"The Economist" gives a look at the Bush future...

[Iceberg]

And it ain't pretty.

[Joe]

Oh well, at least we'll finally cut spending at some point.

[Stormbringer]

"The Economist" gives a look at the Bush future...And it ain't pretty.

Bush is hardly to blame for the deficit problems. Yes, he's run up a lot of spending but that's what happens when you get a couple of wars (with military cut to the bone by the previous administration no less), security crisises, and a flagging economy all crammed together. Most of those spending increases were damned if we did, damned if we didn't.

None of the administration or Congressesof recent history have been willing to balance the budget at the expense of their pork nor have they been willing to cut the massive bloat of the social welfare programs which make up the majority of the deficit. If we really want to avoid deficit spending we ought to reforming (or just plain ending) Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and all the wasteful social programs and subsidies the governments gotten involved in over the years. Until those programs are reformed and the pork cut, there's no way the federal budget will get balanced no matter who is in office.

The massive deficit is also one reason I'm firmly against Dean's over arching welfare programs, they're going to be a massive drag on the system. And as you'll note, they aren't exactly nice about those pet issues of candidate Dean after all.

[Darth Wong]

Bush is hardly to blame for the deficit problems. Yes, he's run up a lot of spending but that's what happens when you get a couple of wars (with military cut to the bone by the previous administration no less), security crisises, and a flagging economy all crammed together. Most of those spending increases were damned if we did, damned if we didn't.

Oh really? Did you know that for every extra dollar Bush threw toward the military for these wars, he found four dollars for new domestic spending? Including the most massive farm subsidies in the history of the nation?

[Stormbringer]

Bush is hardly to blame for the deficit problems. Yes, he's run up a lot of spending but that's what happens when you get a couple of wars (with military cut to the bone by the previous administration no less), security crisises, and a flagging economy all crammed together. Most of those spending increases were damned if we did, damned if we didn't.

Oh really? Did you know that for every extra dollar Bush threw toward the military for these wars, he found four dollars for new domestic spending? Including the most massive farm subsidies in the history of the nation?

And just what might the domestic programs be? Because I'm willing aware that he spent a great deal of money trying to restart the economy. Just because spent money doesn't mean that it was wasteful spending.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And just what might the domestic programs be? Because I'm willing aware that he spent a great deal of money trying to restart the economy. Just because spent money doesn't mean that it was wasteful spending.

You do realize with the supply-side shit Bush has been peddling, you have to lower spending AND taxes to do it, right?

[Vympel]

Forgive my economic ignorance, but is 'supply side' somehow related to 'trickle down' economics? Because 'trickle down' just sounds like someone's pissing on you.

[Iceberg]

That's about the best description of supply-side economics I've ever heard, and yes, supply-side and trickle-down are the same thing.