Posted on 12/07/2003 1:43:00 PM PST by bdeaner
Does it occur to you that, as a result of Klintoon's military cuts, not to mention his failures in having the cojones to protect this nation's security from devastating risk, when faced with the 911 attacks and our agenda had to be immediately re-directed, that our military has almost had to be re-built because it had been laid so bare? What price tag do you place on protecting this country? What price tag do you place on your and your family's personal freedom? Does it even occur to you that your very life and your safety are not guaranteed?? That it has to be wisely overseen and then action taken to protect your butt from terrorism? .. and that takes billions of dollars in resources?
You small-minded, short-sighted people really get me. Make sure you vote for Shrillery Dean .. they'll protect your butt .. oh yeah. Back to DU with ya. FREEDOM ISN'T FREE!
He's not triangulating -- he's tacking.
A course of action meant to minimize opposition to the attainment of a goal.
Brief economic blips in the GDP like the 9/11 dip or the 98-99 bubble distort the picture, yes. But relating spending with the GDP over the longer term, the blips disappear and you get a more accurate picture of how much of the economy is in the feds' hands.
Didja bother to look at my numbers and see that they only concern the growth of social programs and don't even include military spending?
As Barone points out, Bush has made no bones about political surrender to popular spending programs. Neither the Education bill nor the Prescription Drugs are any good at all. And it looks like he will be forced to concentrate the rest of his presidency on the terror war. A landslide in 2004 would help W get some help in Congress to make some progress domestically.
It is very clear to me that Dubya is guided by his faith and love of humanity...2 things that the liberals and the fringe far right seem incapable of.
Bush campaigned for Social Security individual investment accounts in 2000 but, with many congressional Republicans queasy, has not mentioned them much since. I think he is going to return to the issue next month and make Social Security a major issue in the campaign.The critical point about "privatizing" Social Security investment is that it is the only possible way of relieving the burden of Social Security on the Treasury in the long run. So long as SSTF funds are (by law must be) "safely invested" in government bonds, the reality is that the SSTF funds are an engine of Treasury current-accounts overspending and of future tax increases to redeem the "safe" bonds in the SSTF.Most proposals have talked of letting you invest 2 percent of your 12.4 percent Social Security tax in the market. But the nonpartisan chief actuary of the Social Security Administration has just costed out a proposal to let you invest 6.4 percent and concluded that it would leave the system sound "through 2077 and beyond." Bush's Social Security appointees have been keeping in close touch with the leaders of the AARP, whose support was critical in passing the Medicare bill.
Individual investment accounts would move America toward more choice and accountability, away from dependence on big institutions and toward more independence and self-reliance. That is Bush's brand of conservatism, and it is in line with changes in the character of the country.
Privatizing part of the SSTF means investment in the real economy, and reduced government obligation to tax our grandchildren to fund our retirement. It also means a long-term support to the stock market, not only helping the economy directly but sustaining the values of the taxable 401(k) retirement reserves--thereby boosting general-fund revenue just when the Treasury needs the help to redeem government bonds in the SSTF.
IOW privatizing the SSTF is sound finance on a multi-trillion $$ scale--and hence is a profoundly significant conservative decision. It would cover a multitude of sins against conservative principle. Liberals say that "our children are the future;" conservatives concern themselves about how present behavior affects our great-grandchildren yet unborn. That includes not only "the children" but their children, as adult parents.
I DESPISE what the Klintoon couple did and is doing to the sensibilities and culture of this country. My fury at the degradation resultant directly from their occupancy of the White House and their presence on the national political scene will definitely come through in my comments.
You say, with vagueness, "conservatism," yet don't go into any details or specifics of what that means to you.
It may be a good idea if you just skip over my posts in the future. I sense we're not on the same wavelength.
CGTRWK:
I honestly didn't read your figures before I posted. I was responding to your first commentary. I certainly see what you're saying .. and since I'm not an economist and I'm not a member of the administration, I'll refer to Andy Card's statements, when questioned this morning by Chris Wallace. I also know that #'s, ratios, percentages, increases and decreases can be spun according to the speaker's agenda. Who could ever forget in '94 how the Dems shreiked constantly about the Pubbies spending cuts, when in truth it was an increase in spending, but not as much of an increase -- that's a cut to the twisted, spinning Dems ... and people buy it!
"CARD: Well, all I know is that the foundations in the economy are very good. Interest rates have continued to be low. The tax cuts are still making a difference, and they're generating more opportunities for consumers. We're finding that the inventories at many of our facilities are very low, which means they have to be replenished. And the numbers in the last go-around reflected that great opportunity is there in the manufacturing sector.
So I actually think we're poised for more significant growth, and the economists are predicting that next year we'll have significant growth as compared to the last year.
WALLACE: But I'm not hearing an answer in the neighborhood of when you're going get...
CARD: Well, I don't have a crystal ball and say that, you know, things will change by March 1st. But I can tell you that all of the direction is the right direction. And we're going to do everything we can to make sure that people who are looking for a job will be able to find a job, and our policies will reflect that.
WALLACE: But obviously I don't have to tell you that we're coming up on an election year, and the Democrats are already poised, saying that, at this point, President Bush stands to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss in his term.
Are you going to be able to get back the 2 million-plus jobs that you need before next November?
CARD: We're going to do everything we can to try to get there. I can tell that the president inherited a recession that we weren't told we were going to inherit. And then we had the shock of September 11th. We had a crisis in corporate governance. And all of that contributed to a downturn in our economy.
And the tax cuts that the president put in place, both in 2001 and in 2002, have made a difference, and they helped to get the economy back moving again. And the war on terror is something that is commanding an awful lot of our attention appropriately, as is securing the homeland.
But the third priority of the president has been undertaking is to address the challenges in our economy. And we are well poised for economic growth and a growth that will include jobs.
