In his first term, George W. Bush transformed a $127 million surplus into a $520 billion deficit. Bush's profligate spending requests, rather than his tax cut, is the primary cause. Large deficits contribute to higher inflation, a larger national debt, and, contrary to the fiction believed by some conservatives, entrenched big-government. A theory popular in conservative circles holds that deficits handcuff Congress's ability to increase government spending. In practice, the response to ballooning deficits in the 1980s and '90s weren't cuts in government spending, but tax increases by George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. If past performance is any indicator of future results, the consequence of George W. Bush's reckless spending policies will, unfortunately, be a large tax increase.

"Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple," Congressman Ron Paul writes. "Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers. The federal government still consumes more of the private economy than it ever has except during World War II, despite the administration’s anti-tax rhetoric.... The economic situation today is reminiscent of the 1970s. The economic malaise of that era resulted from the profligacy of the 1960s, when Congress wildly expanded the welfare state and fought an expensive war in southeast Asia.... If the federal government won’t stop spending, borrowing, printing, and taxing, we may find ourselves in far worse shape than 30 years ago."

In his first term he didn't transform rather he wasted away a budget surplus with BOTH spending requests and tax cuts. The reluctance of those on the right in admitting this is a sign of denial. Any Democrat or Republican who proposes a tax increase will be viewed as out of touch and evil. So why not create private accounts for Social Security and make those tax cuts permanent? If we do this we will most certainly see the defecit increase and no sign of the fiscal retreat we need exhibited by our government.

A tax increase is inevitable if the pattern continues... I don't know if this is unfortunate for all of us rather it maybe fortunate that we have one then as the tax increase goes into effect we can find ways to keep spending in check and make tax cuts a reality without blowing a hole in the federal budget. A tax increase is a sacrifice, a necessary evil that is needed in order to shore this growing problem. If Republicans are so fiscally responsible then why have they approved every spending initiative that Pres. Bush has proposed or offered. Is Pres. Bush merely a big spender rather a tax-cut and spend moderate? He most certainly is no conservative on fiscal issues. So why can't we make some hard concessions and swallow our pride in fixing this growing problem.

Mark Twain said it best: “America is a nation without a distinct criminal class...with the possible exception of Congress."

Bush came into office in an economic recession. Then he had a national tragedy in 9/11,one that caused the loss of over a million jobs in sixty days, no less. And war. Recession, national tragedy, and war are considered the three main times it is acceptable for a president to have a defecit. Whether or not the war in Iraq was justified is a seperate topic that I think should be discussed in another thread. Besides our large defecit, we also currently have

-11 straight quarters of economic growth
-A time of economic growth that has not been seen since the early 1990s
-A 5.3% National Unemployment Rate (lower than the average rate for the 1990s)
-A DOW sitting comfortably over 10,000. It is currently approx. 10,600 I believe.
-Low inflation
-Low interest rates
-Rumblings of an even larger economic boom sweeping in from the west coast.

Clearly America is doomed.

And gas prices are soaring too!

"Everday in every way things are getting better and better." -Ben Three

Being a good citizen does not demand being a wishful thinker...

"Recession, national tragedy, and war are considered the three main times it is acceptable for a president to have a defecit."

I disagree with you big time. Defecits should never be acceptable... saying that is a futile effort in covering up the realities of the whole situation. Defecits aren't good for the fiscal health of the U.S. economy. The current signs are a sure indicator things are going well yet doesn't reflect the long term impacts the defecit will have on our nation.

We cannot continue painting rosy pictures rather we must face the harsh realities that our country's long term fiscal health is endangered. Defecits should never be accepted and never should future generations be placed with that burden and that is what is occurring now.

No defecits are not healthy for the US economy. Neither are wars, national tragedies, or economic recessions. Have you read the new annual Budget? Bush raped government spending up the wazoo.

"Being a good citizen does not demand being a wishful thinker..."

-Short

And apparently being a good Flynn Filer does not demand forming structured, point-based arguments that include more than simply ad hominems? Or is that just Short?

Ben T: Have you read the Bush budget? It increases spending by about $200 billion over last year's budget. What are you referring to when you write: "Bush raped government spending up the wazoo"?

There is nary a government program out there that doesn't get cut.

