John Kerry's Economy!!!

[Iriemon]

I think maybe the 1/2 trillion is something of an exaggeration. But they do borrow way too much because they are spending a lot more than we are taking in. That's a congressional issue and one every responsible American should be taking up with their duly elected congressional representatives. This last highway bill was so pork laden I'm surprised it didn't create a lot of hernias and work comp claims among the staff who lugged it around. This is NOT a policy of the Bush administration though he could be criticized for not threatening more vetoes of this stuff. And it is not a consequence of Bush's economic policies. It is a consequence of opportunistic politicians spending like drunken sailors.

1/2 trillion not an exagerration at all. These are the total debt figures from the US Dept of Treasury. Check them yourself at http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

The first figure is the total debt; the second is the increase from the prior year, showing how much more the Govt borrowed that year - the true measure of the deficit.

2000 5,674 18
2001 5,807 133
2002 6,228 421
2003 6,783 555
2004 7,379 596

So far this fiscal year 2005, from 9/30/04 to 8/19/05, the Govt has borrowed $546 billion.

I do not see why you excuse Bush when it comes to Congress' spending. He pushed for the highway bill and the prescription drug bill and everything else. He could veto or line item veto the lard Congress tries to pass. That is why the president was given the line item veto power. Clinton did this or threatened to do it all the time. Bush has never vetoed a single dollar. He goes along with what Congress wants in exchange for the Republican leadership supporting him.

Clinton had to deal with the same Republican Congress and got rid of the deficits and held a lid on spending. Bush is the leader of the Republicans and the president. He is 100% to blame for the deficits of his Administration.

 

[cnredd]

I do not see why you excuse Bush when it comes to Congress' spending. He pushed for the highway bill and the prescription drug bill and everything else. He could veto or line item veto the lard Congress tries to pass. That is why the president was given the line item veto power. Clinton did this or threatened to do it all the time. Bush has never vetoed a single dollar. He goes along with what Congress wants in exchange for the Republican leadership supporting him.

For clarification purposes....The "line-item veto" is NOT in effect...

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control spending in supplementary clauses attached to appropriations bills that included vital spending measures, which had to be signed or vetoed in entirety. It was used once before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

 

[Iriemon]

Temporary tax cuts provide temporary funds. No business will build or expand manufacturing or workforce based on temporary funds. This was the major problem with the "cop on every corner" that the Clinton Administration proposed and put into force. Many of those hired on as law enforcement officers are driving trucks today.

Permanent tax cuts allows business and private citizens to plan into the future. A business can open a new location, expand a current one or product line and hire more people. An individual can plan a car payment or a longer term commitment such as buying or remodeling a home. Sometimes $25 to $100 dollars a month can make all the differences for an individual who is ready to make a decision.

If that individual decides to remodel a kitchen or bathroom it then effects the wood products, cabinet makers, bathroom fixture, plumbing fixture, lighting fixture, flooring and paint people.

Tax cuts that are permanent are something one can plan on instead of seeing it as a windfall that will possibly blow away in a few years. That can help when the landlord wants to raise the rent and you want to pay it. :duel

The idea of temporary tax cuts is that people have more money to spend and that provides a impetus for the economy to pull itself out of a recession. I didn't say I thought it would work many economists question how much of an effect it would have. I said I could see the rational behind it in 2001 to kick start the economy.

Permanent tax cuts are great. Unless the Govt doesn't take in enough revenues, then you end up with permanent borrowing, the state we are in now. Republicans call them tax cuts, they're really not, they are tax deferrments, because by borrowing to fund them, the tax is really just being passed on to future tax payers in the form of debt. That is what has been going on for the last four years.

 

[scottyz]

How would he have done that? Take your time in answering.

Gee I don't know.. maybe by not ignoring Able danger and the Phoenix memo. Just like you're writing a past that doesn't exist to say what you want i'll do the same and say Kerry would have acted and stopped 9/11.

I have posted links to a couple of credible research pieces giving the history and outlining the results of various tax policies. Refute them if you can. Show how Kerry's proposed policies would have produced different results if you can.

You post links that say what you want them to say. You still can't write history that never happened. I'm done.. no point in arguing with someone that's so biased and so far off into la la land.

 

[Iriemon]

For clarification purposes....The "line-item veto" is NOT in effect...

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control spending in supplementary clauses attached to appropriations bills that included vital spending measures, which had to be signed or vetoed in entirety. It was used once before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

Thanks, I didn't know that and stand corrected. Unfortunate ruling, the line item veto gives the president power to specifically trim the lard versus take it or leave it.

