http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28252-2003Nov11?language=printer This makes it official. Bush is not a conservative and never has been. And before the harpy harem comes on chirping about how the war on terrorism has made this bloated federal government necessary, realize that nonmilitary discretionary spending has increased by 9%. This alone is four times greater than the rate of growth of the entire federal government under any year of Bill Clinton.
Since stepping down as politics forum moderator, I've noticed a trend toward rebellious mouthiness. But remember: just because my name is no longer on the marquee doesn't mean that your mama still doesn't think I'm your daddy.
Now that goes too far, sir. (A friend of mine has offered me Sugar Bowl tickets. I am debating the wisdom of actually putting on my crimson and rooting for the Big 12. What do you think?) Now back to the subject at hand. I served happily under the first Bush, who did a good job of keeping us fed employees fat and well fed. The Bush's are east coast liberal republicans. But both sold their souls to get elected. Whereas poppa bush at least gave you the impression that he didn't like mixing with the mean crowd, his son actually doesn't mind slumming. And that is all I have to say about that.
Wait a minute. I thought Bush was a right wing waco, out of touch with the mainstream? Seems like he really has been trying to be a "compassionate" conservative by refusing to cut spending at a time when there is a need because of a poor economy, and cutting taxes to try to get the economy moving again. The question now, is will he be a responsible conservative and attempt to restrain growth is spending when the economy starts to turn around? BTW, why did you compare the Bush's discretionary spending growth to Clinton's overall growth? What was Clinton's discretionary spending growth? What was Clinton's change in Military spending?
This would be a good place to point out that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between Bush's actions as POTUS, and the actions of a hypothetical enemy mole who managed to get elected president.
OK, so if you had inherited an economy that had already started on a downward path before entering office, instead on increasing spending and cutting taxes as Bush did, you would have raised taxes and reduced spending?
A conservative and a rightwing wacko out of touch with the mainstream are not synonymous. It's interesting though that you think so. Bush hasn't just refused to cut spending. He's increased spending. While cutting taxes. I call it irresponsible fiscal management. Bush's policies have lead to the largest deficit and debt the world has ever seen. To remove the war on terrosrism factor. Overall, Bush has increased the size of the federal government by 27%. By comparison, the fed under Clinton grew by and average of 2.5%.
Here's the hilarious thing: if Bush had done NOTHING, the deficit would be a third of what it is now.
This is such a red herring. And what was the total amount of dollars not collected by bushes tax cuts from billionaires? And what was the total amount of dollars not collected by bushes tax cuts from non billionaires? For heaven sake there are not many "billionaires" out there. Bush's tax cut was broad based. for some reason you think only a certain segment of the population should be excluded from the burden of paying high taxes. Class warfare at its finest.
Sure. The economy is cyclical and nothing that man has done has steered it in any direction. With the possible exception that his actions in the Middle East have hurt investor confidence and his protectionist policies (See WTO thread) have sent jobs to Mexico causing the turnaround to slow. That said, this discussion is about his spending federal dollars like he's still on daddy's unlimited account at the Country Club. It's a problem your grandchildren are going to have to deal with.
Of course I don't think so, I was obviously being facetious. No, it is encouraging growth in times of economic slowdown. It is responsible fiscal policy to try to smooth the economic cycle by using the tools the goverment has in hand. It would be irresponsible to ignore the economy because you have some blind goal of avoiding deficit spending. Actually, as a percentage of GDP these deficits are not that large, and they are much lower than the wartime deficits that we have run in the past. But you didn't answer my questions. What happened to discressionary spending under Clinton? Clinton was able to hold down spending overall because he held down Military spending and the positive economy held down Human resource spending. Like I said, if the economy does turn positive, and Bush does not restrain spending, then I would call him irresponsible.
For heaven sakes, he used the only 2 tools at his discretion to get the econmy moving, tax cuts and inreased Federal spending but you don;t give him credit for doing anything. What the hell should he have done? Increased taxes? Reduced spending? Prayed? Yes, and the best way they will be prepared to deal with it, is a vibrant growing economy. Once we achieve that, we can start to attack the deficit again.
My point is that the economy his beyond his total control. He can't be COMPLETELY blamed for the economy, but at the same time he can't take full credit for any rebound that may occur either. His spending and tax cuts were not to help the economy. They were to pad the pockets of his largest donors. Didn't you get that memo?
OK, but we should at least give him credit for doing the correct thing, and trying to help. Sorry I'm not on the mailing list for demagogs who will say anything to encite class warfare if they think it will help Democrats get elected.
And, in coordination with the Fed, he has increased the money supply which is great in the short term (lowers the value of the dollar thus increasing exports and adding jobs). I'm curious, though, how this monetary policy will play out in the longer term. Well, I guess his take is that it will help him get re-elected and once the long term effects shake out the Republicans will have a few years to work on those before the next presidential election.
The correct tax cut (instead of the 'billion dollar baby' tax cut) would have been to elimnate the small business tax, for the first five years a company is in business, to all companies with 2-50 employees who also offer paid healthcare to those 2-50 employees. That's just me talking out of my socialist/commie-pinko/got a 'B' in Macro ass, but I think you'd definitely see a growth in the number of small businesses and a reduction in the number of Americans living without healthcare. But who wants that, really?
michael russ uses the only two tools at his discretion whilst steering us on a journey through the ins-and-outs of the bush presidency and the economy
Required reading is the latest issue of The Economist. http://www.economist.com/ To summarize three articles very quickly, the non-military discretionary spending increase is primarily a pork distribution scheme, the near-term growth is artificial, and the medium-term and long-term prospects under the Bush mismanagement are catastrophic. I can make my household financial growth look great by kiting checks to buy a Mercedes. Here is one such article. The other two are "premium content," so I won't inconvenience anyone. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2189237
Why is it that every time I post here, somebody has to turn it personal? I could understand if it was a give and take, and I was doing it also, but I have repeatedly said that I don't feel that this type of behavior helps breed useful debate.
I'm all for tax relief for small business, but why does it have to be one or the other? I just don't know enough details about current tax laws on small business to say if this is a viable plan.
You're asking to have your cake and eat it too. It has to be "one or the other" with the way the Fed is spending cash.