A really interesting article on the national debt

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...

Bush's legacy will be that he's run up the debt so much, even though the tax cuts have increased federal revenues, so much that the next President is going to hike taxes sky high or make major spending cuts, which congress will never really let happen.

I hope that people don't confuse Bushconomics with supply side economics.

Ulari, you are a bit late to this party. Where were you in 2004? Where were all the fiscal conservatives in 2004? Instead of stopping the bleeding we are going to have 3 more years of this disastrous fiscal policy, and we are going to have to pay for it future with higher interest rates or higher taxes (most likely a combination of both).

Like a true "CEO President", he's mortgaged the future of the country for temporary short-sighted gain. He knows he only has to worry about the next 3 years, let the Democrat in 2008 look like the bad guy. It's totally dispicable, and exactly what I'd expect from this administration.

Mayfield wrote:

Ulari, you are a bit late to this party. Where were you in 2004? Where were all the fiscal conservatives in 2004? Instead of stopping the bleeding we are going to have 3 more years of this disastrous fiscal policy, and we are going to have to pay for it future with higher interest rates or higher taxes (most likely a combination of both).

I've been talking about this forever. I never said I was a fan of Bush on his fisical policy or social policies, I'm a fan on the war. I think John Kerry is even worse since he would only raise taxes on the top 1% and then spend even more than Bush.

Look what happened to Bush Sr., when he tried to manage the defecit by cutting spending and raising taxes, he pissed everyone off.

I'm a supply sider, I hate inflation. I would rather have high unemployment than high inflation.

Ulairi wrote:

Look what happened to Bush Sr., when he tried to manage the defecit by cutting spending and raising taxes, he pissed everyone off.

I think part of that was the whole "Read my lips" quote. Basing your whole campaign on one quote and then going back on it will most likely ruffle some feathers. Luckily his son learned to not make any promises and do whatever the hell he and his corporate overlords want. It's a lot easier for the common man to ignore.

I think part of that was the whole "Read my lips" quote. Basing your whole campaign on one quote and then going back on it will most likely ruffle some feathers. Luckily his son learned to not make any promises and do whatever the hell he and his corporate overlords want. It's a lot easier for the common man to ignore.

Or like what you'd want a President who will say and dowhatever the hell his socialist overlords tell him to do.

Ulairi wrote:

Or like what you'd want a President who will say and dowhatever the hell his socialist overlords tell him to do.

Cute. I think you know me better than that.

Ulairi wrote:
I think part of that was the whole "Read my lips" quote. Basing your whole campaign on one quote and then going back on it will most likely ruffle some feathers. Luckily his son learned to not make any promises and do whatever the hell he and his corporate overlords want. It's a lot easier for the common man to ignore.

Or like what you'd want a President who will say and dowhatever the hell his socialist overlords tell him to do.

If you are speaking of the Democrats, they have corporate overlords too. Bush looks like the socialist now.

Cute. I think you know me better than that.

I was making a point that the boogie man arguement is silly.

If you are speaking of the Democrats, they have corporate overlords too. Bush looks like the socialist now.

Not really since he still believes in the private sector handling most things. He just believes the government should spend a lot of cash too. He's a Bushilist.

OK - this is said with a smile and in jest...so lighten up...

But maybe Bush is trying to repay the Dems in 2008 with a recession like the one he inherited from Clinton - you know - the pay it forward theory or something

Ok...here's my questions...if JMJ or I don't jump in on something - you know the general liberal scope of these forums is kinda amusing - its a bunch of people venting about the wrongs of the universe, and agreeing with each other with no one to oppose the views - I'm just saying some of these threads make me laugh in that way. Of course - why am I around a lot less...well - because finally, after 5 years, even I can't defend the bullsh*t anymore. I think you all miss the mark many times on the focus and reason, but the basic premise is the corporation of the WhiteHouse has grown so arrogant and out of touch, even I have a tough damn time finding a way to defend what is going on. Nauseated is the word that comes to mind for me...that, and sadness...

I say this with a wink and a grin as well: Painting everyone except JMJ and yourself as "liberals" is ludicrous and you know it.

Is there something inherently wrong with the whole group agreeing on a point?

Again, all in good fun.

