Time tripping? Again?
Er ... uh ... okay Andrew.
Posted on 09/22/2005 3:35:39 AM PDT by RWR8189
The war on the other side of the world isn't going so well, and opposition at home is starting to grow. But the administration says we have to stay the course.
Meanwhile, shocking images of loss and destruction in a major American city, including a breakdown of law and order with ugly racial overtones, have been broadcast around the world.
The President, conscious that his image as a can-do Texan is eroding, decides on dramatic steps.
Taking to the airwaves, he announces a massive federal response. Washington will provide as much money as needed to rebuild the affected urban areas.
Funds will pour in not only to rebuild, but also to combat historic urban problems tied to race and class.
And if all of that gets you down, you can always change channels and hear about coming concerts by Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones.
Is it 2005 or 1965? How can you tell?
Certainly for historians of American fiscal policy, it's starting to feel like deja vu all over again.
In the mid-1960s, we had a steadily escalating war in Vietnam. Then a series of deadly riots broke out in cities from Newark to Los Angeles.
President Lyndon Johnson, declaring his famous War on Poverty, pledged an open federal checkbook for a range of housing, education, and economic-development programs in the afflicted areas.
'Guns and butter'
A few economic worrywarts fretted about whether we could afford it all - "guns and butter," as the saying went back then. What would all these new programs cost?
The President dismissed his critics. "It's going to cost whatever it costs," he shrugged.
No, wait, I'm time-tripping again. Johnson didn't say that. It was President Bush, speaking just the other day about rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.
"Whatever it costs" might be $200 billion, or it might be more. We still have little idea about the extent of the damage, the cost of repairs, or even how many people will want to live in the areas ravaged by the hurricane.
No matter. Congress shows no interest in limiting the size of the federal tab, and even less in adjusting other taxes or spending to offset the cost of Katrina.
That means that whatever progress we were making on whittling down the federal budget deficit - which Bush earlier promised to cut in half before he left office in 2009 - is likely out the window.
With no new taxes on the table, and nobody in Congress willing to divert other spending - postponing new bridges to sparsely inhabited Alaskan islands, say - there's only one option left: Borrow the money.
And why not? We're a rich country; our credit is triple-A around the world. Everyone, from South American industrialists to the Chinese central bank, wants to lend us money.
Yep, that's what we thought in the 1960s, too.
Bretton Woods system
Back then, the United States essentially ran the international monetary system. Most major European currencies were pegged to the dollar, through a system of agreements signed after World War II at Bretton Woods, N.H.
But as that decade came to its unruly end, the Bretton Woods system broke down. America's spending binge, combined with the linked exchange rates, caused inflation to rise in Europe.
Then, when the Europeans cut loose their currencies from the dollar, inflation took off here as well.
The 1970s were payback time. Inflation ravaged savings, slowed the economy, and kept us lurching from crisis to crisis for almost a decade.
Things are different today - but also the same. For one thing, the Europeans don't tie their currencies to the dollar - but the Asians do.
For another, today's deficits aren't just in Washington. American households, as a group, are also awash in debt via mortgages and credit cards.
And, of course, this time the big-spending Texan in the White House is a Republican.
As if that mattered.
He's right in that we need to delay/offset/cut spending to pay for Katrina.
It is irresponsible to just tack $200,000,000,000 onto the federal deficit.
Agreed on that. It was tone that irritated me so.
Time tripping? Again?
Er ... uh ... okay Andrew.
The government spend too much. I agree with that. I see three alternatives:
1) Wars are expensive. Let's surrender to the terrorists. Think of the savings.
2) Rebuilding that city where the black people lived is expensive. Let's not do it.
3) There's a lot of waste, in small pieces, all through the budget. Let's find the government waste and get rid of it. How hard could it be?
Item 1 is simple suicide. Item 2 is political suicide. Item 3 is La-La Land stuff.
Gee, wonder why?
You left off the ... "our children and grand children will be forced into poverty" ... bit.
Since when has the federal government and Congress been "responsible"? Any talk about cutting back on pork barrel spending?
I didn't think so.
"Philadelphia Inquirer | September 22, 2005 | Andrew Cassel"
Little Lib Andy puts the "ass" in "Cassel".
I am looking forward to the riots in the streets.
Sounds slighte skwed and biased to me.
It's typical liberal trash not based on facts.
Is it 2005 or 1965? How can you tell?
1. No black and white TV's.
2. TV is not the primary source of news, nor is the NYT.
3. No I Dream of Jeannie, Time Tunnel, or It's about Space on TV
4. The small arms ammo produced for Vietnam was used up in Gulf War 1.
5. We have been to the Moon, and remotely sensed Mars and the Stars with Hubble.
6. People are sick of liberal drivel after 30 years.
7. Computers
Andrew is another hysterical Bush hater exaggerating things and not playing with a full deck when it comes to facts.
Stuck on stupid.
Its only 1965 in the newsroom of the Philthadelphia Inqueerer.
I'm a little fuzzy on this, but didn't the Euro weenies back during the 1950s and 1960s refused to pay the USA for all the money spent on their wild spending spree we now refer to as WWII?
So, when we had a couple of near meltdowns in world financial markets because of the Dollar's exchange value in the late 60s and early 70s, where were the funds we were owed by the Euro weenies?
And now we have gargantuan Balance of Payment problems with the Pacific Rim folks? Imbalances again? Seems to me the rest of the world likes to suck up our aid, then pretend they don't owe us...
If you kill an enemy combatant it's guaranteed he'll never pick up a gun again and, in the course of time, his relatives and associates will come-about to learn that "no gun" = "stay alive" and "have gun" = "dead, fast".
If you take away his gun and try feed/clothe/educate him he'll take all he can get from you and STILL try to kill you when he gets the chance because he feels that it is his political/religous/moral/personal responsibility.
Ergo: killing someone frees him of all his responsibilities.
</>
interest rates are the same too. amazing.
The idiots could not prevent this war, but they are doing their level best to ensure that it ends badly. I think there is a contingent in the anti-war left that wants to make sure no war can end well, in order to discourage wars in the future.
Gilligan is dead...
VCR's are almost a thing of the past...
Betamax, 8-Tracks, Pinto all gone...
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.