The National Debt and Al Gore

[denali]

Discussing presidential politics and our national debt with James Carter, senior economist with the Joint Economic Committee, and Tevi Troy, policy director for Sen. John Ashcroft, Missouri Republican, it was noted that Vice President Al Gore boasts he's "set an ambitious goal: to repay the entire federal debt by 2012."
"That sounds impressive," Mr. Carter points out, "until you realize that, under current law, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal debt will be fully repaid by 2009 ? three years earlier than Gore proposes."

 

[Underclocked]

Yep, we're just paying that down at light speed. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
What do these guys smoke????

or better: http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html

 

[JellyBaby]

If Albert Gore wants to pay down the debt then explain this: http://www.cagw.org/publications/spendingmeter/index.htm.

 

[chess9]

Gore will obviously have to cut back somewhere. Note nothing for campaign finance reform in GW's budget. Very little for education and pre-school. That's very bad. The Republican budget looks dreadful. Bush wants to give it all back to the taxpayers and budgets nothing for fighting crime? His defense budget isn't much bigger than Gore's and we could even cut the defense budget if we didn't stick our nose in every global fight. Gore's budget makes more sense and appears to be more detailed. I couldn't support the high level of spending, but with some cuts I think he's much closer than Bush.

I don't think this helps the Republicans much JB, other than the obvious point about deficit spending.

 

[denali]

chess9, Why would GW or anyone budget 1 cent for campaign finance reform? What was wrong with the campaign finance system used before watergate? Any person, group or company should be able to give as much as they want as long as it's disclosed within a few days. The only reason the Steve Forbes ever ran was that he could not write a check and give it to Jack Kemp.

 

[JellyBaby]

chess9,

I believe you misread the chart. This isn't a budget. Those numbers are new spending proposals. So, taking "Preschool & After School Programs", which btw is separate from the general education category, Gore would spend $111,400,000,000 more of our money our than is currently being spent there. Shrub dings in at only $2,075,000,000 more.

There's no way any open-minded individual can look at numbers like this and still vote for Gore. We're already under the largest tax burden in the history of the country while at the same time most of us aren't reaping "rewards" from it. These numbers mean higher taxes, raised faster than ever before. Gore is on a shopping sprie and it's your money and mine chess9. Be wary.

 

[chess9]

JB:

No, this is the spending side of their respective budgets. If you know otherwise, please point me in the right direction. I don't see it. These are not expenses above current spending. And Bush's general education spending is way too low. Our schools would be much worse, not better.

Denali: I support McCain-Feingold. We really must stop the buying of votes by corporations and special interest groups. Your proposal won't do that.

 

[denali]

chess9, How do you define special interest group? As long as the voters know who gave how much why should anyone be limited in the amount?

 

[chess9]

Denali:

Because knowing isn't enough. If I knew you smoke crack, would that be enough? We need to put your sorry *ss in jail! j/k (Actually, I wouldn't put anyone in jail for drug crimes. That's truly stupid.)

Anyway, we need to put a stop to it. Knowing who gives won't stop the influence.

 

[jaydee]

Can anyone tell me why pre-school is so important? Also I think all this educational talk is stupid because it without a doubt fall under the 10th Amendment as a state responsibility. That shouldn't even be a topic.

 

[JellyBaby]

chess9,

there are two links in the upper left which I didn't see before. If you go into those pages you'll see a list of detailed programs, old and new, with costs represented over 5 years. This is a budget and includes new spending proposals.

It's easy to see how Gore's spending greatly outpaces the nation's ability to earn money for him. There's a projected federal budget surplus (in other words the crook's pockets will be overflowing). Let's assume folks like Russ are wrong and the economy isn't tanking. That means in five years Al has $1.4 trillion more money to spend. Yet here we plainly see he wants to spend a cool $2.2 trillion. The only way to do that is to raise our taxes yet again.

And raise them for what? You mentioned campaign finance reform. Gore would spend $5 billion over 5 years to:

"Create the Democracy Endowment, which would raise $7.1 billion within a seven-year period; interest from investments would be used to finance the campaigns of general election candidates who do not accept any other sources of funding"

Is this responsible spending? Seems to me Big Al thinks he and his cronies can make even more money in the guise of reform.

And another thing: dig into the details of Bore's spending proposals. Just look at how many categories have unknown costs. There are many! Is this responsible spending?

Obviously, one can see how the republicans are believed to be leaders and far more credible than democrats on financial matters. I just wish that were so.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Can anyone tell me why pre-school is so important? >>

You mean that wonderful Head Start program that Gore wants to double in size? A program that doesn't benefit children in any measurable way but spends tons of your money offering them such benefits as &quot;warm hugs&quot;? Democrats have positioned themselves as the do-gooders in education so they can get away with spending your money in any way they chose here. It's not about kids it's about padding the pockets of bureaucrats and administrators.

