PDA

View Full Version : "This Govt is the worst in US History"


Pinto
Aug 4, 2003, 09:43 PM
link (http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,258983,00.html)

Interesting, if rather short interview with George A Akerlof. US Nobel Prize Laureate for Economics.

"As of March 2003, the CBO estimated that the surplus for the next decade would approximately reach one trillion dollars. But this projection assumes, among other questionable things, that spending until 2013 is going to be constant in real dollar terms. That has never been the case. And with the current tax cuts, a realistic estimate would be a deficit in excess of six trillion"...

"The government is not really telling the truth to the American people. Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting. "

"Bush's father committed a great act of courage by actually raising taxes. He wasn't always courageous, but this was his best public service. It was the first step to getting the deficit under control during the Clinton years. It was also a major factor in Bush's losing the election"..

Desertrat
Aug 5, 2003, 10:29 AM
It's just a point-of-view thing, as one sees the purposes or duties of government.

Budgets can be balanced by raising taxes or by spending less. Many of us object to raising taxes at the federal level, and to forcing increased taxation at the state/local level via unfunded mandates. We thus favor less spending in order that the budget be brought into balance.

Many focus on the present military budget, without the perspective of percent of either total budget or GDP (compared to the past).

The Republicans have entered into the old Democratic game of buying votes via public spending on programs for various interest groups. Nothing new, not at all. It's just that everything costs much more, today, given the greater numbers of public employees needed for any endeavor--brought about by the rules and regulations of past Congresses.

It wouldn't be any better were Gore in the White House.

'Rat

zimv20
Aug 5, 2003, 11:12 AM
we seem to be getting an awful lot of "it's business as usual" arguments lately.

let me try:

- there's _always_ a net job loss during a president's term

- we _always_ set the budget deficit record

- we _always_ wage a major war every other year

- _every_ president increases federal spending while pretending it's otherwise

- it's _always_ europa that we're at war with

wwworry
Aug 5, 2003, 05:07 PM
Government does cost more than it did in the past because most of it's cost is in labor and not in material/manufacturing cost.

Still, a $400 billion dollar military budget that does not include any budgeting for war is crazy. The huge deficits we are incurring are crazy for not much structural return - education, no - infrastructure, no.

We are getting screwed.

Durandal7
Aug 5, 2003, 05:29 PM
Republican Economic Plan:
1. Swell spending in all areas of government that involve Republican pet projects.
2. Cut taxes to garner votes while inflating the deficit.

Democrat Economic Plan:
1. Swell spending in all areas of government that involve Democrat pet projects.
2. Stick the people with the bill and convince them it's for their own good.

I despise the two party system. The Democrats and Republicans are just opposite sides of the same coin. They could merge into one super party and most people wouldn't even notice if not for the fact they are so indoctrinated to follow one party or another blindly.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 6, 2003, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
it's _always_ europa that we're at war with

no, it's eastasia...it's always been eastasia... >;]

Originally posted by Durandal7
I despise the two party system. The Democrats and Republicans are just opposite sides of the same coin. They could merge into one super party and most people wouldn't even notice if not for the fact they are so indoctrinated to follow one party or another blindly.

I love The Party...

ok enough 84 refs...

I took a class in college on the history of the 2-party system, and came away from it thinking that it had outgrown its usefulness...

Desertrat
Aug 6, 2003, 08:19 AM
Is it really better when there are several parties, none of them having a majority? Where only a coalition can attain a majority? The new problem you create is that coalitions can elect, but cannot govern. After the election, the cooperative attitude breaks down and you have the Kilkenny cats. Like Italy.

Or, you get into a Costa Rica situation. Oversimplified, the more conservative party has 49%; the more liberal party has 49%, and the Communist party has 2%. Therefore, that 2% balance of power has overmuch influence over the affairs of 98% of the population.

However, since most Congressfolks--and the Administration--have come to adulthood under the aegis of LBJ's Great Society, there are very few real conservatives. Judged from the views of the 1940s/1950s, we have liberals and moderates and a smattering of conservatives.

Thread drift, anyone? :D

'Rat

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 6, 2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
However, since most Congressfolks--and the Administration--have come to adulthood under the aegis of LBJ's Great Society, there are very few real conservatives. Judged from the views of the 1940s/1950s, we have liberals and moderates and a smattering of conservatives.

But that assumes that they wouldn't rebel against the Great Society and go the other way, viewing social programs with indignation.

Desertrat
Aug 6, 2003, 09:52 AM
Rebel? Hell's bells, going with the flow is what gets them re-elected! How many Ron Pauls do you see out there?

:), 'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 6, 2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by wwworry
Government does cost more than it did in the past because most of it's cost is in labor and not in material/manufacturing cost.

Still, a $400 billion dollar military budget that does not include any budgeting for war is crazy. The huge deficits we are incurring are crazy for not much structural return - education, no - infrastructure, no.

We are getting screwed.

So it would seem. And if you doubt it, read this interview with Chuck Spinney, (http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_spinney.html) the Pentagon whistle blower.