Oh, i forgot, anything Bush can't praise, he blames on Clinton. This seems really childish. I'm not campaigning for sainthood for Clinton, so I don't want any one to insult my intelligence by trying to say that Bush blaming all the problems since 2001 on a President from 1993.

Where did our debt come from? I'm certainly not blaming just Bush. I'm blaming the trifecta of a greedy corporate president, a greedy corporate congress, and a greedy corporate judiciary. And that's not just Republicans. Democrats who complain probably voted for a congressman or woman who made the Bush agenda possible.

Here are a couple of the problems they've created:

1. You're right, Social Security. We have an a...

Oh, i forgot, anything Bush can't praise, he blames on Clinton. This seems really childish. I'm not campaigning for sainthood for Clinton, so I don't want any one to insult my intelligence by trying to say that Bush blaming all the problems since 2001 on a President from 1993.

Where did our debt come from? I'm certainly not blaming just Bush. I'm blaming the trifecta of a greedy corporate president, a greedy corporate congress, and a greedy corporate judiciary. And that's not just Republicans. Democrats who complain probably voted for a congressman or woman who made the Bush agenda possible.

Here are a couple of the problems they've created:

1. You're right, Social Security. We have an aging population which means more people collecting benefits and fewer working people paying taxes. That's why it would have been wise to save a little money for this rainy day instead of giving it away with both hands in the continuous tax cuts from 2002 until now. Bush was just buying off the greedy and short-sighted. The 2002 cuts did nothing for the economy, did a lot for our debt, and didn't even save Bush's political reputation.

2. War. War is expensive. The most expensive war we never fought was the Cold War. Most of our debt is inherited from Regan, who tried to win the cold war by outspending the USSR. Whether this is or isn't what brought about the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union is beside the point. Regan spent a PHENOMENAL amount of money on all sorts of military stuff, some useful, some useless, all the while cutting taxes on the rich and the corporations who provide the majority of our nation's tax dollars.

3. The John Birch Society.

Why did nobody call Regan a lunatic for cutting taxes while spending trillions? Because people thought the money was well spent. Our fear of foreign things and people who don't think like we do was so powerful that any ammount of money spent to defend against "them" was justified.

This mentality continues with the sky-is-the-limit spending against "Terrorism." If you want to spend a million dollars on teaching poor kids to read, you're a tax-and-spend liberal, but if you want to spend billions of dollars chasing anyone with a dark tan, beard, or a funny hat, then you are defending the American way of life. We need to get our paranoia and xenophobia under contro...

3. The John Birch Society.

Why did nobody call Regan a lunatic for cutting taxes while spending trillions? Because people thought the money was well spent. Our fear of foreign things and people who don't think like we do was so powerful that any ammount of money spent to defend against "them" was justified.

This mentality continues with the sky-is-the-limit spending against "Terrorism." If you want to spend a million dollars on teaching poor kids to read, you're a tax-and-spend liberal, but if you want to spend billions of dollars chasing anyone with a dark tan, beard, or a funny hat, then you are defending the American way of life. We need to get our paranoia and xenophobia under control before we can restore sanity to our spending priorities.

4. Corruption, Pork, and Waste.

Bush seems to think that running an economy is a lot like raising a child: neglect them most of the year, but you can still show your love by giving them a really fancy Christmas present. As a result, there is no limit to what Bush is willing to hand over to big corporations, or just personal friends. Billions of dollars in cash disappeared in Iraq while his buddies were running the "reconstruction." Before anyone tells me that they spent it on rebuilding Iraq, take a long hard look at the Cholera epidemic currently raging across the country.

He also has given government contracts to an enormous amount of private companies without competitive bidding, which means we didn't get the best deal, Haliburton and Bechtel just name whatever price they want, and if we don't give them it right away we are letting the terrorists win.

