NationStates Jolt Archive

As much as I condemn Bush for signing the Congress's sprawling appropriations, remember that it is the Congress, NOT the president, that appropriates government funds to be spent.

So if you want to make a difference in our government's deficit spending, vote out the gerrymanders that take up space on Capitol Hill.
-This rant brought to you by Super-power Inc., a subsidiary of the little-'l' libertarian school of thought

As much as I condemn Bush for signing the Congress's sprawling appropriations, remember that it is the Congress, NOT the president, that appropriates government funds to be spent.

So if you want to make a difference in our government's deficit spending, vote out the gerrymanders that take up space on Capitol Hill.
-This rant brought to you by Super-power Inc., a subsidiary of the little-'l' libertarian school of thought
DOWN WITH THE REPUBLOCRATS! :D

DOWN WITH THE REPUBLOCRATS! :D
Heh ya, can't forget that :)
But on a serious note: I have to blame the Congress for allowing themselves to spend all this money so wastefully. But as I also said before, I am disappointed in Bush for consistently rubber-stamping the Congress's deficit spending, and the lack of judicial inquiry into some spending's constitutionality (although I fear judicial activism where this is concerned).

As much as I condemn Bush for signing the Congress's sprawling appropriations, remember that it is the Congress, NOT the president, that appropriates government funds to be spent.

So if you want to make a difference in our government's deficit spending, vote out the gerrymanders that take up space on Capitol Hill.
-This rant brought to you by Super-power Inc., a subsidiary of the little-'l' libertarian school of thought

. . .Did Bush lose his veto power when I wasn't looking or something? Oh yeah, he just never makes use of it.

But the fact that he merely failed to use means that could have slowed or stopped the accretion of a deficit does not mean that he has no complicity; far from it. He had the material means to stop some excesses, like vetoing spending. To a much greater extent, he could have used the power of the executive to call for making fiscal restraint a priority or (gasp!) raising taxes to match the government's need. He did none of the above. As such, he is culpable, and in a very serious way.

As long as you keep letting them buy votes with pet spending projects, they'll keep throwing money into them. Then there is the fact that no one is ever held accountable for government waste (a crime which is, in my book, much worse then some petty corruption. Brown envelopes are given willingly), and you generally have a mess.

As much as I condemn Bush for signing the Congress's sprawling appropriations, remember that it is the Congress, NOT the president, that appropriates government funds to be spent.

So if you want to make a difference in our government's deficit spending, vote out the gerrymanders that take up space on Capitol Hill.
-This rant brought to you by Super-power Inc., a subsidiary of the little-'l' libertarian school of thought
Yes, Congress appropriates the money, but the President puts out a budget request, and also pushes for its passage from the bully pulpit of the Presidency--notice I'm not saying "Bush" here. That's because it's the way of all Presidents and all Congresses (Congrii?). Bush got the tax cuts he wanted from Congress--a Republican congress--so both are to blame for the deficit spending. Besides, if Bush didn't want the deficit spending, he could have vetoed the budgets and sent them back to the Congress. He does have that power, even though he's never used it.

"The Buck Stops Here."

"Veto"

"'nuff said"

Congress has the greatest blame for the deficit, but Bush shoulders quite a bit, too. The plan to socialize Medicare was his, and so was GWOT, and the tax cuts. He could have one or two, but not all.

Congress has the greatest blame for the deficit, but Bush shoulders quite a bit, too. The plan to socialize Medicare was his, and so was GWOT, and the tax cuts. He could have one or two, but not all.

If he had socialized health care, it would have been a vast improvement. What it was really about was 1) expanding Medicare's system to cover the medication of their clients, despite the fact that it was highly dubious about how great a need there was for this service, while 2) restricting Medicare from acting as a collective bargaining agent to keep down prices.

Really what it was was a huge handout to the drug companies. They are guaranteed a massive infusion of cash from the public domain, while at the same time said domain is not legally allowed to use its muscle to restrict prices.

As long as you keep letting them buy votes with pet spending projects, they'll keep throwing money into them. Then there is the fact that no one is ever held accountable for government waste (a crime which is, in my book, much worse then some petty corruption. Brown envelopes are given willingly), and you generally have a mess.
That's exactly why government is inefficient at handling our money. It's not that there's lack of money (not even close), it's just that nobody's watching the watchers. To win votes, they sell of our own long-term futures along with those of our children and grandchildren.
Congress writes checks that America's future citizens will have to pay for. For this reason alone, we're going to continue to see a decline in middle class living standards as our debt slowly swallows our once-thriving economy.

The poor, of course, will probably still be cashing their own government checks and food stamps, nonetheless. It's the middle class that'll have to bear the burden, for the most part.
Reminds me of this quote:
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." ~ P.J. O'Rourke

The poor, of course, will probably still be cashing their own government checks and food stamps, nonetheless. It's the middle class that'll have to bear the burden, for the most part.
That is the way it generally goes. The poor have numbers and pitty, and the rich have cash and experts for hire, in the middle class you get fucked from both directions.

For this reason alone, we're going to continue to see a decline in middle class living standards as our debt slowly swallows our once-thriving economy.