Ben T, I think your using what candidate Bush referred to as fuzzy math. The proposed budget increases the cost of government by $200 billion and you say: "There is nary a government program out there that doesn't get cut." What???

Okay here are the totals:

D = Decrease in funding from the 2005 fiscal budget
I = An Increase

Department of Agriculture: D 10%
Department of Commere: I .49%
Department of Defense: I 5%
Department of Education: D 1%
Department of Energy: D 2%
Department of Health and Human Services: D 1%
Department of Homeland Security: I 7%
Department of Housing and Urban Development: D 11%
Department of the Interior: D 1%
Department of Justice: I 1%
Department of Labor: D 4%
Deparment of State and International Programs: I 13%
Department of Transportation: D 1%
Department of the Treasury: I 4%
Department of Veteran's Affairs: I 4%
Deparmetn of Engineers and Civil Works: D 7%
Environmental Protection Agency: D 6%
NASAL I 2%
National Science Foundation: I 2%
Small Business Administration: D 3%
Social Security Administration: I 8%

Total Percentage Increase: 45.49 %

Total Percentage Decrease: 47%

Average: 46.25

Unified Budget Defecit:

(Measured in Billions of Dollars)

Actual 2004: -412

Projected 2005: -427

Projected 2006: -390

Projected 2007: -312

Projected 2008: -251

Projected 2009: -233

Projected 2010: -207

the Projected totals for years past 2006 of course, arent nearly as accurate as they dont take into account new fiscal budgets having been drawn up, however it clearly shows a steadily decreasing government defecit.

So here we are. I think both I and Flynn would owe other readers an apology. My use of the term "Raped government spending up the wazoo" was in fact misleading. On the other hand, I feel this data shows it is misleading for Flynn to say that this year's defecit increased government spending (the percentage of money cut from outweighs the percentage of money fed back into the mouth of government spending.)

Semantics bellyaching aside, I think this defecit provides a firm base for steady defecit reconstruction over the next three fiscal years of the Bush administration. Right now Im being called away from my computer, I will update with more info from the 2005 Fiscal budget later.

NOTE: I thought it was a note of import, especially considering Short's post, that I would agree with the majority of people here about the defecit. The national defecit is one of the largest issues I hold with the Bush administration, and agree that a tax on future generations is something to be strongly avoided. (Especially since it is my generation that will be paying back this defecit. =P) However, all is not necessarily doom and gloom. The defect was also massive under the Reagan years, but if Newt Gingrich is proof positive of anything, it is that defecit management and reduction is perfectly possible.

Ben T,

The problem with your ana*ysis, is that you fail to mention that entitlement programs and other government funded institutions are calculated to increase every year by a certain percentage. Usually this is about 5% each year. So every budget cut that you list that is equal to or less than a 5% cut is not really a cut. It's still an increase or status quo in funding.

When the government tells you it's cutting spending, it rarely actually cuts it from fiscal year to fiscal year. They just cut the increase in spending. This is, what Dan Flynn says, fuzzy math.

Out of curiosity, did you lash out at Reagan for the huge deficit at the end of his two terms?

Okay, so we all agree that the defecit is very large, and something to be concerned about (we all agreed on that from the start.) And at this point it is clear that the 2006 fiscal budget does not do enough about it. I will cede that.

But what about the massive economic growth the United States has seen lately? Reagan created just this kind of growth from the ashes of Carter stagflation that had the nations in ruins, while he also accrued a massive defecit. However, once the economy was back on top, it was rather easy for the next administration to carefully manage, and then deconstruct this defecit. Why then, cant the same happen with Bush?

Ben T,

I think the overall problem that Dan might be trying to expose here in this strain, is that the government firstly, should not be operating on money it doesn't have, and secondly, should not even be spending tax payer dollars on 75% of the things that are in the budget.

Yes Reagan did help the country with stagflation from the Carter years with his economic policies, but honestly, if tyrannic leaders in the oval office who think the country can't survive without them exist, I think we have lost our way. I'm tired of all the solutions coming from the Federal government, instead of them just governing, and letting the market take care of itself.

Overall, I like Bush. But he's too compassionate, too much of a globalist, and too idealistic. He has taken the "i'm going to help save the world mentality" instead of staying true to his conservative principles. He's become a big spender, and I think it may only be a matter of time until he becomes a taxer. If not, then we're going to accrue more and more on our national debt with his big government solutions for our country.

