a small dose of reality

Congressional Budget Office - CBO- Reports that President Bush's Economic Plan Creating Major Deficit Reduction

Comment(s) »

1. It appears no one is interested in good news if it relates to President Bush.
   

   Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/07/15 @ 12:28 AM — (Reply)

2. And you expected anything less of those jerks?....How dare BUSH DO ANYTHING PRODUCTIVE......arrrg......lol...riff

   Comment by riffran— 2007/07/15 @ 03:51 AM — (Reply)

3. Word is getting out. In reality, this could be the biggest budget reduction feat in history.

   Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/07/15 @ 10:27 PM — (Reply)

4. Results like this and the courage and steadfastness in the war against terror that threatens the American way of life is why history will view President Bush as a great man.
   

   Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/07/19 @ 07:23 PM — (Reply)

5. Wow, Ernie! I wish I were back in college, so I could smoke some of what you're puffing on!!
   
   While I freely admit my own political bias here, if I try and look ahead to what history will say, even with the most generous of opinions, I'm hard-put to see the judgement of Bush as coming down much higher than "didn't completely suck."
   
   His chief accomplishments (and believe me, I'm trying to take a Bush-friendly approach here- these aren't my actual opinions) would be listed as:
   
   1) Providing a moral compass for the nation following the catastrophe of 9/11
   2) Re-invigorating venture capitalism following the dot-com crash of 2001
   3) Isolating and undermining Russia and the European Union as potential World Powers.
   4) Returning manned missions in space, culminating in the beginning of colonization of Mars.
   5) Established the unitary executive beyond the wildest Nixonian dreams.
   
   Against this would be cited, as failures:
   1) Unable to contain nuclear proliferation, beginning with Pakistan and India, expanding to North Korea and Iran.
   2) Failed to recognize the nascent superpower-to-be emerging in Communist China
   3) Undermined international NGO's, including the United Nations, resulting in a cross-system failure in international diplomacy.
   4) Institutionalized and legitimized a federal intra-national espionage and justice system accountable only to itself.
   5) Broadened and deepened the national debt, weakening the dollar and the economic might of the country.
   6) Continued the Clinton legacy of globalization, furthering the de-industrialization of the American economy and sacrificing national economic security to the altar of corporate profit.
   I can easily see W.Bush being rated higher than Clinton or Bush I. I don't see him rating up with Reagan, though, or Truman. Maybe on par with Nixon and Eisenhower, two Presidents who also didn't completely suck.
   
   

   Comment by Michael— 2007/07/20 @ 10:53 AM — (Reply)

6. And that was me trying to be generous... not my actual opinion.

   Comment by Michael— 2007/07/20 @ 10:55 AM — (Reply)

7. That is a pretty 'balanced' assessment Harry. I have a tough time imagining a President who would have averted the same failures you list. Any ideas on that one?
   
   Who is your current favorite for 2008?
   

   Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 08:14 PM — (Reply)

8. Averting the failures? That's the easiest, because it's utterly hypothetical and virtually impossible to argue. I'll put it to you that even Dubya could very well have avoided many of the items if he'd been listening to different voices in his administration. Powell looked for a more collaborative environment, but his "moderate" (and I use the term relatively) views were drowned out by Rumsfeld and Cheney.
   
   Going into Iraq was stupid. Going into Iraq virtually alone (not to diminish the Battlin' Brits, Punchin' Poles or Irate Italians, of course) completely unravelled the delicate weave his dad has created prior to Gulf War I. While I disagree (and yes, did even at the time) with going into Iraq, I am even more disgruntled with the methodology the Bushies used to go in. I could see a Dubya presidency with Powell as Veep could very well have navigated that path in a far more diplomatic manner. I still would not have agreed with attacking Iraq, but at least I could have approved of the process. A unilateral and preemptive strategy makes our nation isolated, targetted and ultimately less safe, IMHO.
   
