The Cellar - Government Debts grow

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Government Debts grow (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=1838)

Government Debts grow

Quote:

From the Economist of 22 Jun 2002
Sometime this summer, when most of Washington has left for the beach, the Bush administration will release some news it would rather bury: that America's federal budget is spilling red ink and is likely to stay that way. ... Using some heroic assumptions, Mr Bush may still cling to the idea of a balanced budget by 2005, but who will believe him? ....

The speed of fiscal decline is remarkable. A year ago, the Bush administrate claims it could live within the current official celing for government dbt of $5.95 tirllion until 2008. Now the Trasurey Department desperately need Congress to raise that celing by June 28th. ...

... with healthy economic growth, government revenues could be $400billion - $600 billion lower than expect over the next decade. That alone could nearly wipe out Mr Bush's margin for error [as the economic numbers look worse - not better]. According to the CBO's most recent analysis, Mr Bush's proposals will generate a cumulative surplus of just $680 billion over the next decade.

The Bush numbers also do not allow for inevitable changes in the tax system. For instance, his budget assumes that the people paying "Alternative Minimun Tax" will rise from 2 million in 2001 to 35 million by 2010. ... AMT will have to be rejigged. ... A study from the Brooking Institution argues that such reform could cost government up to $700 billion over the decade. ...

The Bush White House is certainly talking tough. Sizeable increses in defence spending, it aruges, should be made up for by belt-tightening elsewhere. ...

... According to the CBO's latest report, spending in the first 8 months of fiscal 2002 was 10% higher than in the same period last years. Discretionary spending outside defence (where Mr Bush wants to be tough) rose by 17% last year and this year, so far, is going up at a 9% rate.

Worse, Mr Bush himself could be one of the worst offenders. He recently promised a big rise in foreign aid. Though White House official insist that the new Department of Homeland Security can be created at no cost, no one believes them. ... "it boggles the mind" that you can reorganize 170,000 people at no additional cost. [acutal costs are estimated at maybe "tens of billions of dollars"]

So the idea that discretionary spending will fall in real terms seems fanciful. Even if it just rose in line with the population, that alone would add over $400 billion to spending over the next ten years. And that excludes spending increases on entitlements. Given rising health-care costs, Congress would surely be forced to put more money into Medicare. Both parties in Congress are discussing expanding Medicare to include perscription drug coverage...

Sen Joseph Lieberman ... recently suggested that part of the Bush tax plan should be postponed if the economy remains weak. ... Republicans will not touch the tax cut; indeed they want them all to be permanent. It is spending that must somehow be stopped. Welcome to the era of deficit politics.

Why are big deficits and massive spending increases always seems to appear when conservative Republicans in power? The more conservative, then greaeter the accounting is fudged. George Jr's solution: government must spend less on the economy and more on big defense weapons - such as Star Wars. Does this nonsense ever end? We spend more than the military of top 5 countries combined. When does the cold war end? Our secret military budget alone is larger than any other nation's military budget. But we spend too much on our people and infastructure? Deficits are acceptable if it means a bigger military? How quickly this President wipes out a surplus budget. Do you feel safer?

Quote:

Do you feel safer?

Safer from who? Terrorists? Not an ounce. From the government? Even less so.
My guess would be is that GWB2 is doing what he's always done: spending other people's money. He doesn't care where it comes from or where it goes, as long as his goals are achieved. A syndrome that seems all to common the the hallways of power these days (including in major corporations).

tw, I recall you putting The Economist down recently, something to the effect that their articles were worthless...

Headsplice, you're going to have to master the details better than to say things like "GWB2." He is not number two in a series, and is not named so. The father has two middle names, the son one, for all the similarity between the end results. For numbers to come into play, a name must be replicated exactly. I do hope you've learned as much in the intervening five years minus between your post date and today.

I'd say you were looking for excuses to feel "not an ounce" safer from terrorists -- and that isn't really honest, looking back, is it? These foes of all that is decent haven't been able to hit us in our home since 9/11, and that's six years straight of success.

And how many years without getting 'hit in our homes' did we have before 9/11?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla (Post 419512)

These foes of all that is decent haven't been able to hit us in our home since 9/11, and that's six years straight of success.

Thats some measurement of success...nobody bombed us for six years? :headshake

Quote:

Thats some measurement of success...nobody bombed us for six years?

:wstupid:

And I see a few people are stiiiiiiiiill looking. And they're among the usual suspects, too. Shocking! Shocking!

Sorry, gang; it just isn't a sin to try and win a war, and you know it was the other chaps who started it, after trying so long and so hard and so many times. No matter how hard the Democratic Party and their summer-day-IQ supporters try and tell us it is.

Just like the American Indians started the Indian Wars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla (Post 419979)

...you know it was the other chaps who started it, after trying so long and so hard and so many times.

Wow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 420171)

Wow.

Wow what?

Ain't no wow at all: we sure as hell didn't blow up the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, shoot up the Khobar Towers, truckbomb two US Embassies in East Africa, the USS Cole, et al., et al. No wow at all; our operatives weren't blowing up offices in Islamabad or in Lebanon; theirs were, and they worked very hard at it for eighteen years.

Then they got us mad. Griff, it will help you to remember it's the unlibertarians who start wars -- and that our opposition is about as unlibertarian as anyone is likely to get. I'd say that's at least roughly Q.E.D.

Iraq did those things?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 420497)

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

As everyone knows, and some try and believe, in the face of the evidence, that someone else doesn't. This I cite as an example of what's wrong with some people's thinking. I don't get much reasoned counterargument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla (Post 420566)

The legitimacy of going into Iraq based on the evidence presented has more to do with the problems we face than any loose connection between 9/11 and the invasion itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla (Post 419979)

Sorry, gang; it just isn't a sin to try and win a war, and you know it was the other chaps who started it, after trying so long and so hard and so many times. No matter how hard the Democratic Party and their summer-day-IQ supporters try and tell us it is.

So the other chaps are the same other chaps that we all know did it. This is where your magical thinking begins to trump reality. Instead of fighting a war against the actual groups who attacked us on our home soil, your guy started a regional conflict expecting Switzerland to automatically develop. Naturally this also ignores the US's previous role supporting all manner of dictator, which gives us little credibility in the region. Now that our affection for the Paki dictatorship is coming to fruition, do you begin to see that the world is more complex than your guy believes?

My biggest problem with your belief system is the same that I have with Radar's present course. Both excuse violence against innocents in the name of a big idea for humanity. Radar is at least in a total fantasy land but your people are stone cold killers the same as any piker commie back in the 60's.

When the Merc is talking you down, Urbane, give it up.

Good night

the best site

I like your fine site
Thank to you for the help me!

Thank you, I will add it to my bookmarks

Best Regards

Sammy

___________________
hyip monitoring

Welcome to the Cellar, sokeabate. :D
Stop by to chat, anytime, just take that link out of your signature.

I'd be concerned if Merc actually were talking me down. He's pointing out another angle to the overall strategy for the WoT: we do have to take a global approach, an international approach, to sever a connection between these empowered angry men who become terrorists and nations that provide them sanctuary, support, and a base of operations. Nations can't hide; we can work on nations, so we do. What else would anyone do? How do we attain to intelligence sufficiently accurate and timely to localize and then hit those empowered angry men who are the central targets -- though by no means the only ones?

Deadbeater, you among others want me to "give it up." People in hell want ice water too. I am opposed by people whose ideology makes them say stupid things. Mine does not. I suggest adopting something more like mine; there's plenty of room on the right side of history.