There is no oversight of war spending, or any of the rest of Bush's spending. Bush has consistently battled against congressional oversight and appropriated spending through executive orders. (By the way, you are right, this is unconstitutional.) When asked to show documentation of what he is doing with the money, he invokes executive privilege.

5. Arthur Anderson

Shifty book keeping is another reason we're so far in debt. And guess what! This is something that you can partly blame on Clinton! (Enjoy!)

When you say the government is making more money, that's not entirely true. Even if the dollar value of tax income has gone up, our spending has gone up even higher. If you give me $10 and I then spend $100, then sure, I made ten more dollars, but you can't say I'm increasing my revenue.

Also, Bush devaluated the dollar. The majority of our original debt was accrued in 1980 Regan dollars, so it will take a whole lot more of 2007 Bush dollars to pay it back. Of course Bush isn't even trying to pay it back. He's just doing the same t...

5. Arthur Anderson

Shifty book keeping is another reason we're so far in debt. And guess what! This is something that you can partly blame on Clinton! (Enjoy!)

When you say the government is making more money, that's not entirely true. Even if the dollar value of tax income has gone up, our spending has gone up even higher. If you give me $10 and I then spend $100, then sure, I made ten more dollars, but you can't say I'm increasing my revenue.

Also, Bush devaluated the dollar. The majority of our original debt was accrued in 1980 Regan dollars, so it will take a whole lot more of 2007 Bush dollars to pay it back. Of course Bush isn't even trying to pay it back. He's just doing the same thing with it that he does with the rest of his problems: pretending they don't exist.

Instead of dealing with the depressing task of trying to pay down the debt, he's just racking up a debt of his own, perhaps to ensure his place in history as America's No. 1 Spendthrift. I call this the "American Idol" mentality: if you can't be famous for something good, you might as well be famous for making an ass out of yourself on national television.

Not that Clinton actually did a whole lot better. He balanced the budget, but he didn't actually reduce any of the Regan debt. A lot of people got the mistaken idea that the money spent on the cold war was paid back with the dot.com boom in Clinton's administration, but really we just broke even. Clinton didn't have the stomach to raise taxes like he needed to, and instead found an easy way to spin it so it sounded like he was doing something. Thanks a lot!

The last person who actually tried to pay down the debt was Bush's father. (Remember 1988? No New Taxes - Psyche!) That did wonders for his re-election!

On the whole, the Republican love of tax cuts and military spending has led them to adopt a fiscal policy fundamentally no different from a weekend shopping spree in Paris with Elton John and a platinum card.

If you hadn't guessed, although I may slip off the left edge of the map that just means I land on the right side sometimes. I'm an extreme fiscal conservative. I don't believe in deficit spending. I blame Hamilton for this. In my opinion, Arron Burr just didn't get the job done in time.

A lot of conservatives say "I am against 'big government' but the military doesn't count." News Flash: That is the same as being in favor of big government. The largest area of spending of authoritarian governments that oppress their people is ALWAYS the military. If you think the military is protecting America, think again, and maybe try reading [url=/clipmark/4E1CFCD9-922B-434C-95E6-7A2062869E82/]Alexis de...

If you hadn't guessed, although I may slip off the left edge of the map that just means I land on the right side sometimes. I'm an extreme fiscal conservative. I don't believe in deficit spending. I blame Hamilton for this. In my opinion, Arron Burr just didn't get the job done in time.

A lot of conservatives say "I am against 'big government' but the military doesn't count." News Flash: That is the same as being in favor of big government. The largest area of spending of authoritarian governments that oppress their people is ALWAYS the military. If you think the military is protecting America, think again, and maybe try reading Alexis de Tocqueville. They can protect America, but America need not constantly be under threat, and when America is not in danger, it is the military impulse to find imaginary threats. The military (meaning Officers and Commanders) fundamentally desires a constant state of war. (Although this is not a desire shared by the enlisted men who have to do the actual dying.)