   Second, it is the distinct paranoid world that Cheney lives in that seems to make the nightmare of '1984' suddenly seem like 'Utopia.' Am I the only one who see insanity in the fact that we're debating how much torture is okay? Or rather, we might have been debating it, except that certain key elements have been classified Top Secret... but don't worry, citizens. Someone, somewhere, is certainly debating it, and they've got your best interests in mind always. Don't worry- noone's going to stick bamboo under YOUR fingernails. Just the bad guys. I mean, if we do that sort of deed... which we won't tell you, because you don't need to know. It's classified. And just why are you asking anyway? Could it be that YOU are a terrorist???
   
   Um... it's easy to see any sane person avoiding that, frankly. Barry wouldn't have stood for that sort of insanity.
   
   Nuclear proliferation would be more of a challenge, I admit. However, the diminished role of international NGO's had a role- the traditional channels for diplomatic resolution had been significantly undercut. North Korea should have been dropped directly into China's lap: "Kim is your dog. Put him on a leash, or we're going to hold YOU, China, responsible." Forget multilateral talks, forget direct negotiations. North Korea exists solely due to China's good graces. It's their problem, and if they aren't going to deal with it, then we hit China in the economic nads. "Most Favored Nation," my sweet Aunt Fanny.
   
   However, the multinational corporation has so penetrated politics, that it is admittedly difficult to see any electable President being willing, or able, to take them on directly. NAFTA remains a mistake, IMHO, and the expansion of free trade weakens our labor pool to the whims of shareholder expectation.
   
   Tax and budget policy is something that we aren't likely to ever agree on Barry, but surely you can acknowledge that cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending is at least partially fiscally irresponsible. The dot-com crash, 9/11 and the War on Terror all would have negatively affected our budget, but spending was largely untouched through Dubya's reign. Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?
   
   

   Comment by Michael— 2007/07/20 @ 10:49 PM — (Reply)

9. One item at a time. Cutting taxes has equally more tax revenues. So far this year increases in tax revenues have exceeded budgetary increases.

   Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:15 PM — (Reply)

10. China. Exactly what is anybody going to do with that huge population over there? China is an elephant in a room leaving very little free space.
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:16 PM — (Reply)

11. Nuclear weapons. Would you have us invade North Korea, Iran and Pakistan? I beg to disagree but my opinion is that negotiating with them is like the Japan negotiatins that were occuring simultaneously with the Pearl Harbor attack. Those countries are going to do whatever they want until physically stopped.

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:18 PM — (Reply)

12. Torture: If it is a choice of them living or of my wife and children living, I say torture them. The issue is who are dangerous combatants deserving of torture and are we confident in the people making those decisions.

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:22 PM — (Reply)

13. Cheney: I take it that you don't agree with Ernie's suggestion that Cheney have a third term as VP? Sadly, he is probably one of the people in the country most qualified to be President. Admit it, it would be fun to see him once again hammer the democrat VP candidate in a debate.
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:24 PM — (Reply)

14. I missed the part where you suggested a person who would have been a better President over the last close to seven years.

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:25 PM — (Reply)

15. Who would have been better? Well, I suggested that even Dubya could have been a better President, had he listened to a different set of advisors. A couple of other options? Well, how about either Generals Powell or Clark- both had military experience far beyond a few months in the Texas Air Guard, and neither would have felt the need to vindicate their impotence by invading another nation on trumped up charges. They would recognize that while the world is filled with good and bad powers, that there are more crayons than just Black and White. Being independant of the corporate influence (outside of the military industry), either had a chance of viewing economic issues in something other than an automatic pro-business perspective.

    Comment by Michael— 2007/07/20 @ 11:38 PM — (Reply)

16. OK. I'll give you General Powell. Clark? Not sure I ever trusted him. I wonder why Powell won't run?
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/21 @ 07:35 AM — (Reply)

17. Cheney is qualified- agreed. Smart, experienced, and utterly devoid of anything resembling an eternal soul. Qualified doesn't always mean good for the job.

    Comment by Michael— 2007/07/20 @ 11:40 PM — (Reply)

18. Torture and families: That's a false dichotomy. Kinda like: If it's a choice between voting Republican, and having the ability to think for myself, I prefer to think for myself.
    