Ulairi wrote:

Not really since he still believes in the private sector handling most things. He just believes the government should spend a lot of cash too. He's a Bushilist.

Cute.. we should coin the term "Bushilist" and make T-shirts.

And at some point, you have to separate what he says he believes in, and what he does. At this point he has been partially responsible (Congress controls the purse) for creating a bigger government while not supplying a way to pay for it. Plus he has been supportive of socialistic programs (Medicare drugs, No Child Left Behind) and more pork barrel than ever.

So, I am a pragmatist, what do you and I as a citizen do now? Support a more fiscally conservative party in earnest (such as the libertarian or conservative party)? The only way our government is going to change is if the people *really* show an interest in changing it. And I don't mean just showing up every 4 years to vote as being an interest.

And PigPen: You can be fiscally conservative and liberal on personal issues. I want government out of our lives unless it something that only government can do because the private sector has failed.. miserably.

The deficit is a joke right now. It is such a small % of our GDP and interest rates are so low, it really doesn''t matter.

Ulairi, this is what you said June 4 2003. Now in 2003 the budget deficit was 2.7% of the "standardized budget GDP"; in 2004, it was 2.4%. Yet then you were not worried, now you are.

Are you discovering that some aspects of supply side theory are, well, unproven? Just curious why your opinion changed. As I recall, you were pretty cavalier about the deficits when I first started posting.

If the difference is inflation, isn't that a nearly inevitable part of any recovery?

you know the general liberal scope of these forums is kinda amusing - its a bunch of people venting about the wrongs of the universe, and agreeing with each other with no one to oppose the views - I'm just saying some of these threads make me laugh in that way. Of course - why am I around a lot less...well - because finally, after 5 years, even I can't defend the bullsh*t anymore. I think you all miss the mark many times on the focus and reason, but the basic premise is the corporation of the WhiteHouse has grown so arrogant and out of touch, even I have a tough damn time finding a way to defend what is going on. Nauseated is the word that comes to mind for me...that, and sadness...

The problem is not "the corporation of the WhiteHouse", it's the people in it, and more importantly the tactics, strategies and toned messages that were used to get them there over the last decade, even 25 years. The Republicans are at fault here, as painful as that may be to swallow. Their scorched-earth approach to competition, the constant denigration of the media, the "with us or against us" approach to issues, the wide use of propaganda (in the classic sense) and the massive fund-raising/patronage apparatus that enabled their rise was also the holder of their flaws - arrogance, greed, mendacity and cruelty.

This has nothing to do with "conservatives" versus "liberals". It's just that the enterprise of the RNC and it's candidates has so many flaws that they have not only led to scandals, but to the election of people whose teams literally can't do their jobs without screwing up. I don't blame Conservatives for the problems of the Bush team, or even the Reagan team. Likewise, remember that liberals can be patriots and concerned about their country too.

I'm just glad you are seeing what I've seen building for the last 15 years or so.

Interestingly, I don't think the Republicans are in great danger of being thrown out of power. Depends on how the gerrymandering holds up, really. And if the RNC manages to weather this and hold Congress and put another Republican in in 2008, that's the end of the two-party system for a few decades at least. Heck, I don't want to see *my* guys in on a non-competitive basis; I sure don't want to see anyone think they were rewarded for this level of performance. But I'm worried that that is where we are headed.

Domestic discretionary spending has risen faster since 2001 than under any other president since LBJ and Nixon. Federal spending now accounts for over 20 percent "” and the federal deficit about 3 percent "” of the GDP. All of this is unacceptable, and I have been saying so since I started on this site.

Bush has never vetoed a bill, and since Bush has been in office Congress has agreed to fund an estimated 14,000 pork projects, up from around 1,000 in 1996. I have come to the exceedingly painful conclusion that the Republican majority in Congress is not a conservative majority, and it pains me greatly.

The federal budget has truly shrunk only twice in the last 30 years: in the first budget of the Reagan administration, and in the first budget of the Gingrich Congress. I had hopes that Bush would be the third. How wrong I was.

Either the Republicans put up someone who is willing to talk about 'starving the beast', or I am joining Bagga and voting Liberatarian.

