The Bush Deficits and 'the Responsibility Society'

[tpahl]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/trask5.html

"On Friday, you may have seen or heard the federal budget deficit for 2004 should set a record at $455 billion. That is up from the previous record, set last year, of $374 billion. Did you know that the White House considers this "good news"? Well, they do."

 

[freeandfun1]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/trask5.html

The specific dollar amount is a record. But it is not a record when you take into consideration the deficit as a % of GDP. It isn't even close to a record then.

But you probably can't comprehend that.

 

[smirkinjesus]

I have commented often on Bush's 5 trillion deficit many times. From a 5 trillion projected surplus to a 5 billion projected deficit. The problem is that most Conservatives are not sophisticated enough to understand how a serious deficit like this will erode confidence in the America economy, increase inflation, increase lending rates for individuals and small businesses.
Its unfair to future Americans to ask them to pay for Bush's pointless spending spree.
I think we need a Neocon tax that applies to only registered Republicans as of November 2000. They should have to pay for their mistake, not the rest of us.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/trask5.html

 

[Annie]

There are plenty of conservatives on this board that are quite sophisticated!
with this reply you showed just how sophisticated you are!

and open-minded! At least most of us 'rubes' know where the problems are. WE are not the ones in lock-step behind our 'leader' in the march to 'get the other guy.'

 

[freeandfun1]

There are plenty of conservatives on this board that are quite sophisticated!
with this reply you showed just how sophisticated you are!

I guess they just cannot grasp the concept that if one makes $10,000 and their debt is $500.00 that their deficit is 5%. However, if you increase your income to $20,000 and increase your debt to $750, you deficit is now only 3.75%.

Too difficutl to grasp I guess.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I think we need a Neocon tax that applies to only registered Republicans as of November 2000. They should have to pay for their mistake, not the rest of us.

Even the ones who aren't too thrilled with deficits either?

 

[smirkinjesus]

Well, first of all, the term "Conservative" is a misnomer. Today's "Conservatives" aren't really Conservatives. Traditionally Conservatives believed in smaller government, less government interference, fiscal responsibility and isolationism.
Today's Conservatives believe in huge government, government intrusion in people's lives, nation building and premptive war. About the only thing that remains of the old conservatives is the belief that "Taxes are always bad". Government spending is good though.

There are plenty of conservatives on this board that are quite sophisticated!
with this reply you showed just how sophisticated you are!

 

[Annie]

Well, first of all, the term "Conservative" is a misnomer. Today's "Conservatives" aren't really Conservatives. Traditionally Conservatives believed in smaller government, less government interference, fiscal responsibility and isolationism.
Today's Conservatives believe in huge government, government intrusion in people's lives, nation building and premptive war. About the only thing that remains of the old conservatives is the belief that "Taxes are always bad". Government spending is good though.

Actually most of us still agree with smaller government, less government interference, fiscal responsibility. Not Isolationism. War changes priorities. Truth is, without 9/11, GW would probably be in very hot water right now, from the right.

 

[ajwps]

I have commented often on Bush's 5 trillion deficit many times. From a 5 trillion projected surplus to a 5 billion projected deficit. The problem is that most Conservatives are not sophisticated enough to understand how a serious deficit like this will erode confidence in the America economy, increase inflation, increase lending rates for individuals and small businesses.
Its unfair to future Americans to ask them to pay for Bush's pointless spending spree.
I think we need a Neocon tax that applies to only registered Republicans as of November 2000. They should have to pay for their mistake, not the rest of us.

Unfortunately the Democrats are for raising the Federal Income Tax and should be allowed to be taxed according to party affliation. Democrats should get their wish with 55% tax levels and the Republicans 10% IRS taxes. This is the stated position of Kerry and his party of taxing spenders.

Obviously you do not understand how large economies function. The US dollar remains the most stable currency in the world. A deficit only indicates that the government is not sequestering earnings from the pockets of American taxpayers.

The larger the deficit, the healthier the economy. The only way to lower the perceived deficit is to limit spending on give-away programs that have never worked by pouring more cash in a large cess pool. spending on the needy is good but wasting money increases the deficit. The Congress controls spending and taxes, not the President.

Clinton called for the largest tax increase in history and once passed by the Congress, the economy began a nose dive that finally appeared towards the end of his two term reign. The Congress will have to stop unnecessary spending and increasing their own salaries and golden parachutes.

Foreigners are still pouring their own currencies including the Euro into America and its markets. This is the only way other affluent countries can be certain that they will not lose their funds in socialist country economies.

Government spending on the Iraq/Afghan war and trips to Mars creates American jobs, more demand for American goods and more taxes going back to our Washington spenders.

People eat and live instead of paying everything they can borrow to the tax coffers of the US Treasury.

 

[tpahl]

Actually most of us still agree with smaller government, less government interference, fiscal responsibility. Not Isolationism. War changes priorities. Truth is, without 9/11, GW would probably be in very hot water right now, from the right.

You can not put him in hot water and still support his presidency? I would think that cronstructive criticism would make him a stronger candidate for re-election.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

The larger the deficit, the healthier the economy.

No. The larger the deficit, the healthier the state has become at the expense of the economy. As the deficit grows, the more inflation increases or future taxes increase.

The only way to lower the perceived deficit is to limit spending on give-away programs that have never worked by pouring more cash in a large cess pool. spending on the needy is good but wasting money increases the deficit. The Congress controls spending and taxes, not the President.

And the president can veto anything congress signs forcing congress to find another 16% of legistlators to pass the spending. Has Bush vetoed a spending bill yet while in office?

