Bush: foreign policy nitwit, economic wizard

[SpeedoGuy]

Don't foget about the deficit and the growth of expenditures.

 

[joyboytoy79]

Don't foget about the deficit and the growth of expenditures.

THANK YOU SPEEDO!!!

Oh, yes, the IRS pulled in record amounts of dough... i believe it (even if i don't understand how it's possible, given that we've supposedly lowered taxation...). What everyone (mostly mr goosey) is failing to realise is that economic "growth" cannot happen if we aren't breaking even. In actuality, the economy is tanking. Our GDP is grossly inflated because we no longer account for the deficit when generating the numbers.

In fact, we aren't employing "supply side" economics right now. No... what we're doing is using a war as reason for borrowing money from China so we can keep our failing economy afloat... for a while. All with the hope that when it sinks, we (being Bush and his allies) won't be alive anymore to have to pay back the debt.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

THANK YOU SPEEDO!!!

Oh, yes, the IRS pulled in record amounts of dough... i believe it (even if i don't understand how it's possible, given that we've supposedly lowered taxation...). What everyone (mostly mr goosey) is failing to realise is that economic "growth" cannot happen if we aren't breaking even. In actuality, the economy is tanking. Our GDP is grossly inflated because we no longer account for the deficit when generating the numbers.

In fact, we aren't employing "supply side" economics right now. No... what we're doing is using a war as reason for borrowing money from China so we can keep our failing economy afloat... for a while. All with the hope that when it sinks, we (being Bush and his allies) won't be alive anymore to have to pay back the debt.

Expenditures have slowed significantly. Bush with the complicit help of cngress spent like a drunken soldier in his first term but now has shown restraint. I believe spending has dropped to an increase of 3-5 %.

The budget deficit this year will be about $150 billion. Less than 1% of GDP or GNP i forget which. i doubt anyone here runs that tight a ship. If we hold things in line it will be zero in 2 years. Thats pretty good. It should be better but its OK.

 

[HazelGod]

Sadly, what's worse than that is that C+ work is adequate to convince most people. This is why I hate most people.

Amen, sister.

 

[Ethyl]

Don't foget about the deficit and the growth of expenditures.

Oh, and the talk about privatization of Social Security. Pushing for collection at age 69. Yeah. Not drinking that kool-aid.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Now who's being disingenuous? I typed out TWICE that the economy is showing a false postitive because of the war, and you've avoided it twice. I asked you to show when, ever, our society has thrived from supply-side economics apart from a war, and you've preferred instead to nit-pick sematics. You don't HAVE an answer, I get it, but you can't just pretend that our economy is NOT tied to the war, so you can appear compassionate, but still make your smug observation. Bullshit.

I have proved where taxes were reduced for the working class and how revenues are better than ever. Rich people are paying the tab by in large.

Our economy is not tied to the war. Sorry you aren't seeing that. If the war cost $200 billion a year ( and it doesn't even come close), thats less than 2% of our overall budget. Military spending is 3.75% of GDP. You think 3.7% is DRIVING OUR ECONOMY?

Whatever.

My sources

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

I list sources and you just spout I guess.

 

[Freddie53]

If I financed an extravagant life style like the Bush Administration has financed this "supposed: booming economy, I would have to file bankruptcy as soon as the creditors figured out I was manipulating my credit cards to manufacture artificial money. In this case, that be China, now the world's fourth largest economy, who holds in its hands the mortgage to the White House and all other government buildings.

Before Bush, our national debt was owed to Americans, that is the bonds were sold to our own people. Now most of the bonds are being bought by China. We don't owe the money to our own citizens. No we owe it to an adversary who could wipe us out in a heart beat by cashing in all its dollars and loans the Chinese government has loaned us Great going Bush. You have bankrupted our nation to get a false economy. Great going.

Bush has raped the Social Security Fund for money. I know Democrats have done it too. Doesn't make it right.

Bush has also run up the largest deficit in the history of the United States. His predecessor left office with a smaller national debt than we had when he took office. That be the deplorable Bill Clinton of course, that rascal that balanced the budget and ran a surplus which Bush promptly raided and blew plus billions more.