    1) Torture does not work. Will someone please look up basic psychology? Torture victims don't reveal more useful information in interrogation- they reveal information that the victim believes the torturer wants to hear. Or do you think that the Spanish Inquisition actually uncovered hordes of people who routinely communed with the Devil??
    
    2) Torture is illegal. "This Constitution and treaties made shall be the Law of the Land." Read the Geneva Convention. Stop trying to weasle around it.
    
    3) Torture is immoral. Intentionally inflicting harm upon another, when evidence repeatedly shows little to no benefit, is simply cruelty. It is not justice, it is sadism.
    

    Comment by Michael— 2007/07/21 @ 11:57 AM — (Reply)

19. What are your thoughts on drugs that supposedly cause someone to be truthful?
    
    It sounds like a semantics type of thing...what exactly is torture? Is it inflicting mental and or physical pain to the pain where someone does reveal the truth or is it an interrogation technique up until that point? Personally I feel that to be a perfectly reasonable interrogation technique. No doubt that inflicting mental and or physical pain for sadistic purposes is torture as is inflicting mental or physical pain to the extreme point where someone says anything in the hope it will stop.
    

    Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/07/21 @ 01:05 PM — (Reply)

20. Ernie, I don't think it's a semantics issue. It's a stupidity issue.
    
    If you want to pull screws out of wood- what tool do you use? One that works- a screwdriver. Now you can use a hammer, if you like. Maybe it's the only tool you have, or maybe you just like the satisfaction of pounding on the screws. Or maybe you're just stupid. It's not semantics- a hammer will never be a screwdriver. Take that hammer and pound the living heck out of the screws or the wood. You probably will even get one or two of those screws out. Some are going to bend or strip or not budge at all. But don't point at the screws you managed to knock out and tell me that makes your hammer a screwdriver.
    
    A hammer is not "a perfectly reasonable technique" for pulling screws out of wood. It works... sorta...not really, but kinda... but it's stupid- there are better tools.
    
    In the same way, torture is not "a perfectly reasonable technique" of interrogation. It works... sorta...not really, but kinda... but it's stupid- there are better tools.
    
    
    
    And the definition of torture is not vague.
    
    "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiesance of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity". (Geneva Convention)
    
    What part of that is unclear?

    Comment by Michael— 2007/07/23 @ 09:46 AM — (Reply)

21. As for the first question- I have very few qualms with truth-compelling drugs, in interrogation situations. It's a far better tool than torture.

    Comment by Michael— 2007/07/23 @ 09:48 AM — (Reply)

22. Your argument makes sense Harry right up until the word 'severe'. This is where Ernie's discussion of semantics and I might add ambiguity to the point where reasonable minds might differ kicks in. What exactly is 'torture' is not the black and white hammer vs. screw driver analogy you eloquently put together.
    
    For example, I might be tortured by watching someone eat chocolate ice cream and you might not give a rat's ass about it.
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/23 @ 04:28 PM — (Reply)

23. We could go back and forth on taxation and never agree- we are on opposite schools of economics there. However, it's not good conservative policy to support tax cuts and NOT make cuts in spending as well.
    
    Justifying increased spending (and even excluding defense and 9/11 costs, discretionary spending HAS increased in every budget) with the anticipation of future revenue is an economic liberal argument, and not worthy of you, Barry.

    Comment by Michael— 2007/07/20 @ 11:30 PM — (Reply)

24. To the contrary. CURRENT revenue is what is decreasing the deficit. However I will concede that spending is ridiculous. What do you think about the fact the the democrat Congress has a LOWER approval rating than the President? Is it time to throw all the bums out and install the Iraqi Parliament here? And what about the gas lines in Iraq? How can that be?
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:34 PM — (Reply)

25. I have never heard a cogent argument why Reaganomics doesn't work and I am all ears.
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:35 PM — (Reply)

26. The fatal flaw of Reagonomics was the fool-hardy notion that decreasing taxes WHILE increasing spending (primarily on defense) was a good thing.
    
    Yes, tax revenues increased under Reagan, but tax revenues increase normally as a result of inflation and ordinary GDP expansion. Revenues under Reagan's tax cuts actually decreased, when expressed as a percentage of GDP, in contrast to years prior and following. But I didn't even want to get into that topic, because I'll take it as given that you've sucked off the supply-side baby-bottle for too long to be weaned off it easily.
    
