Are you Euros SURE you want Kerry elected?

[Pangloss]

Last night on Bill O'Reilly, Richard Holbrooke, Kerry's likely choice for Secretary of State, said that there was "no way" the US could allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and that a military response must be considered if diplomatic solutions fail. He also pointed out that the Israelis would likely not allow it, and that the US has sold 300 "bunker buster" weapons to Israel, which they don't exactly need to go after the Palestinians.

[Pangloss]

By the way, I didn't mean that subject line to sound so... antagonistic! I hope it didn't come across that way, but when I went back and looked at it it actually sounded kinda provocative. I'm really interested in what you guys think, but I wasn't trying to push any buttons here.

[Douglas]

Last night on Bill O'Reilly, Richard Holbrooke, Kerry's likely choice for Secretary of State, said that there was "no way" the US could allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and that a military response must be considered if diplomatic solutions fail. He also pointed out that the Israelis would likely not allow it, and that the US has sold 300 "bunker buster" weapons to Israel, which they don't exactly need to go after the Palestinians.

I watched O'reilly last night also. For those people who think he's a right wing lunatic, probably have never seen his program, or are left wing lunatics.

 

I to, am interested on why the EU's would like to see Kerry elected.

[Douglas]

By the way, I didn't mean that subject line to sound so... antagonistic! I hope it didn't come across that way, but when I went back and looked at it it actually sounded kinda provocative. I'm really interested in what you guys think, but I wasn't trying to push any buttons here.

In my opinion, your subject line is fine.

 

For those that say that Bush has created the biggest deficit in history, it very well may be, however this *IS* 2004.

 

What's important, is the deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP). check out the link below (PDF) and scroll to page 5

 

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/economic-policy/round_table_documents/2004/miller.pdf

[Pangloss]

Yah, that would be a good example of BOR giving solid airtime to the left point of view. He's shown a healthy respect for Holbrooke in the past as well as this time, and for good reason. I was a pretty anti-Holbrooke guy; BOR changed my mind about him, which says a lot.

 

The flip side of the coin perhaps being that I think BOR sometimes can be just a little superficial in determining who he shows respect to, and why. Sometimes it seems like he decides (almost arbitrarily) that he just *likes* a guest in spite of his or her history. Not really a complaint, just a purely subjective observation.

[bloodhound]

its not only us euros but most of the world except three countries that want Bush out...... thats not the same thing as wanting kerry in.

[badchad]

So, what do you think Bush would do if Iran got nukes? He's already invaded Iraq because the "thought" they had them.

[Douglas]

its not only us euros but most of the world except three countries that want Bush out...... thats not the same thing as wanting kerry in.

Fair enough.....Now, why do they want Bush out?

[Sayonara]

What's important' date=' is the deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP). check out the link below (PDF) and scroll to page 5

 

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/economic-policy/round_table_documents/2004/miller.pdf[/quote']

It's not so much that there is a deficit, but that he arrived there after starting off with one of the greatest surpluses ever.

 

If I were an American taxpayer I would be taking a very keen interest in exactly what it was that his administration spent all that cash on.

[Douglas]

It's not so much that there is a deficit' date=' but that he arrived there after starting off with one of the greatest surpluses [u']ever[/u].

 

If I were an American taxpayer I would be taking a very keen interest in exactly what it was that his administration spent all that cash on.

I believe the cash was spent after 9/11, I'm sure I don't have to tell "on what"

[Dave]

Fair enough.....Now, why do they want Bush out?

 

Because he's an arrogant, war-mongering idiot who's controlled by the corporations?

[Pangloss]

If I were an American taxpayer I would be taking a very keen interest in exactly what it was that his administration spent all that cash on.

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

Of course, in order to do that, you first have to look at a few factors that Bush was not entirely responsible for:

 

1) Defense spending was already on the rise as Clinton left office. His final defense budget was $50 *billion* higher than it was just a couple of years earlier. One reason for this was a lot of deferred spending that took place during the early part of that administration. (Contrary to Republican-promoted perception, defense actually *grew* during the Clinton administration.)