WALLACE: One other aspect of the jobs picture was that there was a decline in the number of manufacturing jobs for the 40th straight month.
And let's turn to the president's decision this week to lift the steel tariffs. As you know, the administration maintains that there was no connection between the decision to lift the tariffs and the fact that Europe and Japan were poised, within days, to slap tariffs on $2 billion in U.S. exports.
I've got to tell you, Mr. Card, it sounds like quite a coincidence.
CARD: Well, first of all, the president said that he was going to institute these safeguard measures for the steel industry to allow the steel industry a chance to reorganize. And they did that. There were changing economic circumstances over the course of the months that that program was in place. And we did see positive changes...
WALLACE: But if I may, you're saying that there was no connection to the fact that you were about to get into a trade war with Europe and Japan?
CARD: Well, the president considered what was happening in our economy. It wasn't about Europe, it wasn't about Japan. It was about the United States economy and the restructuring that had to take place and did take place in the steel industry. That's what...
WALLACE: But why wouldn't you care that Europe and Japan were about to put tariffs on $2 billion in U.S. products?
CARD: Well, first of all, those tariffs are minuscule when you consider the size of the U.S. economy. So it wasn't as if those tariffs were a great threat to our viability as an economy.
But he was taking a look at the overall economy and what was happening in the steel industry and with steelworkers, and there has been restructuring, and so the nature of our changing economic times is what justified the president pulling back on those safeguards and allowing us to go forward.
WALLACE: But, Mr. Card, a number of steel executives and union leaders say that the economy, the industry is not fixed. And let's put up on the board here what Leo Gerard, the head of the U.S. steelworkers, said. He said that — he called it a "sorry betrayal of American steelworkers." And he said, "Our trading partners obviously engaged the administration in a game of guts poker. The president blinked."
CARD: Well, I disagree with him. He doesn't have his facts right. And the president weighed the changing circumstances in our economy. He did allow the steel industry to have a chance to catch its breath, make some changes.
I would point out that the value of the steel industry in America has actually increased over the past several months, and so I think that means that the people who are investing in the steel industry are demonstrating more confidence than maybe the steelworkers are.
But the president is committed to making sure our economy can grow. And we did allow the steel industry to have an opportunity to catch up and make some changes. And it's been a good decision. It was a good decision for the consumers, and it was a good decision for the restructuring in the steel industry.
WALLACE: Spending — a number of conservatives, members of your own party, are upset with the president for not taking a tougher line on spending.
As we said before, you can stack the numbers up any way but let's look at a chart prepared by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. They say that non-defense, non-9/11 spending has increased 11 percent on Mr. Bush's watch, which is considerably higher than the Clinton years.
CARD: Well, first of all, if you take a look at all the non- defense and non-homeland-security spending, our budgets have grown by 6 percent, 5 percent and, then the fiscal year that we're in right now, 3 percent. That compares with a 15 percent growth in that same definition of budget under the Clinton administration. So we've certainly...
WALLACE: Well, you know, there is an argument that there have been some emergency bills that you've approved that put the number up. In any case, you know...
CARD: But what you know...
WALLACE: ... that conservatives — let me just, if I may ask the question. You know that a number of conservatives are unhappy that this president has not taken a tougher line on spending.
CARD: Well, he is taking an appropriate line on spending. He is a great watchdog for the taxpayers' money and the money that you contribute to the government to help meet our obligations.
The first challenge is to win the war on terror and to secure the homeland. The second challenge is to create economic opportunity and growth. And so, the resources that we're spending are focused primarily in those three areas. On the non-defense, non-homeland- security side of the budget, we are keeping fiscal discipline in place.
And we're actually driving discipline throughout the process, including on Capitol Hill. The last budget that was passed, including defense and homeland security and all other discretionary spending, only grew by 4 percent. And that is considerably lower than any of the budgets that were...
WALLACE: You talk about the president...
CARD: ... presented in the previous administration.
WALLACE: Excuse me. You talk about the president being a watchdog. Question: Why, almost three years in, has this president not vetoed a single spending bill?
CARD: The good news is that we've been able to work closely with the Republican leaders in the House and the Senate to make sure that no bills would get to the president's desk that he would veto. So there are an awful lot of things that we've kept out of legislation. And the president frequently sends letters to the Hill, or advisers to the president send letters to the Hill suggesting that they would recommend a veto if something were included in the bill. We've been very successful in having that threat of a veto prevent any legislation from passing that the president would have to veto. So that's a success story, actually."
*************
Do you believe that Card is spinning the truth here? If you do, there's nothing I can say to you .. we disagree.
Is there politics involved? .. of course there is. No president is going to suit every conservative's wishes perfectly. He must be President to the entire country; therefore, he must make some compromises. Given the WHOLE picture, I'm extremely grateful that GWB is our President, and I will wholeheartedly support his reelection.
I look at his big picture agenda: fighting the war on terror, a strong military, tax cuts, better education, job re-training, welfare reform .. down the line. Are there some programs I could live without?? Sure there are .. but the major areas of his focus listed above and his decency, uprightness and resolve of his convictions are very important to me.
If we have a relatively stable world situation, sensible taxes and trade policies, incentives to business for spending, this produces a good economy. Jobs go up, revenues go up, and deficits goes down. It's Reagannomics, pure and simple .. trickle down economics.
We have NEVER had such a devastating psychic, physical, emotional, and financial blow as the 911 attacks. NO other president has had to deal with the uncertainty and complexities of this time. It strikes me as reasonable that Bush and this administration have been and are juggling enormous critical issues, and I don't know how anyone else could handle all these issues and accomplish any more.
If we don't stop terrorism, forget about the economy and all the on budget and off budget item details. They'll shrink in relevance if we don't destroy this evil before it destroys us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.