Record Deficit

[MattD]

I just read the prosposed budget is a projected record $445 billion deficit 8-O

Last year's budget was a then record deficit of $375 billion b-(

The current national debt has increased to over $7 trillion dollars, which means every man, woman and child owes $24,525 :-X

Just thought you would like to know...

[kellyc]

how can I get John to pay for mine?

kelly

[MattD]

Wow... I thought there would have been more responses....

[johnb]

We are in the midst of a war.

That is no less a certainty than it was in the summer of 1943.

National survival trumps questions of domestic policy, personal convenience, and even fiscal matters.

It's funny in a way, the only time extreme leftists worry about the budget is when the money is being used to defend the United States from attack. You guys were always torqued off when the US spent money to defend itself against the Soviet Union (hence John Kerry voting against EVERY single major weapons system to be deployed since he became a Senator).

There is a reason, though. I suspect the self-loathing of the left for Western Civilization generally and America specifically make the act of self-defense a "hate crime" in and of itself.

[kellyc]

No the problem is the lack of John's ability to get out his wallet and pay for what this country needs. That right wing whacko just doesnt get his calling in life is to provide for those less fortunate.

[Wuptdo]

He believed very much in order, and it would end up taking a lot to radicalize him into an American Revolutionary. Though charitable and very much a civic activist, he was wary of the unintended consequences of too much social engineering. This was reflected in a runimative letter on human nature he sent to his London friend Peter Collinson. "Whenever we attempt to mend the scheme of providence," Franklin wrote, "we had need to very circumspect lest we do more harm than good." Perhaps even welfare for the poor was an example. He asked whether "the laws peculiar to England which complet the rich to maintain the poor have not given the latter a dependence." It was "godlike" and laudable, he added, "to relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures," but might it not in the end "provide encouragements for laziness?"

Walter Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, (p. 146)

Funny, if Ben Franklin recognized this in 1750s, you would think after 250 years we (American society) would of learn our lessons by now. Anyway, if you are looking for a good read, I recommend the above book.

Wuptdo B-)

[MattD]

We are in the midst of a war.

It's funny in a way, the only time extreme leftists worry about the budget is when the money is being used to defend the United States from attack.



John - First off, I'm not sure if we have ever met. If we have, you would know that not all Democrats are liberal, just as not all Republicans are conservatives. Yes, moderate Dems/Reps do exisit!

Second - Personally, I am a fiscally responsible Democrat. Perhaps that is why I was asked to be on the Cary Citizens Budget Review Committee. I am not a fan of government taking my hard earned money and wasting it.

Third – Remember, the budget was balanced under the Clinton administration.

Fourth - You attribute much of it to the war in Iraq, but the war and Homeland security is not where all of the deficit money is going (see quotes below).

Over $800 Billion dollars in deficit spending in two years. Regardless of our personal political believes, regardless of the political party in office, it is clearly unacceptable for this much debt to be incurred.

Quotes from Republicans regarding the deficit:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN): "It's not just fiscal conservatives that are concerned about the deficit. We're all concerned about the deficit. The deficit is too high for any of us." [Transcript from Media Availability Following Closed Policy Luncheon, 1/27/04]

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-OK): "The deficit projection for this year is expected, but not acceptable." [The Washington Post, 1/27/04]

Rep. Walter Jones {R-NC): "This country is headed for a train wreck," said in response to increased spending under Bush. [The St. Louis Pos-Dispatch, 1/21/04]

Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ): "We've had substantial spending growth over the last three years, and it cannot be blamed simply on homeland security and defense." [Christian Science Monitor, 1/23/40]

William Niskanen, former Reagan administration official: "We are borrowing from our children." [Los Angeles Times, 02/01/04]

Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute: "The Bush tax and spending policies are hugely inconsistent... He's small government on tax cuts but big government when it comes to spending." [The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1/21/04]

William Beach, senior analyst with the Heritage Foundation: "The Republicans have simply not kept their part of the bargain on spending." [Los Angeles Times, 1/27/04]

Veronique de Rugy, a fiscal policy analyst at Cato: "Although defense spending has increased in response to the war on terrorism, President Bush has made little attempt to restrain non-defense spending to help offset the higher Pentagon budget... after only three years in office, President Bush may be headed to the record books as one of the biggest spending presidents." [National Journal's CongressDaily, 01/29/04] 8-O

Brian Reidl, economist for the Heritage Foundation: "This is the most pork-laden bill in the history of Congress," in reference to the $820 billion budget recently passed by the Senate. [The Fort Worth Star Telegram, 1/26/04]

[johnb]

If we have, you would know that not all Democrats are liberal, ... Yes, moderate Dems/Reps do exisit!