So when China calls in all its dollars it has, our economy will falter. then our fabulous wealthy will then move their money over seas so it can make more money then here and presto - another Great Depression, compliments of Bush and Cheney and Co. People forget the Great Depression was caused in great part by all the money and capital being tied up and owned and controlled by a very small group of people at the top. We're headed to another Depression. The word is not "if" but "when" it will happen.

 

[madame_zora]

I have proved where taxes were reduced for the working class and how revenues are better than ever. Rich people are paying the tab by in large.

You haven't "proved" anything, you've offered your perspective. I've read enough of your posts to know you're not that dense. I think you're pretty far out of touch with what people in much lower income brackets have been experiencing. Actually, your ignorance shows clearly.

Our economy is not tied to the war. Sorry you aren't seeing that. If the war cost $200 billion a year ( and it doesn't even come close), thats less than 2% of our overall budget. Military spending is 3.75% of GDP. You think 3.7% is DRIVING OUR ECONOMY?

Whatever.

Whatever indeed. Did you even read your sources? Here's what I read:

My sources

National Priorities Project - The Cost of War

The median income family in the United States paid $3,736 in federal income taxes in 2006 . Here is how that amount was spent:
Military$1,014
Interest on the Debt (Military)$340
Interest on the Debt (Non-Military)$385
Health$779
Income Security$224
Education$169
Veterans' Benefits$125
Nutrition$98
Housing$70
Natural Resources$57
Job Training$11
Other$463




See, call me funny, but it looks like a disproportionate amount of taxation is being used for military spending. How do you avoid calling that a tie to the economy?

Thanks for the site though, I don't think you understand what it's saying.

I wish I could copy from a pdf file, but when I pulled up the file on what portion of the total war bill would come from my state (Ohio), and it came to about 16 billion dollars. When I look around at the state of affairs around here and think of what 16 BILLION dollars could be doing around here in education, jobs, roads, healthcare- it's astounding. Instead, we get an economy that's tanking, a mass exodus as our manufacturing jobs have been "outsourced"- I believe Cincinnati alone has lost about 20% of our total population since 1999. Our murder rate is now three times higher than that of NYC, per capita, and some fucker on the internet is trying to tell me how wonderful everything really is but I'm just too dumb to see it. Yeah, I'm the one who doesn't see what's really happening.

That link is a gem, it breaks down state by state, city by city, just what this is costing each of us, and what we could be having instead. It's a really horrible place to send someone to show how great george bush really is.

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I list sources and you just spout I guess.

I rant, and you just lie.


The military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007 is:

Total Funding$439.3 Billion+6.9%
Operations and maintenance $152.0 Bil.+6.6%
Military Personnel $110.8 Bil.+3.7%
Procurement $84.2 Bil.+10.5%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $73.2 Bil.+3.1%Military Construction $12.6 Bil.+57.5%
Family Housing $4.1 Bil.+2.5%
Working Capital Funds $2.4 Bil.+9.1%

Further the Department of Energy will spend an additional $23.4 Bil. during FY'07 for the development, maintenance and production of nuclear warheads. [4]


How is it that you drew out only the figure for military salaries? Why would you post links like these, and not think I'd click them? I'm beginning to think you're derranged. I'd say the money from r&d is propping up the economy, the money the military spends for housing, procurement, really every item on that list. The ONLY way you can claim the war is not giving our economy a false bluster is to just be completely stupid.

 

[Lex]

Well, if you can only absorb 2+2=4, that's fine. You may want to start asking why 2 is 2, what is keeping it at 2, is it stable, what could affect it, causing it to become 3 or 1?...

Ha. My junior year Calculus III teacher finally taught us (after years of teasing) when 1+1 does not equal 2. Basically about how when you approximate 1 by rounding up and add approximations, how the sum can never be accurate. Chew on that.

Now who's being disingenuous? I typed out TWICE that the economy is showing a false postitive because of the war, and you've avoided it twice. I asked you to show when, ever, our society has thrived from supply-side economics apart from a war, and you've preferred instead to nit-pick sematics. ...