I think it was Reagan who said, "government is not the solution, it's the problem". Less is more, George.

Ben L: This is a weak spot of Reagan's because he didn't cut spending. But...First, unlike Bush, Reagan had an Old Democrat congress. Second, Bush is today the primary political force pushing for the growth of BS domestic (and interplanetary) programs; in his day, Reagan was not.

No one is "lashing out" at W. You guys just can't truck any criticism of your hero.

If I have a hero among US presidents, its firstly Lincoln, and then Reagan. Bush is a distant third.

Secondly, you guys try to pull out this "You guys are just hero worshipping Bush!" line every thread. It's condescending garbage. We disagree with you. Yes, yes thats possible.

Secondly, in response to Doyle, I am surprised you have not recognized that American middle east action is the basic theory of capitalism. We are helping ourselves, and through that will help others. For example, through promoting democracy in Iraq we:

-Create a buffer of friendly, democratic shield states totally surrounding our biggest enemy, Iran.
-Create a democratic environment where the money is free flowing, and people are allowed to live how they want to, thus removing much of the motivation for the Arab Islamism that has risen since 1979.
-Open up a new oil market in Iraq which we can use to combat Iran's almost total domination of the European energy market. (This is especially important as OPEC and the Saudis rapidly lose control of the Mideast oil market.)
-And through our refusal to deal with Yasser Arafat and his ilk, we have stimulated much hope for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such a resolution would remove almost all legitimacy from the demagogues of Arab Islamism.

But I feel that since this is a thread about the defecit, we should discuss the middle east in a different one.

As to your remarks explaining what Flynn was saying, I understand what he is saying, and I agree with him 100%. As I previously stated, my goal in this thread was simply to offset the doom and gloom aura of pessimism that moreorless permeates this blog.

Ben T: I don't think that "doom and gloom" pessimism dominates this blog. Personally I think this is what happens.

1) Flynn says something.
2) Ben 1 or 2 say something hysterically optimistic about Bush, imperialism, deficits, democracy in the middle east, etc etc.
3) Practically everyone else responds with pessimism to explain why your wishful thinking is wrong.
4) You complain that we're all a bunch of Buchananite handwringers.
5) Chaos ensues.

Well the vast majority of things I have posted here have been about foreign policy, and that goes something more like...

1.) Flynn says something
2.) I disagree with a well reasoned, well argued response.
3.) A bunch of people tell me Im wrong with really no reasoning behind their claims.
4.) Flynn gives me a well reasoned, well argued retort.
5.) Flynn and I debate the topic while everyone else throws in there various chatter.

As for what Ben L says or does on these threads, they arent my responsiblity. Argue with him about what he says, argue with me about what I say. Of course it would be easier for you to use generalized, thoughtless strawmen such as this one:

"2) Ben 1 or 2 say something hysterically optimistic about Bush, imperialism, deficits, democracy in the middle east, etc etc."

"4) You complain that we're all a bunch of Buchananite handwringers."

Or this one:

Ben T,

1) You call my argument unreasoned?
2) You never responded to my claims about Bush. And don't think I don't support the guy, because I worked for his administration. However, I seek the truth, and will criticize anyone whom I think is not sticking to Constitutional principles.
3) Don't build up your ego here, claiming that the only one who gives you well-reasoned arguments is Dan Flynn. Don't insult us, and don't generalize.

Are you an intellectual elitist? Dan Flynn is more humble than you, and this is his blog.

"2) Ben 1 or 2 say something hysterically optimistic about Bush, imperialism, deficits, democracy in the middle east, etc etc."

I've actually been very reasonable in my optimism, admitting that I may be wrong numerous times. You loons can't even handle *that* much.

"No one is "lashing out" at W. You guys just can't truck any criticism of your hero."

My standards are too high -- no former fratboy drunk will ever be my "hero". I think he is a great, revolutionary President and a good man. I support his foreign policy, and I also appreciate the tax cuts. I don't like the farm subsidies, and the propagandistic phony video-news segments the administration wants to continue producing, among other things.

"Reagan had an Old Democrat congress"

A lot of what some might call "profligate" spending in the 1980s was on defense, of course. That, in large part, caused the deficit. But SO WHAT. The point is that you must examine these problems in context. We had a lot more to worry about than deficits, which were reversed in less than a decade (without losing much of the momentum of the Reagan Revolution). The same is true today.

