Posted on 01/13/2004 1:38:02 PM PST by quidnunc
You hear it in the coffee shops all over the "red areas" of the map. Everyone knows that is where the real politics is discussed in America. Conservatives are asking themselves, "What was the President thinking?" They might be talking about No Child Left Behind, or steel tariffs or the signing of many less than conservative bills.
In the coffee shops in the "blue areas," liberals don't sit around much. They are too angry and busy to stop for a while but many are thinking that President Bush is the most conservative president in years, since "oh, my God, Reagan," and he must be stopped.
Both of these assessments cannot be true and after spending years looking at politics, I took my first serious stand on a candidate in 1968 at the tender age of 9, if both sides are mad at you, you are probably on the right track. So why should conservatives and moderates support the President, now on issues and later this year at the ballot box?
-snip-
Based on the history of this President, we better not count him out till we see how things unfold. He is what conservatives asked for in a President. He cut taxes, got our economy going again and lives and breathes the safety of this country and the people in it. When it is all said and done, George W. Bush does what he believes is right for the American people and he is willing to stand on his record in November.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Hmmm... wait a sec, let me check that degree I have on the wall. Yup, it says economics right on it. I though I managed to squeeze in a few eco classes between basket weaving and film aesthetics. Yes you could sell land to pay it off, but absent the debt you would have surplus funds. Money is fungible, so we could go through the semantics but the debt represents a claim of future assets. If you pass the debt onto your kids you are placing a claim on their assets any which way you look at it. As for the printing press argument, inflation is one way a govt can tax. It's been done before and will be done again. Defaulting would cause a bank crisis in the US that would harm economic output so the tax would come in the form of a recession / depression. Quite frankly, that is the stupidest thing to suggest doing to our kids.
Yeah, you seem to have been out of the loop for some time now. To catch you up, ponder the following equation: deficits = deferred taxes
Sadly, you've missed my point again. I did NOT advocate defaulting on our debt. I merely listed several ways in which a deficit could be handled *without* raising taxes, thereby supporting my contention that deficits do not have to equal higher taxes...with courteous tangible examples rather than the more common empty rhetoric of late.
Yeah, those OMB estimates are always dead-on. You can count on it.
Notice I said deficits = deferred taxes not deficits = raised taxes. If you owed me money and I said you did not have to pay me, instead I'll just take your car in payment, would you argue that you got away without paying me?
The OMB is hardly the issue. What matters is what Congress and the President have legally *authorized* in spending...which is $39.5 Billion per year for each of the next ten years (i.e. $10 per American per month). Any changes to that level of spending would require *new*, additional legislation...legislation that would have an uphill fight, by the way.
Surely you must have facts to back up these accusations.
Perhaps you could enlighten us on some of these programs, expenses etc...that the President has increased.
Bear in mind however, we only want actual facts and figures that you have access to.
Your usual assumptions and generalizations are no substitute for the true figures in this case.
Then perhaps you could educate us as to just how the Fiscal Legislative Budget process works and how it relates to the GDP as well as the economic index. Then we would like you to illustrate point by point, just where the President has failed in all respects, but only substantiated with factual details based upon the above criteria.
Do you think you are well enough informed to accept this challenge?
So you did. Point taken.
And for the most part you are correct, however, there are *technical* exceptions which, though hardly popular, permit exceptions to your "rule" above (e.g. defaulting on debt, leasing unused federal land, running printing presses, etc.).
Thus deficits do not have to equate to deferred taxes. Those who loaned money to Iraq back in the 1990's are certainly learning that lesson today...
Ponder this , economic growth based on low taxes leads to deficit reduction/elimination. That is the difference between US economic theory and Canadian economic theory. I am still wondering what made you leave Canada because you are a fish out of water here in the United States.
The reduced deficit was the result of the runaway economy of the '90's.
Since we have been slowly coming out of a serious recession, as well as fighting a war, the deficit will be higher. This has very little to do with the President's economic policy. If fact, because the President stimulated the economy by cutting taxes, the actual revenue taken in by the treasury has lessened the severity of the deficit and will improve it as the economy grows stronger.
Our Canadian friend has no knowledge of how our system works. hopefully he can learn to listen instead of criticizing something he knows very little about.
Indeed, we are starving the beast, but that's not how our 3rd Party friends are going to portray our expanding government.
He says he is now a citizen of the US and is here to save us from ourselves though I have not seen him disagree with his former country's policies.
The President's plan for privatization of SS is brilliant, much like anyone who invests a portion of their pre-tax income. (401K)
Instead of us only recovering dollar for dollar what we paid in, we have the opportunity to increase it.
Military expenses will also decrease because Clinton gutted them so badly, the initial cost to restore our forces, has been abnormal but will also stabilize eventually. (Don't forget that with Libya, N. Korea, Syria, etc.. and very soon, Iran becoming less of a problem, the military will be a decreasing expense.
Our logical thought supported by fact must have been to much for his inventive supposition, supported by hear-say.
That would be a really cute response, except that I'm not a socialist. And by the way, if you think you stand for freedom, why are you busting your ass to get a Democrat elected president?
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.