posted
Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, Bush alone didn't cause us to almost go into default. He had to have the backing of most of Congress. Right?
Edit to add next questions: Didn't we already have an astronomically huge deficit before Bush went into office? And didn't the destruction on 9/11 create a significantly large monetary drain on the federal government? What in Bush's decision making made it worse than it would have already been?
posted
It's visually brilliant. The lighting and images are on the money in terms of evoking the intended response...outrage. It isn't in bad taste because it isn't about child labor laws at ALL, it's about how the next generation is going to have to carry the load of the ever-growing deficit on their shoulders. The replacement of children in adult jobs shows that realization visually. Hence the brilliance.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush needed Congress to approve his proposed Budget (and tax cuts). Congress did after making some changes, and arguing about it for a long time.
The fact that we had a Republican president and a Republican dominated Congress together made it easier for him to get the plans approved. But, yes, he did need the support of a majority of Congress to do it.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me the commercial says simply: "Because of the Bush administration's policy, our children will be stuck with a $1 trillion deficit."
It doesn't say anything about child-labor laws, or present anything untrue, unless you believe that Bush isn't responsible for a good chunk of the current deficit.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the National Debt clock was first turned on in 1898, the National Debt rose $13,000 a second. In 2000, right before the clock was turned off, it began to run backwards to the tune of about $30 a second. And it read, "Our national debt: $5,676,989,904,887. Your family share: $73,733."
Right now, the National Debt is over 7 trillion and counting, and "Your family share" is $111,617.
Man, in the time it took me to type this, the National Debt grew by 25 million dollars.
Everyone of these statements has been proven untrue. The Bush administration had the data that proved they were untrue when Bush made these statements. They have subsequently admitted that most of these statements were lies. How could you possibly believe that GW Bush doesn't lie.
Proven? By who? We’ve found practically every part of WMD. Just not all together. Sure if you go around in a circle you can say Bush lied. They never said they lied about the British intell they said it wasn’t up to CIA par. But guess what. The British intelligence still stood by it. You just lied when you said they said they lied. Because that has never happened. So…. That makes you a liar!!! I just find it so funny that you have to resort to this sort of far fetched debatable stuff to call someone a liar. Ha! It’s so funny! And then your hero has been disbarred for lying under oath. Keep on being jealous and I’ll keep being proud!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
jeniwren, basically, Congress wouldn't raise the debt ceiling. Kind of like when you are maxed out on your credit cards and they won't raise your limit anymore. Of course, the prudent thing to do would be to stop spending so much or find other sources of income, but not with the government. They just raise the debt ceiling. Here is an article about what Tom Davidson was talking about.
quote:Why wouldn't you agree with it? Who else would end up paying back that deficit?
Tom Davidson
quote:Maybe he figures the economy will crash early, and WE'LL have to pay it.
Ouch. That's not fair to me. I said that it's brilliant if you agree with it in that all political statements are the end all, be all of genius and brilliance, when they are said in a manner that is in sync with our political ideology. I don't think the statement about the deficit not being paid in our generation is wrong, I think that saying it will cause our children to have to join the workforce is extreme exaggeration. The deficit will be paid off the way it has for decades of ups and downs, slowly and with only a gradual effect on each following generation. I don't like that it's being treated like daddy's credit card either, but I'm not about to get so extreme about it that I say we're destroying our children's lives over it. We're making economic problems for our future, for sure, but the commercial only seems sensible if your own political ideological view of the situation jibes with it. I don't disagree with what it says, but I disagree with how it says it.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People this isn't the first time in our history we've had a deficit. Presidents from both political parties have left us with major deficits. The world didn't end.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one can pay back a deficit – you can only pay back a debt.
A deficit is the difference between income and expense for a given time period. A debt is the amount of money owed to someone else.
A deficit can (but does not always) lead to debt. If you have money in the bank and use that to pay for excess expenses, you have run a deficit but not created a debt. Of course, concerning the U.S. budget, a deficit pretty much always increases the debt.
