A graphic, a budget, a plan.

[solarbird]

Anybody who ever tries to tell me again that the Republican party stands for fiscal responsibility should prepare to be laughed at to their face.




Not to mention this article, which matches figures I've seen elsewhere. Keep in mind that budget deficits are the same as interest rate hikes. They compete for lending capital and drive down both investment and the ability of businesses (and everyone else) to borrow money.

What Is He Thinking?

http://msnbc.com/news/870062.asp?0cv=CB30

Is the Bush budget all about slashing Social Security and Medicare? Yes, says Kent Conrad and ‘it is nuts, stone-cold nuts’

NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

Feb. 7 - Sticker shock. That’s the reaction on Capitol Hill to President George W. Bush’s budget. The deficit numbers are staggering, even to Bush loyalists: $307 billion next year, more than a trillion dollars in five years. And that’s not counting the looming war with Iraq and the cost of a prolonged occupation. Bush talks plenty about war, but he doesn’t tell the country how he plans to pay for it.

Poring over Bush’s budget documents in his Capitol Hill townhouse one evening this week, Conrad couldn’t believe what he was seeing: mushrooming deficits that peak just when the baby-boom generation begins to retire. That means government spending on Social Security and Medicare will increase when government debt is at its highest.
"It is nuts, stone-cold nuts," Conrad said in an interview with NEWSWEEK. "And they’re not nuts, and they’re not stupid. They’re smart people, and they know what we know, that the deficit will explode when federal expenditures peak. And that’s when I had this revelation: the only rationale for what they’re doing is that they plan to fundamentally gut Social Security and Medicare."

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/68435.htm

Try those numbers as percentages of GDP (or even "real dollars") and not absolute dollars.
It's easy to make anything look bad by just using the right numbers.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-02-03-oppose_x.htm

[solarbird]

1) Your own source says these are record deficits in real dollars. Fine, they're not as percentage of GDP, but in real, inflation-adjusted dollars, they're records. Two years - two years - after massive surpluses. Yeah, the economy's in the tank, but you know what? These deficits aren't helping. Yay, de facto massive interest rate hike. How far down do you think Greenspan can send the prime, anyway? And if you think hitting zero is a good idea, get ready for a long, long economic flatline.

2) And the line that Republicans lambaste Democrats with - no fiscal discipline - is a fucking patent lie and I'm sick of hearing it. I don't give a rat's ass about rationalising it away by pointing to things like percentage of GDP. Republicans spend like crazy. Democrats spend like crazy too, but for the last 20-odd years have been the ones trying to at least aim things towards the black.

And at this point, yeah, the Republicans are worse on liberty issues. Across the board, except on gun rights where they're still good. On ones that affect me directly, they've always been worse. Now it's not just me.

Guh. I never, ever thought the words "I miss Bill Clinton" would pop out of my mouth. Fuck you, Bush, for making me think that. Fuck you.

[tinlail.livejournal.com]

Lord knows I have no real desire to defend Bush, but the notion that the evil republican are doing this to gut ss and medicare is silly. Unless they also intend to remove the AARP from the voter rolls, they might as well shoot themself at the same time.

I don't think there is a long term plan, I don't think either party plans for the long term.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Budgets are propsed by Presidents, but they're but into action by The Congress. The Congress allocates and spends the money. Remember that. Sometimes the President gets most of what he wants, most times he doesn't. Also take into account the economy, which started going south before Clinton left office, and the war which has to be paid for.

I also find it interesting that a bar graph of discrete points has been converted into a line graph, don't you?

[solarbird]

Budgets are propsed by Presidents, but they're but into action by The Congress.

Right. And it's a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS which is going to sign off on this. They are worse, demonstrably than the Democrats.

And no, I don't find it particularly "interesting" that it's been displayed as a line graph - conspiracy implication to the contrary.

[banner.livejournal.com]

First off the line comment wasn't a conspiracy theory thing. I just found it interesting. :-)

Second, the reason the deficit went down under Clinton, wasn't Clinton. It was Newt Gingrich. If you are missing anybody, it's him. W isn't a conservative, he's pretty much a moderate. I mean come on, he teamed up with Ted Kennedy, the Liberal poster boy, to help push thru one of Ted's bills. Now we have a Republican Congress, not a split one, but we also have a war and a recession going on.

I don't think the Repubs are worse than the Demo's, I think these day's they're about even. What we need are a few powerful fiscal conservatives in whichever party has control, and for them to push down spending.

The problem isn't Washington so much though, it's the people. Bread and Circuses, Bread and Circuses. You want fiscal responsiblity, then you have to take the vote away from the dole people and only let those who pay the taxes vote. :-) (And no I don't expect to see that happen ever).

[solarbird]

I think they're worse.

And I don't see Dubya as a moderate. Not with the social-conservative cards that are being played now.

