Bush's First Order Of Duty: Increase Debt

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: stratman
Thanks Budarow.

The things that worries me most is two of the three names you mentioned, China and Japan, are (or will be soon) America's biggest rivals. Being forced to play nice with rivals = bad. Although I really know nothing about the issue.

Do many countries owe America money?

Your welcome...I don't believe I've ever heard it mentioned in the mainstream financial media (e.g., cnbc, cnnfn, etc.), but I firmly believe our debt to China and Japan are the "main reasons" we haven't been a LOT tougher on these countries regarding trade issues (i.e., disregarding patents of U.S. companies, dumping of goods in the U.S., etc.).

It makes perfect sense to me (i.e., if you needed a loan from a banker, would you be as nice as possible to your banker or would you be offense to them).

 

[Genx87]

When a President's foreign policy and fiscally disasterous domestic policy threatens the stability of the dollar and forces other countries to go off the dollar standard, then it IS his fault.

You know you should ask Clinton why he didnt veto the spending bills passed in the late 1990s that were based on unrealistic tax revenues due to the internet bubble.

His spending is what created this deficit. Bush is growing the budget at a slower pace than Clinton did during his years. It is about 3% each year. That isnt lights out crazy spending. But the problems was the budget was on an unrealistic plain thanks to Clinton.

 

[BarneyFife]

No Genx. Its called Iraq. Stop blaming Clinton for your masters incompetence. Bush is feeding his defense buddies steaks every night.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
No Genx. Its called Iraq. Stop blaming Clinton for your masters incompetence. Bush is feeding his defense buddies steaks every night.

Then why was Annual report for FY 2001 indicating with a recession officially started in March of 2001 that reduced revenues and a war on terror will lead to a budget deficit in 2002?

I have looked at the numbers and the budget hasnt increased as much under Bush as it did under Clinton. In fact when I crunched the numbers if Clinton help his spending to 15% over 8 years vs 22%. Right now in a time of war we could be running half the deficit we are today. Without the war we would be running a small deficit or even possibly a small surplus.

 

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: Genx87

When a President's foreign policy and fiscally disasterous domestic policy threatens the stability of the dollar and forces other countries to go off the dollar standard, then it IS his fault.

You know you should ask Clinton why he didnt veto the spending bills passed in the late 1990s that were based on unrealistic tax revenues due to the internet bubble.

His spending is what created this deficit. Bush is growing the budget at a slower pace than Clinton did during his years. It is about 3% each year. That isnt lights out crazy spending. But the problems was the budget was on an unrealistic plain thanks to Clinton.

The blaim is squarely on Bush's shoulders. If ANY economic bubble bursts, it's the president's job to come up with a budget to fit the REAL tax revenues and not a PROJECTED budget. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!! Trickle down economics is BULL and if you want to live it again, please time warp yourself back to the 1980s!