Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush's deficits and the coming crunch.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush's deficits and the coming crunch.

    The BBC has an excellent article which shows just how truly incompetent the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress have been at managing our nation's finances. It is a truly informative & objective read which shows how deep of a hole Republicans have put the United States into.

    Much has been made of Bush's proposed cuts to the federal budget but the Washington based Economic Policy Institute (which is a nonpartisan group for sound budget policy which has been critical of Bush's deficits in the past) has conducted a full review of the proposed budget and found few of the cuts are likely to actually be passed by Congress, even a Republican controlled Congress. Further more Bush has only proposed large cuts to small programs while the giant budget monsters continue to grow are near record rates. Finally, Bush refused to include the cost of Iraq/Afghanistan (which last year accounted for $160 billion in spending) nor his proposed changes to Social Security (Bush claims that will cost $1 trillion, the CBO says $2 trillion, most economists say $3-$5 trillion). If all of Bush's budget cuts are made and spending in Iraq/Afghanistan equals last year (BTW Bush has asked for increases here) then this will be the largest deficit in the history of the country. That's impressive given the size of the previous four deficits Bush has racked up.

    So what is the coming crunch? Currently the US public doesn't have enough capital to cover the government's reckless borrowing so countries like Japan & China have had to finance it. The problem is this can't last forever. After Bush's tax cuts to the top 1% of American society the Federal government now takes, in inflation adjusted terms , about the same amount of money it did in the 1950's while spending remains where it has been in recent decades - much higher. Here's what the BBC has to say:


    The Bush administration's chosen remedy is the least feasible one. Reducing domestic spending, or eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse" is toothless because this slice of the budget is too small to solve the problem.

    Indeed, if Congress were rash enough to balance the budget in this way, there would hardly be any such spending left.

    Law enforcement, space exploration, environmental clean-up, economic development, the Small Business Administration, housing, veterans' benefits, aid to state and local governments would all but disappear.

    It's fantasy to think these routine government functions could be slashed.


    The lion's share of the Budget goes to Defense, Social Security, and Medical Care. The Budget cannot even get close to balanced without dealing with these. Defense especially since there are so much discretionary funds in the defense budget. New weapon systems, most of which were designed to fight the cold war, will have to be eliminated and Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy will have to be reinstated. To do anything less is financial suicide.

    Why is the budget such a big deal now? The reason is the rising federal debt, which will grow in 10 years, by conservative estimates, to more than half the nation's total annual output plus the retirement of the baby boomers. Bush's solution to our social security problem is to increase debt by $2 trillion (about 1 years income for the federal government) isn't realistically possible nor is it sound economics. Doing nothing and just paying the benefits owed will would cost $1 trillion or about half of Bush's solution. Better still would be to adjust retirement ages to reflect the longer life span of modern seniors or to lift the cap on social security taxes (currently any money over $90,000 per year is tax free; meaning millionaires and the well to do are getting huge breaks the average Joes aren't).

    The BBC claims that the coming credit crunch will drive up interest rates and make the dollar continue to fall to record levels unless the government states behaving responsibly. Will the Republicans start to do that? I don't know but Reagan didn't and it is looking unlikely that Bush will either.
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

  • #2
    To clarify the BBCs recomendations are:

    First on the list should be tax reform to raise revenue, simplify the tax code, and restore some fairness eroded by the Bush tax cuts.

    Second should be a dispassionate re-evaluation of the huge increase in defence spending over the past three years, much of it unrelated to Afghanistan, Iraq, or terrorism.

    Third must be the start of a serious debate on large-scale health care reform.

    For those who will claim that the defense increases are related to the war on terrorism the BS alarm is already sounding. Programs like Bush's $200 billion (by his estimate but, let's face it, there are always cost over runs in the 200%-300% range) have nothing to do with those two wars. There is lots and lots of non-war related fat in the defense budget which is just plain corporate welfare.
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

    Comment


    • #3
      OK, now the BBC is using partisan think tanks for its "analysis."

