Well well well.....

[Joe DeFuria]

That's because they're not saying it all. They've, by that I mean Congress and the Oval Office, just create the worst Federal deficit in US history.

That statement is wrong on so many accounts I don't know where to start. I assume this is a jab at the tax cuts?

1) How did congress / oval office "create" the deficits we face today. (Even if you take the total "static cost" born to date of tax cuts, it doesn't come close to the budget shortfall).

2) The deficts are NOT unusually large when taken in proper context: such as a percentage of tax receipts or GDP.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/2004budgetperspective.html

Of course, you read the headlines (as you have), we are running "record deficits!" (Newsflash: we have a much LARGER BUDGET today than have ever had....)

3) The "premise" behind conservative economic policy is to foster economic growth. Economic growth is the key to a healthy budget. (This is in contrast to the typical liberal point of view that the "budget" is what fosters a healthy economy...) If it takes short-term deficits to spur a sagging economy, the return on that investment (increased econominc activity) will be an overall win.

 

[Willmeister]

1) How did congress / oval office "create" the deficits we face today. (Even if you take the total "static cost" born to date of tax cuts, it doesn't come close to the budget shortfall).

I don't know... how about them passing budgets that created them in the first place?

2) The deficts are NOT unusually large when taken in proper context: such as a percentage of tax receipts or GDP.

Of course, you read the headlines (as you have), we are running "record deficits!" (Newsflash: we have a much LARGER BUDGET today than have ever had....)

But will the cost of the deficit be worth the cost of the deficit. Do you think they money will be well-spent? I don't think so...

3) The "premise" behind conservative economic policy is to foster economic growth. Economic growth is the key to a healthy budget. (This is in contrast to the typical liberal point of view that the "budget" is what fosters a healthy economy...) If it takes short-term deficits to spur a sagging economy, the return on that investment (increased econominc activity) will be an overall win.

Won't happen. Bush's tax cut is probably the saddest attempt at stimulating aggregate demand ever devised.

 

[RussSchultz]

You're awfully opinionated about american politics....for a Canadien.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I don't know... how about them passing budgets that created them in the first place?

Agreed, obviously. But the downturn in the economy itself (including 9/11 impacts) plays the single biggest role.

I wouldn't say that trying to "micromanage" the budget every year to deal with swings in economic output is the best approach...would you?

But will the cost of the deficit be worth the cost of the deficit.

Indeed, that's a good question. The point is, we have had deficits of this magnitude in the past. Nothing is new here, despite what the left would have us believe with all the "record deficit" talk.

Do you think they money will be well-spent? I don't think so...

In some cases yes, in other cases no.

Won't happen. Bush's tax cut is probably the saddest attempt at stimulating aggregate demand ever devised.

I disagree. It can't work miracles, of course, but it's a step in the right direction.

I disagree with the notion that the governemnt can really foster MAJOR economic demand in the general case anyway. All it can really do is nudge it in one direction or the other, or help smooth out "peaks and valleys."

As you said in a previous post, the residing administration will generally take the blame or praise for "what happens" during that administration, so in that sense, yes, both Democrats and Republicans tend to oversell their impact.

On the other hand, lots of "minor nudges" over time can lead to major shifts, positive and negative.

 

[Clashman]

You're awfully opinionated about american politics....for a Canadien.

So is Sabastian. What's your point?

 

[Legion]

You're awfully opinionated about american politics....for a Canadien.

So is Sabastian. What's your point?

that Russ may be a bit uncorfortable with Will's comments.

 

[RussSchultz]

You're awfully opinionated about american politics....for a Canadien.

So is Sabastian. What's your point?

Sabastian seems to be focusing more on Canada, and issues that are common (like the gay marriage discussion). He's showing his Canadien interests in his diatribes. Will is just very forceful in his opinion about US internal politics, which seems to be formed from who knows what, seeing as he lives in Canada.

 

[Silent_One]

Quote:

So what would you do to deter another terrorist attack, Mr. Terrorist Expert?

There really isn't much one can do. Criminals are always one step ahead of the law. Sadly, the best you can do is make it difficult for amateurs. The hardcore terrorist will always manage to get around any obstacles in front of them, or just choose another easier target. They took over four airliners with box cutters. I'm not sure anyone ever saw that coming; many people like me saw the possibility of something like that but never thought anyone would actually do it.......

Disagree. There is a lot one can do. There are probably many cases were the FBI or CIA are well ahead of the criminals. Can we stop them all? Of course not. But the criminlas are not "always one step ahead of the law". You can make it difficult for the amateurs and hardcore terroists. Your statements and defeatist attitude mean that no matter who (Bush) is in charge or what we do will work except....

The best way to deal with people like Osama is to remove their power base. It's about the only thing one really can do and the US withdrawal from the Umma might just take a lot of Osama out of his own cause...

Simplistic answer....."remove Osama's power base....US withdrawal from the Umma".....

Tell us HOW? What would you do if you were in power? It's easy to sit back and critise Bush or the government's effort to safeguard the US. But how do you do what you suggest? What does "withdrawal from the Umma" entail, and what consequences for the US are envolved?

 

[Willmeister]

Criminals are always one step of the law. That's not defeatist as it is a simple fact of life.

The USA has already given Osama a victory with their withdrawal from Saudi Arabia. That was his number one complaint against the USA. It was his 'big one'. And you think Osama cares about Iraq anymore? He doesn't give a flying f*ck about them. He was part of the Saudi elite and they don't care what the Arab 'street' says just like every other regime in the region.

 

[Silent_One]

Criminals are always one step of the law. That's not defeatist as it is a simple fact of life

And that does not mean you don't try. Some criminals are one step ahead of the law. But not always. And not always the same one.

Silent_One wrote:

Tell us HOW? What would you do if you were in power? It's easy to sit back and critise Bush or the government's effort to safeguard the US. But how do you do what you suggest? What does "withdrawal from the Umma" entail, and what consequences for the US are envolved?

Willmeister wrote:

The USA has already given Osama a victory with their withdrawal from Saudi Arabia. That was his number one complaint against the USA. It was his 'big one'. And you think Osama cares about Iraq anymore? He doesn't give a flying f*ck about them.

So that's It? Thats the extent of you answer?

 

[zurich]

You're awfully opinionated about american politics....for a Canadien.

So is Sabastian. What's your point?

Sabastian has American penis-envy. You encounter those types from time to time up here.

 

[Willmeister]

Sabastian has American penis-envy. You encounter those types from time to time up here.

Now now, let's keep the slurs and namecalling at an adult level.