Financial Times (known communists)

Thanks to This Modern World for the link.

As usual, something else withheld from the sheep. Once again, is anyone surprised.

(munching on broccoli sounds...)

Um...no.

As long we're "freeing" the world's citizens of resources that they (who knew?) can't manage themselves, we'll perpetually be in deficits, in addition to severing long-bred ties with the rest of the world.

Hey guys.... 44 trillion.... and you are worried abuot 350 billion? that would be uhhhhhhh not even 1% of that money....

Actually, the Financial Times story has been debunked in the blogosphere: link to Donald Luskin via Instapundit

Seems the forecasted chronic deficits are based on calculating the present value of upcoming social security and medicare payments ... which, incidentally, the Bush administration is trying at least some baby steps toward fixing (unlike the Demagogue party, for instance). The deficits have NOTHING to do with the Bush tax cuts or the increases in defense/anti-terrorism spending.

Sorry about the truth getting in the way of lots of folks ideology.

Yeah, but just think of how long we could look for WOMD in Iraq for $350 billion. You know the "hundreds of tons" that are there (somewhere), or we could spend it on the hunt for bin Laden, you remember the guy we are going to get "dead or alive?"

speaking of dead or alive... how are the mavs doing razor? They can now play golf with the sixers. It's a great thing when your star player shows some heart and plays hurt, wait nevermind....

Don Nelson made the decision not to play Dirk. I would rather have Dirk around for the next 10 years healthy. He is a BIG part of their future. I am proud of how the Mavericks did this year. The Mavericks were so bad for so long that I really appreciate how they are doing now. Go Mavs Go!

Wow, an exact (dumbass) quote from Charles Barkley during the pregame last night, how original.

Here's a Don Nelson quote for ya about Dirk's injury and playing last night: "He was never really close to playing."

Or to quote from "President Gas" by the Psychedelic Furs: "You've got to have a party when you're in a state like this."

I'd like to request a tee time for 8am on monday... that is the other quote from nelson.

A chance to go to the finals... anything less than a broken leg or a torn up knee... there is no excuse. Show some heart, some determination... and play. Do what Irvin woulda done... grab a hooker.... coke yourself up.. and play!

[ May 31, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

No, CITT, Luskin hardly "debunks" the report, he only qualifies and explains his reading of it. And nowhere does he claim that the deficits "have NOTHING to do with the Bush tax cuts." And other noted economists (who is this blogger, Luskin?) have shown the effects that the first massive $1.3billion tax cut, coupled with the current one, will have on tax receipts as well as the burgeoning deficit. I mean, if W. was so sure of his tax cuts, why 1) didn't he release this O'Neill report, which he could easily have dismissed, or 2) raise the debt ceiling and try his best to keep that under wraps as well? He knows quite well what the result of his binge spending on the military, matched with these cuts, will be. Once again, I wish he'd have the courage to tell the truth. The lies are getting tiresome at this point.

[ May 31, 2003, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

It's a good thing that intrest rates are rising so high because of the deficit... oh wait... they arent, they are the lowest in 40 years....

why dont you check the deficit and compare it to the GDP, you will find it's not that bad of a deficit, especially with a sluggish economy.... however, the only number you choose to look at is the one that says it's the highest ever... never considering the PV of the dollar compared to years back... but thats ok... cause you got a tax break... SEND IT BACK if you dont like it.

If you dont want a deficit, then govt spending on your "social" programs need to go. Cant have it both ways. Especially when you think the govt knows how to spend your money better than you do.

Kennedy there's a guy who knows what is better with your nickle than yourself.

PhillyFan quoting Rush now...

how are the mavs doing horn?

Mavs managed to last longer than the Sixers this year (and a whole bunch of other teams too).

1) Economy is getting worse. The reason inflation rates are WAY down is only because people will not invest or spend their smaller pots of money when inflation is high. Alan G. and companies are having to lower things because people won't spend it if it isn't.

2) War spend a s-load of money and we will continue to spend s-loads of money on domonstrably unjust wars until Bush continues to show lack of WMDs over and over again. When will he bully his way through Syria and Iran to show that they, too, have good oil fields...AHEM- WMDs?

3) Social programs- The money for these programs is already dwindling. Unfortunately it is also severely dwindling for non-faith based organizations the most. The present administration has clearly made it their pursuit to pursue faith-based and religious type programs a source of their funding.

4) The U.S. spending billions on money for AIDS in Africa, yet decreasing for programs here in the U.S. is a clear slap in the face to our own country. Bush (and Reagan in the 80s) and the GOP have made it clear that they feel that AIDS in the U.S. is a gay plague and disease, first by Reagan pretty much ignoring it and now Bush funding programs for AIDS in Africa- where it IS rampant, but more because of HETERO sex. AIDS is growing in all areas beyond homosexual/bisexual/IVDA use here in the U.S.- but funding is elsewhere. If spending 10s of billions on a war to "liberate Iraq" is ok, but not spending close to that on social programs when we are at peace is an issue, I say that is a problem....

