad but to the more moderate consevatives a little growth is not bad. He has allowed certian programs to grow. He allowed Ted Kennedy to write the "no child" education reform bill. He has been trying to meet the Dems in the middle but he has gotten burned every time. Personally I think that he should tell them where to stick it. And begin to enact the conservative policies that his base wants to see. He has the house, The senate and The White House. But he acts like we still need their approval. He needs to shut down our borders to illeagel immigration and cut even more programs, he needs to get more refineries and wells built in the US to allow us to become more self sufficient.
    But if he stays on track with the economy and how he is working it, then things will get better.
    Last edited by chrnea; 09-01-2005 at 01:52 PM.
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Berks County, PA
    Posts
    629

    Default

    While I can't argue too much with you assessment of the Reagan years or the all-around ineffectiveness of Jimmy Carter, you have an interesting, although revisionist, view of more recent history...


    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    Actually they were opposed to his budget not because it was close to being balanced...
    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    Now alot of people will say that President Bush squandered the so-called budget surplus when in reality there was no actual surplus. It was a projected surplus of over 10 yrs...
    Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. Budget deficit (-) and surplus (+) numbers for 1990 through 2004 (in $billions), courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office website:

    1990: -221
    1991: -269
    1992: -290
    1993: -255
    1994: -203
    1995: -164
    1996: -107
    1997: -22
    1998: +69
    1999: +126
    2000: +236
    2001: +128
    2002: -158
    2003: -378
    2004: -412

    for reference:

    http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...ence=0#table11

    Taking into account that Presidents don't get to sign budgets that go into effect until the year after they are inaugurated, that's four big negatives for Bush, Sr.; four progressively falling negatives and four nice little positives for my boy Wild Bill; and a return to huge negatives that would make even daddy proud for Dub-yuh. I know you probably find this difficult to swallow...me clouding your wonderful little arguments with facts and all...but you asked for it...


    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    The Federal gov't will always function on a deficit. It is through its deficit that it maintains its control over the economy. It reduces it to a low number when times are good and it raises it when times are bad.
    That's nonsense. The aggregate fiscal policy variable under the government's control is the budget itself (actually, it's all the little pieces, but we'll go with the aggregate to keep this simple). However, there is no difference in stimulus effects between reducing a surplus and increasing a deficit, or between increasing a surplus and decreasing a deficit. It's the direction of the marginal changes that matter in any given time period, not the range in which you're working, per se. Too much Econ 101, not enough Econ 201, methinks...


    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    Then the Clinton administration allowed the economy to falsely grow unchecked with the dot com boom. He allowed an economy to grow on information services while hammering the manufacturing sector with increasing taxes and tarriffs...in mid year 2000 the proverbial bad stuff hit the fan as the dot coms collapsed and the safety net of reduced taxes was not there to catch it.
    First off, blaming Bill Clinton for an investing bubble caused mainly by unsophisticated investors and sophisticated profiteers abandoning sound investment principles in favor of Vegas-style trading is almost as ignorant as trying to blame Bush Jr. for Hurricane Katrina. Old Dub-yuh and Wild Bill are and were both guilty of a lot of things, but these are not two of them.

    Second, what, exactly, is this "safety net of reduced taxes" of which you speak? If we assume (as many practicing macroeconomists do) that we have rational agents in our economy, then they take levels and anticipated fluctuations in levels of taxes and similar policy variables into account when making day-to-day decisions. In that case, only unanticipated shocks to policy variables have the effect of altering the activities of these agents and, hence, providing the stimulus you seek. Under these circumstances, how would one construct a "safety net" of reduced taxes, I wonder? That would be a neat trick...maybe we should call David Blaine...


    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    President Bush Jr. immediately pushed through tax cuts, which increased the deficit but it provided stimultation to the manufacturing side and that is what caused the growth. Now as revenues begin to pick up the deficit begins to dwindle. This is how the goverment helps its economy along.
    It doesn't look like it's dwindling to me (see above).


    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    But the economy of the federal gov't is far more comlplex than even Mr Greenspan can fathom. He admits to it. He merely makes the calls as to what is believed to be needed. His actions are educated guesses built upon econmic model after model.
    Yea. And that's called "thoughtful decision making." Greenspan is one of the few honest and effective men in Washington, and one of the only ones to actually admit to the limitations of economics as a science, which is why he's lasted so long.


    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    He has been trying to meet the Dems in the middle but he has gotten burned every time.
    That's just a lie. Evidence. I want real, documented evidence.
    Last edited by bobsnyder; 09-01-2005 at 02:56 PM.

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Default it takes a man.