 

2) 9/11 cost a fortune. $20 billion bailout packages were being passed out like candy for months afterwards. (By the way, I believe Kerry voted for every single one of them.)

 

3) The country was in a recession well before Bush took office. In fact I believe the recession (which is indicated by three consecutive months of downturn in the LEIs) actually began before the 2000 election.

 

 

But all of that having been said, the surplus was still there, and still believed to be growing, when Bush submitted his first budget, which was *after* 9/11, and his tax cut (also post-9/11) was based on that surplus. It was both seen by the public and promoted by the administration as "giving something back" from that surplus to the taxpayers, and the impression was very strong that it would only make a small dent in that surplus.

 

That turns out not to be the case. The budget deficit, in fact, is almost identical to the cost of the tax cut. Heck, the surplus was gone by the time we got our tax-cut rebate checks.

 

But my point here is that the part of this that was forseeable can also be blamed in nearly (but not entirely) equal measure on House and Senate Democrats.

 

 

I wonder if international observers really get a good sense of this, and whether a lack of perception of this issue countributes to the general befuddlement I sense from folks who don't understand how any American can vote for Bush (that's not a comment aimed at anybody here, mind you). Economic policy is generally perceived as just as important as foreign policy, and often more so. And there's a STRONG perception in this country that you can't trust ANY of these bastards to fix this stuff honestly. Remember: If I don't vote for Bush, I've got to vote for Kerry. Is that really better?

 

 

(Just to clarify, because I know the above might come across as pointless equivocation, I do give the nod to the Democratic side of the debate here. It's just not much of a nod. This may not mean much to you folks in Europe, but we Americans have GOT to do something about special interest group control over the House of Representatives in the country. GOT to.)

[Douglas]

Just to clarify, because I know the above might come across as pointless equivocation, I do give the nod to the Democratic side of the debate here. It's just not much of a nod.

"I do give the nod to the Democratic side of the debate here."

 

Are you talking this particular thread?

[Pangloss]

What I mean is that in general I place a little more blame on the deficit problem on Bush than on the Democrats. He submits a budget, and they generally follow it. And of course the tax cut was all Bush, as is part of the spending increase (mainly in defense).

 

Defense is up an average of $25 billion a year over the last ten years. It took 225 years to go from zero to $250 billion, but only TEN to go from that to $500 billion.

 

But we've got to do something about spending outside of defense too. John Kerry and Bill Frist are about to blow the lid off entitlement spending with the upcoming healthcare compromise (which we will likely get whether Kerry is elected or not, since he's still a senator), which will see taxpayer dollars going to 20-30 million Americans at 1500-2500 bucks a pop. That's $30 billion a year *minimum* right there, and possibly as much as $75 billion -- MUCH more than the average defense spending increase. Iraq is only $20 billion a year. In the long run the hope is that it will SAVE us money because we're spending that much in indigent healthcare already, but that's private spending, so in the short run it means a GODAWFUL amount of additional entitlement spending at a time when we're ALREADY in a nasty deficit.

 

It's funny, we used to say "a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money". Now we have to say "twenty billion here...." That $20 billion number actually seems to be a common baseline for big spending packages. It's incredible.

[atinymonkey]

I believe the cash was spent after 9/11, I'm sure I don't have to tell "on what"

 

As it was a trillion dollor defict prior to 9/11, then handwaving and muttering about arabs doesn't quite make sense. I certanly can't see a war detracting from federal reserves based on the influx of govement contracts since the war. As even I have been offered a contract to provide supplys to Iraq via Iran, I'm confident the cash is more than covering the monetery costs incurred.

 

Honestly, for one of the highest taxed countrys in the world you should have a nice tidy sum stashed away, with no debts. Bush has even spent the entire US pension reserve, which is just about the wost thing you can do (short of selling children off as organ donors).

[Pangloss]

You mean the debt, not the deficit, right? I think it was a lot more than a trillion, even before 9/11, but I'd have to check.

[john5746]

Again, what bothers many about Bush and conservatives is the hypocritcal way they attack.

 

Before Clinton/Monica, conservatives always attacked democrates on tax and spend. They want big government. We want to make it smaller. When they failed to make it smaller, they would blaim the congress.