Instances in this thread where the two words have been used incorrectly haven’t cause any problems with anyone’s points so far. But in more subtle economic discussions, it can have a huge difference.
posted
Robespierre, according to a C-SPAN televised press meeting with some higher ups in the Treasury said that the Tax cuts will, if they remain in place as scheduled, will contribute to half the projected deficits out to 2010... Of course, this takes a conservative (in the sense of making assumptions on the economy) and thus negative outlook on the economy's recovery (projecting small GDP growth over that time). Assuming the economy ramps up quickly however, the tax cuts will require the economy to grow at a rather quick rate to cover the deficits caused by the tax cuts... First the economy has to cover the deficit that was created when it tanked and thus caused a reduction in tax receipts, obviously.
Of course, ideally, we'd raise taxes and then look to streamline the government to lower the costs there, and then start reducing the taxes (with perhaps a small surplus to pay down the debt a bit).
Or maybe the "starve-the-beast"ers will get their wish and Bush will cut govt. programs if he wins a second term (when he won't have to worry about re-election...) I am skeptical of that happening in this administration, however, not because of Bush in particular, but rather his cadre of close advisors who openly embrace a political philosophy that is essentially a modified/modernized strain of Machiavelli's old saw. Look up Rep.-R Ron Paul's speech about "neo-cons", or "neo-con Strauss Chicago", "NPAC Wolfowitz Cheney Rumsfeld", and I'm sure there are others out there.
posted
Well, I turned over all management of our personal finances to my husband because I admit now I cannot handle money.
So, it's all Greek to me.
I deal with cash - I get cash out of the account each week and that is the cash I spend for the week. Simple, effective, easy for me to keep up with.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, true, but that doesn't mean we should consider debt accumulation something to be ignored (though I believe Cheney has essentially said that, and fairly recently). Particularly in an increasingly global economy, we are more and more interdependent on variables out of our control. As such, I'd think it would make sense to be very careful when considering running a deficit, particularly as large as our current one, so as to remain sturdy against outside negative situations.
The sentiment you wrote is essentially the same as saying "It's okay if I keep running up my credit cards, since every time before I've gotten a promotion at work big enough to cover it, so I'll just assume I'll always get a promotion." It may be true, but few financial planners reccommend living that lifestyle in the long-run.
--- And while you can't "pay back a deficit", you can COVER a deficit. The only way to do that is to increase receipts either through more taxes, or hoping that the economy recovers enough to cover it in additional receipts.
posted
I agree that the budget deficit is a problem. I think the disagreement is on the method of righting the problem. In the long run, I think the tax cuts will result in more tax income due to their stimulative effect on the economy. However, it is more important to me that government spending be drastically cut in the social welfare areas.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, the old Laffer Curve (Smith's Invisible Hand Part 2: The Tax Policy Edition).
I agree that to some extent the Laffer Curve's effects do exist, but they haven't proven to be able to cover deficits/national debt, especially since those who abide by it also have the philosophy of running huge deficits with additional spending (see: Reagan, Ronald AND Bush Jr., George W.). So what ends up happening is that additional receipts NEVER cover the deficits, and due to the 2 term limit for president, and turnover in Congress encourages a spend now, deal with it later mentality (did you know that generic turnover in Congress [at least this past century] is very close to a series of repeating exponential decays? I studied it in High School Calculus as an assigned project, I wish I could find it again).
Also, I think the Laffer Curve (which is a theory really only applicable to taxation in static vacuum, and which becomes a little dubious in a system as chaotic as the US economy's) is ultimately mitigated by the fact that when you give the most economically powerful people (those that have proved to be excellent in money matters) breaks, they will use some of that money to continue to increase their advantage, and, considering their talents, will be fairly successful in that endeavour. They will not provide more to the govt. coffers, they will provide more to their own. The closer you get to the Laffer Curve's optimal taxation rate, I bet this "penny-pinching" meta-strategy will overtake it as an affect. The Laffer Curve is likely Bactrain rather Dromedary. How is that for esoteric metaphors?