I noted that he avoids/ignores salient points a few weeks ago.

...

See, call me funny, but it looks like a disproportionate amount of taxation is being used for military spending. How do you avoid calling that a tie to the economy?

Thanks for the site though, I don't think you understand what it's saying.

....

The devil, as they say, is in the details. We need more INDEPENDENT thinkers, people who can take in ALL the political and social propaganda and form their OWN opinions, instead of regurgitating politically spun dogma ad nauseum.

And anyone who listens to six-figure salary Americans complain about their taxes and believes that shit did not grow up poor or in the lower end of the middle class.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

blah blah blah blah blah

 

[Principessa]

[quote=mercurialbliss;821438] Oh, and the talk about privatization of Social Security. Pushing for collection at age 69. Yeah. Not drinking that kool-aid. Nor am I

 

[Blocko]

Curious. Why did you think that? "Supply side" is the only thing which is, in the long term, possible. Anything else relies, basically, on materializing money from air. Economic prosperity comes from successful business activity, not government redistribution. Even if government inefficiencies and thievery could be (magically) eliminated, no program of taxation can generate wealth.

There may, of course, be short-term exceptions.

Of course a program of taxation can generate wealth. Tax money is like any other money - it can be invested and bring back dividends. Larger amounts of investment money can earn higher returns. Money doesn't stop when it gets to the government, they spend it like everyone else.

Keynes didn't get everything right, but one thing he did get right was that a lack of aggregate demand causes an economic slowdown. The solution to the problem is not to increase supply, it is to increase the demand.

The one agent in a depressed economy that has enough money to increase demand on a macro-economic level is the government. This can be done by spending and investing a lot of money, which is why reserve funds are a good idea (but they shouldn't be overly large, lest you create stagnation/stagflation).

Of course, a government without adequate reserves needs to go into deficit to stimulate the economy, but this isn't always a bad thing (unless it becomes entrenched) as once the economy recovers, loans can be paid off and it creates a bond/investement market that can give guaranteed returns when investments are risky.

What George W. Bush actually blundered into in his wars was the roughly the solution Keynes described to slumps in aggregate demand (which occured after 9/11). He spent a lot of money and that increased aggregate demand. Of course, he did it very inefficiently, as much of it went on munition.

Munition (missiles, shells, bombs, bullets) has the unfortunate effect that once you use it, you destroy it. It also creates no secondary effect in the economy (i.e. the same explosives and metal in mining would have a secondary effect of helping to gain minerals), although you can use it to steal from others :smile:.

Of course, there are other great ways to increase aggregate demand that are useful in other circumstances... Including welfare ("Thievery" in Randian loaded-term parlance), as social welfare can be a great stimulus in a flagging economy where a failure in aggregate demand comes from a disproportionate share in wealth.

A top heavy economy creates failures in aggregate demands for important products that the bulk of the population buys. This is a far worse problem than lack of investment or luxury purchase from the rich, as it means that the large majority of people aren't consuming enough goods to warrant their own employment.

Of course, Bush's other great economic "triumph" is his blundering that caused the devaluation of the greenback. This meant all the US treasury bills that other countries hold in reserve, what really financed the wars originally, are worth a hell of a lot less. It also made US imports more attractive. Of course, it wrote off a lot of US capital value as well, but no one remembers that part :biggrin1:

 

[Blocko]

He gets an F by me for the war in Iraq.

However there is no way to argue with his brilliance at economic policy. On April 24th the US Treasury/IRS had the single highest tax revenue take in history and tax revenues are running $190 billion ahead of the previous highest level.

He reduced taxes and revenues climbed by record numbers.
Supply side econ works!!!! There is no arguing with numbers.

Bump him to a D -

Goes hand in hand with my treatise on taxes=bad (in general)

You might wish to consider that a balance of supply-side and Keynesian demand based economics is actually the optimum (a non idealogically biased model).

Demand economics can be easily illustrated by the effect the war is having on sectors of the US economy - huge amounts of government spending in Bush's his earlier term are now flowing out into the economy as the money reaches it's destination. The demand for arms, rations, troops and equipment means that manufacturers can venture more money and grow in this area. Of course, this is unsustainable when the war ends - you're better to help grow civil industry which will be around sans the war.