 

They have it all now and its worse. OK we were attacked, but Iraq will end up being the primary cost, which had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!! Also, defense spending needs to be evaluated - too much waste with weapons not needed anymore.

 

AL GORE would not have invaded IRAQ!! At least not as hurridly as Bush, and yes he would have invaded Afghanistan anyone would.

 

All this being said, I am neither dem or repub. I like the fiscal promise of repub's but its a lie. We did get tax cuts, but they are borrowed - no thanks.

 

Also, the defecit as a % GDP - what is alarming is this reduces with Dems and increases with Repubs. Also, look at the slope of the line! If Iraq finishes soon, the line might flatten some, but it isn't.

[Pangloss]

I generally agree with that, except that I would say that both sides attack hypocritically.

[Douglas]

Also, the defecit as a % GDP - what is alarming is this reduces with Dems and increases with Repubs. Also, look at the slope of the line! If Iraq finishes soon, the line might flatten some, but it isn't.

John, I'm glad to see that you checked the deficit as a % of GDP. As you can see, it's is less than Clinton's around '92/'93. It was about that time when we had the computer, internet, .com, software explosion. Everything was rosy, and would have been under any president. However, that bubble burst around 2000.

[Phi for All]

You mean the debt, not the deficit, right? I think it was a lot more than a trillion, even before 9/11, but I'd have to check.

US Federal Debt as of yesterday, $7,348,106,263,348.33.

Debt to the penny.

[john5746]

US Federal Debt as of yesterday' date=' $7,348,106,263,348.33.

Debt to the penny.

 

Yes, that is why we needed to get the "surplus" back. Makes sense to me.

[Pangloss]

Yah I knew that a trillion wasn't right.

 

That underscores my point, I think, as well, which was that the president AND congress (especially the House) needed to do something creative and forward-thinking with that surplus. What we got instead was more spending on defense, more spending on entitlements, and $400+ billion given back to the taxpayer, who, as it turns out, didn't really need it to jumpstart the economy.

 

Just to give another example of how ridiculous the entitlement spending has gotten, take a look at "No Child Left Behind", which is the federal education budget. Note that there are two key misperception issues here:

 

1) Most people don't think we spend ENOUGH in this program.

2) Most people have no idea how much we've spent -- people act like Kerry wants to FIX NCLB with another $27 billion. $27 billion??!! That's a *drop in the bucket*! We've already spent HUNDREDS of billions on NCLB, with another $130 billion planned if Bush wins. And the Democrats want to spend MORE. And the program is NOT EVEN TWO YEARS OLD.

 

Note that NO money was going from the Federal budget to the states to pay for education prior to NCLB. None! (Aside from a few minor special programs, like afterschool or school lunch programs.) NCLB is a FIX for the fact that the states are all bankrupt and cutting back on education spending. (That's why the Democrats are able to say that "educational spending has shrunk under Bush". Of course it has, but state spending has nothing to do with Bush.)

 

 

Just to kinda summarize:

 

1) The Republicans have been very successful in convincing us that the Democrats cut defense spending and they're building it back up to a safe level. Truth: The Dems DIDN'T cut it, and it's actually DOUBLED in size in the last ten years.

 

2) The Democrats have been very successful in convincing us that we're not spending enough on local education in the Federal budget. Truth: We've NEVER spent money from the Federal budget on local education -- that's NEW, and it's obscenely out of control.

[Severian]

Most Euros want Kerry in because they think 'He can't possibly be worse than Bush!'. Now granted they may be overestimating your other politicians, but from where I am sitting, 'worse than Bush' would be a pretty hard thing to accomplish.

[Douglas]

Most Euros want Kerry in because they think 'He can't possibly be worse than Bush!'. Now granted they may be overestimating your other politicians, but from where I am sitting, 'worse than Bush' would be a pretty hard thing to accomplish.

Is it because of the war in Iraq that Euro's think...".'He can't possibly be worse than Bush!'"?

Do they have other reasons?

[john5746]

Isn't that enough?

 

Also, his "humble" approach doesn't help.