I don’t mean to sound like Cleve here but holy shit does Bush know how to spend the money…
NY Times on the Bush 455 billion deficit
This is just a huge amount and mind boggling to think that we had surpluses 2 years ago.
What’s better, tax and spend Democrats or no-tax and spend Republicans?
Neither.
Neither.[/quote]
Agreed!
That’s why I’m voting for Howard Dean, a fiscally conservative Democrat.
Greenspan chimes in. Well, Frank chimes in on what Greenspan is planning to say tonight:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/15/news/economy/frank_greenspan/index.htm?cnn=yes
Bush responded by proposing more tax cuts and a 20% increase in government spending.
I’d go with the tax and spend democrat any day of the week because a lot of that money is probably being spent on bettering the country. You know, all that bleeding heart liberal stuff.
I wonder how much of that deficit would be erased if Bush hadn’t started pumping out 300$ checks to everyone. This administration makes me more and more angry the longer they’re in power. Now if they had actually been elected I would be able to grin and bear it a little better (since they people had spoken), but…
It’s so irresponsible. It’s amazing that Republicans, who are supposed to be the fiscal conservatives, would support something like this.
Yeah, the complete GOP flip on the concept of balanced budgets is wierd.
When did the GOP support a balanced budget? I mean, I know they say that they do, but christ, remember the Reagan years?
One good thing, though, is that the inflationary pressure of this spending spree may have helped to counteract the deflation we might otherwise be experiencing.
Of course, such deficits represent a kind of bubble in themselves. The only way we can prevent it from popping disastrously is a return to the robust economic growth we had under Clinton.
“A lot is probably going for betterment.” I used to think that, too. Today, I do not believe a word of it.
How hard would it be to make one more department to oversee all of these bills being passed that lead to increased spending? Lord knows, the government loves to create new committees and depts. as money sinks, but why there is no one overseeing all of the governments existing spending boggles my mind.
I understand why politicians do not want it. Same reason they do not want term limits. It would detract from there money and power (which are synonymous to politicians, IMO). There are programs and studies and projects being started daily and ongoing where billions of dollars are funneled and no one is watching over it.
Our Republican Gov. here in Alabama has just proposed a 1.2 Billion dollar tax increase. Much of it going to a “fund” that will be managed by people in the capital to be dispersed as they see fit for the “betterment” of the state and our shitty education system. Just a few years ago our city school system misplaced a couple million dollars and the county system could not find around 7 million. I never heard what came of that. People are all bent out of shape when they hear about misspent funds, but seem to quickly forget. I guess we should just raise taxes to make up for the prior mismanagement. The new money will be spent wisely. We promise. :twisted:
When I am in a tight spot, I look where my existing spending can be cut not go out looking for money from people on the street. I will never vote for a tax increase again until someone decides to go and examine where our money is going now and why it is going there.
Me neither. Most of it is simply wasted (the government is criminally incompetant at managing money) or spent on pork.
Don’t make me pull out that budget document showing that 88% of spending is on obvious non-waste stuff like Social Security.
Me neither. Most of it is simply wasted (the government is criminally incompetant at managing money) or spent on pork.[/quote]
Seriously, where is the outcry? It seems folks are happy to just put in a little bit more to help out since it is going to those that need it. Has that not been the reason for tax increases since this country was founded. At some point, we need to scream, “Hold the fuck up! I just gave you extra allowance last month. Where the hell is it?”
Well, aren’t there any other parties that you could vote for? Because lack of voters tends to be the only thing that really scares politicians…
What’s needed is oversight. Something with teeth.
Sadly, no. Our two-party system is firmly entrenched in DC and the lack of any term limits keeps it just as thouse two parties like it.
Oversight Committee. Force Congressmen to sign their names to agreements which go along with the bills they approve. If the money is misspent, or misplace, or misappropriated, they have to answer for it.
Sorry, I am going over my usual quota of ten posts a day. And just in this thread, but this is an excruciating sore spot with me. I did not vote for the Governor we are lucky enough to have or the incumbent Democrat who did so little that he lost the governership, but as a “less-government more love” Republican, I expected him to keep his hands out of my goddam pocket for fuck’s sake!!!
OK, I need a pill.
Sadly, no. Our two-party system is firmly entrenched in DC and the lack of any term limits keeps it just as thouse two parties like it.
[/quote]
If you want to see what term limits does, take a look at the California legislature.
Sadly, no. Our two-party system is firmly entrenched in DC and the lack of any term limits keeps it just as thouse two parties like it.
[/quote]
If you want to see what term limits does, take a look at the California legislature.[/quote]
Term limits are not a cure all and will never come to pass anyway. Strom Thurmond in office for 120 years is not a good thing, though. I think it works OK with the presidency, but must claim ignorance where the CA legisalture is concerned. I can barely keep up with the crap that goes on with the good 'ol boys we have here in Alabamy