Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scary NYT article on the real state of the deficit

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
 
baby_bear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 09:51 AM
Original message
Scary NYT article on the real state of the deficit
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/politics/14DEFI.html?...
<snip>
When President Bush informed the nation last Sunday night that remaining in Iraq next year will cost another $87 billion, many of those who will actually pay that bill were unable to watch. They had already been put to bed by their parents.

Administration officials acknowledged the next day that every dollar of that cost will be borrowed, a loan that economists say will be repaid by the next generation of taxpayers and the generation after that. The $166 billion cost of the work so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has stunned many in Washington, will be added to what was already the largest budget deficit the nation has ever known.
...
Congressional Republicans deny the Democratic charge that the deficit was deliberately created to shrink government, but nonetheless acknowledge that it will be a useful tool to achieve that goal.

</snip>

much more....

s_m

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. how they lie with a straight face
Joshua Bolten, the White House budget director, said concern about the deficit was secondary to reviving the economy: "If there was ever a time to run deficits, this is it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. he's right of course!
republicans are in charge, therefore deficits are good!

when democrats are in charge, deficits are bad!

which part don't you understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. except tax cuts do not equal
INVESTMENT in the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. That sentance stood out for me.
Joshua Bolten, the White House budget director, said concern about the deficit was secondary to reviving the economy: "If there was ever a time to run deficits, this is it."

That sentance stood out for me in the article when I read it earlier this morning. I read it a couple times. Bolton is doing the old bait and switch. He claims that because we in a recession we are supposed to run deficits (ok so far), and that because reviving (note to Bolton: re-read the memo; operative word is "growing", not "reviving") the economy is important, and concern about the deficit is secondary. On a superficial reading of this, one would have to agree. The question that Bolton manages to keep unanswered is how does he justify a) the magnitude of the deficit, b) the impact the deficit is going to have on the long-run prospects for the U.S. economy, c) that the majority of the tax cuts that are the source of 1/2 of the deficit go to the richest 1% of Americans?

Also, in today's NY Times Magazine, read The Tax-Cut Con by Paul Krugman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baby_bear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. simple letter to the editor put it well
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/200172778...

The next question for Prez Bush and his economic magicians is, how big a tax cut is required to spend another $87 billion?

s_m

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-17-03 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. good v bad deficits
the Bush deficit is a bad and dangerous deficit, and Bolton's statement is simply another example of the shitface liars at work.

A deficit which is created by providing more money to the richest Americans does little to nothing to help those who could actually use some tax relief/free up money to replace large ticket items.

A payroll tax cut would have been something else entirely because small bizzes would have had to pay less out of their pockets, too, and more people would have more of a cut, thus spreading the money around.

What Bush did was a payoff, yet again, to the richest of the rich, and the tax cuts don't even fully come into effect until 2008..as we are already in a terrible mess as far as job losses and deficit financing for an illegal war in a place where we are not wanted but where we invaded for dubious, or perhaps dangerous reasons.

So, deficits mean more than one thing, right? One that merely works to concentrate wealth among a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans is also, as Soros, Stiglitz, and so many others will affirm, bad for democracy and good for domestic instablity unless these policies change.

in other words, Bush is creating an "eat the rich" domestic crisis, and I'm sure he could care less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Code_Name_D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. The dangers of writing a blank check.
Their are many here on the DU who continue to beat me over the head because of my opposition to certain Democrats. "If Gephardt wins the nomination, you HAVE to vote for him! So do you really want Bush to win another term?" Nope, not going to happen, and now amount of beating the chest is going to make me change that opinion. And the reason is because Gephardt supported, and continues to support the war. And the reason why the war is bad is simple. We can't afford it, we never could. And especially not with the latest installment being 86 Billion dollars. And I can guarantee you that this will not be the last time Bush will come to congress, hat in hand for more capital.

The thing is, this war is going to cost, regardless of who is running it. Gephardt or Bush, we still can't afford the war. But here is the real kicker. Part of the reasoning behind this war is to boost the economy. To relive the economic glory days of WWII. So from their perspective, that the 86 billion is going to come back and "grow the economy." Hence:

Joshua Bolten, the White House budget director, said concern about the deficit was secondary to reviving the economy: "If there was ever a time to run deficits, this is it."

But once again, we see a supply sider with zero clues. Wars do not boost the economy, wars stress economies. Often to the braking point. Wars suck out labor, capital, raw materials, reduce consumer buying power (critical for a consumer based economy), and inject many inefficiencies into the system. Even the mighty empire of Roam was laid low as it could no longer support endless campaigns and conquests for "new growth" as Roam at its end was colonizing territories to strip them bare of recourses. It was precisely such economic realities that also forced the Soviet Union to collapse as they could no longer support their military expenditures for the cold war.

I know Bush doesn't know this. But nor dose Gepheardt. And most of this money is going to end up in contracts for Halibertion any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 24th 2014, 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC