Bush meets the press

[Natoma]

This year's proposed budget has kept discretionary spending in check (increasing slower than the rate of inflation), and raises military spending--just what you'd expect when we're "at war". Though I'm not sure thats quite right, as congress recently passed this big drug benefit program.

Generally, though, we are supposed to swing between surplus and deficit as the tax revenue rises and falls with the business cycle. One of the problems is that when there's a surplus, the dolts in congress are more than willing to find ways to spend it, making the deficit on the 'bad years' even worse.

While Bush didn't explain it terribly well for people who weren't listening for it, he stated the tax cuts are/were necessary to stimulate the economy, and that the debt is a troubling long term problem that needs to be addressed.

The only problem Russ, is that 1/5th of the $2.4 Trillion 2005 budget Bush submitted to Congress is discretionary spending, i.e. spending on the Environment, Schools, Transportation Infrastructure, etc. Another 1/5th is Military Expenditures. The remaining 3/5ths are entitlement programs, i.e. Medicare and Social Security.

In the end, holding discretionary spending flat only amounts to roughly $3-$5 Billion a year savings. A rounding error when you're dealing with a $500 Billion annual deficit.

The big problem comes in 2006 when the $540 Billion Prescription drug benefit goes into effect, as well as another $300 Billion tax cut being bandied for 2005/2006, as well as the current tax cuts being made permanent at a legislative cost of $990 Billion in 2010. It will only cost $200 Billion through 2009. Iraq is still a black hole for our money in that the current $2.4 Trillion budget does not take into account the expected $70 Billion annual expenditures on Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 3 years. Figures courtesy of the CBO. Iraq and Afghanistan spending is going to run out on September 30th in the current budget, which means that Bush will ask for an emergency appropriation, much in the same way he asked for the $87 Billion last year.

The % of the deficit to GDP went over 5% in the 2003 fiscal year, is going to climb this year and next, and explode in 2006. But we're not going to see the real bear until 2010 if these tax cuts are made permanent.

Simply holding discretionary spending at bay is not going to help us. There simply isn't enough money being funneled to discretionary spending to make much of a difference to our long term fiscal problems.

 

[RussSchultz]

Simply holding discretionary spending at bay is not going to help us. There simply isn't enough money being funneled to discretionary spending to make much of a difference to our long term fiscal problems.

I agree. I'm for scaling back the entitlement programs. That doesn't play well to the AARP (single largest voting block, I believe).

 

[RussSchultz]

I understand the actual mechanisms behind the decisions perfectly, as well as the simple explanations you give to them. Just because you throw out an explanation of a phenomenon does not make the explanation the correct one. Perhaps it's just easier for you to attack the ad hominems themselves rather than the logic and reasoning behind them.

Then why don't you, or more appropriately, the democratic national leadership, address the points rather than simply dredging up the old canards again? (Not to me, of course, you and I claim to have done our homework and come to separate conclusions.)

The big question is why isn't this being discussed on the national stage, rather than simple mudslinging?

My opinion is that divisiveness makes better soundbites and galvanizes the core better. How better to gain the poor vote than tell them they're being "had by the man" again? How better to swing the elderly vote than scare them with loss of benefits?

Without a lick of proof, these assertations can be made and they'll play better than the facts which people won't bother to look at anyways.

 

[John Reynolds]

I agree. I'm for scaling back the entitlement programs. That doesn't play well to the AARP (single largest voting block, I believe).

Bill Maher brought up a good point while speaking with the governor of Michigan during Friday night's show. Why does the federal gov. spend so much on Medicare? What are these drugs that we apparently need so badly, why are they so expensive, and why are Americans so sick?

 

[digitalwanderer]

The big question is why isn't this being discussed on the national stage, rather than simple mudslinging?

Because emotions are so high on both side since the President's policies have been so divisive.

My opinion is that divisiveness makes better soundbites and galvanizes the core better. How better to gain the poor vote than tell them they're being "had by the man" again? How better to swing the elderly vote than scare them with loss of benefits?

I can't argue, but both sides are just as guilty on different issues.

Without a lick of proof, these assertations can be made and they'll play better than the facts which people won't bother to look at anyways.

Kind of the way I feel about the reasons Bush lead our country into a war.