Supply side economics is actually at its best when it comes to small business (not large). If you encourage small businesses to supply and give them more money to market product, they can grow more effectively than larger businesses with an already near saturated market and a large amount of financial inertia.

edit; In fact, both sides of the model work best when you take fledling parts of your economy and focus on them to grow new industry/small business.

Of course the the fact that the US is running a deficit at all, while other countries that are growing faster are running a large surplus with a higher level of overall revenue (with a higher marginal tax rate) would be an interesting counterpoint that shows that either the US isn't out of the woods, or that Bush isn't correctly managing the situation. :smile:

 

[dong20]

The budget deficit this year will be about $150 billion. Less than 1% of GDP or GNP i forget which. i doubt anyone here runs that tight a ship. If we hold things in line it will be zero in 2 years. Thats pretty good. It should be better but its OK.

What $ are those then, Zimbabwean? The last time I checked, about 30 seconds before posting this; the Whitehouse projected US budget deficit (pdf) for 2007-8 is $244 billion (even the CBO estimates $177 Billion) and if you believe either represents anything close to the true figure (look at the accounting rules) you are seriously naive, but of course you have an agenda, I'm just trying get at the facts, remember those?

In any event these figures including your $150 Billion figure (courtesy of JP Morgan I believe?) are guesstimates so please, don't tout it here like it's a done deal.

I don't have time right now to address the multitudenous half truths and obfusctions in your other posts, here and elsewhere and Zora is already on your ass about some, but in the words of a popular Austrian; "I'll be back".

 

[Full_Phil]

If you have a deficit, you have Government spending that exceeds inflows. If the Government spends money in this fashion, you are by design adding impetus to the economy. In the history of the world, military actions have always helped economies, and in many cases, wars were started just for that reason---to improve economies while drawing the attention of the populace away from other issues. In the history of the world, there have always been economic slowdowns after military actions cease. What about those fundamentals do the bush-defenders not get? It must be noted that the arguments for or against the war itself are a seperate issue, although it can be summized that there is some pump-priming inherent in some of the decisions.

 

[ETA123]

If you have a deficit, you have Government spending that exceeds inflows. If the Government spends money in this fashion, you are by design adding impetus to the economy. In the history of the world, military actions have always helped economies, and in many cases, wars were started just for that reason---to improve economies while drawing the attention of the populace away from other issues. In the history of the world, there have always been economic slowdowns after military actions cease. What about those fundamentals do the bush-defenders not get? It must be noted that the arguments for or against the war itself are a seperate issue, although it can be summized that there is some pump-priming inherent in some of the decisions.

One little thing to add, in all that history, through all that history of wars helping economy, never (to my knowledge, someone can provide examples if I'm wrong), has a nation CUT taxes during a time of war. In fact, taxes are typically increased to fund a war effort. Perhaps that's because this administration knew for a fact that none of their base would support a war they actually had to pay for (instead of passing off trillions of dollars in debt to the next generation).

As to the economy being great . . . maybe if you have a crapload of money to invest, you can make more money, but that "great economy" is completely invisible to the majority of Americans. If you think there's a great economy when the number of foreclosures in the nation is at record highs (a 42% increase from 2005 to 2006), you're ignoring the real world economy of the majority of Americans. New home sales are declining rapidly, as are the number of jobs in related sectors. A continued housing decline could very well trigger a recession (if it doesn't, there are plenty of other factors that will).

Thouse touting low unemployment numbers as a sign of a great economy are also ignoring real world facts. Those unemployment numbers do not include people that have been unemployed so long they are no longer eligible for benefits, those who are underemployed (such as someone who used to make a good salary now being forced to work stocking shelves at a Wal-Mart or something of the sort due to massive outsourcing of tech and manufacturing jobs), etc. They're deceptive numbers and not representative of what is actually going on among real working-class Americans.

Sorry, but if anyone who doesn't look at the whole picture instead of just reports provided to them by the same administration that said the air quality at the WTC site was safe to breath needs to pry themselves away from the elephant's posterior and take a look around at the real world.

