[new-nickname-zanovo]

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.

[majestictwelve]

You mean iraq related expenses aren't recurring? Phew, I'm sure glad that's over with!

[loyalgagora]

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.

[ViagraFeller]

Bush's Fiscal Success repeat until true

[johnbeller]

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.

[ljq0AYOV]

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".

[proslaviy]

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.

[12Dvop4I]

Originally posted by DanS
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. Thanks -- Not bad that we kept our budget in surplus while you folks stayed in recession. Even better that we avoiced recession ourselves when usually our economy folllows yours.

I am happy to see any signs of the US heading back to better fiscal management, since we do want our best customer to stay financially healthy

[fashikn]

Lately (I mean the last several months), how much have the high oil prices impacted your surplus?

[Diandaplaipsy]

Did you guys put the windfall into a fund a la Norway and Alaska, like what was being discussed?

[Xxedxevh]

Originally posted by DanS
Did you guys put the windfall into a fund a la Norway and Alaska, like what was being discussed? Canada doesn't -- again since they don't benefit that much but Alberta has set up a number of rainy day funds to assist whenever this ends. Alberta spent a lot of the money eliminating the provincial debt and are now frankly running out of ideas. The current premier is retiring so we will likely to have to wait for his successor to see what route the government will take with all the extar money

[Shiplyopidomi]

I think the Heritage Fund was what we discussed a while ago here on Poly. I think I had reservations about a couple of the provisions on how it was run (more of a rainy day fund rather than a long-term stability fund).

But this really deserves its own thread.

[Coollabioto]

Yes, I did ask.

[RSAccountssy]

I'm sure what you meant to say is that the increase in the deficit is trending downwards. I didn't mean to say that. What are you talking about?

[avaincmolla]

Originally posted by DanS


I didn't mean to say that. What are you talking about? I mean to say, the budget is not balanced. Every year, we are running a deficit. Although it's not as big as it used to be, it is still there and still large.

Saying "the deficit is trending downwards" sounds like the deficit is getting smaller. It is not. It is getting larger. The best that can be said about it is that it is growing as fast.

[ManHolDenPoker]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Is somebody confused about the difference between deficit and debt? Interesting point....

Checking Websters, a "deficit" is "an excess of liabilities over assets, of losses over profits, or of expenditures over income."

Using the first example, liablities over assets, the deficit in increasing.
Using the third example, expenditures over income, the deficit is shinking.

[Kissntell]

Originally posted by DanS
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. Yeah, and that's why Bush stupidly took the leash off Israel with regards to Lebanon and even further was encouraging them to attack Damascus.

[Marinausa]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yeah, and that's why Bush stupidly took the leash off Israel with regards to Lebanon and even further was encouraging them to attack Damascus. I wouldn't say that had anything to do with neocons. Neocons aren't necessarily pro-israel.

There has been a rather silly conflation in the media of "neocon" with "bush-republicans". Bush gained much of his support FROM the neocons, and shares some ideals with them, but he more closely associates with southern and midwestern social conservatives rather than the actual 'neocons' who are largely urban, north midwest or northeast (or California, of course).

[TeNuaTe]

There has been a rather silly conflation in the media of "neocon" with "bush-republicans". Bush gained much of his support FROM the neocons, and shares some ideals with them, but he more closely associates with southern and midwestern social conservatives rather than the actual 'neocons' who are largely urban, north midwest or northeast (or California, of course). Well, erm... He's most closely associated with people who were born into millionaire families owning a lot in the stock market, like he did. He doesn't really care what happens to neoconservatives or "midwestern social conservatives" as long as they'll vote for him. Bush has done a lot of 360 degree (example: immigration) and 180 degree (example: terrorism) turns by now in a lot issues, but he has solidly continued to ensure that the good times roll for those who own a lot in the stock market. His greatest asset is that the working people won't have any time or interest to check how the image of the republican party they once absorbed is correlating with reality -- "I voted for Bush because I'm a republican" will probably translate into "I'll vote for my congressman because I'm a republican", no matter how big-government they are or will be.

I'm not really sure neoconservatives only live in "liberal" regions of the US, considering lotm lives in VA and Imran in urban GA...

[RlUbQU3R]

So the best DanS can manage is that the massive amounts of debt is only slightly less massive then people thought it would be? Wow, what great leadership. Anyway you look at it our country is worse off as the debt keeps pilling up.