In other words, if you cut people's taxes and leave open Cayman Island dummy corporations as tax shelters (either through explicit approval, making it legal, or de facto approval, reducing enforcement on existing restrictions), those people will do both. As a result receipts will go down/remain the same. Not out of some "spite the lower classes" sentiment, but because making/saving money is what those people capable of benefitting from a Cayman Islands corp. are all about. The Laffer curve will only preside over those that can't shelter income, like, say, stock options that are exempt/under a lower taxation rate than regular income, and which most CEOs increasingly gain compensation from... That, and set lump sums that are granted regardless of performance.
I will note that I understand, from a non-partisan standpoint, why the bureaucrats could see enforcing audits on lower income (not low income, mind you) as being more economical, due to the likely legal challenges trying to catch a wealthier individual would present. It's seems to me ethically "problematic".
I guess this whole thing is saying that "Things break down at the top end."
posted
Bok, are you going to be drawing curves and solving calculus equations in your head during our poker games. You scare me. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, no one has refuted the fact that our children will be paying back the debt we are accruing now? That, therefore, the ad is pretty much right on the money?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: That, therefore, the ad is pretty much right on the money?
Right in the sense that our children will be the people who do pay the debt, wrong in picturing them as children when they do pay it.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Reagan took office, the national debt was 2 trillion. When he left office, it was 2.6 trillion. (Up just over half a trillion. in 8 years.) When Bush took office, it was around 2.6 trillion and when he left (just four years later) it was close to 4 trillion. (up 1.4 trillion in four years.) When Clinton took office, it was close to 4 trillion and when he left, it was 5.7 trillion. (up 1.7 trillion in 8 years.) When W took office, it was 5.7 trillion and is now over 7 trillion (Up 1.3 trillion in 3 years.)
Republicans keep talking about Social Security being a pryamid scheme that will eventually collapse, but notice how they don't see the snowball effects of the national debt.
The Defense Budget request in 2001 was 305 billion. In 2004 it was 399 billion. Even allowing for 3 years since 9/11, that's less than 300 billion that would have been added to the national debt. There seems to be another trillion that's disappeared somewhere. (Probably in the Homeland Security Department that is funded by "savings achieved by eliminating redundancies inherent in the current structure," according to Tom Ridge 6/26/2003.)
Has anyone ever seen a budget pie chart? You know how the "entitlements" section is always the largest section? Do you know why it is like that? Because during Vietnam, the government wanted to make it look like a smaller percentage of the budget was going to the military, so they added all the Social Security/Medicare money to the "Unified Budget." So, instead of them spending nearly half the budget on military spending, today, they can make it look like it is only 17.5% of the budget. When you take out just Social Security (Which is paid from a completely different set of revenues,) the current military budget balloons up to 32% and that isn't even adding in the cost of Veteran's Benefits from past wars, or the intrest on the loans (over half of the national debt) from past wars. Altogether, the current military and payment for past wars takes up nearly half of the budget. The "government" itself (legistlators, etc.) is about 13% and "entitlement programs" (like education, welfare) makes up a little over 30%.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if Americans are smart enough to figure out that beer cans cannot play football, they can draw the correct inferences from the commercial. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it was Reagan that took military pensions out of the military budget and created a "government pensions" part of the pie chart, in an attempt to make the military budget smaller than it was.
I saw someone point out the difference between debt and deficit. Maybe somebody covered this, but when Bush took office, there was a budget surplus, not a deficit. This was because:
1, Clinton closed a bunch of cold war era military bases, which cut the military budget astronomically, early in his term.
2. The economy during Clinton's term was amazingly strong, for various reasons, including the fact that for the first time in a long time, the government had actually cut costs. The strong economy boosted tax revenues.