 

[chess9]

JB:
Obviously, Gore's budget offers a chicken in every pot. I agree it is not realistic based upon these figures and I'm too lazy to double check them. I'm in favor of paying off the deficit, so something has to go. I don't know where I'd cut, but I wouldn't cut education including pre-school spending. I don't agree with you about the value of pre-school programs. I think we need to start earlier than we have been. I can't comment on the defense budget because that would require information not available to people without security clearances and a need to know. Some of the obvious fluff could go, but I don't think it would amount to much without serious cuts somewhere that might hurt. Really, we can't speak intelligently about this topic.

 

[sandorski]

You want reform? This is what needs to be done, IMO: Corporations, Unions, and other special interest organizations can take their political contributions and give it to their shareholders/members/ or just re-invest it into something usefull. Only individuals should be allowed to contribute! Read your Constitution, the government is for people, not corporations/organizations.

 

[etech]

Chess, please show me where in the Constitution that it is the FEDERAL governments responsibility for childrens education.

That is what is wrong with the socialists. They turn to the Federal government for the solution to all ills with society. Many problems are much better dealt with on the state and local level.


Red, you'r turning into a 2 second sound bite person. Meaningless insults with no knowledge or comprehension of the subject.

 

[Tripleshot]

Rhetoric: Bush Will Say that a Senate Budget Committee Analysis Shows Gore's Budget is $900 Billion in Deficit.

Reality: &quot;Analysis&quot; Bush Uses is a False, Partisan Document, Created by Republicans BEFORE Gore Put Out His Economic Plan - Gore Plan Has $300 Billion Cushion. The Gore-Lieberman economic plan pays down the debt by $3 trillion, invests in education and other priorities, cuts taxes for American families, and leaves a $300 billion Surplus Reserve Fund - a cushion against the unexpected. The analysis referred to by Bush was put out by the Republican staff of a Senate Committee before the Gore-Lieberman plan was released. The analysis considers several policies not proposed by Gore-Lieberman, double counts policies that are proposed both by the Gore-Lieberman campaign and the current Administration, and attributes cost estimates to proposals that are at odds with estimates by independent analysts. In one case, for example, it estimates that the Gore-Lieberman College Opportunity Tax Cut costs $120 billion, when the Congress' own Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the cost at $32 billion [JCT, 3/6/00]

Source the truth maybe?

 

[chess9]

Looks like Tripleshot is on his 4th cup of coffee and on a roll. Those figures look much more realistic. So now, JB, who are the liars?

 

[JellyBaby]

chess9,

I would say numbers coming out of Gore's mouth would be the least credible. That's like the crook telling you exactly how much he took from your wallet (only after checking do you know the real numbers and by then it's too late!). Tripleshot's web link comes up with an HTTP 404 error for me anyway.

Gore is a blantant liar. He proves that everytime he speaks. How can I possibly believe anything he says? You can throw all kinds of anti-shrub crap at me and it doesn't change the fact that Gore's spending spree is a risky scheme that takes far more money out of the pockets of people who actually earn it and wastes it on unnecessary new programs and dubious enhancements to existing failing programs.

My rede is if Gore is elected, I can only pray there will be an offseting majority in congress (composed of independents and republicans) to prevent this spending spree.

Do you not find it odd, chess9 and tripleshot, that these politicans never cut out or reduce programs that have proven themselves wasteful and ineffective? Democrats tend to do worse here. They didn't earn the motto &quot;tax and spend&quot; for nothing you know.

 

[chess9]

JB:
I got the same error but there is a link to the budget. You'll find it.
Yes, some programs can be cut out, like the DEA, and the INS and the large number of prosecutors hired to prosecute drug cases.

 

[Tripleshot]

JB

<<Tripleshot's web link comes up with an HTTP 404 error for me anyway. >>

I think its fixed now,but I don't think you will have your mind changed. I only posted the link so you know it isn't my opinion or an invention made out of desperation. It is for you to refute based on facts if you can. If you do, I and others will be happy to review your sources as well to arrive at our conclusions.

If you wish to dis regard this because of its source,thats sad,Because all the news sources now are quoting this as fact onall the networks,exposing Bushes budget as misleading and in some cases out right lies.

Sorry.

 

[JellyBaby]

Tripleshot,

If only there was unlimited time to find the truth, if such even exists in today's politics. I can only hope that if Gore and company are elected, they will maintain resonable fiscal constraint. Where is Gore's detailed, category-by-category plan anyway? I can't find it on that site but would like to look at it. This two paragraph summary that simply says &quot;the enemy is wrong about us&quot; isn't enough.

The underlying concern is reduction of government where it has overextended its hand. I've simply not heard or read about democrats doing much of anything here, other than with the military. And even there, while the intent may be good, they have not pulled back our troops from dubious locales across the globe. And we still have a policy of requiring sufficient military strength to fight two wars simultaneously.

 

[DanC]

<< That is what is wrong with the socialists. They turn to the Federal government for the solution to all ills with society >>



eTech - can I have your autograph?

 

[Tominator]

The Truth? From a Gore/Liberman site?.....OK

You guys must have missed the analysis by the Washington Times and CNN.....Gore's budget did not ad up....not even close....Bush's did. This is at least 2 month old info.