Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush's Fiscal Success

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 8
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 8 template Next
  • #1

    Bush's Fiscal Success

    According to the July deficit figures released by the Treasury, the federal deficit over the last 12 months has been $255 billion. That's a lot of cash, but is only about 2% of the economy, well within manageable levels and historically is reasonably low. The deficit is trending downward.

    I'll be the first to say that the numbers got a little ugly on the way, and that the congress and president still are spending too damn much money. But I think it's hard not to give Bush some props, as he managed the fiscal situation through a recession at the beginning of his presidency. We still have an army in the field, which makes me feel much better about his political management of the deficit at this number.

    I also think Bush deserves some props for getting the longer term fiscal problems into the national agenda. He pushed Social Security reform well past the time it was politically advantageous for him to do so, for instance. The medicare reform to add drugs made sense from a market perspective, but was awful expensive. We'll have to see how that plays out.
    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
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Total Outstanding Public as of 11 Aug 2006 at 04:21:57 PM GMT:

    $ 8,451,618,742,401.70

    Bush has taken us into a war that didn't need to be fought which has only added to our fiscal problems, given tax cuts to the top income brackets (not to mention dividend tax cuts and other such tax cuts that have decreased government revenue) yet you want to give him props?

    I'm not even being political about this. But looking at the fiscal health of the nation objectively and how Bush's policies have affected the deficit and the overall outstanding national debt, how can anyone think his policies have had a positive effect?

    Wow. Put down the Kool-Aid man.
    To us, it is the BEAST.

    Comment

    • #3
      The war hasn't impacted our long-term fiscal situation very much. You make the same mistake that people like Oerdin do: Confusing non-recurring items with recurring items. We spend about $75 - $100 billion a year keeping our guys in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they will leave Iraq and Afghanistan sooner or later.

      As for the tax cuts, I think they made a lot of sense and they should have been done several years ealier by Clinton.
      Last edited by DanS; August 11, 2006, 12:33.
      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
        You mean iraq related expenses aren't recurring? Phew, I'm sure glad that's over with!

        Comment

        • #5
          In the long-term, Iraq-related expenses are non-recurring. Do you imagine 150,000 troops or 200,000 troops in Iraq 10 years from now?

          It seems possible, but not at all likely. We should look at our overall fiscal situation with that likelihood in mind.

          Also, reconstruction of Louisiana is a non-recurring item. As much as I hate the excesses of that, it still doesn't much impact our long-term fiscal situation.
          Last edited by DanS; August 11, 2006, 12:43.
          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
            Shouldn't Bush have at a minimum raised taxes in the short term to pay for the war? This way the war does not financially impact us for the long term?

            And if you keep adding 2% of your economy to debt every year without repaying it, you will eventually have an amount of debt equal to your economy (or at least close). If we continue the business as usual in Washington there is no reasons to not expect yearly losses indefinitely.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by DanS
              The war hasn't impacted our long-term fiscal situation very much. You make the same mistake that people like Oerdin do: Confusing non-recurring items with recurring items. We spend about $75 - $100 billion a year keeping our guys in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they will leave Iraq and Afghanistan sooner or later.

              As for the tax cuts, I think they made a lot of sense and they should have been done several years ealier by Clinton.


              So because Iraq and Afghanistan aren't recurring expenses you decide to just not count them when looking at the overall fiscal picture?



              That may be convenient for the way you want to spin things, but those expenses are very significant, and regardless of whether or not we are going to be in Iraq in the next ten years (the long term situation ), you still have to consider those expenses when looking at the overall fiscal situation and how Bush's policies have affected the deficit and the debt.

              I'm not commenting on whether or not the War in Iraq was morally right or whatnot. I don't care about that. It's irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. But the fact is, it was not necessary to go to war. Strategically, Bush made a horrible blunder. Fiscally, Bush made a horrible blunder.

              Even before his presidency, Bush was an awful administrator and businessman. And since becoming President, he has done nothing to show that he is capable of managing such budgets. Fortunately, the United States is not going to simply "fail" like his past business ventures have. Though, his presidency has certainly put America in a difficult situation fiscally. It is going to take a long time for the United States' fiscal situation to become healthy once again.

              Most intelligent people capable of looking at the situation objectively recognize this.

              I understand that many people who support Bush do so because he is the only choice for their political views. He is the primary representative of the Republican Party. But having said that, I don't see how any intelligent person with right-leaning views who has any economic sense can think Bush's policies have been a good thing for the fiscal health of this country.

              I would say such people are letting their own biases and ideology get in the way of their objectivity when it comes to analyzing the situation.

              Though, if it's just about fooling one's self and trying to put a positive spin on things despite knowing that deep down things really do suck, I can understand that.
              To us, it is the BEAST.

              Comment

              • #8
                And if you keep adding 2% of your economy to debt every year without repaying it, you will eventually have an amount of debt equal to your economy (or at least close).
                This isn't true, but is a typical misconception. It all depends on how much your economy has grown in the meantime. For instance, in 2005, the US economy grew at a 6.3% nominal rate. Inasmuch as the deficit was less than 3.8% of the economy, the nation's debt as a percentage of the economy went down.

                For the long-term, the debt on a 2% deficit yearly would stabilize at around 40% of the economy.

                Really, you should look at all levels of gov't and the "net lending" line item in the national accounts as the deficit rather than the federal deficit given by the Treasury, but that's a separate issue.
                Last edited by DanS; August 11, 2006, 14:09.
                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

                • #9
                  Bush's Fiscal Success
                  repeat until true

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    And before the Canucks come in and start talking trash about their fiscal management, let me be the first to say that the Canadian fiscal turnaround has been impressive.
                    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

                    • #11
                      Well, if you a huge army doing stuff somewhere, there are less beakers to spend on research, and Gandhi send his people to Alpha Centauri.
                      I've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by VJ

                        repeat until true
                        The stopped clock argument. I'm afraid that even this argument is beyond these American nattering nabobs of negativity.
                        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
                          nattering nabobs of negativity.
                          oooh, more talking points!

                          I stopped taking you seriously when I realized you yourself don't believe the spin you're spewing. Sorry, it's nothing personal.

                          edit: Oh, and it had and has nothing to do with the stopped clock. It's more like Godwin's law: take the most outrageous lie possible and repeat it often enough, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, and it slowly becomes true in everyone's thoughts. Hence, "repeat until true".

                          If you don't get it, google "the big lie".

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            And how is the long-run fiscal picture positive when the neocons are trying to get more wars going and thus more wasted wealth for wars?
                            "Truth against the world" - Eire

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              As far as I know, the neocons as a group don't have much sway in the administration. They used to have a little, but their influence was always overblown.
                              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

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 8 template Next
                              Working...
                              X