 

[madame_zora]

I swear, this guy is taking lessons from JQBlonde just spouting out nonsense, then ignoring every actual response. I see through this slime clearly enough by now.

Hey, let's ignore the fact that we're selling astronomical amounts of war bonds to nifty little places like China and India, without whom we couldn't afford our own war. Let's ignore the fact that we've pillaged social security for the next several generations (like mine), and not figure that in to the overall picture, let's ignore the fact that the average wage-per-cola is lower now, and that the reported unemployment figures are extremely questionable, let's just ignore it all and exclaim, "Gee golly, everything's just great, bush is a genius!"

Like I said, the only way you can believe our economy is "just fine" is to be a complete moron, or make over $150k/ yr.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Its sad how little even supposedly enlightened citizens know about their government and how they spend your money. I am here to help!!

You haven't "proved" anything, you've offered your perspective. I've read enough of your posts to know you're not that dense. I think you're pretty far out of touch with what people in much lower income brackets have been experiencing. Actually, your ignorance shows clearly.

A family of four does not pay income tax if they make $40K or less. I referenced this already in another thread. Nothing left to prove. Its a fact.



Whatever indeed. Did you even read your sources? Here's what I read:



The median income family in the United States paid $3,736 in federal income taxes in 2006 . Here is how that amount was spent:
Military$1,014
Interest on the Debt (Military)$340
Interest on the Debt (Non-Military)$385
Health$779
Income Security$224
Education$169
Veterans' Benefits$125
Nutrition$98
Housing$70
Natural Resources$57
Job Training$11
Other$463

This is playing fast and loose with the truth. Pay attention MZ you will learn a lot from me now. The US federal budget is about $2.6 trillion. Defense spending makes up 17-18%. I have followed this number since Vietnam. It has been dropping slowly but steadily since a high of about 24% years ago. Social security is the highest part, at 20%. The most anyone can pay toward a particular thing in the budget is about what that item makes up in the budget. YOUR tax money goes into the mix and and is used as that item is used at that %.




See, call me funny, but it looks like a disproportionate amount of taxation is being used for military spending. How do you avoid calling that a tie to the economy?

The GDP of the US is $11 trillion/year. The defense budget is $447billion. Divide that by $11 trillion and you will get about 3-4%. Thats how much of our income, goods and services are derived from defense. The Iraq war has cost us $460billion over 5 years or about $90 billion/year. Thats not even 1%. YOu call that the engine driving the economy? In the previous breath you called defense a drag on the economy. 2 competing ideas from the same post. Drag? Driver? What is it? Or can you even understand it? Its neither.

Thanks for the site though, I don't think you understand what it's saying.

I wish I could copy from a pdf file, but when I pulled up the file on what portion of the total war bill would come from my state (Ohio), and it came to about 16 billion dollars. When I look around at the state of affairs around here and think of what 16 BILLION dollars could be doing around here in education, jobs, roads, healthcare- it's astounding. Instead, we get an economy that's tanking, a mass exodus as our manufacturing jobs have been "outsourced"- I believe Cincinnati alone has lost about 20% of our total population since 1999. Our murder rate is now three times higher than that of NYC, per capita, and some fucker on the internet is trying to tell me how wonderful everything really is but I'm just too dumb to see it. Yeah, I'm the one who doesn't see what's really happening.

Healthcare has bee addressed. Its not the President fault. Hilary couldn't get it done. NO ONE can get it done. The mass exodus of jobs is Ohio's fault. The South and Far EAst can do it cheaper and better. Thats the world we live in. The murder rate i would wager is due to loss of manufacturing jobs that generally were manned by Blacks and lower income whites. Black males in particular are being hammered by the the high tech boom. They are unable to cope. The military is one of the FEW places black males can succeed. Its a terrific haven for unskilled blacks and whites. Cisco, Intel, and Microsoft are not.

That link is a gem, it breaks down state by state, city by city, just what this is costing each of us, and what we could be having instead. It's a really horrible place to send someone to show how great george bush really is.