But so why is deficit spending so bad? Because spending more money is not the same as improving the economy. At some point we outspend our physical assets, and inflation sets in. The government is unable to make good on the money it prints, and the economy collapses, realizing it was built on a foundation of sand.

I believe that we should have Swedish-level taxes until we get our country back into the black, and then we should requier a tax increase for any additional spending rather than using omnibus spending bills to create a budget not related to actual services performed by the government.

An elective tax system as proposed by Robert Thurman (Uma's dad) in his book Inner Revolutions would also be very interesting. This way tax payers can prioritize their tax do

I think your missing the forest for the trees. First, I never said anything about Clinton. Second, the reason our debt is increasing really doesn't have anything to do with spending. The spending may relate to our deficit and in some small way, relatively speaking, does contribute to the debt. However, the National debt is an accumulation and projection of a bunch of promises made that the Federal Government had no business making.

You seem to want to make this political, but again, the fact is presidents do not have the constitutional authority to spend money. The fiscal negligence is a failure of greedy politicians and irresponsibility. It is a human failure more than anything.

The fact...

I think your missing the forest for the trees. First, I never said anything about Clinton. Second, the reason our debt is increasing really doesn't have anything to do with spending. The spending may relate to our deficit and in some small way, relatively speaking, does contribute to the debt. However, the National debt is an accumulation and projection of a bunch of promises made that the Federal Government had no business making.

You seem to want to make this political, but again, the fact is presidents do not have the constitutional authority to spend money. The fiscal negligence is a failure of greedy politicians and irresponsibility. It is a human failure more than anything.

The fact however remains, that revenues increased dramatically during the tax cuts of J.F. Kennedy, R. Reagan, and GW Bush.

Those with their hands on the purse strings have been Democrats for about 40 of the last 50 years. So let's not bash a particular president.
This is about a mindset that is growing in America where people think the government exists to provide for them.

You cannot seriously argue that spending trillions on defense between 1980 and today had no impact on the debt. Those are still dollars, and they weren't created by taxes.

If your agenda is to dismantle the progressive reforms like social security and welfare, then go ahead, but remember, you aren't a robber-baron. You'll get screwed by your own political agenda. Even with social security, I'm willing to bet you won't be rich enough to retire in todays economy for more than about 10 years, and otherwise will have to work until you die or win the lottery.

However, the payroll taxes that provide for these entitlements are fixed and flat. Social Security should pay for itself, except when Bus...

You cannot seriously argue that spending trillions on defense between 1980 and today had no impact on the debt. Those are still dollars, and they weren't created by taxes.

If your agenda is to dismantle the progressive reforms like social security and welfare, then go ahead, but remember, you aren't a robber-baron. You'll get screwed by your own political agenda. Even with social security, I'm willing to bet you won't be rich enough to retire in todays economy for more than about 10 years, and otherwise will have to work until you die or win the lottery.

However, the payroll taxes that provide for these entitlements are fixed and flat. Social Security should pay for itself, except when Bush or Regan wanted to buy a new space laser or conquer a new country, they were afraid to anger the conservative base by raising taxes to pay for it so they just siphoned money off of social security. You probably laughed at Al Gore's lock box, but then you never asked how Bush was paying for the war, did you?

In case you're wondering, when Bush isn't looting social security to pay for his chronyism, he's raising more money by literally selling America to China. The Chinese government is the single largest owner of US dollars, because they fund the US government by buying bonds when you don't pay taxes. I would rather pay extra taxes and have the government spend my money than have my country beholden financially to the PRC.

Its a fundamental equation: if you want to spend more, raise taxes. If you want to lower taxes, spend less. Bush spends more and lowers taxes, putting us in the whole. You think tax revenue of the government increased over the last 6 years? Take your numbers, account for inflation, then subtract them from the old numbers. If there is any left over, subtract the increases in spending that Bush has made to pay for the Iraq War and Reconstruction.

The GOP isn't willing to put its money where its mouth is.

