Blogcritics: Comments on Bush Seeking $400 Million to Reward Allies

Comment by RJ

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:54:30 EST

The Senate has quite a few powerful and senior members who are from farm states. They get re-elected largely by passing pork onto their constituents. Any attempt to eliminate this pork will be met with fierce opposition by these Senators. THAT is the problem...

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:31:23 EST

I agree too. Now if the three of us can agree on this, why the hell can't they do something about it? Dave

Comment by RJ

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:26:32 EST

"He wants to whack a few percentage points off subisidies to agribusiness, while I think they need to be eliminated entirely (phasing out would be acceptable). I'm in there with the Heritage Foundation on this one." We mostly agree on this one. :)

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:14:34 EST

I'd say the biggest factor threatening the dollar right now is th negative European reaction to Bush's deliberate effort to put the tongs to European industry by forcing the value of the dollar down and the value of the Euro up. Of course he's put their economies in such bad shape that they can't afford to rock the boat much. Dave

Comment by Roy Smith

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:09:14 EST

I will leave Social Security alone for the moment. As far as ability to cope with deficits, the United States has a huge advantage in this because we happen to own the world's reserve currency, at least for now. If this were to change (for more on this read The Passing of the Buck which appeared in the Economist) the United States would have to get much, much more serious about becoming fiscally responsible. Ironically, one of the contributing factors to the dethronement of the dollar could end up being excessive government budget deficits.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:58:43 EST

Roy, I didn't say deficit spending didn't matter, I said that with our strong GDP growth we had the ability to cope with deficits better than other countries. Regardless we can't leave social security just as it is, because then it will just run out of money. Dave

Comment by Roy Smith

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:43:49 EST

Dave, in response to your comment #9, I meant we wouldn't have a problem leaving Social Security just as it is (that was in response to your statement about deficit spending not mattering, which is completely goofy).

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:35:43 EST

OMG, Hal said something that makes sense. I wonder how he can understand the terrible effects of agricultural subsidies and yet not do the 2nd grade math necessary to understand the utter inviability of social security. Dave

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:05:04 EST

Yes indeed I do, RJ. Not all nor the same ones that you do, probably, but I have no philosophical opposition to spending cuts as such. In fact, I cheered when I saw one of Bush's proposals. My only objection is that he doesn't go far enough with this one. He wants to whack a few percentage points off subisidies to agribusiness, while I think they need to be eliminated entirely (phasing out would be acceptable). I'm in there with the Heritage Foundation on this one. All corporate welfare needs to be stopped, so I wish he had also included the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (which creates jobs overseas), the Medicare drug bill (which feeds billions to the drug companies) and a number of other misnamed and misdirected spending programs. Had he done so, he might not have had to cut spending on education, research and other vital areas.

Comment by RJ

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:47:13 EST

"It will get far worse far sooner if Bush gets his expiring tax cuts made permanent." Bush also supports spending cuts. Do you? "This country is on a downhill slide and will likely end up like Britain, a second-rate power, within a generation or so." The UK is hardly a second-rate power. And, anyway, the US is not going there anytime soon. Unless, of course, you Leftist clowns have your way...

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:38:06 EST

Nah, doc, he is one and his comments are so baseless there's nothing to respond to, except in kind. You, on the other hand, can read all my other posts and comments to everyone else (except maybe andy) and you'll find that they're substantive and supported with evidence. Dave is just a right-wing troll so I treat him as such.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:22:43 EST

Hal. I have no ability to explain why you want to spread untruths, half-truths and pure fantasy. Dave

Comment by DrPat

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:22:04 EST

Hal, if you could move your responses to Dave Nalle out of the "Jane, you ignorant slut" level, you might have a chance of convincing people he's wrong. IMHO, of course. As it is, he posts something quite rational, and you respond with "I know you are, but what am I?"

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:08:25 EST

For those interested and out of grade school, you can find out what I've said on my site at The "Ownership" Scam. Maybe you can explain it to Dave (but I doubt it).

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:01:49 EST

Oh sorry, Hal. What was your plan again? To cut benefits, raise the retirement age, up the already insane level of SS tax? I look forward to seeing the popular reaction to your plan. Do you have lynching insurance? If you get enough of them together even old people can lift a bloated liberal into a tree. Dave

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:27:26 EST

You get and "F" on Comprehension, Dave. Again.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:08:56 EST

Hal Gibbered Insanely: >Sorry, Dave, even right-wing economists like Mankiw say it's a problem, and that deficits do matter.< And so your plan is to NOT fix Social Security so that when it implodes the deficit will skyrocket? Come again? Dave

Comment by Temple Stark

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:12:24 EST

>>If we can't convince others we're right, we'll pay them to agree? Calling Armstrong Williams. "Jeff Gannon" I;m seriously pissed about what these people are dogn to journalism. Um, but that's Off-topic. Sorry. democracy often ='s bribery.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:58:10 EST

Sorry, Dave, even right-wing economists like Mankiw say it's a problem, and that deficits do matter. You can continue to believe your pop-pseudo-economics if you like, but the facts won't change. Check the link I gave to what the IMF and World Bank say. I'd rather get my info from sources like that rather than from some place with no sunshine, like you did.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:48:07 EST

Truthfully, Roy, we shouldn't - not if we act fairly quickly and don't let it build up for too long. Settling a $2 trillion shortfall over a period of 10 years ought to be no problem at all, really. Dave

Comment by Roy Smith

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:39:27 EST

Dave says: Our GDP is so incredibly enormous compared to any other country in the world that we can afford to run large deficits and know that we can make them up with ease whenever we feel pressured. If this is true, I guess we shouldn't have any problem with the Social Security shortfall.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:33:58 EST

Hal:I'm curious: just where do "we have money"? Our GDP is so incredibly enormous compared to any other country in the world that we can afford to run large deficits and know that we can make them up with ease whenever we feel pressured. Hal: The budget deficits get bigger and bigger every year. And don't try the old "deficits only matter as a percentage of the economy": it's not true. It absolutely IS true. A small bump in the GDP like we had under Clinton could erase the current deficit, as could a tiny increase in taxes or the implementation of a fair tax system which taxed the public more efficiently. Hal: This country is on a downhill slide and will likely end up like Britain, a second-rate power, within a generation or so. A second rate power which is currently going through an economic boom and record growth in virtually all sectors of its economy, and is the only country in Europe with a decent level of employment. Dave

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:16:35 EST

That won't happen, JR, unless the IMF and World Bank step in :-)

Comment by JR

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:29:04 EST

This country is on a downhill slide and will likely end up like Britain, a second-rate power, within a generation or so. I can live with that, I just don't want to end up being Argentina.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:54:29 EST

I'm curious: just where do "we have money"? The budget deficits get bigger and bigger every year. And don't try the old "deficits only matter as a percentage of the economy": it's not true. Even the White House senior economic adviser, N. Gregory Mankiw, tells us that running a deficit "pulls resources away from investment in new capital and, thereby, depresses the living standards of future generations." Running record deficits forever, the current projections, will depress the living standards of the entire world, not just America. [IMF, OECD See Economic Risks In Bush's Budget Wall Street Journal subscription] It will get far worse far sooner if Bush gets his expiring tax cuts made permanent. This country is on a downhill slide and will likely end up like Britain, a second-rate power, within a generation or so. I'd suggest signing your kids up for a course in Advanced Mandarin as soon as possible.