Like John Ashcroft overriding local prosecutors in New York State because they aren't seeking the death penalty often enough for his tastes. It's a geographical death penalty quota. Mind you: I'm pro-death penalty, but quota-basing it? Seeking more death penalty cases in one state because other states do it more? That's just obscene.

This New York Times story has some details; a friend of my in NYC has been following it; he's just so astounded by the whole thing.

Here's the quote about how it's numbers:

The officials also say that Mr. Ashcroft took his strong stand - rejecting recommendations by the United States attorneys in New York against seeking the death penalty in the 10 cases - to address the geographic disparities in the way the death penalty has been sought throughout the United States.

"What we are trying to avoid is one standard in Georgia and another in Vermont," a spokeswoman for Mr. Ashcroft, Barbara Comstock, said last week.

[banner.livejournal.com]

I hadn't heard about the Ashcroft thing, I will look around and see what's out there on it. I don't trust anything in the NY Times anymore, they print lies and fabrications way too often since the new editor came in.
I would like to point out that Ashcroft isn't the first attorney general to bring up 'unequal enforcement' of federal laws, whether or not I agree with it. Personally I'm an advocate of state's rights.

And Bush is a moderate. Sorry, but I'm conservative, I know lots of Conservatives. No one in the Conservative party considers Bush a conservative. Yes I know that to those on the left, everything else appears conservative, but to those of us on the right we put him in the middle. A real conservative would never do a deal with Teddy. It's in the bylaws ;-)

[wrog]

My favorite NY Times trick was when they printed up a list that was supposed to be all terrorist incidents on US soil over the last 20 years or so, and they managed not to include a single abortion clinic bombing.

And this is supposed to be a liberal biased paper? Please.

[wrog]

W isn't a conservative, he's pretty much a moderate.

This has to be the biggest lie of all.

W may talk like a moderate, but if you look at what he does, he's far more socially conservative than Reagan or Gingrich ever dreamed of being. I'll give him points for not actively trying to destroy the public school system (though if you take a good close look at the education bills it turns that the provisions that he now relies on to boost his "moderate" credentials were things that he fought tooth and nail --- Molly Ivins has a lot to say about this...). Most everything else he does is either straight out of the Christian Right playbook or stuff to keep his oil buddies happy.

Look at his appointments: Hard-right social conservatives like Ashcroft and Thompsen are the rule rather than the exception. Out of all of the people he's appointed to his cabinet and the various agencies, exactly two are genuine moderates: Colin Powell and Christine Todd Whitman; neither of them get very near social policy and even so, both of them have been consistently ignored/overruled on important decisions. The only reason Powell is still there is because he's a military kind of guy: you do the job and don't let your own political views get in the way; when the commander-in-chief makes a decision you support him 100%. Most normal folks would have resigned in disgust long ago. As for Whitman, she has about as many career options as William Weld; 'nuff said.

Constrast this with Reagan or Bush Sr. who personally detested the fundamentalists but would periodically throw them bones (sometimes a lot of bones) and then let folks like Jim Baker (who tended to leave the social issues on the back burner) run the show.

[wrog]

for that matter, you can see how close together the ticks are.
I'm not sure how much difference having it as a bar graph is going to make

[wrog]

Keep in mind that budget deficits are the same as interest rate hikes. They compete for lending capital and drive down both investment and the ability of businesses (and everyone else) to borrow money.

Actually, if it were simply a case of interest rates going up, i.e., due to their deciding to make up the deficit directly with T-bills, then the AARP folks would be mostly sitting pretty (the short term part of the bond ladder rolls over into higher interest securities -> their income goes up).

The problem is that there's another way out, namely printing money, in which case it's more like a monster tax on savings --- yes, interest rates will go up eventually, but it'll be after the real damage has been done. It doesn't help that we have a fed governor literally telling people "Hey look, we can always print money,"... no really. Considering the huge levels of consumer debt out there, I'm beginning to think inflation will be politically popular, too.

And given W's success with the "Washington Fuzzy Math" line (in response to Gore's, "you know if you go through with this tax cut of yours there's going to be a wonking HUGE deficit") back in the 2000 "debates", I'm sure they'll find a way to spin it so that the AARP folks won't realize what's happening until it's too late. People are stupid.

[banner.livejournal.com]

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-bowyer021303.asp

Jus thught this was interesting as well.

[solarbird]

What a pile of crap.

Assuming these numbers are accurate, and they are, from whence has arisen the myth of Clinton the deficit hawk and Bush the king of red ink?

How about where Clinton inherited a massive GHWBush deficit and left his successor with a massive surplus, whereas GWBush inherited a massive surplus and immediately plunged the budget deeply back into the red? How about there?

It takes a monumental twisting of numbers, with intent, to come to this sort of "Clinton wasn't a budget hawk and GWBush really is" line. Frankly, again: it's a load of crap.