Killing the national government

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
As Bush pushes the deficit into the stratosphere, I am left wondering what his plans for the future are. What happened to not passing debt onto the next generation? More than that, at this rate social security for Bush's generation is already more than threatened, and the unemployed twenty-somethings are the ones who will be paying off the trillions that Bush stacks on to the current debt in addition to supporting their graying baby boom parents.

Has the Republican Party (or more specifically this administration) finally decided to axe the national government but putting it so far in debt with no arms that it falls apart under its own weight? Yes, we are in the middle of the logest recession in recent US history (perhaps ever?) but the current deficits are still mind bogglingly large.



Maybe there isnt a conspiracy, and this is just Bush-inomics, but if the national govenrment finds itself so deep into debt that it is unforseeable that it will escape, it is a necessity that social service functions etc would fall to both state and private entities as the national government flops dying from lack of funds. And this has been a policy point of a certain segment of the conservatives in this country for a long time. Has Bush finally found the way to kill the beast -- by expanding it incrediously (ie by the homeland security department, increased military spending etc etc) without the persuant interest in funding it fully?



Fattening it up for the kill so to speak...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 4
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,430member
    First, don't panic. Though it sounds staggering, our debt is actually managable. Also, remember that we are dealing with predictions here, and not actual numbers.



    Second, you're attributing things to Bush you really shouldn't be. Bush didn't create the Social Security problem. No matter what is spewn forth by politicians, Social Security is not going anywhere. It may change (speciffically the way it is funded), but it's not going anywhere. Remember: It's a political football. Bush hasn't done anything to threaten the program, despite all the garbage you hear about "the Social Security Surplus".



    Quote:

    and the unemployed twenty-somethings are the ones who will be paying off the trillions that Bush stacks on to the current debt in addition to supporting their graying baby boom parents.



    That's a bit disingenuous. You're attributing youthful unemployment to Bush personally. You're also making it seem as if Bush is the direct cause of the deficits/debt, which I guarantee you is not necessarrily the case. The economy itself has a lot to do with these deficits, and at the rate the federal government was ALREADY spending when Bush took office, they would have happened anyway given the slowdown. I'd also like to point out that a lot of middle income "twenty-somethings" got significant tax breaks over the past two and a half years, including me. Yes, how tough it is for the poor twenty-somethings. All those Volkswagon Jettas and Mitsubishi Eclipses really add up.



    Quote:

    Has the Republican Party (or more specifically this administration) finally decided to axe the national government but putting it so far in debt with no arms that it falls apart under its own weight?



    Interesting theory, but I don't think so. Though, some have said that Bush cut taxes so dramatically to force spending to be reduced.





    Quote:

    but putting it so far in debt with no arms that it falls apart under its own weight? Yes, we are in the middle of the logest recession in recent US history (perhaps ever?) but the current deficits are still mind bogglingly large.





    I'm not flaming you here, but this is where you show your real lack of understanding about the economy and government fiscal and monetary policy. We're NOT in the middle of the "longest recession" in history. That's just patently false Though there was a MAJOR slowdown (led by the tech collapse, rising energy prices and interest rates), we never even has a recession by the technical historical defintiton. Practically, we did have a recession. So how long was it? It's hard to say since we never had two consecutive quarters of negative growth. That doesn't mean much to folks who lost their jobs, but it's the truth.



    Furthermore, government deficits are linked to slow economic growth, because such economic conditions lead to less revenue. Though Bush's tax cuts temporarily reduce revenue, the hope is they stimulate the economy enough to increase revenue. Some here disagree with this premise, but personally I think it's proven historical fact.







    Quote:

    Has Bush finally found the way to kill the beast -- by expanding it incrediously (ie by the homeland security department, increased military spending etc etc) without the persuant interest in funding it fully?