 

[Natoma]

I agree. I'm for scaling back the entitlement programs. That doesn't play well to the AARP (single largest voting block, I believe).

Bill Maher brought up a good point while speaking with the governor of Michigan during Friday night's show. Why does the federal gov. spend so much on Medicare? What are these drugs that we apparently need so badly, why are they so expensive, and why are Americans so sick?

Pollution in our air, Pollution in our water, we're being irradiated at every turn, oh, and don't forget the obesity epidemic.

The first three certainly account for a proportion of the rise in sickness in americans, but the last is going to end up destroying us. Some sobering statistics I've come across in my years reading up on obesity in our country.

60% of all adults are overweight or obese
20% of all children are overweight or obese
The average american spends $11,000 extra on healthcare (premiums for instance) for every overweight and the obese person

Type 2 Diabetes has exploded so much since the 1990s that it is no longer referred to as "adult-onset," due to the proliferation in children. Obesity significantly raises your risks for Heart Attack, Joint Degredation, General Organ Failure, Diabetes, Glaucoma, Kidney Failure, and Stroke, just to name a few.

People think it's going to be the mass retirement of the baby boomers that is going to doom us long run. No, it's the morbid obesitifying of the nation that is going to kill us. All those prescription drugs target diseases that will affect the obese and overweight significantly.

Deficits "didn't matter" during Reagan's time because the baby boomers were in their prime. Deficits matter now, because we have the retirement of the baby boomers, as well as an epidemic of obesity in our country.

It's a perfect storm.

 

[Natoma]

Simply holding discretionary spending at bay is not going to help us. There simply isn't enough money being funneled to discretionary spending to make much of a difference to our long term fiscal problems.

I agree. I'm for scaling back the entitlement programs. That doesn't play well to the AARP (single largest voting block, I believe).

Exactly. That's why I was arguing with DemoCoder in the Medicare thread that the now $540 Billion cost of the Prescription Drug Benefit is a bait and switch. Why? Because there is a $3,300 coverage gap. Once you hit ~$2,700, you lose coverage of anything over that until you hit ~$6,000. When the baby boomers realize what's happened, there will be immense political pressure to close that gap, which will quadruple the cost of the Prescription Drug Benefit from $540 Billion to just over $2 Trillion. This added on to the $2 Trillion (and counting) in tax cuts that are being lobbied hard for permanence by the current Administration, as well as the retirement in the next 10 years of 70 million able bodied workers (especially in health services and teaching), and we've got a serious budget problem on our hand.

One big way to reduce the costs of Medicare and Social Security would be to make them economically sensitive. Right now you get a check for Social Security, and you get Medicare coverage, if you make $10,000 or $10 Million. You have a lot of "rich" seniors living in Florida, for example, who end up with $30,000 SS checks, when they have hundreds of thousands in assets and investments. Is that a drain on the system that could be doled out to other individuals? Certainly. You know Bush I gets an annual SS check of around $100K. That would free up a lot of capital.

Another big way would be to reduce payroll taxes on all current workers, and instead funnel them into Roth IRA accounts, 401K accounts, or Mutual Funds. Whichever. This, couple with a "sensitive" payout system, would not only keep the benefits the same for those retirees who actually need those systems, but it would allow current workers to keep more of their money for themselves in the form of investment savings. Eventually, it would help wean us all off of Social Security as a retirement "benefit".

All imo of course. hehe.

 

[Sxotty]

Meh. When you contrast his temperment and public figure with Kerry, its obvious who's a person with whom you'd like to be associated with, and who's not.

Edwards also shares that affable quality, but Kerry is simply going to alienate the common voting person by consistantly b(l)eating the 'I hate Bush' drum. Its tough to take a guy seriously when he's constantly trying to paint somebody else as divisive and partisan while at the same time tearing the same guy down about everything he does.

You are right, but mayhaps kerry will get edwards as a running mate, that would help him with the south, and with the amiability quotient.

 

[Sxotty]

Well, I will give Bush that....I believe the man only
sleeps with his wife, but he pretty much fucks with all of us.

HAHAHAHAH

 

[John Reynolds]

You are right, but mayhaps kerry will get edwards as a running mate, that would help him with the south, and with the amiability quotient.

Edwards has sounded pretty firm on not wanting the VP slot. He either gets the nomination or he's pulling out of the race.