But remember- spending billions to secure oil fields is ok- but to save lives in the future- that just ain't gonna happen until things change.

Number 1, it sounds like you are talking about DEFLATION, considering inflation has not been a problem since that wonderful Carter administration. However, as it remained a concern, economist (your buddy greenspan) said the chance of hitting deflation is quite small.

Which social programs have been cut? Or is that just your opinion?

Fighting global aids, which everyone agrees can cause massive strife on the world in a few years down the road... uhhhhh, what is wrong with that? and since you guys like to throw out that the deficit is the largest ever... W's plan for global aids will have more funding than the previous administration. Wouldnt that make W the aids fighting administration??????? You cant have it both ways, should he throw 10 billion dollars at aids in the united states, you'd bitch that he's not helping the other countries who cant afford it. Stop turning that doulbe edge sword around... if he didnt care about aids, he would fund any program.. or very little.

I agree with W.'s funding for AIDS in Africa, not least from a strategic standpoint. If the most productive members of some of those nations, especially the ones with large Islamic populations, are decimated those vast land areas become staging pens for Al Qaeda, we will REALLY be in trouble. From a humanitarian standpoint--and W. is a devout Christian--this is the right thing to do. He should, however, be devoting more money to issues at home, not least funding for veterans, which he slashed, yet no one talks about it.

Improving the healthcare system in general in the US is the best way to treat AIDS in this country. Supporting an international effort would be the better way to fight AIDS around the world. By choosing not to trust international bodies we may be unnecessarily taking on a responsibility that we cannot accomplish well alone.

There is absolutely no problem with spending money on global AIDS issues and on its own merit, it is quite wonderful. It is also a fairly moral decsion to help others. But once again he is focusing on the rest of the world when our country overall has its own problems. Why could't he have made an equivalent spending appropriation for here in the U.S. as well? Or even 50% of that? Its not that we shouldnt give to the rest of the world, but we need to give at home as well.

My personal opinion, and you do not address this Philly, is that the Bush administration is not very open to a fair portion of the nation's citizens. But the kicker on the AIDS crisis worldwide was when Colin Powell was on MTV for a worldwide address of the issue- he mentioned the use of condoms for protection against HIV and STDs in general. He was reprimanded for not staunchly promoting abstinence as the only option- to a worldwide audience yet... and the education on condoms was taken out of the CDCs brochure because of the administrations stance.

The deficit problem will be a Bush II legacy that will last for years. He has no discernable economic policy except to cut taxes. And notwithstanding PhillyFan's attempt to paint the money spent on regime change as a small percentage (c'mon -- let's call it what it really is) -- the amount spent on the Iraqi invasion is not insignificant and is needed here -- now. I read today that 1 million African American kids live in households in "extreme" poverty -- the highest ever. How can we justify spreading around hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq (to buy copperation and "friendship") when kids here are starving? Simple question -- they have no answer.

It is interesting that the GOP and (generally) their supporters are pushing the concept that the tax cut will allow people to better choose how their money is spent. Yet, the administration and (generally) its supporters are more than happy to spend substantial amounts of our tax dollars on invasions, rebuilding of countries, pursuing poor people who don't pay their "fair share" of taxes, etc.

The administration not only is deciding how to spend large portions of federal revenue, it is deciding to do it in ways that do not contribute to the overall economic and social health of our own country. The people who are profiting from the administration's decisions are only people who are friends of the administration.

Does nobody find it ironic that the tax cuts just passed excluded certain provisions for the lowest income brackets, while generously apportioning refunds and reductions to the very men pushing for the tax cuts in the first place? Multi-millionaire Dick Cheney cast the freaking deciding vote. He certainly had a tremendous personal reason to see the tax cuts go through.

History has clearly shown that choosing tax cuts over lower budget deficits is incredibly bad public policy. Almost every respected economist in the world knows that lowering debt is the first thing any person or government should do. That does not mean people want increased spending. It means we do not want lower taxes and massive spending cuts and deficits that are bigger than anything we have ever seen. It is ASININE to pass tax cuts while the economy is in the toilet and discretionary spending on military action and special friend contracts is going through the roof.

It is a simple and well-accepted economic principle that the combination of events currently taking place are going to cause long-term harm to our economy and our people. The fact that the administration and (generally) its supporters find that perfectly acceptable is exactly why there is so much alarm around the world right now about our country's actions.

So you should send your tax refund back and shooosh up.... put on your check, for deficit only.

Yeah the ray-gun years... they really hurt the economy.... whatever bro... the deficits we have had the last 2 years have really killed intrest rates.....errrr wait.

I still don't think you understand that the only reason interest rates in this country are so low is because the economy is in the sh*thouse. Interest rates have to be lowered in order to get people to spend more money into the economy- cause otherwise people wouldn't be spending the money at all. We don't want interest rates super low because that indicates the economy is weaker, not stronger.