 

[Iriemon]

So true and they are Republican and Democrat. Good post. :duel

"Republicans and Democrats." News flash: Republicans control the House, Senate and the White House. Democrats do not control the government; no matter how much you want to excuse Bush and the Republicans for this massive failure of fiscal responsibility.

 

[AlbqOwl]

ScottyZ writes

You post links that say what you want them to say. You still can't write history that never happened. I'm done.. no point in arguing with someone that's so biased and so far off into la la land.

I quite freely admit my bias. I think the right wingers have a whole lot more credibility in their positions on most things than the left wingers do. I accept that it is your opinion that I am far off into la la land. I'm sure others share your opinion on that.

Nevetheless, I shall stick to history that exists and that I have pointed you to. If you have a better history from a more credible source than the Congressional Budget Office or the Cato Institute, put it out there. Otherwise you might look as if you don't have a clue but just wish to criticize.

 

[scottyz]

"Republicans and Democrats." News flash: Republicans control the House, Senate and the White House. Democrats do not control the government; no matter how much you want to excuse Bush and the Republicans for this massive failure of fiscal responsibility.

Bah!! The libs and Clinton are destroying America!! Everything is their fault! My stubbed toe? Clintons fault!! They may not have any power or control any branch of government but somehow those sneaky commies are still at it and it's all their fault dammit! :lol:

 

[AlbqOwl]

Iriemon, I'll give you a full AMEN if you can quote me one Democrat who objected to anything going to his/her state that s/he can take credit for. Also, you might want to review the vote(s).

If you wish to hold only the majority party responsible for all the ills of society and government, we better revisit the last 40-50 years or so I think. Do you really want to do that?

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon, I'll give you a full AMEN if you can quote me one Democrat who objected to anything going to his/her state that s/he can take credit for. Also, you might want to review the vote(s).

If you wish to hold only the majority party responsible for all the ills of society and government, we better revisit the last 40-50 years or so I think. Do you really want to do that?

To what point? I certainly don't defend everything the Democrats have ever done. I just disagree you can insulate Bush from the budget deficits. He ran on the plank of tax cuts and his party implemented them. His party controls both houses of Congress and he holds veto power. I disagree with the proposition that you can excuse Bush from the consequences of his own policies and the actions of his own party. That is like blaming the Democrats for the Iraq war because they voted to give Bush authority to use military force.

 

[AlbqOwl]

To what point? I certainly don't defend everything the Democrats have ever done. I just disagree you can insulate Bush from the budget deficits. He ran on the plank of tax cuts and his party implemented them. His party controls both houses of Congress and he holds veto power. I disagree with the proposition that you can excuse Bush from the consequences of his own policies and the actions of his own party. That is like blaming the Democrats for the Iraq war because they voted to give Bush authority to use military force.

I don't think I did insulate him. I specifically criticized him for not threatening to veto more of this stuff. I don't blame his tax cuts because I believe without them the deficit would have been much higher. His party indeed controls both houses of Congress (and should for the next several elections unless the Dems clean up their act), and I in no way absolve them from fiscal irresponsibility. But you seemed to absolve the Democrats from any responsibility. Being in the minority party does not remove your vote, your voice, or your responsibility in these things. I know because the Republicans were in the minority for most of 60 years until 1994.

Remember, it was under a Republican controlled Congress that the deficit was reported to have gone to zero. It was their policies, not Clinton policies, that accomplished it. (The deficit didn't go to zero of course, but that is the way it was reported.) Clinton didn't have a recession to deal with either, nor did he have a 9/11, nor did he have a war to fund.

Now the Democrats have their hands out for the goodies to buy votes for them as much as the Republicans do, but they go right ahead and condemn the President for deficits and also for cutting just about everything--there's a paradox for you. The hypocrisy is stunning and quite visible for all who are willing to see.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but don't try to lay it all at the feet of George W. Bush. That dog just won't hunt.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't think I did insulate him. I specifically criticized him for not threatening to veto more of this stuff. I don't blame his tax cuts because I believe without them the deficit would have been much higher. .

Upon what assumption do you base this proposition? The budget was balanced in 2000. After Bush's tax cuts, federal tax revenues plummeted. Thanks to that (and spending) the deficits are exceeding 1/2 trillion each year. How have the tax cuts kept the deficit from being much higher?

Remember, it was under a Republican controlled Congress that the deficit was reported to have gone to zero. It was their policies, not Clinton policies, that accomplished it. (The deficit didn't go to zero of course, but that is the way it was reported.) Clinton didn't have a recession to deal with either, nor did he have a 9/11, nor did he have a war to fund.

