Democrats Balanced Budget Rhetoric

[adios]

Many in the Democratic party and on the left in general are railing against the Republican party in general and George Bush in particlar regarding the current US budget deficit. I believe the 2002 budget deficit is something like $262 billion (btw the absolute number isn't significant, it's the percentage of GDP that is). I've got news for all those on this forum railing against it. You won't get $262 billion in budget cuts by cutting defense spending only i.e. funding for inititiatives that the Democratic party in particular and the left in general favors would surely have to be cut. The only way to keep all of these programs the Democrats want is to increase taxes which IMO would be disasterous for the economy. I'm a little surprised the Republicans haven't called the Democrats out on this issue although the Republicans may feel that they are encouraging the Democrats to run on raising taxes. I'll admit I'd enjoy seeing the Democrats campaign for raising taxes but that seems to be way too much to hope for. The main reasons that the US has gone from a surplus to a deficit are the decreased government revenues due to the 50% increase in unemployment from it's lowest levels as well as a general economic downturn and the increased costs of homeland security. Here's a link to all kinds of information regarding the Federal Budget. I had a reletively sane discussion about the budget deficit with Clarkmeister once. Perphaps a rational discussion of the budget and the implications of a deficit would be more useful than trying to gain political points on a poker site message board where a lot of "preaching to the choir" goes on among leftist posters. Here's a link to all kinds of information regarding the Federal Budget:

Budget of the United States Government


I'm a little surprised I got no response to my analysis of Senator Lieberman's energy policy statement.

Three Posts that got a lot of attention.


Regarding Andy's post on Iraqi Democracy:

U.S. moves to ban Baath party officials

Apparently you draw the following conclusions from this article (it has the direct phrase of original post so I assume that you're using this article as your source):

"But if it forever bans those who took part in a government it did not like, those words are empty. Note that the United States did not say that those people who are banned could not reform a tyrannical government. They are banned from taking part in the nascent democracy. It is not the appartuas which is being banned. It is certain people."

Here's what the article states:

The United States moved yesterday to purge its Iraqi reconstruction effort of any Baath party influence and successfully worked to recover millions of dollars taken by Saddam Hussein's family and regime.

Not the words reconstruction effort.

A senior official from the U.S. Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance said between 15,000 and 30,000 Baath party officials will be banned entirely from participating in any future Iraqi government.

You equate this with official US Policy regarding Iraqi efforts to form a new government? You're implying in my mind that the USA is ramming something down the throats of the Iraqis that they don't want because it's undemocratic. Methinks that you're being at least slightly disingenuous.


The Jessica Lynch Post

Well I don't see a lot of upside for the US military to stage the events that transpired with her capture and subsequent rescue. In fact I see a lot more downside than upside.

nicky's post about Bush

That post has so many half truths, irrelevant issues, and outright lies that it makes me think that only someone with a diminished mental capacity and an agenda would post such a thing without any kind of discussion of the relevancy and factualness of the issues brought up. His post was a mundane and tired rant at best.