• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could George W Bush Mediate the Impasse?[W:93]

Could George W Bush Mediate the Impasse?


  • Total voters
    36
Well put, but I still think global warming is as much or more important an issue to tackle than our debt, thinking in the long term. And taxes could take a huge dent out of the deficit if it were ever be politically acceptable. In general, the debt seems much more manageable in the next couple decades.

I am not so sure the debt is manageable, if we do not take the required hit. It is also clear that taking that hit will mean initially reduced national income. Research shows that you can solve the debt thing by increasing taxes or by reduced spending. It also shows that the reduced spending is easier for a societies to deal with and less harmful to mid-term growth.
Also it is quite certain that the problem is not small, if we do not address it in time. Do not forget that Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world a hundred years ago and lost that predominantly, because the politicians overspent. Something similar happened to the British after WW2 and they lived poorly for decades. The other countries will not continue to finance our lifestyle much longer. If we do not correct our ways, they will. That would be really unpleasant for most Americans.

Without growth reducing CO2 will be a killer. There was a large study out of England that estimated the ruduction in growth to be 1-2% BIP. I looked at the Research pretty closly and think it is somewhat optimistic given today's technology. Think more "LifeChangiung". Alone the flight Frankfurt, Germany to San Francisco, California is about, what an inhabitant of the world is allowed in emissions for a year. No more meat. No more heating nor internet.

Now that is something we can live with, I am sure. But it would possibly not be necessary, if we develop more efficient technology first. This was Bush's approach and it has panned out. Should the US increase alternative energy use now, it will have a much cheaper stock of production facilities, than it would have, had it started, when Clinton initialed the Kyoto Protocol. This does not mean we would not have to start sometime. But it also does not look as if the issue is as pressing as we were lead to believe. Newer research points out that we probably have more time. This will not
 
I am not so sure the debt is manageable, if we do not take the required hit. It is also clear that taking that hit will mean initially reduced national income. Research shows that you can solve the debt thing by increasing taxes or by reduced spending. It also shows that the reduced spending is easier for a societies to deal with and less harmful to mid-term growth.
Also it is quite certain that the problem is not small, if we do not address it in time. Do not forget that Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world a hundred years ago and lost that predominantly, because the politicians overspent. Something similar happened to the British after WW2 and they lived poorly for decades. The other countries will not continue to finance our lifestyle much longer. If we do not correct our ways, they will. That would be really unpleasant for most Americans.

Without growth reducing CO2 will be a killer. There was a large study out of England that estimated the ruduction in growth to be 1-2% BIP. I looked at the Research pretty closly and think it is somewhat optimistic given today's technology. Think more "LifeChangiung". Alone the flight Frankfurt, Germany to San Francisco, California is about, what an inhabitant of the world is allowed in emissions for a year. No more meat. No more heating nor internet.

Now that is something we can live with, I am sure. But it would possibly not be necessary, if we develop more efficient technology first. This was Bush's approach and it has panned out. Should the US increase alternative energy use now, it will have a much cheaper stock of production facilities, than it would have, had it started, when Clinton initialed the Kyoto Protocol. This does not mean we would not have to start sometime. But it also does not look as if the issue is as pressing as we were lead to believe. Newer research points out that we probably have more time. This will not

Interesting, today's NYT has a feature on the world's bewilderment towards US brinkmanship, but also this nugget:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/w...l=1&adxnnlx=1381932690-1W4F4p/iJyviC6vQIDhNvQ
Indeed, the unequal distribution of power and wealth — part of the exceptionalism that American politicians loudly defend — has become a focal point for many foreign economists and officials. If any other nation had gotten this close to failing to pay its debts, they say, its economy would have already collapsed as investors fled, creating the need for a bailout not unlike what occurred here in Mexico in 1994.

“The U.S.’s exorbitant privilege” — of issuing the world’s most widely accepted currency — “allows it not to have a budget, to bump against debt limit with scant market reaction,” said Luis de la Calle, a Mexican economist.

So the world would probably still put up with whatever we did, more than with Britain or Argentina, unless we do these debt crises so often.
 
Interesting, today's NYT has a feature on the world's bewilderment towards US brinkmanship, but also this nugget:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/w...l=1&adxnnlx=1381932690-1W4F4p/iJyviC6vQIDhNvQ


So the world would probably still put up with whatever we did, more than with Britain or Argentina, unless we do these debt crises so often.

Thank you for the article. I always like reading one I missed.

It is not a case of bankruptcy at this point. It would be a willful default and everybody knows this. The money is not really in danger at this point. The US is not yet Greece.