    Again, I don't think so. I'd also argue that SOME of the spending increases are/were neccessary after 9/11. Actually, Bush's line has been to only increase discetionary spending by 4%. This hasn't happened, and the final amount as approved by Congress has been higher. In the 1990's, some budgets had near-double digit discretionary spending increases. When discretionary spending is increasing at 3 times the rate of inflations we have a problem. It's important to look at the historical cumulative effect of such free-for-all spending. One cannot, absolutely not pin it all on Bush. Spending EXPLODED in the 1990's as the Federal and State governments (hell..local governments too) went on spending binges.



    And, what do you mean by this: "..without persuant interest in funding it fully?".



    ---Isn't "funding it fully" the problem you are talking about? This is not some magic pool of money that the government spends...it's TAX DOLLARS. Where would the money come from?



    Bush is proving himself to be a "big government conservative". Granted, some of the massive reorganizations and costly new programs are required for national security. I'd like to see him support fewer programs and come out for budget DECREASES, but I'll take a "big government conservative" over a "big government liberal" any day.



    In any case, it's easy to blame Bush for the recession and deficits. Really easy. It's a little more complicated than that, though. It's also interesting that you didn't mention the Democratic party even ONE time in your post, which I think is a little odd.
  • Reply 2 of 4
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    As Bush pushes the deficit into the stratosphere, I am left wondering what his plans for the future are. What happened to not passing debt onto the next generation? More than that, at this rate social security for Bush's generation is already more than threatened, and the unemployed twenty-somethings are the ones who will be paying off the trillions that Bush stacks on to the current debt in addition to supporting their graying baby boom parents.

    Has the Republican Party (or more specifically this administration) finally decided to axe the national government but putting it so far in debt with no arms that it falls apart under its own weight? Yes, we are in the middle of the logest recession in recent US history (perhaps ever?) but the current deficits are still mind bogglingly large.



    Maybe there isnt a conspiracy, and this is just Bush-inomics, but if the national govenrment finds itself so deep into debt that it is unforseeable that it will escape, it is a necessity that social service functions etc would fall to both state and private entities as the national government flops dying from lack of funds. And this has been a policy point of a certain segment of the conservatives in this country for a long time. Has Bush finally found the way to kill the beast -- by expanding it incrediously (ie by the homeland security department, increased military spending etc etc) without the persuant interest in funding it fully?



    Fattening it up for the kill so to speak...




    As a free love isn't free baby (I'm 33) I think we are going to hang all our Boomer parents out to dry. Once they retire we can inflate our way out of the deficit. Of course it will destroy their retirements, but they were the dumba$$es who could get spending under control and allowed "the greatest generation" to bleed the country dry via Social Security and spending.



    It's only taken a few years for Republicans to become as spending minded as Democrats. I say toss the lot of them.



    Nick
  • Reply 3 of 4
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Ok, maybe I mince words a bit -- longest slow down, longest recession, same difference since in the end the result is the same.

    I am not panicing actually... But nothing is more wasteful than spending tax dollars to pay off the debt than sending those dollars towards programs that by in large do things for somebody, anybody. The fact is that while this debt exists, it itself puts downward pressure on the economy, money is litterally being wasted away paying it off instead of being used to fund programs that need money...



    I am less concerned by the economics of the situation since redardless of anybody's posturing the effect of a sizable deficit on the economy is not known. period. More of my intention of bringing this point is that to me the Bush administration is trying very hard to kill the national government's control of the purse strings. While I dont blame Bush directly for the state of our economy (and this includes Social Security as well as unemployment), I can blame him for poor economic judgement (or unusually cunning).
  • Reply 4 of 4
    thttht Posts: 3,931member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    As Bush pushes the deficit into the stratosphere, I am left wondering what his plans for the future are.



    The one and only agenda for GWB is reelection. There is nothing else. GWB has no policy but reelection.



    Killing the entitlement programs is only an unfounded conspiracist theory for people trying to find a pattern in GWB's actions. The overreaching motivation for GWB is reelection. All actions must be funneled through that prism.
Sign In or Register to comment.