Clinton inherited an economy that was just coming out of a recession that was much more severe than the slowdown Bush had to deal with. The GDP fell in 1991 (not by much) and unemployment hit 9%. It is true that by the time he came to office in 1993 the economy was growing again.

Clinton also inherited a $340 billion annual deficit budget. I think I posted earlier ratios showing the deficit compared to government revenues.

One of the major reasons the Govt balanced the budget in 2000 is that in 1993, Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes -- the top rate from 31% to 39%. The Dems, not the Repubs, controlled Congress that year (barely) The Republicans opposed that right down the line; it passed the Senate on Gore's pro tem vote. That was before the Republicans took power in 1994 -- the Dems paid a dear price for that bit of political courage.

I used to give the Republicans credit for controlling spending in the 90s. But seeing their track record in the 00s has led me to question this proposition.

Now the Democrats have their hands out for the goodies to buy votes for them as much as the Republicans do, but they go right ahead and condemn the President for deficits and also for cutting just about everything--there's a paradox for you. The hypocrisy is stunning and quite visible for all who are willing to see.

You can see whatever you want. If the Dems controlled the Congress I'd be bitching about them. They don't. The Republicans do.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but don't try to lay it all at the feet of George W. Bush. That dog just won't hunt

Bush as president and leader of the party that controls both houses of Congress has the ultimate responsibility for what is going on with the govt budget today. If Republicans are spending way too much it is his responsibility as leader of the party, if not then as president with veto power, to control them. He has utterly failed to do this.

 

[Iriemon]

(The deficit didn't go to zero of course, but that is the way it was reported.)

No, the deficit actually went to zero; even more, we actually had a surplus. It is true that there are different way the budget is reported. However, both the CBO reported a surplus of 84 billion in 2000, and if you look at total Govt debt, between 12/31/99 and 12/31/00 (Clinton's last year in office) the total US Govt debt fell by a little more than $100 billion (from $5,776B to $5,662B). There was actually a surplus.

You can see the numbers on the Dept Treas Public Debt website I have cited several times.

 

[AlbqOwl]

If the deficit was truly zero and there was a surplus, the national debt would have stopped rising. It didn't. It continued to rise though at a slower rate than before.

 

[gordontravels]

Well, once again, France nor any country in the world can hold a candle to the U.S. Economy. It bears saying that if our economy goes down it will be on top of all the others. No way can China, Japan, France or any other country's economy survive without the U.S.

Everyone here will either agree with that or not but I think it is an overriding fact. So?

Off to another thread or maybe to start another one soon. Take care. :duel

 

[Iriemon]

If the deficit was truly zero and there was a surplus, the national debt would have stopped rising. It didn't. It continued to rise though at a slower rate than before.

It is hard to see precise details in a chart. I'm not familiar with Brillig.com so I don't know where they get their data or how reliable it is shown on the chart.

It is also probably those are fiscal years -- in FY 2000 total debt did go up 18 billion. However, in the calendar year 2000, it went down by the amount I reported, according to the Department of the Treasury.

The numbers I reported are from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where you can get exact numbers to the penny. http://www2.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

I'd trust the reliability of the Dept of the Treasury over brillig.com.

Although, the chart appears to be generally accurate. You can really see how the debt has taken off since 1980 -- except that short period in the late 90s. And look what has happened since Bush took over. It is quite possible we will hit $8 trillion by the end of the year. That's why I think it's fair to call it the Republican debt.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, once again, France nor any country in the world can hold a candle to the U.S. Economy. It bears saying that if our economy goes down it will be on top of all the others. No way can China, Japan, France or any other country's economy survive without the U.S.

Everyone here will either agree with that or not but I think it is an overriding fact. So?

Off to another thread or maybe to start another one soon. Take care. :duel

In terms of shear size you are certainly accurate. The US, however, can no longer claim to be the most successful nation on a per capita basis. Both Norway and Switzerland have higher per capita earnings that the US.

I agree because of its sheer size the US economy is a big player in the world market. I think you may be going a bit too far to say that other economies cannot survive without the US economy.

 

[AlbqOwl]

It is hard to see precise details in a chart. I'm not familiar with Brillig.com so I don't know where they get their data or how reliable it is shown on the chart.

It is also probably those are fiscal years -- in FY 2000 total debt did go up 18 billion. However, in the calendar year 2000, it went down by the amount I reported, according to the Department of the Treasury.

The numbers I reported are from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where you can get exact numbers to the penny. http://www2.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

I'd trust the reliability of the Dept of the Treasury over brillig.com.

