I didn't say there wouldn't be consequences. I said the sky won't fall and our children won't be irreparably harmed. They'll pay down the deficit through business expansion and economic growth. Sure we'll need to make sure we have pro-growth political leaders, but that will happen.

 

R's predicted our country would go down the tubes when Clinton got elected. We survived. D's thought the end of the world would come when Bush got elected. It looks like that prediction will turn out wrong.

 

Perhaps in your mind I'm trivializing the deficit issue. I don't mean to. I'm not in favor of loose spending at all. However, I am willing to accept short term deficit spending when its necessary to accomplish a mission vital to our country's national interest and security. I think that's the case here.

:thumb: Anytime this country's citizens demand that politicians get serious about balancing the budget and paying down the national debt, the American economy can be unleashed and federal spending restrained. Eventually this will happen, either by choice or (more likely) out of necessity.

:laugh: Calling Bush a conservative!

 

While the president is commander in chief, Congress controlls funding. While Bush may not be a fiscal conservative, shouldnt the Republicans in Congress (prior to 2006)?? Bush had ZERO problems with any Republican bill since he vetoed none of them. He may not be fiscally conservative but he doesnt make laws.

I think that the uncontrolled spending during this administration, has been driving the wedge between fiscal and social conservatives even moreso than before.

I think that the uncontrolled spending during this administration, has been driving the wedge between fiscal and social conservatives even moreso than before.

 

I agree.

 

GW's biggest downfall of his presidency will be the out of control spending and not the war.

I agree.

 

GW's biggest downfall of his presidency will be the out of control spending and not the war.

I also think that the near future of the Republican Party is going to be determined in how the eventuall Republican nominee can be percived to "clean up the mess" that Bush left, while still clining to the values and some policies that have been set in motion.

While the president is commander in chief, Congress controlls funding. While Bush may not be a fiscal conservative, shouldnt the Republicans in Congress (prior to 2006)?? Bush had ZERO problems with any Republican bill since he vetoed none of them. He may not be fiscally conservative but he doesnt make laws.

 

That's true. In fact, I'm very strongly considering my next topic for a speech class that I have to be on the growing difference between Republicans and true conservativism.

Every homeowner that borrows money to buy a house and every business that borrows money to operate its business is doing the exact same thing as the govt is doing: borrowing money to operate on.

 

The issue is whether the debt incurred is for a necessary thing.

 

If you think the Iraq War is a necessary thing, you should have no problem with the deficit. If you think that social entitlement spending is a necessary thing, you should have no problem with the deficit.

 

We have the deficit that we do because, in my opinion, Bush knew that if he tried to dramatically cut social programs so that he could keep a balanced budget while funding the Iraq War, the Democrats would never let it happen. In other words, to put it more succinctly, Bush bought the support of politicians opposed to the War; "give me what I want and I'll give you what you want". That may be a sell out to fiscal conservatives but I think it was the reality that Bush was facing. I assume he felt the negatives of a growing deficit were offset by the benefits of a free Iraq. We'll see in about 30 years.

 

I'll have to disagree with you on a number of points.

 

First, when you borrow money for a thirty year mortgage, you are financing a capital expenditure with an economic life that is longer than the term of the loan. It is not borrowing to pay operating expenses. When you borrow money to go to dinner, that is borrowing money for operating expenses. Second, if the war in Iraq was worth the cost (it was'nt and isn't) or if you think that entitlements are worth the cost, we should be willing to pay the taxes to pay for it.

Bush gets credit for the uncontrolled spending but it was the Republican lead congress that actually gave the $$$. while Dems are seen as more tax more spend, I thought it was ironic that a Republican controlled Congress increased the national debt and a Republian president had the highest budget in history. Politics as usual? tell the people what they want to hear & then do what you want??

I'll have to disagree with you on a number of points.

 

First, when you borrow money for a thirty year mortgage, you are financing a capital expenditure with an economic life that is longer than the term of the loan. It is not borrowing to pay operating expenses. When you borrow money to go to dinner, that is borrowing money for operating expenses. Second, if the war in Iraq was worth the cost (it was'nt and isn't) or if you think that entitlements are worth the cost, we should be willing to pay the taxes to pay for it.

 

First of all, many business have revolving lines of credit to finance operating costs. And many consumers use credit cards to purchase dinners and other operating needs and don't pay them off at the end of the month.

 

Second, I agree with you the useful life of a home usually exceeds the loan term. I'm not sure how that's germane here however.

 

And we'll definitely end up paying the taxes to pay for the war, we'll just do it with future tax revenue, the same way a business or home owner makes its payments on its loan debt. What you seem to be saying is that a business or a home owner should not do that; rather, if a business wants to purchase a new piece of machinery today it should lay off workers and cut back or sell off other revenue producing assets so as to be able to pay for the machinery in cash. Which may make sense in certain circumstances; but in plenty of circumstances, the business does not do that, rather it borrows the funds with the expectation that it will be able to make the loan payments with future revenue. Jacking up taxes to pay for the war today would have, if you believe in the economic theory that raising taxes hurts the economy (which I do), an adverse impact on the federal govt's income. While I'd have greatly preferred that the President and Congress dramatically cut back or eliminated all social entitlement programs and eliminated the pork barrel products so we could finance the war without increasing the deficit, I'm not naive enough to think that Congress was going to permit such to occur.