Clinton called for the largest tax increase in history and once passed by the Congress,

Republican congress[/quote]

the economy began a nose dive that finally appeared towards the end of his two term reign. The Congress will have to stop unnecessary spending and increasing their own salaries and golden parachutes.

Wasn't that part of the 'contract with America'? If not it should have been. Reagardless, the GOP has controlled congress for quite a while now but not given us smaller spending yet. Seems contracts from republicans are not worth anything.

Government spending on the Iraq/Afghan war and trips to Mars creates American jobs, more demand for American goods and more taxes going back to our Washington spenders.

Spending on wars does not help the economy. If you beleive that, I would suspect you beleived FDR when he said that new deal jobs was good for the economy. Government jobs are paid from from tax dollars. Government produces nothing of value itself. It is a parasite that feeds off productive people. For every 50,000 dollar job it creates it took more than 50,000 dollars from the private sector elliminating a job. Government can not create jobs. It can only reallocate the jobs in the economy to things it thinks is important. Society however through a free market can determine what is important much better than government central planners. If you are interested in reading more, i suggest the book F.A Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom'.

Travis

People eat and live instead of paying everything they can borrow to the tax coffers of the US Treasury.[/QUOTE]

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, first of all, the term "Conservative" is a misnomer. Today's "Conservatives" aren't really Conservatives. Traditionally Conservatives believed in smaller government, less government interference, fiscal responsibility and isolationism.
Today's Conservatives believe in huge government, government intrusion in people's lives, nation building and premptive war. About the only thing that remains of the old conservatives is the belief that "Taxes are always bad". Government spending is good though.

And how is shrinking the rate of growth of government contrary to Conservative principles? We lost the surplus because of two reasons.

1)the economy tanked in 2000. if the economy weakens the projected surplus obviously isnt going to result. Hence the supposed surplus never really even existed because the economic figures were based on faulty assumptions.

2)Even if their had been a surplus. Surpluses are supposed to disappear. Its immoral to take more of the money of Americans then is necessary. If the government takes more of their money they have two options. they either 1)Spend it 2)Give it back. We gave the people their money back. Which is the only moral thing to do.

Isolationism is just stupid. Its only advocated by extreme groups. While it would be nice if we promoted self sufficiency more, to bury our head in the sand and pretend the rest of the world will leave us alone is naive and just crazy. Last two times we did that we had world wars. Thats the last thing we need.

 

[tpahl]

And how is shrinking the rate of growth of government contrary to Conservative principles?

Because conservative principles typically are for a smaller government. Smaller means that government is not growing at ANY rate. A smaller rate of growth means the government is still growing just not as fast as some other measure.

We lost the surplus because of two reasons.

1)the economy tanked in 2000. if the economy weakens the projected surplus obviously isnt going to result. Hence the supposed surplus never really even existed because the economic figures were based on faulty assumptions.

They never existed to begin with not becuase of faulty assumptions but because they ignored Social Security. But ignoring social security as the was done then and now, the surplus did exist. I think what you are trying to say is their future projected surpluses did not exist. With that, I agree.

2)Even if their had been a surplus. Surpluses are supposed to disappear. Its immoral to take more of the money of Americans then is necessary. If the government takes more of their money they have two options. they either 1)Spend it 2)Give it back. We gave the people their money back. Which is the only moral thing to do.

No, they spent it AND gave it back. The moral thing to do would have been to give it back and stop spending it.

Isolationism is just stupid. Its only advocated by extreme groups. While it would be nice if we promoted self sufficiency more, to bury our head in the sand and pretend the rest of the world will leave us alone is naive and just crazy. Last two times we did that we had world wars. Thats the last thing we need.

That George Washington sure is an extremist. but to quote one of the last great republicans, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." -Barry Goldwater.

Travis Pahl

 

[Bern80]

unfortunatley, the deficit is a problem that has plagued both parties. I would hold all congressmen Reps and Dems responsible for our ever increasing deficit.

Partisnship aside, if any one can offer me a crash course on how our govt is able to continue to operate this way I would like an explanation. If we are operating at such a deficit, common sense tells me some or all of the following are taking place

the gov't is spending more money than it can raise in taxes(that's obvious) but what are they spending it on? How is the spending being funded? when i think of the word deficit i think of unpaid bills, so how is the govt spending money that's not there? Whose not getting paid their bill so to speak?

why haven't we seen more negative effects of this. i.e. much higher taxes.

and why is it so damn hard to balance a budget?

if anyone can enlighten me on any or all of the above i would appreciate it

 

[tpahl]

unfortunatley, the deficit is a problem that has plagued both parties. I would hold all congressmen Reps and Dems responsible for our ever increasing deficit.

There are a few congressmen that vote no on these bills. Ron Paul is one. So do not blame them all, just most.

the gov't is spending more money than it can raise in taxes(that's obvious) but what are they spending it on? How is the spending being funded? when i think of the word deficit i think of unpaid bills, so how is the govt spending money that's not there? Whose not getting paid their bill so to speak?

They print money to pay some bills. This leads to inflation. They borrow from Social security to pay for more. This will lead to the demise of social security quicker than it already would fall apart. And they borrow from others to pay for the rest. This leads to interest payments in the future.

and why is it so damn hard to balance a budget?

Because the two parties give out government handouts/favors in exchange for votes. The American voter keeps falling for this and voting them into office. If you want it to stop vote for a party not handing out freeebies in exchange for votes. If you remember, a large showing by the reform party brought this issue to the forefront of both parties for a while. It could happen again. You just have to scare the parties.

Travis