Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Jul 16, 2003.
Need I say more? (Too bad you can't use a Dr. Evil voice in the forums...)
I heard that's the low estimate and is less than next years deficit. Also, over the past two years, the federal government has seen the strongest growth in real federal spending since 1985, with real federal spending increasing by 6.3 percent in the year to September 2002 and by another 3.8 percent in the eight months to May 2003.
What the hell?! They are completely ***** up the economy.
Remember, it is supposed to be the democrats who love to spend (yet, the huge national deficit and the current deficits come (came) under republican leadership.
ah, but don't forget that gw has promised "no new taxes" and that is all that matters.....
While I don't like deficits at all, I'm not sure that $500 billion is as big a deal in terms of percent of GDP when compared to the deficits of the 1980s. Anybody have the numbers?
War and Welfare: Both are generally just wasted money.
While I agree that deficits as a percentage of total GDP are more relevant, one also needs to look at where a lot of that money is going. Afghanistan and Iraq are sucking up huge amounts of money right now. Certainly some of that money goes to US manufacturers but a lot of it does not have a direct impact on the US economy.
This number is also just a projection and does NOT take into account the proposed medicare drug benefit nor the war in Iraq. It also sucks up capital at a time when the Fed is doing everything it can to make it more available.
Unless there is some miraculous turnaround in the US economy in the next few months, gw will have done more to ruin the US than any of his predecessors.
Never understood why Democrats don't talk about this issue as a "tax on future generations." People don't want to saddle their kids with this kind of burden. Amazing how we have gone from projected surpluses to deficits as far as you can see. Ah, the wonders of supply-side economics! I think Bush's numbers might make even Reagan blush.
Deficit spending by the government as an investment I can see but I have to wonder what we are getting out of this one.
People keep saying the deficit is only 4.2% of GDP and should not be worried about. Next years deficit does not eliminate this years deficit. The debt then becomes 8.4% of that years GDP (assuming a similar deficit) and so on multiplying so that the debt eventually approaches 100% of one years GDP. Is that OK?
I think this topic has been explored before...