 

If (and I realize its a big if for a lot of you) we can avoid future terroristic attacks in our country which would have a toll not on human life but our economy, if we can bring some sort of democracy and stability to the middle East by the removal of Hussein, if we avoided the great loss of U.S. military life in the future by removing Hussein before he restarted his WMD programs, and if we are able to bring a free society to Iraq where people become better educated and have a reason to live and such spreads to other middle Eastern countries, the borrowings we make today in the form of the deficit will have turned out to be a very wise investment.

 

And for the record, I fully realize that we can not have long term budget deficits. But there are many a learned economist that say we need not get our boxers in a bunch about short term deficits. Just Google "effects of the federal budget deficit" and you'll find all the articles you want to find about it. And if you do so and report back, be fair about it (not saying you wouldn't). Some economists predict doom and gloom; others say as long as it's not a long term pattern, our economy will be fine. History would indicate we've worked our way out of deficits before and I believe we can do so again.

LN you are correct in the summation but the application is successful with future growth. We are borrowing on the expansion of the future to pay for the operation today. All well and good, but all of this is dollars out of the economy today and will be for quite some time. The issue with your point I will continue to have is this only takes into account what is going on in our country only. Worldwide issues take our economic policies in directions never before. Who would have thought a couple of decades ago China would be buying our debt? Your not concerned about the repayment plans in how they actually see it?

 

Sorry, I rest with comments from Warren Buffet who clearly states it will not hurt the economy if the top 1% happen to have to pay more.

 

In principle I agree with your point. In application, given our current state of affairs with the federal spending I am offended by it. I am simply holding them accountable.

I think that the uncontrolled spending during this administration, has been driving the wedge between fiscal and social conservatives even moreso than before.

 

You're absolutely right.

I didn't say there wouldn't be consequences. I said the sky won't fall and our children won't be irreparably harmed. They'll pay down the deficit through business expansion and economic growth. Sure we'll need to make sure we have pro-growth political leaders, but that will happen.

 

I don't agree at all with this rosy outlook. As we have had deficit spending each and every year since at least the early 1980's (with the exception of a very few years), what makes you think the economy will miraculously grow at a pace sufficient to erase the deficit? This is a little like the attitudes of people who support their lifestyles on mountains of personal debt: "I'll pay it off some day." The deficit is more than 10% of federal tax revenue, and that tax revenue includes the surplus of social security taxes that were supposed to go into a trust fund to pay for future benefits. How many people consume more than 110% of their income on a continuous basis? Is this not a recipe for disaster? The interest on the national debt is now nearly 10% of the budget and is going to consume an ever larger piece of the pie each year. There will be an economic reckoning, and it is looking more likely that it will occur within the next 10-15 years as foreign countries refuse to continue to float U.S. debt.

 

 

R's predicted our country would go down the tubes when Clinton got elected. We survived. D's thought the end of the world would come when Bush got elected. It looks like that prediction will turn out wrong.

 

Perhaps in your mind I'm trivializing the deficit issue. I don't mean to. I'm not in favor of loose spending at all. However, I am willing to accept short term deficit spending when its necessary to accomplish a mission vital to our country's national interest and security. I think that's the case here.

 

Maybe we have a different sense of time, but what is your idea of short term? Federal spending was $2.01 billion in 2002. It has steadily risen over the past six years to the presently anticipated $3 billion, and Bush's latest budget fantasy only assumes $90 billion to fund Iraq and Afghanistan wars through the rest of his presidency--the history of the past five years has shown that won't be enough. And he assumes the grasp of the AMT will expand in his projections (which means that even though Bush talks a good game about not raising your taxes, he's a bald-faced liar where his budget is concerned). With the course Bush has put the country on, we will have deficits in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year for as far as the eye can see. Short term? I think not.

You guys can try and shift blame back and forth but the reality is that the BOTH can share blame. And with $3 trillion be asked, there is plenty of out of control spending blame to go around to all.

 

Including the Dems. There was a thread on here recently talking about how all the new Democrat Congressmen have already had their hands out and received pork spending.

 

Even Brashear who railed against Fletcher for using the Governor's plane for political purposes and said he would never do it during the race, has already done it and is looking to pay back the governor's office for the use of the governor's plane for political purposes.

You guys can try and shift blame back and forth but the reality is that the BOTH can share blame. And with $3 trillion be asked, there is plenty of out of control spending blame to go around to all.

 

Including the Dems. There was a thread on here recently talking about how all the new Democrat Congressmen have already had their hands out and received pork spending.

 

Even Brashear who railed against Fletcher for using the Governor's plane for political purposes and said he would never do it during the race, has already done it and is looking to pay back the governor's office for the use of the governor's plane for political purposes.

 

Very true!! The only problem that I have with this situation is the most republican candidates will say they will control spending which is a very good message but over the last 8 years that is not the case. Democrats do spend but they do not say they wont & then go ahead & do.

 

This is also the biggest reason I dislike most politicians. Because they will say whatever people want to hear or whats popular. I respect Ron Paul because he seems very honest. I also respect Beshear b/c he is trying to do something about the troubled budget instead of doing the same old thing. Even so, many will remember this in 4 years & say, "he cut jobs so lets boot him out."

Very true!! The only problem that I have with this situation is the most republican candidates will say they will control spending which is a very good message but over the last 8 years that is not the case. Democrats do spend but they do not say they wont & then go ahead & do.

 

This is also the biggest reason I dislike most politicians. Because they will say whatever people want to hear or whats popular. I respect Ron Paul because he seems very honest. I also respect Beshear b/c he is trying to do something about the troubled budget instead of doing the same old thing. Even so, many will remember this in 4 years & say, "he cut jobs so lets boot him out."

 

I think the budget with Beshear is a political move to get casinos through.