Willhelm - interesting argument but I think you may be posting to a different article. This article doesn't care about tax cuts and it shouldn't its talking global market crashes. Reckless irresponsible loaning and profit maximizing in the extreme.

heres what its talking about:

1997, Asian markets crash, the thai bhat doubles overnight and in indonesia cost of living soars beyond reach - violence everywhere. In Japan Korea and Taiwan economies crash some of which don't recover. Why? Reckless investment by banks in long loans on the assumption of continuing economic growth. Invest in Thailand its a gold mine. Then when the economy shudders for even a moment everyone realized it - their mon...

Willhelm - interesting argument but I think you may be posting to a different article. This article doesn't care about tax cuts and it shouldn't its talking global market crashes. Reckless irresponsible loaning and profit maximizing in the extreme.

heres what its talking about:

1997, Asian markets crash, the thai bhat doubles overnight and in indonesia cost of living soars beyond reach - violence everywhere. In Japan Korea and Taiwan economies crash some of which don't recover. Why? Reckless investment by banks in long loans on the assumption of continuing economic growth. Invest in Thailand its a gold mine. Then when the economy shudders for even a moment everyone realized it - their money was gone. Until recently you used to be able to see all the hollow shells of half completed skyscrapers throughout Bangkok - testimonials to the hazards of reckless investment and bad banking.

And who lectured them? The US, England, the IMF - send in recovery schemes designed around Latin America that failed miserably and lapsed many of the countries into even worse depressions. The only states who recovered quickly (S Korea and Malaysia) did so by refusing help from the west and undertaking extensive internal reforms. They bit the bullet.

That was ten years ago now we exist in an age where the US and Britain rush to dump money into China among others (but also into bizaro jingoist projects like Iraq and Afghanistan) without considering what consequences they may face. Long term loans premised on continuing growth are very dangerous. The article points out the status as reserve countries has kept them from scorn but the practice has been scarily similar.

If the US & UK's pattern of long term loans and reckless investment get called at any point - say China's GDP slumps (you read international news remember what happened when the Shanghai market slipped a month or two ago?), people might start checking in on where the money is - and who could have seen this coming? US!

Thanks for getting me back on focus Marszal. The Asian Economic Crisis didn't happen because they were welfare states. It's not about entitlements, it's about the investment atmosphere.

Those extra tax dollars that you talk about coming when taxes are cut come directly from frenzied investing, not necessarily sound growth. Reckless corporate profiteering and hyping up a shaky economy might well be what is causing us to go deeper into debt. While our spending has remained high, as has our investment, our output of goods has fallen, and our market is being sustained on a diet of chutzpah and crazed acquisitive materialism.

Bush does nothing but praise the economy with his insane "This is the...

Thanks for getting me back on focus Marszal. The Asian Economic Crisis didn't happen because they were welfare states. It's not about entitlements, it's about the investment atmosphere.

Those extra tax dollars that you talk about coming when taxes are cut come directly from frenzied investing, not necessarily sound growth. Reckless corporate profiteering and hyping up a shaky economy might well be what is causing us to go deeper into debt. While our spending has remained high, as has our investment, our output of goods has fallen, and our market is being sustained on a diet of chutzpah and crazed acquisitive materialism.

Bush does nothing but praise the economy with his insane "This is the best of all possible worlds" style analysis. This is why they didn't raise the rates at the federal reserve even though people had been saying the mortgage market was overheated for years.

He wanted to encourage investment, but it's a shell game, just like it was with Enron. We're investing in companies that are making money off of investment, not off of economic growth.

In the end, when was the last time we talked about a Scandinavian economic crisis? It's the countries that experiment with "Savage Capitalism" and limitless corporate profiteering who's economic bubbles burst the hardest.

By continuing to insist that our economy is doing great and full steam ahead, we are building the same atmosphere that caused the great economic collapses of the 20th century: the Asian collapse in 1997 and the Great Depression in 1929.