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.

[nicky g]

"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. "

Cheers, Tom. I certainly have an agenda, as does everone posting here, and by popular consent a diminished mental capacity (though what that actually means, I don't know - did I previously have a higher one?), along with the rest of us whacko Europeans (and others) who think Bush is a crook. D'you mean the list and link I posted, or my own rant about Bush in response to a post of yours a while ago? If the former, I didn't write it, I cut and pasted it from a round robin email. From its tone I would have thought it was supposed to be humourous, though with a serious point - something known as satire. I'd be happy to discuss any issues it brought up - that's why I posted it. Clearly you'd rather not. If the latter, I'm disappointed as I thought you were going to respond to some of my points. Oh well. Keep living in your bubble.

[andyfox]

"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."

Tom: You equate this with official US Policy regarding Iraqi efforts to form a new government?

Andy: Yes. The meaing of the words are plain enough. We claim that we will not make decisions for the new Iraqi democracy, the Iraqi people will run their own institutions. But we have banned up to 30,000 people from being considered by the Iraqi people. How is this democracy?

[MMMMMM]

Well we've also said we won't permit the installation of Islamic law as the basis of government (even if they were to vote for it). It must be realized however that if Islamic law were voted in it would then take over the political process and rule, and effectively prevent democracy from ever really taking hold. So in a democracy you just can't have "anything goes" even if it's voted on. That's one reason why there are Constitutions in democratic republics.

Similarly if Baath Party officials who were instrumental in fostering and maintaining Saddam's reign of terror were to control many important government posts Iraq might soon largely revert to what it was before.

So yeah, it's not a complete democracy yet. A Constitution needs to be drawn up first too. And true Baathist thugs are going to be sort of shut out for a while. Too bad, huh? It really isn't perfect.

I get the sense that many of your dissatisfactions with all manner of things (including the USA and politics in general) stem from their inabilities to live up to idealistic perfections. I guess that's just the way the world works. I greatly wish it were otherwise too, but it isn't, and Iraq isn't going to be completely liberated, reconstructed or democratized overnight. And its democracy probably isn't ever going to be perfect (and I guess the Blame America First crowd can always carp about that too).

[andyfox]

"I get the sense that many of your dissatisfactions with all manner of things (including the USA and politics in general) stem from their inabilities to live up to idealistic perfections. I guess that's just the way the world works. I greatly wish it were otherwise too, but it isn't, and Iraq isn't going to be completely liberated, reconstructed or democratized overnight. And its democracy probably isn't ever going to be perfect (and I guess the Blame America First crowd can always carp about that too)."

-I don't think I'm dissastisfied with all manner of things. I'm definitely a bit more curmudgeonly in my dotage (I'm 50) than I was in my youth; but I'm certainly not a perfectionist. Political bull does rile me though. If anything, I'm more keen to it when it comes from the left (thus my many posts criticizing the Dems, both current and from the recent past) because I expect more from those with whom I am close to on the political spectrum. Don't tell me we're interested in a democracy when we're not. Don't tell me you're in favor of considering a bailout for the airlines when your wife is their number one lobbyist.

But hell, you might be right about me. It's easier for others to see what one is about then oneself, no doubt about it.

The one thing I definitely disagree with is the "Blame America First" crowd. I see a don't blame America at all ever crowd, but I don't see a blame America first crowd. Who would you characterize as a charter member of the blame America first crowd?

[MMMMMM]

Well first off when I say 'all manner of things' I am not saying you are dissatisfied with all things, but rather I am trying to refer to a broad spectrum of things with which you may be dissatisfied. I'm certainly not saying you are dissatisfied with all things.

What would make you think we aren't interested in a democracy in Iraq? I think we are; we just don't want one comprised of Islamist fanatics or internal-security-apparatus terror-masters who would be likely to abuse and probably ruin any nascent democracy.

Noam Chomsky is a shining example of the philosophy of the blame America First Crowd. Never mind that the USSR and China slaughtered scores of millions more than the US ever did; compare America instead to some lofty imaginary ideals that were never practically unattainable, instead of comparing America to other world behemoths. All had to operate in the same imperfect world...and did so imperfectly. Yet the overall legacies of terror and slaughter by the communist giants were far, far greater than America's in total. However Chomsky prefers to blame America for most of the world's ills and directs his venom as if there is something inherently evil about America or the American people or the American system. Chomsky also even went so far as to cheer on the North Vietnamese communists (who after the fall of South Vietnam revealed their true nature as cold-blooded killers in both South Vietnam and in the massive killing fields of Cambodia).

Chomsky too made 9/11 sound as if America was to blame for bringing the attack on itself, when in fact al Qaeda are unappeasable fanatical religious militants. The only thing that will truly appease al Qaeda is the conversion of the entire world to their version of hard-line Islam.

[Parmenides]

Bootlicking fascists are in denial.

The budget used to be balanced under the Clinton/Gingrich compromise. The world experienced the largest economic boom in history as a result.

Your fuhrer ended all of that with his policies of making the payroll tax working man pay for almost everything. The American aristocracy receives more corpoate welfare under this stooge than any ELECTED president,

I'm surprised that the Neocons haven't created a special Bush salute yet. Yet is the key word in that sentence.

[Parmenides]

Pure propaganda.

The American government is responsible for just as many deaths of indigenous peoples and minorities as either behemoth. American foreign policy sunce WWII has sponsored dictatorships. The School of the Americas trains the security forces in the use of torture.

You believe in the US of white people. That's clear.

[adios]

Also thanks for the stock tip on Haliburton it's up about 16% or so since you "recommended" it and I'd be remiss in not thanking nicky too because his Cheney smear of the bogus accounting issues peaked my interest. Haliburton should be paying a dividend soon as well. Seriously I mean it. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

[Parmenides]

Of course they should. They have large contracts arranged prior to the invasion of Iraq. Cheney is powerful enough to have anyone that would testifiy against him killed. The business outlook for them is bright as long as goose steppers continue to kiss his bosses behind.