Johnny and I disagree on some issues - fewer than you might think - but we both agree on what's happening, both to the GOP and to the country. This, then, is the nature of bipartisanism - a willingness to understand what's actually happening without having to use the prism of your bias to interpret everything. That, and a respect for other viewpoints without compromising your own. This is what brings people together to actually address problems, regardless of their beliefs. It's what we do here when things are working correctly.

I don't think either side will really shrink the budget. I'm just pessimistic all the way around right now, I think. Now that the public has (hopefully) *begun* to understand the magnitude of the problems we face - Iraq, high-level corruption, the economy, subversion of the bureaucracy, gerrymandering, propaganda as a political tool - I don't see anyone with stature standing up and saying "Here's how we fix it." Maybe we will - where is Sen. McCain, anyway? - but I think enough remains of the machine that put these guys in place to quell an uprising in the party. In other words, I don't yet see a bipartisan approach appearing, although there are a few hints in play.

Hopefully I'm wrong. We had similar issues in the early 19th century, and fixed them, although one could argue that took decades to complete. But just the fact that we have to go back to that time period to find a similar combination of problems...And even then, the foreign war was not in the mix in the same way.

I think I'll be more hopeful once someone (or a group) with a few sensible ideas stands up and starts to talk. Right now, we are rudderless. That's not "liberal pessimism", it's reality-based pessimism. We can always dig ourselves out, it's what we do when we put our minds to a problem. But are we willing to do what it will take? That's the question.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

Either the Republicans put up someone who is willing to talk about 'starving the beast', or I am joining Bagga and voting Liberatarian.

They did put up someone that said they were for small government. They did have someone who said that he wanted government growth to be less than inflation. The problem was that he is a politician who could care less about what he said 6 months ago, let along his campaign speeches.

You cannot predict whether or not a politician will lose touch with the populace, and if they show signs that they have you must cut them off. Again, I will say this: Where were all the conservatives in 2004? They were so afraid of Kerry that they would take anyone but him, and they went with Bush. You reap what you sow.

Johnny and Pigpen are disenchanted with the administration policies enough to voice it here publicly. Truly, a brotherly, bipartisan unity is emerging in P&C!!

Where were all the conservatives in 2004? They were so afraid of Kerry that they would take anyone but him, and they went with Bush. You reap what you sow.

I'm still happy with my vote. I agree with Bush on his vision on how to fight the war and promote democracy as a central tenent of our forign policy.

I didn't vote for any other Republican in 2004 and I won't vote for any Republican in 2006. The party is no longer the small government party but the religious right party and polls show that the religious right believes in a big government. It is the libertarian/business wing of the party that doesn't.

I'm still happy with my vote. I agree with Bush on his vision on how to fight the war and promote democracy as a central tenent of our forign policy.

Which war, actually? The Iraq one? If so, could you kindly explain to us what his vision is? Beyond "we shall not run" statements, that is?

(the reason itself as to WHY are we fighting this war at all nonwithstanding)

Ulairi wrote:

I didn't vote for any other Republican in 2004 and I won't vote for any Republican in 2006. The party is no longer the small government party but the religious right party and polls show that the religious right believes in a big government.

Which polls would these be? I'd be interested to see the numbers. I would guess that the "religious right" voted against Kerry for his positions on abortion, gay rights, and other social issues that they view as sin.

I would guess that the "religious right" voted against Kerry for his positions on abortion, gay rights, and other social issues that they view as sin.

What, they voted against him because of his personal objections to both abortion and gay marriage?

Robear wrote:
I would guess that the "religious right" voted against Kerry for his positions on abortion, gay rights, and other social issues that they view as sin.

What, they voted against him because of his personal objections to both abortion and gay marriage?

No, they voted for Bush because the Bush camp made them believe that a vote for Kerry was a vote for gay marriage and keeping abortion. Kerry stated that he was personally against abortion, but politically he would allow it.

Kerry stated that he was personally against abortion, but politically he would allow it.

Yeah. I'm contrasting that with Bush's lack of public opinion on the same topics - abortion certainly, gay marriage I'm not totally sure if he committed against it as President, the whole civil unions thing clouds the issue. But he was painted as the "religious" guy, despite Kerry's lifelong beliefs and practices. This is how good Rove and the team are.

Both of the candidates took the same approach, but the spin cycle created different stories for them.