|Last time Bush's said phrase "budget deficit" in public?||Spoiler|
Jul 16, 2003 8:09 PM
|This is an honest question. First off, compared to the war, it hasn't been a big topic for a long time.
I haven't watched any of his State of the Union Speech's or listened to his weekly radio address (do they still have that?), so I'm ignorant to anything he said in them. I haven't figured out a way to perform an online search for this type of thing, matching a specific two-word phrase within a database of transcripts of public utterances/speeches. I have access to LexisNexus, but I still can't find anything.
|Some things, you just don't talk about...........||MR_GRUMPY|
Jul 17, 2003 5:01 AM
|Its suposed to become the largest in history||Kristin|
Jul 17, 2003 5:49 AM
|Larger than 68-72 during the Vietnam War? Larger than during the Korean War? Is it just that the sum total is larger? Is it really worse than its EVER been? During Clinton's terms, was the deficit completely and truly paid off? One reporter has interpretted Greenspans latest comments as indicative of a possible "devestating" deflation. Do you think that's probable?|
|Deflation... maybe. A combination of ...||rwbadley|
Jul 17, 2003 7:05 AM
|high unemployment, low savings rates, high deficits, low consumer spending and confidence. These could all trigger a deflationary spiral. Some sectors may deflate while others do the opposite. Energy prices may go sky high while everything else falls... then some prices rise due to those same high energy prices, while other prices fall further for lack of demand. It really is a guessing game.
What will happen to interest rates? Will the high deficit force a rise in rates? How do we get the foreign investment needed when the rates are so low and the dollar worthless due to (in part) lack of fiscal responsibility?
I am guessing we will find out during the next few months and years....
|Slow down there.||53T|
Jul 17, 2003 7:48 AM
|A deficit is not the same as the national debt. During the Clinton years (which happend to be during the tech boom) the deficit did reach zero. The debt still hovers at about $4.5 Trillion. The interest we pay on that debt each year is an important part of the federal budget.
It is intersting to see the heat that State governments are getting when they cut spending to match the revenues coming in, as many are required to do. The screams of "mean-spiritedness" are deafening. The feds catch hell (from the same crowd) for not cutting spending and continuing to borrow. Shouldn't I just conclude that the complainers will continue to complain no matter what fiscal policies are followed?
|actually, isn't it approaching, or just passed, $7 trillion? nm||rufus|
Jul 17, 2003 8:00 AM
|Just like my wife||53T|
Jul 17, 2003 8:33 AM
|You turn around for a minute and another $3 Trillion is gone!|
|You had me for a minute...||53T|
Jul 17, 2003 9:18 AM
|But I just looked it up, 3.9T for 2003, projected to hit 5T by 2008 according to OMB.
Intrest is at 8% of the entire fed budget, or about 172 Billion.
Jul 17, 2003 8:15 AM
|Forgive the ignorance, but I always assumed that debt and deficit were the same thing. Doesn't the government borrow (debt) to fund the deficit spending?
|The deficit is a year to year thing, WITHIN a budget.||OldEdScott|
Jul 17, 2003 8:23 AM
|A two-billion dollar 'deficit' means this year's budget is coming up that much short.
Debt is the cumulative debt we've rung up to pay for all the individual-year deficits.
|both parties have no credibility on the deficit issue||DougSloan|
Jul 17, 2003 7:41 AM
|When the Democrats were in charge of the budget, essentially, for 40 years they defended a deficit, while the Republicans cried for "balanced budget amendment" and fiscal responsibility. Makes sense, the party in power desires to dole out the money to keep itself in power, and the opposition wants to restrict as much as possible the potential to do just that.
Now, positions are reversed. Democrats who for years supported deficit spending attack it, as they don't get to spend the money and ingratiate themselves with its beneficiaries.
Don't go arguing that Clinton balanced the budget. He did everything he could to spend away, and fortuitiously the economy exploded from the computer and dotcom revolution, with all the infrastructure needed to support it, and had Clinton continued in office, we'd be seeing the exact same budget problems, even considering the 9/11 security and war costs.
I'd rather see less spending all around, myself.
|I'm sure we'd be having problems today, but PLEASE||OldEdScott|
Jul 17, 2003 8:45 AM
|just make a HUGE effort and acknowledge at least one true thing about Clinton: From the get-go, he made 'balanced budgets' and 'bringing down the deficit' a TOP priority. He campaigned on it, he talked about it relentlessly, and he friggin DID it. It wasn't an accident, and the Repubs didn't do it while Clinton grabbed credit. Just the opposite, in fact.
Even back then, the Gingrich Repubs had taken the (new) position that a balanced budget wasn't all that big a deal. It was greatly remarked upon at the time, that the Dems and Repubs had flip-flopped into each others' historic positions. AND THAT WAS WHILE THE DEMS WERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
I know that crediting Clinton with anything will cause your brain to bubble up stale oxygen like you're suffering from the bends, but you can believe me on this. Here's why:
I WAS AMONG THE LIBERALS in the Democratic Party apparatus who heavily criticized the President for taking this deficit-hawk position, because I/we thought it was reactionary and threatened the liberal agenda. We took it as a betrayal, and proof that Clinton was, in fact, what we feared he was: A reformist moderate who would do the Left no good. We were right. A Congressional campaign I handled in 1996 was denied some serious DNC support because, among other things, we broke with the party line and distanced ourselves from Clinton (i.e. criticized him) on deficits.
(OK Steam, come boiling in here slandering me, Clinton, history, the Press, my fling cabinets or whatever else it is you'll surely do to say this post is Treasonous and Wrong, but facts are facts, my friend, I was there for this particular piece of history.)
|It's a sad day for Republicans||Continental|
Jul 17, 2003 8:57 AM
|When Democrats can credibly claim that Clinton was more fiscally responsible than Bush II. Long term interest rates are rising, which could wack the economy way more than the tax cuts will help. So what pragmatic choice does a fiscally responsible person have? Bush is bad, but those Democrat candidates are a joke.|
|Our field is talent-challenged, no doubt.||OldEdScott|
Jul 17, 2003 9:03 AM
|WHich is a shame, because this is shaping up as an unexpectedly winnable election. Not EASILY winnable, mind you, but not as utterly impossible as it looked just six months ago.
To win, we'd have to have just the right candidate, and we're nowhere close -- yet. Look for a surprise, though.
|Does it matter who's responsible?||Spoiler|
Jul 17, 2003 12:25 PM
|The topic is about whether Bush can address and discuss the issue with the people he's supposed to serve. Of course no single person is responsible. But as President, he has a responsibility to address the American people directly.
Oh well, maybe the issue isn't that big a deal. It's not like a deficit is going to affect any of us.
I could see how Bush would avoid the issue if he thought he was responsible. That's second nature to a politician.
Bush's message is "I didn't cause the problem, so I'm not responsible for talking to the citizens of the country about it."