    The greater travesty was that spending under Reagan, and now under Dubya, have grown ridiculously. Yes, a large amount of that is entitlement spending. Yes, reform of Social Security and Medicare is necessary. But we'll even assume that entitlement increases are both inevitable and very difficult to tackle, politically, so take them off the table. Discretionary spending went unchecked in both administrations, expanding beyond the rate of inflation. For all the blame the Democrats under Reagan got for the spending, why isn't there even more of an outrage for the Republican Congress under Dubya??
    
    Both parties have shown themselves to be hypocrites and unable to address what will be a disastrous crash to our economy with 20 years. The Baby Boom is retiring, and the debt-collectors are going to come calling for all the bills they ran up.

    Comment by Michael— 2007/07/23 @ 04:09 PM — (Reply)

27. I respectfully think you miss the point. Revenues in the Bush and Reagan administrations were higher and out of control spending is a characteristic off all administrations beginning with the Franklin Roosevelt administration. The net result is that Reaganomics results in the deficit increasing slower than during democrat administrations.
    
    The end result is the same. All of the politicians have created a ponzi scheme which sadly includes Social Security that is going to crash and burn. It would be a travesty for Hillary to be elected and get control of our medical dollars too.
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/23 @ 04:33 PM — (Reply)

28. Well, as I said before, I don't expect you to give up the pipe-dream of supply-side economics anytime soon. And while I'm fully aware that statistics can be tweaked and manipulated to any purpose under the sun, there is emperical evidence that decreased tax rates did (unsurprisingly) result in poorer tax revenue.
    
    
    
    Note- before y'all get your panties in a bundle about how I must be in favor of higher taxes, that ain't necessarily so. My issue (and it ought to be everyone else's), is that income and outgo ain't balancing, and this nation is running up the debt to hide the difference. Every American owes about $3,000 to the government of China (they have an estimated $1 billion of our Treasury securities). That's my beef. Yeah, I believe that the nation benefits with some base social services, but I also believe our federal government has gotten WAY too bloated, and many federal services can, and ought, to be done at the state or local level.

    Comment by Michael— 2007/07/24 @ 11:50 AM — (Reply)

29. You said it. Math can be twisted any which way. The problem is that there are so many middle men getting our money. Take the health care system. Why the hell should stockholder's profit from our health care dollars due to people we pay with our health care dollars denying our claims?
    

    Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/07/24 @ 08:09 PM — (Reply)

30. The other question is tougher... I'm not really bouncing up and down for any of the candidates for 2008. The only one that I do get whooped up about is Ron Paul, but he has no chance of winning your party's nomination. Why? Because he has principles, speaks the simple, honest facts, and doesn't suckle off Big Money's teats. Can any politician do that and win their party's nomination these days?
    
    Can you imagine a Republican running a candidate who's more opposed to the Iraq War than most of the Democrats?? That'd be a hell of a strange election! Good thing we can count on your party being filled with NASCAR-watching, Bud-drinking butt-munchers who don't actually want to think about issues.
    
    Among the Dems, Richardson is okay, Obama is tolerable but cautious, Kucinich is unelectable, Edwards and Clinton are slick and untrustworthy, Biden and Dodd are past their prime, and apparently there is also a senator named Gravel who's running. It's pretty sad if I've never even heard of him.
    
    I'd give Bloomberg a look if Clinton wins the nomination. I didn't like the first Clinton, and the second one is even greasier.

    Comment by Michael— 2007/07/20 @ 11:17 PM — (Reply)

31. I would kindasorta like to see four years of Donald Trump.
    
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:19 PM — (Reply)

32. Interesting. We agree on Hillary. My son and I were discussing that what she would do IF elected President is totally unpredictable. Conceivably she could nuke Iran. Anything would be possible.
    
    Whatever you say about Bill, he sure looked and spoke the part of a President.
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:27 PM — (Reply)

33. Interesting. We agree on Hillary. My son and I were discussing that what she would do IF elected President is totally unpredictable. Conceivably she could nuke Iran. Anything would be possible.
    