Your congressmen fight to keep the military in Ohio. Its virtually impossible to close a base nowadays. You as a citizen should know this. Some of these worthless bases are only what keep certain towns alive. Blame your representative for approving the Bush budget. Blame your representtative for refusing to cut useless military bases. Clinton was a very good Presidant econ wise and he tried to close military bases and learned just what sacred cows these monoliths to the local business/elected officials are. Clinton was a smart guy. Go try to close a worthless base in ohio now and see if they don't tar and feather you.



I rant, and you just lie.

Find a lie in any thing I have said.


The military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007 is:

Total Funding$439.3 Billion+6.9%
Operations and maintenance $152.0 Bil.+6.6%
Military Personnel $110.8 Bil.+3.7%
Procurement $84.2 Bil.+10.5%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $73.2 Bil.+3.1%Military Construction $12.6 Bil.+57.5%
Family Housing $4.1 Bil.+2.5%
Working Capital Funds $2.4 Bil.+9.1%

Further the Department of Energy will spend an additional $23.4 Bil. during FY'07 for the development, maintenance and production of nuclear warheads. [4]


How is it that you drew out only the figure for military salaries?


You are a poor reader. I never said any such thing. Go back to school and get some reading comprehension skills. Local junior college. I already showed you where i got the 3.75% number. Its accurate.


Why would you post links like these, and not think I'd click them? I'm beginning to think you're derranged. I'd say the money from r&d is propping up the economy, the money the military spends for housing, procurement, really every item on that list. The ONLY way you can claim the war is not giving our economy a false bluster is to just be completely stupid.

Unfortunately you are like most other citizens. You really don't know know gov works or how your money is being spent. You are sheep waiting to be sheared.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

I swear, this guy is taking lessons from JQBlonde just spouting out nonsense, then ignoring every actual response. I see through this slime clearly enough by now.

Hey, let's ignore the fact that we're selling astronomical amounts of war bonds to nifty little places like China and India, without whom we couldn't afford our own war. Let's ignore the fact that we've pillaged social security for the next several generations (like mine), and not figure that in to the overall picture, let's ignore the fact that the average wage-per-cola is lower now, and that the reported unemployment figures are extremely questionable, let's just ignore it all and exclaim, "Gee golly, everything's just great, bush is a genius!"

Like I said, the only way you can believe our economy is "just fine" is to be a complete moron, or make over $150k/ yr.

Are you really that dumb? If the econ was struggling, tax revenues would be flat or down. They are up and up big. Payroll taxes the ones employed people pay are thru the roof. If employment was bad, they could not be. Gosh I pity you. You are so angry. I can only assume you don't understand the world around you. I just took a drive from the Rockies to Chicago. Lincoln Nebaska, Dixon Ill, Kearney Nebaska, Des Moines. I ask people manning the windows at Mcdonalds and Subway *Hows life?* The answer, very anecdotal but interesting overshelmingly *its good*

Chicago is BOOMING. Old worn neighborhoods are re developing in amazing ways. Money everywhere. Sorry you aren't part of that.

 

[ETA123]

I ask people manning the windows at Mcdonalds and Subway *Hows life?* The answer, very anecdotal but interesting overshelmingly *its good*

You can't seriously expect anyone to take you seriously with that as your criteria, can you?

Here's a little hint for you, if you ask them how it's doing, and they tell you how bad it is, they get in trouble with their employer. They are ordered to be nice and upbeat.

I once went into a Papa Gino's pizza restaurant (not sure if they have them where you are, a fast food type pizza place for the most part), the manager was completely berating an employee for not greeting the customer in front of me with a smile, as in threatening to fire him. THAT is what fast food workers put up with.

If you are so far removed from real working people that you think a drive through cashier is being 100% honest when they tell you life is just ducky, then you really need to get off your pedestal and rejoin the real people.

That person that tells you life is "good" is either telling you that because they have to, or telling you that because they're a teenager whose parents pick up the slack (like health insurance) that their job at McDonalds isn't providing. That person who tells you life is "good" in a drive through at McDonalds hasn't had to go to the doctor lately with no insurance and no paid time off.