If Bush is considered 'What is Republican'...

[Ramo]

But with the judiciary getting older and older, it's likely Kerry if elected would be a chance to name some of their replacements if elected.

I think that's the best reason for a moderate libertarian like Imran to not support Shrub: what if Ashcroft or someone like him gets a seat in the SCOTUS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bob Dole was one of the biggest pork barrel pushers ever to hit Congress

And yet was a deficit hawk. Senators are pork barrel spenders... so what?

I think that's the best reason for a moderate libertarian like Imran to not support Shrub: what if Ashcroft or someone like him gets a seat in the SCOTUS.

Bush lower court nominees are better than, say, Clinton ones. You forget, my favorite Justices on the bench were appointed by Republicans.

[Verto]

Speaking of SCOTUS, isn't one of them wanting to retire?

[Rex Little]

Originally posted by Agathon
Who votes for the overspenders?

Isn't it the voting public's job to vote them out? Presumably shame on us if they think they can get away with it.

The problem is, it's in each voter's interest to elect someone who will bring pork into his state or district. We can't vote against the spenders from other states.

[Berzerker]

And yet was a deficit hawk.

Since when? He was one of the top dogs - senate majority leader from 81-86 (?) - throughout the 80's and early 90's when deficits exploded.

Senators are pork barrel spenders... so what?

It doesn't make sense to identify yourself by pointing to a senator who fights against pork barreling - McCain - and a senator who ranks up there with Robert Byrd when it came to throwing money around. I suspect you aren't very familiar with the Senator from ADM...

[Gatekeeper]

I, too, am a registered Republican who considers himself a moderate. Suffice to say, I *never* vote a party line ballot.

Gatekeeper

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


and cost more in the long run.



However we don't have to pay resultant interest.

Loans are not free.

As for the largest cost... the borrowing for the military is ridiculous... they desparately need to reevaluate goals and approaches, away from a monolithic Cold War model.

The move to properly funding Special Forces and invest in unmanned aircraft is a good first approach. We need to encourage government to consider the most efficient, and cost effective force structures for a 21st century world.

The question is whether you can make more money by investing it in US business versus the interest you have to pay.

Since US business grows on the average of 12% per year (IIRC -- please correct me if I am wrong) I think it is plainly clear that investing it in America is the better choice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since when?

Since always. He's been the guy saying cut spending or raise taxes to get the deficit managed all throughout his time in the Senate. The Senate Majority Leader doesn't have nearly the power as Speaker of the House over his own troops.

It doesn't make sense to identify yourself by pointing to a senator who fights against pork barreling - McCain - and a senator who ranks up there with Robert Byrd when it came to throwing money around.

So there is like one or two Senators who don't like pork barrel spending (and for being against it, McCain does enough of it). Big deal.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


The question is whether you can make more money by investing it in US business versus the interest you have to pay.

Since US business grows on the average of 12% per year (IIRC -- please correct me if I am wrong) I think it is plainly clear that investing it in America is the better choice.

I think the figure, off the top of my head, is closer to 3% or 4%, perenially. We've certainly paid much more debt interest, than we've grown.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned


The question is whether you can make more money by investing it in US business versus the interest you have to pay.

But that's not what's happening is it? The government issues T-bills which people, businesses, and the Chinese buy. This money is spent on programs. It is not used to invest in businesses in any straightforward manner. The government is not going to invest this revenue in the stock market or anything like that.

Moreover, even if the increased federal spending leads to business growth - unless you use taxes to extract this wealth to generate revenues, the increase in business will not increase revenues. And with all of the tax cuts, exceptions, loopholes, moving to the Caymans, you won't be able to extract those taxes.

So in fact, not only will the government not make money off of some "investment", but also any indirect growth the spending spurs will not guarantee that the increased business will even cover the resulting debt.

Since US business grows on the average of 12% per year (IIRC -- please correct me if I am wrong) I think it is plainly clear that investing it in America is the better choice.

Again, that would require the government to issue bonds, and then take that money and invest it in some sort of market. The government will not do that - the govenrment will fund programs.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


I think the figure, off the top of my head, is closer to 3% or 4%, perenially. We've certainly paid much more debt interest, than we've grown.

Even assuming your figures, we break even.

[Ned]

Templar, the question is not whether the government will be better off, but whether the entire country, which is 70% private sector, would be better off.

Assume one is trying to decide whether it is better to invest $500 billion in the US private sector (by not raising taxes) or borrow it at X percent interest. The answer to anyone trying to make that decision is cost. If the cost of the loan exceeds the profit from the investment, it is better not to borrow. Thus one raises taxes rather than finance the deficit through borrowing.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned
Even assuming your figures, we break even.

Depends if you're talking about TBills, TNotes or TBonds.

Recently we kept on leveraging ourselves higher and higher, and bumping against the debt limit, currently at $7,384B (and debt is stated at $7,011 currently by the treasury.)

The 05 proposed budget estimates '09 national debt to top 10 trillion. There isn't an infinite amount of finance available to soak this... increasing caps, decreases dollar value and decreases international confidence in the US and its dollar.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Depends if you're talking about TBills, TNotes or TBonds.

Recently we kept on leveraging ourselves higher and higher, and bumping against the debt limit, currently at $7,384B (and debt is stated at $7,011 currently by the treasury.)

The 05 proposed budget estimates '09 national debt to top 10 trillion. There isn't an infinite amount of finance available to soak this... increasing caps, decreases dollar value and decreases international confidence in the US and its dollar.

According to this report, GDP is expected to grow at an annual rate of about 5% for the forseeable future. Factoring out the growth itself, this adds around $550 billion per year to GDP. This suggests that we should be able to afford deficits of this size indefinitely without adding to the relative debt burden.

What is causing the accelerated growth? I would argue that it is the deficit itself - the investment of the saved tax dollars in the private sector. The more investment the better - to a point - where the increased investment only leads to inflation as employment becomes "full."

[MrBaggins]

The 05 budget is an election year budget. Those predictions typically have all the validity of Miss Cleo's fortune telling.

5% growth is possible, but considerably (and perhaps laughably) optimistic... just like the employment projections that have been lampooned in another thread.