 

[Sxotty]

JR I know he says that, but that always happens... Clark is useless b/c kerry already has the military background.

If he can't get edwards then he will get someone like him, amiable and from the south.


I think it is sad that some of what Russ said is true, no one is concerned with facts, they take to long to enunciate, so instead they just say so and so sucks, and then we get some random schmuck elected to take our money and waste it. The only thing to be assured of is that the lobbyists are getting more than their money's worth, that is obvious or else they would quit spending the hundreds of millions of dollars to convince the government to give whatever company our money, or not tax them which amounts to the same thing as they have police and other governement entities protecting them.

 

[Clashman]

How better to gain the poor vote than tell them they're being "had by the man" again? How better to swing the elderly vote than scare them with loss of benefits?

How about tell them they're being hunted by Al Queda, and that anyone who opposes them is an unpatriotic, anti-American Communist Saddam Loving Traitor, that anyone on welfare is a lazy bum out to defraud hard-working Americans, that all drug users are dangerous criminals out to kill your family for a fix, that any talk of a graduated tax bracket is "class warfare", and on and on and on and on........

Without a lick of proof, these assertations can be made and they'll play better than the facts which people won't bother to look at anyways.

 

[RussSchultz]

You know Bush I gets an annual SS check of around $100K. That would free up a lot of capital.

Just being nitpicky, but that's not true.

The SS program is based on how much money you put in. Your benefits are directly influenced by this amount, and that amount is capped at (essentially) 14% of $87,500.

If you use the calculator on the SSA.gov site, you'll see the max benefits you'll get is about $30,000/yr in 2004 dollars, the same for anybody who earns $87,500 a year for their life as would be that earns $400,000/yr for life.

Bush I does, however, recieve what all other presidents receive--a pension equal to his salary.

 

[Natoma]

You are right, but mayhaps kerry will get edwards as a running mate, that would help him with the south, and with the amiability quotient.

Edwards has sounded pretty firm on not wanting the VP slot. He either gets the nomination or he's pulling out of the race.

Edwards and Dean are the only politicians in the race that I actually believe in. Edwards is, unfortunately at this point, the only one who hasn't been destroyed by himself and the media, i.e. he's the only electable one between the two imo.

Kerry. Sigh. Where to start with Kerry. All I can say about him is this. If he gets the nomination, I can't honestly say I'm going to go to the polls this year. With Kerry, his record, and his obvious "say anything to get elected" mentality, it'll frankly be more fuckjobs by politicians, except this time it'll be the democratic brand. I feel that Edwards and Dean would actually work to truly change the system for the better.

And you know what really pisses me off about Kerry? For anyone who has been following the democratic races for the past year in depth, such as myself, you know that everything he is saying now is utter bullshit. He doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. He's just saying it to get elected. Edwards and Dean have been constant throughout their campaigns for the most part in their message. Kerry. God. The epitome of flip flopper and "say whatever it takes".

It's democrats like Kerry that frankly almost moved me to independent status in early 2003. If he gets the nomination, I may revisit that option again. Politics as usual. Sigh.

 

[RussSchultz]

I agree about Kerry. I can't agree or disagree about Edwards because I know very little about him, other than he's a likable guy--though he does have an annoying quirk that he does with his tongue when he's talking.

edit: cut/paste makes bad grammar sometimes.

 

[Natoma]

You know Bush I gets an annual SS check of around $100K. That would free up a lot of capital.

Just being nitpicky, but that's not true.

The SS program is based on how much money you put in. Your benefits are directly influenced by this amount, and that amount is capped at (essentially) 14% of $87,500.

If you use the calculator on the SSA.gov site, you'll see the max benefits you'll get is about $30,000/yr in 2004 dollars, the same for anybody who earns $87,500 a year for their life as would be that earns $400,000/yr for life.

Bush I does, however, recieve what all other presidents receive--a pension equal to his salary.

Yep I meant to write annual pension check. SS was stuck in my head after I wrote about the "rich" seniors in Florida getting $30K a year in SS benefits while having hundreds of thousands in assets and liquidity.

 

[Natoma]

I agree about Kerry. I can't agree or disagree about Edwards because I've know very little about him, other than he's a likable guy--though he does have an annoying quirk that he does with his tongue when he's talking.

