Think before gloating over Bush's spectacular fiscal incompetence

[Imran Siddiqui]

Absolutely, 9/11 totally changed the economic situation and proceeding with the cuts under those changed circumstances is lunacy (even if you didn't think it was a bit dumb in the first place). Who's fault is that? It's irresponsible to make tax cuts in a climate like that.

PA is correct in response to this (I didn't just say that ).

Bush remembered the lessons of his father's administration, cheifly being that Bush I's party base abandoned him after Clinton attacked him for raising taxes after his 'No new taxes' pledge.

[MikeH]

Shows what a retarded pledge it is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, if you want to win.

[MikeH]

The Conservatives used the same thing (tax cuts before elections as bribes) to win several elections but after they'd well and truly cocked everything up so much that no-one trusted them any more the electorate eventually learnt not to only base their voting on tax promises.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well in this country Republicans haven't totally 'cocked' things up yet, even if you think Bush might have .

Reagan is still looked upon very fondly.

[Drake Tungsten]

As the US thrashes around for someone to blame, it is inevitable that it will focus on China, with its large trade surplus, just as the deficits of the Reagan era led to a focus on Japan two decades ago.

Paragraphs like this make it hard to take this article seriously. Is he really implying that Reagan was just using Japan as a scapegoat in the 80's?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Verto
Is 9/11 not at ALL responsible for at least SOME of this mess?

Economically? No. Even the increased speding on defense and Homeland security does not meet the difference. So even if you could claim that 9/11 helped make the deficit record-sized (which is not very good arguement, givn that Iraq has no been put into the projection, and it was a war of choice, not a direct outcome of the attack like Afghanistan) The policies of the admin. and the republican congress are the primary reason.

I think the more inetresting bit is he fact that the US government is now financed to a fair degree by foreign savings: the money of the little old ladies of Germany, France, China, Japan, SK, and so forth is the money that keeps our fighters in the air, or our kids with college loans...and I agree with Stiglitz that this won;t work as a permanent situation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the more inetresting bit is he fact that the US government is now financed to a fair degree by foreign savings

It has been for quite a while. The US is very attractive investment and that is nothing new nowadays.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well in this country Republicans haven't totally 'cocked' things up yet, even if you think Bush might have .

Reagan is still looked upon very fondly.

Yet. It took 19 years for voters here to change the gov't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I doubt that Republicans will befall a Tory collapse. Different systems will result in different outcomes. If Bush loses in 2004, the Republican candidate for Prez will probably be an uber-moderate designed just to win. And Republicans will continue to be a force in Congress.

Remember, even when the Democrats were at the hight of their power after WW2 (at least in Congress), you had a Republican President win in 1968.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It has been for quite a while. The US is very attractive investment and that is nothing new nowadays.

That does not mean there won;t be anything new in the future, and the US is doing ntohing whatsoever about it's spendthrift ways. As Stiglistz says, if something were to change...well, then we would have problems.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That does not mean there won;t be anything new in the future, and the US is doing ntohing whatsoever about it's spendthrift ways. As Stiglistz says, if something were to change...well, then we would have problems.

Well, if things were to change so that we weren't a good investment oppertunity then I think we'd have BIGGER problems than a reduction in foreign investment .

If we were to become less and less of a valuable investment, we would, of course, change. The government would push citizens to save more to increase US investment. It might be painful for a bit, but it would balance out.

[GePap]

Given the anti-governemnt stream of the rep. party, and the "it's my money, let ME spend it as i whish" mentality that permiates this country, tyring to make people save might be poltiically as suicidal as, lets say, ending SS.

Oh, and the issue is NOT about the Us being a good investement oportunity, but the only good one. If any significant competition came up, bilions upon billions the governemnt now counts on would not be there, and that would begin the problems.

[Whaleboy]

*elijah's disinterest grows to new levels*

FHS, aren't we covering old ground here?!??

Whats happening? I don't care about lame governmental stuff anymore! It all sucks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

tyring to make people save might be poltiically as suicidal as, lets say, ending SS.

So raising interest rates and making investment more profitable would be politically suicidal? What?

If any significant competition came up, bilions upon billions the governemnt now counts on would not be there, and that would begin the problems.

There has always been some competition out there, but the US has been the top dog. Some of the reasons are because of the pro-business climate of the country which some feel will result in greater gains with less red tape and corporate taxes. If there exists some competition, I'm sure the US would slowly shift from foreign investment to domestic. Everything would not collapse simply because people start investing in Euro-land.