Maybe someone can explain this to me, because I see no real correlation between a national debt and anything other than a superficial impact on the economy. Has the government ever not had the money they said they were going to have? Have any of the services not gotten the money that they were allotted because the debt swallowed it? Has the govrnment been taking more money from people as a result of this debt? The only thing I can really see it impacting is the price of the dollar, which is only important in relation to other countries.

I'm not an economist, maybe I just dont see it.

Maybe someone can explain this to me, because I see no real correlation between a national debt and anything other than a superficial impact on the economy. Has the government ever not had the money they said they were going to have? Have any of the services not gotten the money that they were allotted because the debt swallowed it? Has the govrnment been taking more money from people as a result of this debt? The only thing I can really see it impacting is the price of the dollar, which is only important in relation to other countries.

Inflation. Large amounts of deficit spending stoke inflation by pumping cheap money in to the economy, and the weakening of the dollar drives up commodity prices which acts as a secondary force driving up inflation. There are times when deficit spending is beneficial, like in the deflationary environment of a recession or a sudden shock to the economy, but during a strong expansion (like the present), it only stokes inflation which curtails growth.

The government pays for its debt by creating more money through the sale of treasury bonds/and actually printing currency. As a result, more and more tax money must be diverted to pay for interest on the debt; in reality, debt service payments make up the second largest single expenditure in the budget.

Maybe someone can explain this to me, because I see no real correlation between a national debt and anything other than a superficial impact on the economy. Has the government ever not had the money they said they were going to have? Have any of the services not gotten the money that they were allotted because the debt swallowed it? Has the govrnment been taking more money from people as a result of this debt? The only thing I can really see it impacting is the price of the dollar, which is only important in relation to other countries.

I'm not an economist, maybe I just dont see it.
And it is the price of the dollar that will kill us.
Perhaps you've never heard of this place called Germany?
Well they had some nice little chappies (called themselves the Weimar Republic) who started running off Marks as fast as possible to pay foriegn debt. As a result, their entire economy dived through the ground faster then anyone could keep up with, and the entire economy was slapped out of existence.

:) As a result, more and more tax money must be diverted to pay for interest on the debt; in reality, debt service payments make up the second largest single expenditure in the budget.

Huh, I did not know that.

Still I dont fear inflation that much, The dollar is still competant.

And yes if we were to just try paying off the debt by printing money that would happen. But then look at the yen. Economies can work with a very weak currency.

Besides if worse comes to worse we can always just take over everyone we owe money to.:mp5: :)

On the other hand, should the US not print dollars to pay up its debt, either taxes would have to go up in order to pay up the debt, or interest rates would sky rocket.

Well they had some nice little chappies (called themselves the Weimar Republic) who started running off Marks as fast as possible to pay foriegn debt. As a result, their entire economy dived through the ground faster then anyone could keep up with, and the entire economy was slapped out of existence.

Not quite an accurate comparison, but the idea is similar. However, Germany also had to rebuild their country's economy, cope with the loss of millions of able-bodied men and their tax revenue, and on top of that had to pay reparations (in gold, no less, which just made their currency even more worthless). The US doesn't print enough money relative to its economy or population to cause hyperinflation, or even serious inflation through deficit spending.

Generally, deficit spending's effect on the economy is muted if the annual deficit as a %GDP is less than the rate of economic growth. The 2004 and 2005 deficits are close to this level, but the hurricane spending could easily derail this.

Not quite an accurate comparison, but the idea is similar. However, Germany also had to rebuild their country's economy, cope with the loss of millions of able-bodied men and their tax revenue, and on top of that had to pay reparations (in gold, no less, which just made their currency even more worthless). The US doesn't print enough money relative to its economy or population to cause hyperinflation, or even serious inflation through deficit spending.
It was the easiest explanation I could think of off the top of my head, even though it is a rather extreme example of the effect.

Lets not forget we elect and pay them to continuosly steal money from us. so really its the fault of the American people

If he had socialized health care, it would have been a vast improvement. What it was really about was 1) expanding Medicare's system to cover the medication of their clients, despite the fact that it was highly dubious about how great a need there was for this service, while 2) restricting Medicare from acting as a collective bargaining agent to keep down prices.

Really what it was was a huge handout to the drug companies. They are guaranteed a massive infusion of cash from the public domain, while at the same time said domain is not legally allowed to use its muscle to restrict prices.
It's the type of socialization advocated by John K. Galbraith. However, this is largely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

As much as I condemn Bush for signing the Congress's sprawling appropriations, remember that it is the Congress, NOT the president, that appropriates government funds to be spent.

If you want to take a very simplistic view of how a budget is passed, yes. The president cannot vote on apprpriations bills. But this president is responsible for much of the deficit. Discretionary spending on the military has increased dramatically because he started a war that is now costing more than $200 billion. He asked for and signed two enormous tax cuts, the two of which the Congressional Budget Office said 90% of the deficit originated. The lack of preparedness on the part of the federal government to handle Katrina, such as having the head of the Saudi Arabian horse administration run FEMA, will surely be costly.