If you'll recall, during the Clinton White house when it was determined that there would be a surplus, Congress had a feeding frenzy trying to decide what they could spend all that money on. Clinton suggested that we might use it to pay down the debt, but no one took it seriously...
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize if this point has been brought up before, but let me bring up a very direct correlation:
More debt == more taxes.
We pay interest on all that debt, and that interest needs to be paid out of taxes.
Also, debt (and deficit spending) tends to weaken the dollar -- that's right, having a big debt means American companies are at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies.
There is healthy debt, and healthy deficit.
We're going far too far into the red, and our economic power in the world is waning, particularly as many areas (the EU, East Asia) are forming economic pacts which will be able to compete on a similar scale.
The only way to maintain our standing is to be serious about debt.
Belle, there are some significant differences from previous deficits and debts -- for instance, Reagan's was almost entirely due to increases in defense related spending, his tax cuts were mostly a zero sum game. Spending related deficits are generally better than tax cut related deficits -- they have a much greater stimulus effect. So long as that spending is largely domestic; which notably, Bush's big war spending has not been. We're throwing the stimulus spending into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, think of debt sort of like personal debt. When you have a lot of personal debt, you need to spend more of your income paying interest on your debt. And this is without paying down the debt, even. People are less willing to invest money in you because you have a lot of debt. Et cetera.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brilliant, Dagonee. If you'll remember, "cattle" referred to Democratic voters and "drooling idiots" came from Tom. Not that I don't agree with his sentiment, but good lord, try research before you throw around worthless libel.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Rabit, none of those statements have been PROVEN untrue. Howard Dean saying so doesn't constitute proof.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think if Americans are smart enough to figure out that beer cans cannot play football, they can draw the correct inferences from the commercial.
I get the message- I need to have about 5 more kids!
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you put them on a fourteen hour work schedule with two minute bathroom breaks every seven hours, I think you can get by with just three kids. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually think Bush is planning to work out of the deficit with the immigration initiative. Would a commercial of immigrants working in a factory be as inflammatory? It might do more to scare right wingers than to self-congratulate the left, as the child ad does.
I thought CBS might be bribing Bush to host the next Survivor on Texas Death Row.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
While your compliment brings warm fuzzy joy to my heart, I can't help but notice you're off here, too.
And yet, I can't help but feel the Dean campaign's lost a huge amount of momentum, and he may have lost what once seemed like a sure thing -- the Democratic ticket. Does anyone else get that impression? If so, why? The man hasn't been discredited -- while he's either got a glass jaw or a feeble Mel Gibson impression, he's the same intelligent, courageous, and honest man we supported and respected last week. What's changed? More to the point, will the cattle of America also buy into this shifting wind, or will support for Dean only redouble itself as it has with every other setback Dean's had?
By cattle I was referring to the masses -- the same masses who were herded from dismissing Gore as a presidential candidate based on a never-said claim of "inventing" the Internet to believing Hussein was affiliated with bin Laden. In other words, the voters of America who decide their issues and their presidents based on soundbytes and hairstyles -- and the effectiveness of a rallying yell.
Heh. Do your homework, Dagonee. I expect better from you -- not just more intelligent, but more honest than this crap you're trying to pull.
Dagonee, try reading the thread before you pretend it's evidence against me. Heh. Jesus.
From the very post you cited:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why does this happen? Why do otherwise intelligent people feel this need to instantly become apologists when a leader of their party is criticized in any way? I have yet to see anyone say anything like, "I voted for Bush, and I really like his fiscal policies, and his stance on abortion, but I think he made a huge mistake with the invasion of Iraq."
Why is that? Does membership in one of the two parties require turning off your brain and becoming a party position spewing robot? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Becoming a party position spewing robot seems to be a prerequisite of really liking Bush's fical policies...