Also, I find it interesting that so many of you are complaining about Bush's imperfect economy. Don't many of you support anti-capitalist, market-restricting, protectionist measures?

Just a couple of quick notes:

The "you" in my post above is not referring to Mr. Doyle.

And I have to add that Mr. T was indeed incorrect. As others have mentioned, "cuts" are often simply reductions in potential increases, leaving, still, an increase. I agree, that sucks.

"Ben T,

1) You call my argument unreasoned?
2) You never responded to my claims about Bush. And don't think I don't support the guy, because I worked for his administration. However, I seek the truth, and will criticize anyone whom I think is not sticking to Constitutional principles.
3) Don't build up your ego here, claiming that the only one who gives you well-reasoned arguments is Dan Flynn. Don't insult us, and don't generalize.

Are you an intellectual elitist? Dan Flynn is more humble than you, and this is his blog."

We can either be calm and courteous to one another. Or, as Short has indicated he desires, we can be insulting and rude to one another. Don't however, expect me to take a direct insult from somebody here and respond in a calm, courteous way. It isn't going to happen.

Ben-T,

Don't generalize. I have never insulted you, nor have 90% of those who blog here. That's all I ask. I respect all well-reasoned and rational arguments, I hope you would as well.

I apologize. I made the post in question immediately after reading what Short said. His comments insulted and angered me, and I said what I said in haste. I should have taken time to reflect, and I apologize for offending you Christopher, or anybody else.

Ben T -- I'm not a he.

That's the only way you've insulted me.

Ben,

It's cool man. Spouting emotional arguments will take you down to "truth's" level. Let's keep it real.

I do not get emotionall in my blogging. Maybe Doyle is self projecting?

Awww truth...did I hit a nerve? I miss the days when you would just ramble something like "Bush is evil" or "blood for oil".

I never said that stuff. I did however say, Bush is a puppet. And, of course, he is. He heeds to the luciferic commands of his honorable advisors and strategists. Do you think that man had the where-with-all to contrive the grounds on which we invaded Iraq??? Awww Chris Doyle, can dish it out but can't take it.

I see what Doyle means about "emotional arguments" your such a baby Truth geez!

No, just making a couple points man

you're a fool.

Don't be so quick to judge there, bible boy. Didn't your mama teach you not to hate people you've never met" Why not open your mind for a sec?

I've had plenty of time to view your posts. And they are foolish at best. You don't post reasoned and rational arguments. You preach hate against those you have never met. I've met, known, and worked with some of biggest power players in politics, and I know that you are clueless.

And for the record, I used to be more conservative than I am now, but as I opened my mind to different writers and political theorists, I have gradually become more libertarian. I have come to base almost everything, poltically, on what the Constitution says.

What do you base your beliefs on? If I were to guess, I would have to say pure emotion and dumb logic.

REHEHEAALLYYY?? Dumb logic? Hmmm, I was thinking more along the lines of a well thought out and impeccable equality position, for all man. Oh, and I could care less what affilliation or party you classify yourself into. Nothing is back or white. Everybody has a different mind, hence the categorical partisonships are infinite in prospect. This is why tolerance is important... for all people, lifestyles and cultures. I like to put the old golden rule into the equation to amap as well.

Oh yeah, about you interacting with some of the "biggest power players in politics"... can I have your autograph? No seriously, all men are created equal. I would be just as impressed if not more if you told me that you have worked with custodians.
I have read some of your posts too. You seem to be a pretty conventional guy who believes strongly in his opinion; with a little formalized religion and a dash of American pride. Perhaps a little overzealous at times but I am not going to jump to conclusions like you have and call you a "fool" "dumb" and "purely emotional", like you have to me.

I have worked with custodians; what's wrong with that? In fact, I used to be a custodian in college for extra money. Most of them are good, hard working people. I can send you my resume if you're interested, i'm sure you'll be impressed.

:-)

You missed the whole point methinks... Thats what I was saying, powerful politicians are neither more or less important than custodians...or you... or me

P.S. Resumes are excellent for starting fires

*no more

I know that's what you were saying. That's why I told you that I used to be one, so you would know where I'm coming from.

And I wasn't going to send you my resume anyway.

ok, no more.