Historically Neoconservatism will destroy the US military.

[Garth Vader]

Nice graph.

Under Reagan/Bush spending went from about 27% to 32.5%.

Clinton brought it back to about 28%.

Bush2 is back up over 30% already.

Who is the spending party?

[DanS]

Clinton brought it back to about 28%.

Before Clinton's policies were out the door, the spending was back up to a little under 30%. Remember that Bush worked with Clinton's fiscal year 2001 budget. Now we're at just above 30%.

So Bush has increased spending, but the magnitude of the increase hasn't been that large (yet). But he has definitely decreased taxes with a vengeance.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's why we see the massive decline under Jimmy Carter in the graph.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


Before Clinton's policies were out the door, the spending was back up to a little under 30%. Remember that Bush worked with Clinton's fiscal year 2001 budget. Now we're at just above 30%.

So Bush has increased spending, but the magnitude of the increase hasn't been that large (yet). But he has definitely decreased taxes with a vengeance.

So basically you agree with garth but quible about "magnitude"- next time get charts that aide your cause, you know.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's why we see the massive decline under Jimmy Carter in the graph.

Be fair. JC wasn't fighting a land war in Asia.


George Bush fell for the number one classic blunder.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Historically Neoconservatism will destroy the US military.

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
One of the tenants of the new conservatives, or neocons, in the US is "starve the beast". That is, run up large deficits so the goverrnment cannot start/invest/waste (depending on your spin) money on new programs. Thus the huge deficits are not a problem. The resulting government debt will keep "the beast" in check.

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
For those "supply-side economics" (better known as voodoo ecomics - by Bush Sr.) please understand that we are not talking dogma, only economics. What I mean by that is if supply-side economics was truly science, they would calculate based on hard (though projected) numbers the point of diminishing returns, i.e. if you cut taxes below a certain point the government will have less money, period.

I don't know if you meant to say that deficits caused by increased military spending was suppy-side economics, or not. Certainly it isn't. Govt spending, even on military, is a great stimulant to demand.

Bush's tax cuts are primarily supply-side. Supply-side deficits are especially stupid this time because it's obvious that there is plenty of capacity already in the economy. The problem is lack of consumption. There is much more of a chance that military spending will increase consumption.

[Theben]

The term "borrow-n-spend" republicans has been around for a while. And while neo-cons aren't domestic-issue focused, a lot of them seem to be supply-siders. At least since the Reagan era.

One thing Clinton did do was raise the highest tax brackets from 28% to 39.6% on personal income. This was the cardinal sin against him for repugs. Of course these same people ignore Reagan 1986 tax "cut", which in reality saw 90% of people's taxes go up. But overall taxes were reduced.

Back to the point: not having a surplus is always a bad idea. And the thing of it is, while no new programs should be started if the govt is on the verge of bankruptcy, 1) it can't react to crisises, and 2)there won't be enough money to reduce taxation in the future. And below the federal level the deficits are real issues that cause real decisions to be made about where to put funds for basic services.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
Also, Bush 43 isn't spending too much (I'm watching like a hawk to make sure he doesn't run off the rails, though!). He is just taxing much less. That's why you have a deficit.

That's not true Dan. The new medicare drug benifet, the massive increase in farm subsidies, big increases in education, and numerous other spending programs have been championed by Bush. Taxing less is part of the problem but his out of control spending is a much bigger problem because it is increasing at a historically fast rate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Theben
Back to the point: not having a surplus is always a bad idea. And the thing of it is, while no new programs should be started if the govt is on the verge of bankruptcy, 1) it can't react to crisises

Better to avoid a crisis, so you don't have to react to them.

[Sprayber]

Why do people think that the military getting shafted is anything but standard operating procedure.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Better to avoid a crisis, so you don't have to react to them.

Harder to do that too

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Theben


Harder to do that too

It's harder when you don't do anything. When there is slack in the economy something has to be done before the situation gets worse.

[Theben]

What I meant was that it's harder to prevent problems from becoming a crisis with no surplus, or with a deficit. There's usually less political willpower to deal with potential problems anyway, not having the money makes it near impossible. Then we have to pay extra when it's a crisis.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Why do people think that the military getting shafted is anything but standard operating procedure.

Most people are under the delusion that armed services personel are sacred cows. Of course, it's not remotely true, as the real cows are the big fat defense contracts to particular House and Senate members' home districts.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Theben
What I meant was that it's harder to prevent problems from becoming a crisis with no surplus, or with a deficit.

I know, but I mean that economic downturns can be solved with deficits.