Debt...Wow!

To put it another way, that means roughly $500 from each and every American man, woman, and child, this year.

How much was your "tax cut"?

The $500, you won't have to pay this year. Bush put it on our credit card. We'll have to pay it later, with interest. On top of whatever it costs next year. In addition to everything else.

But it's not a tax increase. No sirree.

 

I have never heard of numbers being stated as "two thousand million".

Congratulate me. I've leapt from the 2 party trap. Come November, I will vote Peroutka if he is on my ballot.

If not, I will either skip the "President box" or vote Kerry. As much as I hate to vote for a Democrat, I just can not see another 4 years under President Bush. He is running the Republican party into the ground.

Reading about Judge Gonzales, his counsel for Supreme Court nominees, I realized that Mr. Bush indeed will not appoint someone to the bench who is anything beyond what the liberals will stand for. He doesn't want to rock the boat, even to save the once conservative party. I give up.

 

George W. Bush is increasingly being compared to Ronald Reagan. It's true that like Bush, Reagan came to Washington with an ambitious plan to cut taxes across-the-board and increase defense spending while containing federal spending. And Reagan, indeed, lightened the tax burden on the American people and oversaw a massive increase in defense spending. Thus, given Bush's recent push for more pro-growth tax cuts combined with increased defense spending for the war on terrorism, the analogy is tempting.

But at this stage in his presidency, Bush's dismal record on spending when measured against Reagan's nullifies that temptation. Better yet, in light of Bush's spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan.

Let's look at the facts. Compared to the same point in Reagan's first term, not only is Bush a bigger spender than Reagan, he's a big spender in his own right. Adjusted for inflation, total spending under Bush's watch will have increased by 14 percent as opposed to 7 percent under Reagan. But more indicative of Bush's spending problem is the run-up in discretionary spending under his watch. Discretionary spending represents funds for programs that Congress has to allocate for on an annual basis and it is the type of spending that the president has the most influence over.

Now, it is true that a sizable portion of this discretionary spending goes toward national defense. Bush will have overseen a 21 percent increase for national defense -- pretty much equal to Reagan. However, the major difference between the two men is discretionary spending not related to national defense. Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men.

The table [below] compares nondefense discretionary spending levels between Reagan and Bush. President Reagan managed to cut spending in most categories. In contrast, Bush has not only failed to match Reagan in reducing spending, spending has actually gone up across the board -- and often at exorbitant levels.



SOURCE

 

And while Reagan cut taxes for the highest brackets, he also signed the largest middle-class tax increase in American history.

Bush seems unlikely to do that; his tax increase will be hidden in the form of huge debt to be paid later.

 

Let's put this debt in perspective, and quit the large numbers game.

Our GDP is close to 11 Trillion.

Our debt is less than half that.

Reducing this to terms we can understand, anyone with an income of $ 110,000 a year and going up, who had a total debt load (including real estate loans) of $50,000-$60,000 would be considered in sound shape. Not only that, but the worth of public and private assets is several times the GDP, so this is more like a fellow with that income and debt load who also has extrememly substantial assets.

Now GW has not done everything I'd like to see fiscally, but we are in a world war, folks!

The fear mongering by people who throw large numbers around without setting their proper context is just plain wrong. The only area where the numbers look really bad is in Social Security and Medicare, but that is mainly because we quit having enough babies! Had the 50 million or so victims of the abortion holocaust been born and raised, we'd be doing fine there as well.

And anyone who would prefer what Kerry will do economically to Bush is smoking something, and it isn't deer meat in the cooker I smell.

 

I have given Bush the benifit of the doubt on the war spending, but its the non-war related spending that has me concerned. No one has to inflate the numbers to see that they are too high. He is the first Republican president to create a federal entitlement program, and he has increased spending in every government program that Reagan cut, even the ones that the Reagan conservatives were calling to abolish.

 

I have given Bush the benifit of the doubt on the war spending, but its the non-war related spending that has me concerned. No one has to inflate the numbers to see that they are too high. He is the first Republican president to create a federal entitlement program, and he has increased spending in every government program that Reagan cut, even the ones that the Reagan conservatives were calling to abolish. </font>[/QUOTE]Just another reason to replace him with Kerry.

 

Who will spend more on the wrong things---on what planet does that make sense?

 

Who will spend more on the wrong things---on what planet does that make sense? </font>[/QUOTE]Well we'll be rid of Bush. The only other one with a real chance to win is Kerry.

 

The national debt as of 6/7/2004 was $7.2 trillion, or 65.5% of an $11 trillion GDP.

For those keeping score at home, the national debt, from 5/31/03 to 5/31/04 increased $638 billion.

 

The national debt as of 6/7/2004 was $7.2 trillion, or 65.5% of an $11 trillion GDP.

For those keeping score at home, the national debt, from 5/31/03 to 5/31/04 increased $638 billion. </font>[/QUOTE]Which still puts it in the same ballpark--a family making $110,000 with a $72,000 debt load is still on the frugal side compared to the average. Alexander Hamilton called the National Debt a National Treasure

 

Just because he had a great last name doesn't always mean he was correct.

Ken Hamilton

 

Hamilton's idea was that the debt would pull the states together economically to a tighter union. Being a federalist, this appealed to him.

 

I am getting a copy of the new biography by Ron Chernow on my "ancestor". I read one out of my school library probably 35 years or so ago. I am sure this one will be much better.

 

Hamilton created our economy by manipulating debt assumption and repayment so as to create a wealthy investor class, and to put our currency on a good footing. He convinced Congress to assume ALL federal and state debts, mostly from the Revolutionary War, to pay FULLY to the CURRENT debt holders, and to re-issue bonds to cover it all. He paid for all of this with an increase in the Tariff. The wealthy class created from the speculators who had bought up Revolutionary War debt at pennies on the dollar, did what speculators do--they speculated some more, and built mills, shipyards, etc., creating a boom economy.

Richard Brookheiser has a great book on Hamilton--can't remember the title.

Hamilton also had the first real sex scandal, and he turned tables on his blackmailers by openly admitting every thing and publishing in the newspapers all the love letters between him and the woman. And, he did not quibble about the meaning of "is."

In the words of Brookheiser, Hamilton came from farther back and from poorer circumstances than any of the Founders. Orphaned at 11 on an obscure island in the Caribbean, he should have ended his life an unknown. But, as Providence would have it, Hamilton was a genius.

 

Well, yes. He does. And even the notion that the federal government has considerable assets that could be hocked to pay for Bush's lavish spending is flawed.

I own a house, which will be paid off in a few years. Appreciation and my payments have given me a rather nice equity.

I don't intend to go in debt, on the assumption that when the bills come due, I can just sell my house.

That used to be considered "conservative", but somehow responsible fiscal policy is now "liberal", according to the neocons.

 

It is hilarious to see these Bushites attempt to justify Bush's out-of-control spending. Then they have the audacity to claim that Kerry would do worse. Keep drinking the Bush's kool-aid.