Although, the chart appears to be generally accurate. You can really see how the debt has taken off since 1980 -- except that short period in the late 90s. And look what has happened since Bush took over. That's why I think it's fair to call it the Republican debt.

Well there are so many things that have to be factored into the equation such as Carter kept his deficits down by literally decimating the military and Reagan built the military back up to the point that the Iron curtain collapsed during his and Bush I administrations. Reagan policies netted huge growth in the GNP and tax revenues; expenses outstripped the receipts nevertheless. Result ballooning deficits and no more cold war. Was it worth it? I think so. Now Reagan had Democrat congresses the entire way except for two years in which the GOP held a one vote advantage in the Senate. So was that Republican debt? Or Democrat debt?

The debt again climbed sharply through the 90's with Clinton having a Democrat congress the first two years, Republicans in the House for the next six with a mixed bag in the Senate. Republican debt? or Democrat debt here?

Again you can't compare GWB with the others without factoring in 9/11, the war with Afghanistan and then Iraq, and a devastating recession triggered by 9/11.

And you can't factor the deficits in any of the administrations without consideration for entitlements voted into law in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, all of which were beginning to gain momentum by the Carter administration.

I think the best policy now is to not waste time pointing fingers and laying blame, but we should be working on our elected representatives and advising them what they need to do to merit our vote in the next election.

I doubt you and I will ever fully agree on this.

 

[Iriemon]

Again you can't compare GWB with the others without factoring in 9/11, the war with Afghanistan and then Iraq, and a devastating recession triggered by 9/11.

There was no devasting recession. GDP never declined on an annual basis.

The wars have been a factor, particularly the Iraq war. It was supposed to be a quick in and out ("I doubt we'll be there 6 months") but it is costing us a lot more. IMO, if we want to play war games, the stand up thing to do would be increase taxes and pay for it, not decrease taxes and pass the cost to the next generation.

In any event, the wars are only a portion of the problem. What is the cost of the Iraq war to date, $250 billion or so? That is a small portion of the $2,200 billion this pass the buck President has borrowed so far.

And you can't factor the deficits in any of the administrations without consideration for entitlements voted into law in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, all of which were beginning to gain momentum by the Carter administration.

Clinton dealt with those issues too.

The truth is, the Govt nets *more* money now that it pays out for social security and medicare, to the tune of about $150 billion a year. And Bush still can't even come close to balancing the budget even including those extra payments.

I think the best policy now is to not waste time pointing fingers and laying blame, but we should be working on our elected representatives and advising them what they need to do to merit our vote in the next election.

I agree. Here is a letter I wrote to my representatives the other day. If everybody clips it out and sends it to their reps and maybe they will start to get the message.

+++

Dear Senator Martinez,

Two recent items in the news prompted me to write to you. One item pointed out that U.S. Government spending has increased 6.1% so far this year. The other article noted that Congress would soon be visiting the issue of whether the tax cuts passed since 2000 should be made permanent.

According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Public Debt owed by the United States Government has increased by over 500 billion dollars in the first 10 months of fiscal year 2005 (from $7,379 billion on 9/30/04 to $7,887 billion on 7/31/05). Since 2000, the U.S. Government debt has increased by over 2.2 trillion dollars. The U.S Government debt is higher, as a ratio to federal tax revenues (including social security), than it has ever been in the last five decades (or longer).

As a taxpayer, I like to see a smaller portion of my paycheck being taken out for federal income taxes. As a father, however, I am more concerned about the government my children inherit being burdened with an oppressive level of debt. Their generation is going to have enough problems dealing with “baby boomer” retirement and health care, and whatever other problems the world hands them.

I wholeheartedly support the position taken by President Bush on March 3, 2001:

“Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren.”

I think it is wrong for our government to fund its operations by borrowing and creating debt the next generation will have to bear. This practice makes a mockery of the noble sentiments expressed in another statement by the President, in his state of the union address in January, 2003:

“This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.”

I hope, when you consider issues related to additional spending and extending tax cuts, that you will do so with this noble sentiment in mind, so that our generation will live up to the President’s promise and pass on to our children a strong America, not burdened by a massive debt; and so that history will not look at ours as the “pass-the-buck” generation.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters.

Yours truly,

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well since the debate has come full circle with you maintaining it's all GWB's fault and me maintaining there is no single target at which to point a finger, I'll say thanks for a good debate and move on to something else at this point.

 

[Iriemon]

Well since the debate has come full circle with you maintaining it's all GWB's fault and me maintaining there is no single target at which to point a finger, I'll say thanks for a good debate and move on to something else at this point.

You didn't like my letter, huh?