      Discretionary spending, even minus defense, has increased substantially during Bush's term. We can trim discretionary spending for a few years and it's nowhere near "gratuitous." Like you, I would like to see what we can do to trim weapons programs. Bush is doing this as well.

      As for government debt, it's not going to go through the roof as a percentage of the economy. IMF predicts it will be about the same in 5 years as it is now. Maybe a 3 percentage point increase. Mind you, that's not going the right way, but it's hardly indicative of a shock coming.

      Overall, we need to decrease spending. If we don't have enough money to pay for what we want, we need to adjust our expectations of what we get from the federal government. This shouldn't be difficult, despite all the moaning and groaning from the congress that budgets are no longer increasing in the 5-10% range.

      Really, I can't be bothered to fisk the whole damn article!
      Last edited by DanS; February 14, 2005, 11:35.
      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

      Comment


      • #4
        Dan: The Economic Policy Institute's goal is sound economics meaning a balanced budget, relatively low taxes, low federal spending, decreased regulation, and a simplified tax system. That hardly sounds like a highly partisan platform. If anything it seems like it would favor conservatives.

        The EPI does support progressive taxation as a way to ease the tax burden on the poor but that's hardly a radical idea. We've been doing that since the 1860's.
        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

        Comment


        • #5
          That's funny. Two years ago, the BBC itself described the EPI as a "liberal think tank."

          BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service


          How did it all of the sudden morph into the center-right think tank that you're describing?
          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

          Comment


          • #6
            It's true the EPI has been very critical of Bush's budgets and of his tax policy. The EPI wanted to cut payroll taxes instead of capital gains taxes and it was for much smaller tax cuts which would have still left the budget balanced. Naturally, I can see how people would think such a stance made them a Democratic running dog lacky but there platform is pretty conservative over all.

            They are mainly deficit hawks and they love to expose waste in the government or huge prok barrel projects. That's a good thing though.
            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

            Comment


            • #7
              Never understimate the role of stupidity and greed in determining world history. The GOP is partying on the Titanic. Their hubris will bring down the whole country.

              The solution? Revolution!
              Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

              Comment


              • #8
                DanS is just confused... because America has moved so far to the right, a non-partisan group like the EPI seems like a liberal group.

                Plus, that group has more Nobel lauriates than you can shake a stick at. I'll trust them over some Bushophile on a video game site any day.
                To us, it is the BEAST.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DanS
                  That's funny. Two years ago, the BBC itself described the EPI as a "liberal think tank."

                  BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service


                  How did it all of the sudden morph into the center-right think tank that you're describing?
                  Are you sure they're using the US definition of "liberal" as opposed to the European one, which is more along the lines of US term "libertarian"?
                  "On this ship you'll refer to me as idiot, not you captain!"
                  - Lone Star

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DanS
                    That's funny. Two years ago, the BBC itself described the EPI as a "liberal think tank."

                    BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service


                    How did it all of the sudden morph into the center-right think tank that you're describing?
                    What definition of liberal where they using? The American one that would more accurately be labeled social democrat in Europe or the European one that does describe a belief in low taxes and minimum subsidies. The article you linked to talks about tax cuts, reining in government spending, and sensible spending on education and healthcare, all centire-right positions in the UK.
                    Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
                    -Richard Dawkins

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What definition of liberal where they using?
                      The American definition. Gephardt, the scion of labor, wouldn't give a speech to a "liberal" organization in the European sense.
                      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's true the EPI has been very critical of Bush's budgets and of his tax policy.
                        DanS translation: They're partisan hacks.
                        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Saying that this is partizan is just blinkered. This massive deficit is going to be a huge problem. Still. Not my country, thank goodness!
                          Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
                          Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
                          We've got both kinds

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Saying that this is partizan is just blinkered.
                            You're being naive. This organization is a front for the liberal wing of the democratic party. A wolf in sheep's clothing.
                            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              That's irrelevant. They are highlighting a real issue. If you ignore them for being 'partizan' you obviously have to ignore any Republican comments on the issue as 'partizan' too and work out the implications for yourself.

                              If you come to the conclusion it's not a problem then... er... well you won't.
                              Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
                              Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
                              We've got both kinds

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X