Edwards is very policy driven. I began paying attention to his proposals when I began realizing that Dean was slowly self destructing in late November. The proposals he has on the table are frankly amazing, and very well planned.

And the good thing about Edwards is that even though he attacks Bush, he does so in a manner while offering up his own plans for success. He's a true opposition candidate. Kerry frankly is just more of the same.

 

[Fred]

Umm, the lefties in this thread are being a tad ridiculous.

Bush has pushed quite a few leftist agendas, that have pissed off conservatives.

1) Soft stance on Affirmative action, endorsement of the supreme court ruling that basically allows it to continue with only smallish modification

2) Hardly any prolife legislation, hes more or less veered clear of the issue

3) Large spending programs on Homeland security, Aids, education, and medicare. The essence if not the text of the democrats approach.

4) Protectionist agenda with steel, and farm subsidies.

5) Immigration
etc.

I very much doubt John McCain would have been in favor of the above, or allowed any of those to continue.

 

[Sxotty]

The SS program is based on how much money you put in. Your benefits are directly influenced by this amount, and that amount is capped at (essentially) 14% of $87,500.

Russ is right, and this is a VERY IMPORTANT thing that natoma and those like him should complain about.

So SS tax is about 15% of our income, but only on the first however much (I think Russ is wrong and it has gone up some, but not sure).

In any case if Bill Gates has a higher income tax rate, but doesn't pay that 15% it makes a HUGE difference on the tax burden he has.

If rich people paid SS tax on all their income there would be no SS crisis.

If the excess funds made on SS taxes were not squandered there would be no SS crisis, but there is...

 

[Natoma]

Umm, the lefties in this thread are being a tad ridiculous.

Bush has pushed quite a few leftist agendas, that have pissed off conservatives.

1) Soft stance on Affirmative action, endorsement of the supreme court ruling that basically allows it to continue with only smallish modification

Err, correct me if I'm wrong here but Bush filed a friend of the court brief in the Michigan case last year, where he supported the repeal of AA, and hoped the SC would rule along those lines.

2) Hardly any prolife legislation, hes more or less veered clear of the issue

The only issue that's come up was the Partial Birth Abortion bill, with which I agree with frankly. But he's also stated on a number of occassions that he thinks that abortions should only be for cases where the woman has been raped, or her life is in danger. Frankly another situation that I agree with intrinsically.

However, unless we males are prepared to have the government tell us whether we can get a vasectomy or not, or take Viagra, or have some other form of control over our reproductive lives, I don't think we should be trying to dictate to women what they can do in their reproductive lives.

[EDIT]If you're replying to this with the old text Fred, I misread your post.[/EDIT]

3) Large spending programs on Homeland security, Aids, education, and medicare. The essence if not the text of the democrats approach.

AIDS hasn't been funded yet. Education (No Child Left Behind) hasn't been funded yet. Medicare hasn't been funded yet, nor does it address many of the structural problems, while jacking up the costs of the program, pissing off "lefties" and "righties".

Homeland Security, especially for Border and Port Patrols, is still woefully underfunded as well. All of these, btw, save for Medicare, are budgetary "discretionary" spending, which means that they fall into the chopping block proposed by Bush in his 2005 budget. It's nice to propose legislation, but it means willy nilly if there's no money for it and your spending priorities are elsewhere.

4) Protectionist agenda with steel, and farm subsidies.

I disagreed so much with the 2002 protectionist laws. I'm not sure how that's a "lefties" agenda or anything, but it certainly doesn't apply to my thinking on the matter.

No, those moves strike me more as political pandering to states Bush barely won, and knew he'd need in 2004 for his re-election, as evidenced by the fact that even with the threatened sanctions against us, it was still very politically difficult for Bush to lift the tariffs late last year.

5) Immigration

Erm, conservatives and liberals both are upset over his immigration plans. Conservatives think it's giving a bonus to those who break the law by coming here illegally, a stance with which I agree. Liberals think it is just a system to setup indentured labor, a stance with which I also agree, after looking at the letter of the law itself.

The problems with Bush are coming from both sides of the political aisle. When you have Rush Limbaugh and The Heritage Foundation railing against you, and you're a conservative, you know you've got issues.