Yes of course, as do unicorns, dodo birds, and leprechauns. The breed is near extinct my friend. The Donkeycrats have driven out the Henry Jackson, Harry Byrd, Paul Tsongas variety of fiscal conservatives. The left wing extremists control the party and call the shots. So called "moderates" are not tolerated.

I am a fiscally responsible Democrat.

This is like being "a little bit pregnant". It is an oxymoron. Donkeycrats are "fiscally responsible" only when the subject of defense spending, tax cuts, and the like comes up. Never when the subject is limiting or eliminating entitlement programs.

Third – Remember, the budget was balanced under the Clinton administration.

Only after the GOP captured the House and forced the issue. There was no pressure on Clinton to balance it and his own party fought it. Now of course they want the credit because it is seen as politically advantageous for them to claim the mantra of fisal sobriety. They are not by nature such.

Fourth - You attribute much of it to the war in Iraq, but the war and Homeland security is not where all of the deficit money is going (see quotes below).

There is some truth to your words. Much of the imbalance come from Bush caving in to left wing spending demands his own party criticizes. You will, if you're going to be honest, note that GOP congressmen crticize much of Bush's domestic/social spending. Whether it is the Education spending he caved in to Teddy Kennedy on or the precription drug plan he caved to the Tom Daschle on, it is as repetitive as it is disturbing. The Donkeys push for increased spending and Bush caves in order to strip them of an agenda. He knows GOP'ers and most independents will vote for him because when it comes down to it no sober person trusts John F'ing Kerry and his Coalition of the Crazies to handle the war on terror.

I won't defend Bush's domestic agenda. It's horrible. He co-opts the Donkeys in order to defeat the electorally. It will work but I fear the price.

Besides, what the Donkeys hate is not the billions going for new entitlement programs like that prescription drug plan. You all hate the billions going to national defense.

[Mark]

Actually, I do hate the prescription drug plan.

[Wuptdo]

Mark said:


Actually, I do hate the prescription drug plan.


Agreed - another entitlement program that will cost billions of dollars. And for what, so that senior citizens can extend their life expenancy and continue to be a drain on the national economy (and a burden to their children and grandchildren). :evil:

What I find so interesting about Bush's policies is that they model Reagan's so closely. But in the end, once again, I will not be voting for the best person for office (the best don't run for office), but voting the lessor of two evils. :( This applies to both local and national elections.

If you are looking for a good guide to help you decide who to vote for, I would suggest you look no further than the News & Observer. Just before election time, they publish a very good list of people who they endorse for public office. I use this list and vote for the opponents of those they recommend. Works for me! :wink:

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

Why do you hate it Mark?

[Mark]

Costs far too much for what it is, namely corporate welfare under the guise of vote-winning sympathy for seniors, primarily.

So, for me, changing the corporate welfare part (by making a bill more consumer friendly and limiting Pharma's contol - what the democratic version attempted) or changing the political sympathy part (by offering a more comprehensive benefit, or, horror of horrors, a national health care system) makes the current plan better.

Naturally, I don't mind government spending when it tends to make lots of people's lives better. I start to mind when it makes drug companies more profitable, doesn't address the problems which the spending is supposed to, and does so at the expense of us all.

[dhyatt]

[snip]

Naturally, I don't mind government spending when it tends to make lots of people's lives better. I start to mind when it makes drug companies more profitable, doesn't address the problems which the spending is supposed to, and does so at the expense of us all.

I love this! Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you just said "...making drug companies more profitable..." has nothing to do with (or should have nothing to do with) "...making people's lives better...". This is hilarious!!! You think drug companies should invest billions in research (and millions more in insurance thanks to the John Edwards of the world) and then simply give the drugs away or at best only break even?!!!!!! Do you have any appreciation at all for how capitalism works and how it drives invention? I guess not... Too bad because you seem like a pretty intelligent guy.

[johnb]

...give the drugs away or at best only break even?!!!!!!

What the hell do you think? This is the guy that termed stocks a "wealth extraction tool" and insisted they were a "product" the company sells. He is dead serious and if his ideas ever came to fruition there'd be a lot of dead people because of them.