But to answer your question, few people want to paint their party's candidate as fallible because if they honestly assess their candidate's flaws and the other candidate's party doesn't, it'll look as though the honest candidate's "admitting" failure -- whereas the other perfect candidate can dismiss criticism, right or wrong, as partisan politics.
"Party-position spewing robot" originates from Slash, not me. Heh. Jesus.
Robespierre: The only chance of getting this stuff removed is by having it challenged in court. The supreme court may choose to defend the constitution one of these days.
Lalo: Well, and impeaching Bush, electing fewer Republicans, maybe raising the national IQ a few dozen points... Not to be redundant...
You take a joke, albeit it unfunny, and pretend it's an attack? How thin is your skin that you feel I'm attacking you?
And the second, in the thread "So, what happens if there's another attack?":
quote:If there's another attack, judging from the last time, the country will plunge into kneejerk lockstep patriotism. The Right will condemn anyone who speaks against Bush's policies as unpatriotic at best, and traitors at worst. There'll be a drastic reduction in freedoms and the national IQ, and this time around Bush will almost certainly use the immediate aftermath to declare war on a new oil-intensive country of his choice -- this time, probably Iran or Syria.
Oh, way to go, Dagonee. You aren't seriously denying the country didn't decline into lockstep patriotism and psychotic paranoia after September 11? What's more, you're not trying to extrapolate my supposed hatred for all things contradictory to my world view from that ridiculous attempt to pretend I have hatred at all? You've been reading far too many of Rakeesh's posts -- while Jeff's a decent guy as a rule, every political argument he gets involved in with me is usually immediately preceded with a declaration of how none of my opinions count because I hold an irrational and utter hatred of Bush and all things conservative. It's lessened my respect for him greatly, to be honest, and I can't imagine many others are greatly inspired by Jeff's rather pathetic attempts to pre-emptively defeat my argument by making false allegations on my character.
Please don't make the same mistake. Please. I genuinely like you, if only for your pigheadedness -- you remind me of a younger me that I wish I had the time or energy to let out more often. While I have no desire or need for an apology, I'd expect one from the man I believe you to be -- maybe this particular fit of ad hominem's a result of too little sleep. God knows I've used that argument often enough. In fact, given the number of times I've been forced to excuse my own bad behavior, I'm surprised you haven't been able to find better examples to excuse your insult.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who are saying CBS is a private company so they should have the right to air what they wish, you forget the fact that CBS bows to government regulations on what it can and cannot include/exclude on the air. It does this because in return the government allows it a near-monopolistic status which it would otherwise break up.
I do apologize for posting that comment in this thread – that was not appropriate.
But the larger issue is that you resort to ad hominem attacks mixed in with your more rational arguments on a fairly regular issue. And you do it in a way that precludes assigning any “good” motive to the persons under discussion.
Believe it or not, maybe some (most?) of the people supporting Gore weren’t swayed by “soundbytes and hairstyles.”
I was aware of Slash’s use of “party position spewing robot” first. You specifically applied it to people whose policies you oppose, again in a manner that suggest there can be no rational reason for liking his fiscal policies. Besides, I expect way more from you than from Slash.
As for the joke in response to Robes, it needs to be looked at in the course of a recurring pattern. But again, you imply that anyone who disagrees with your position (which for the record, I mostly agree with) on the Patriot Act is obviously just not smart enough to get it.
I was referring to the National IQ portion of the comment, although I also think to “psychotic paranoia” is a little much.
It’s not just the insults that are a problem – it’s the clear implication that those who disagree have some defect of heart or mind. All this is corrosive to meaningful discourse.
I don’t think you have an irrational hatred for Bush – I think you have a deep-seated moral philosophy that causes you to disagree with many of his policies. What you seem to fail to recognize (or at least acknowledge), is that others can have ethical and moral imperatives that you agree with but that cause them disagree with your policy beliefs.
posted
Actually, the fundamental reason that CBS bows to govt. regulation is because, by law, the people of the United States own the air waves. We lease the air waves to them.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Destineer.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