The amount of debt, however, has reached a level, that will cause the US to pause, when interest rates climb. This will happen. There is no question of that. The only question is how many months it will be till then. If we go into recession, it will take somewhat longer. But growing at present rates while printing money, there does not seem to be any way to avoid rates rising relatively soon, because inflation will pick up. It will pick up even if we are in recession, if we continue to print money for the government to spend.

At that time rates could easily double. Nixon was not that lucky. They went way over 10%. That would mean a much higher bill for borrowing. It would be so high, in fact, that we would struggle to pay social security and health care.
 
Thank you for the article. I always like reading one I missed.

It is not a case of bankruptcy at this point. It would be a willful default and everybody knows this. The money is not really in danger at this point. The US is not yet Greece.

The amount of debt, however, has reached a level, that will cause the US to pause, when interest rates climb. This will happen. There is no question of that. The only question is how many months it will be till then. If we go into recession, it will take somewhat longer. But growing at present rates while printing money, there does not seem to be any way to avoid rates rising relatively soon, because inflation will pick up. It will pick up even if we are in recession, if we continue to print money for the government to spend.

At that time rates could easily double. Nixon was not that lucky. They went way over 10%. That would mean a much higher bill for borrowing. It would be so high, in fact, that we would struggle to pay social security and health care.

Yeah, I agree the problem is big. Which is why I'm so irked that the GOP has championed this fight and then made a rule forbidding tax revenues from even being considered. It's like going into a championship fight and then tying your own hand behind your back because you don't want to mess up your manicure.
 
Yeah, I agree the problem is big. Which is why I'm so irked that the GOP has championed this fight and then made a rule forbidding tax revenues from even being considered. It's like going into a championship fight and then tying your own hand behind your back because you don't want to mess up your manicure.

Of course there is that question. Why did the US get a manicure before the fight? We did know it was coming after all.
 
I guess you must have slept through the entire 2004 election. Kerry refused to release his grades for months and finally someone found them and it turned out that Bush has a slightly higher GPA despite all the claims he was less intelligent than Kerry. He also got into the top B school in the country while Kerry-who had an equally high pedigree, had to settle for a much lower ranked law school

Actually that is too subjective to be proof. Perhaps the Bush family was better at getting a barely getting by legacy into schools. Cheerleader BushII was great at turning a minority stake into 'owner-ship' of the Texas rangers. Just like his hobby oil companies were bought up when he needed to move on. Kerry was chosen for an honor at graduation, BushII was not.

But you said IQ tests for the military so I was wanting to see those numbers. This was about IQ tests, please provide the IQ test results....
 
Actually that is too subjective to be proof. Perhaps the Bush family was better at getting a barely getting by legacy into schools. Cheerleader BushII was great at turning a minority stake into 'owner-ship' of the Texas rangers. Just like his hobby oil companies were bought up when he needed to move on. Kerry was chosen for an honor at graduation, BushII was not.

But you said IQ tests for the military so I was wanting to see those numbers. This was about IQ tests, please provide the IQ test results....

BDS appears to be terminal. GIYLF. The fact is, Democrats claimed that Bush wasn't smart enough to be president so they ran first a guy who had Ds at Harvard and then managed to fail to complete two programs (Vanderbilt Law and Divinity) that are far less rigorous than Harvard B school. Then they ran a Boston Brahmin whose main success came from marrying two very wealthy women, who also had lower grades than Bush at Yale and didn't get into Harvard Law but had to go to maybe the third best law school in Boston-Boston College while Bush was going to the best Business school in the known world
 
BDS appears to be terminal. GIYLF. The fact is, Democrats claimed that Bush wasn't smart enough to be president so they ran first a guy who had Ds at Harvard and then managed to fail to complete two programs (Vanderbilt Law and Divinity) that are far less rigorous than Harvard B school. Then they ran a Boston Brahmin whose main success came from marrying two very wealthy women, who also had lower grades than Bush at Yale and didn't get into Harvard Law but had to go to maybe the third best law school in Boston-Boston College while Bush was going to the best Business school in the known world

Nice quibble, bad CON game. YOU claimed both BushII and Kerry took IQ tests to join the military yet NOW you can't produce the numbers.. :roll:

BushII may have attended 'the best' business school but his managing of the oil companies and the Texas Rangers doesn't show the value of that... :shock:

I'd say the 'genius' BushII has is in making the most of gladhanding and his family name.

Until you produce the test scores (you claim to know) that prove BushII had a higher score you are just blowing CON smoke.
 
Former presidents have a good deal of power, because they don't have their hands dirty in the current political mess, so I'd say any former president would make a great mediator, but only if they did so very infrequently.
 
Back
Top Bottom