    Whatever you say about Bill, he sure looked and spoke the part of a President.
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/20 @ 11:28 PM — (Reply)

34. I'm glad CLINTON/GORE was NOT in office when 911 occured ...we would ALL be in "THERAPY" if they were in control.......

    Comment by aza spade— 2007/07/20 @ 11:38 AM — (Reply)

35. TORTURE THE BASTARDS ! MAKE EM GIVE IT UP ! QUIT PUSSY FOOTIN AROUND WITH THESE GUYS ! OR YOUR AS WEAK AS THEY ARE STRONG.....MR DEMOCRATE ASSHOLE (fiqureatively speaking) VOTER WHO ELECTED DEMOCRATE CONGRESS LAST YEAR....

    Comment by aza spade— 2007/07/21 @ 10:32 PM — (Reply)

36. Are you referring to the democrat Congress with a lower approval rating than the President?
    
    
    
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA Jackasses!!!
    

    Comment by Barry G.— 2007/07/21 @ 11:39 PM — (Reply)

37. Thats the 1 ....

    Comment by aza spade— 2007/07/22 @ 01:00 AM — (Reply)

38. congress with ratings as low as the prez ....

    Comment by aza spade— 2007/07/23 @ 09:09 PM — (Reply)

39. What exactly have the democrats DONE? (besides the obvious answer: make jackasses of themselves, yet again).

    Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/07/23 @ 10:06 PM — (Reply)

40. Silly question- but who are you asking that question to here? You think anyone who comes to this board would leap to the Democrats' defense?
    
    Go ask those sorta questions somewhere that you ain't just preaching to the choir. LOL

    Comment by Michael— 2007/07/24 @ 11:55 AM — (Reply)

» Leave a comment

Name

E-mail

URL

Notify me on new comments.

[ Top level ] #1: Ernie Els on 2007/07/14 09:28 PM#2: riffran on 2007/07/15 12:51 AM#3: Ernie Els on 2007/07/15 07:27 PM#4: Ernie Els on 2007/07/19 04:23 PM#5: Michael on 2007/07/20 07:53 AM   #6: Michael on 2007/07/20 07:55 AM#7: aza spade on 2007/07/20 08:38 AM   #8: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 05:14 PM      #9: Michael on 2007/07/20 07:49 PM         #10: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:15 PM            #11: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:16 PM      #12: Michael on 2007/07/20 08:17 PM               #13: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:18 PM         #14: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:19 PM                  #15: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:22 PM                     #16: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:24 PM                        #17: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:25 PM         #18: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:27 PM         #19: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:28 PM            #20: Michael on 2007/07/20 08:30 PM               #21: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:34 PM               #22: Barry G. on 2007/07/20 08:35 PM                           #23: Michael on 2007/07/20 08:38 PM                        #24: Michael on 2007/07/20 08:40 PM                              #25: Barry G. on 2007/07/21 04:35 AM                     #26: Michael on 2007/07/21 08:57 AM                        #27: Ernie Els on 2007/07/21 10:05 AM#28: aza spade on 2007/07/21 07:32 PM#29: Barry G. on 2007/07/21 08:39 PM#30: aza spade on 2007/07/21 10:00 PM                           #31: Michael on 2007/07/23 06:46 AM                           #32: Michael on 2007/07/23 06:48 AM                  #33: Michael on 2007/07/23 01:09 PM                              #34: Barry G. on 2007/07/23 01:28 PM                     #35: Barry G. on 2007/07/23 01:33 PM#36: aza spade on 2007/07/23 06:09 PM#37: Ernie Els on 2007/07/23 07:06 PM                        #38: Michael on 2007/07/24 08:50 AM   #39: Michael on 2007/07/24 08:55 AM                           #40: Ernie Els on 2007/07/24 05:09 PM — reply to this comment.

Your Comment

Preview:

You say:

To prevent spam, please type in the exact word you see in this image:
To refresh the image, click here. Otherwise, contact us.

• Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
• Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
• The line and paragraph breaks automatically