    OK I can admit to having the numbers wrong. but the estimated federal deficit for 2005 is less than 2004. According to the CBO revised estimate is will be 350 billion.
    My recollection of the numbers is off but I stand by my statements that President Bush has tried to be more moderate than the Majority of conservatives that elected him. The No child left behind Act is one of them. he sent a bill to congress that gave parents and the local agencies the right to control the education and the bill that was passed was nothing like he sent up. I believe he did not veto it in order to please the moderates on both sides.
    This whole immigration issue is one that he has seemingly aquiesed to the mods by having this amnesty program proposition.
    THe Medicare prescription entitlement, he tried to give something and he was lambasted for not giving enough. Despite the fact that his base was screaming NO. He attempted to meet the moderates and he got blasted.
    I still believe that as the economy grows the deficit will continue to drop and it is already showing signs of doing so.
    My so called safety net is called stimulation. Cut taxes results in more spending and that keeps the economy growing. IF your boy had more money in the coffers than he needed why in good grief did he not cut the taxes. He didn't need that money and therefore it wasn't his. A gov't with surplus is a gov't that is stealling from its people.
    Now I do not believe that they should be spending more than they take in , and I am in fact unhappy that Gov't spending is increasing. I feel that we need a more conservative gov't that cuts the crap and gets back to its constituional duties. I had hoped Bush would do that but he didn't. Maybe the next one.
    I obviously have much to learn about economics in general. I appreciate the lesson. I stepped into this discussion because no one else on my side of the isle did. Talk about long walks off short piers. I got carried away. OOPS

    BTW I do love ALan Greenspan and did not mean to belittle what he knows and does. But the economics of this large of a country are so vast that no one can say for certian that if A happens do B. He is the greatest Fed chairman and we as a country will be forever in his debt.
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    we as a country will be forever in his debt.
    That also sums up GOP fiscal policy.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    IF your boy had more money in the coffers than he needed why in good grief did he not cut the taxes. He didn't need that money and therefore it wasn't his. A gov't with surplus is a gov't that is stealling from its people.
    As I recall, there was the debate between cutting taxes, or starting to pay down the national debt. Which is now closing in on $8 trillion dollars. There is no stealing when it is being used to start paying off the previous excesses or even the cost of the Cold War. And that is giving Reagan the benefit of the doubt that enormous debt was necessary to put the USSR under.

    Slowing down the amount of debt is a red herring. Eventually all that debt has to be paid off with dollars from the US Treasury. And that day of reckoning will not be pretty if the debt holders ever force our hand.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    As I recall, there was the debate between cutting taxes, or starting to pay down the national debt. Which is now closing in on $8 trillion dollars. There is no stealing when it is being used to start paying off the previous excesses or even the cost of the Cold War. And that is giving Reagan the benefit of the doubt that enormous debt was necessary to put the USSR under.
    The original goal/budget plan/bill was supposed to do both, cut some taxes and pay down some of the debt. At the time, pre-9/11, the budget projections suggested that the surplus would continue even with the original proposed tax cut(which unfortunately grew in committee) and allow both to take place. Unfortunately the Tech Crash was deeper then expected and the 9/11 follow up distroyed that projections.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    Slowing down the amount of debt is a red herring. Eventually all that debt has to be paid off with dollars from the US Treasury. And that day of reckoning will not be pretty if the debt holders ever force our hand.
    Actually it does not ever have to be paid off in full, just like your mortgage only has to be paid off if you want to. It can all be refinanced over and over again. Does it provide us with great savings? No, but it does not have to ever be paid off either.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace
    Actually it does not ever have to be paid off in full, just like your mortgage only has to be paid off if you want to. It can all be refinanced over and over again. Does it provide us with great savings? No, but it does not have to ever be paid off either.
    You are correct. But every dollar paid in interest is a dollar taken away from defending the homeland, building or improving infrastructure or any other purposes government is tasked with providing. And since the interest is ultimately paid with tax dollars, increasing debt equates to increased interest, and that equates to increased taxes.

    Pay me now, pay me later. But you still pay.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    You are correct. But every dollar paid in interest is a dollar taken away from defending the homeland, building or improving infrastructure or any other purposes government is tasked with providing. And since the interest is ultimately paid with tax dollars, increasing debt equates to increased interest, and that equates to increased taxes.

    Pay me now, pay me later. But you still pay.
    Not increased taxes, continued taxes.....
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Englewood Fire Tax under fire
    By captstanm1 in forum Florida
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2005, 03:17 PM
  2. Foreign Fire Tax
    By ChiefReason in forum Illinois
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-13-2004, 02:12 PM
  3. St. John's County Tax Changes Could Benefit FD
    By captstanm1 in forum Florida
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2003, 06:58 AM
  4. Daytona Beach Tax Hike to Fund Fire and Police
    By captstanm1 in forum Florida
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-18-2003, 11:33 AM
  5. Marion County ---Fire Tax Hike???
    By captstanm1 in forum Florida
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-16-2003, 01:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register