The Bush fiscal policy

Charge and Spend policy of the conservatives

One of the most distructive policies of President Bush and his conservatives in Congress is the fiscal policy we are following. This policy is to drastically cut tax revenue while increasing spending. The result is a structural deficit. This began for real in 1980 with the Reagan tax cuts and spending increases. It is true, tax rates prior to 1980 were too high and some reduction was needed to stimulate the economy. However, the extent of the cuts and the size of the spending increases started the United States on a path that will produce catastrophic financial problems. George W. has reinstated these same policies.

Let's review some facts. To save a question as to the data I will use, I will provide the source as I go.

Source: Dept of the US Trearury, bureau of public debt via the Web:

Debt at 1980 was $909 Billion and the interest in the Federal Budget was $90 Billion in FY 1980.

By the end of the Reagan term the debt was $4 Trillion

By the time George W. took office the debt was $5.7Trillion

Today the debt is $7.5 Trillion. The interest on that debt is about $340 Billion.

Since 1980 the Federal Government ran a sizeable deficit in 21 of the past 24 years since we began the Supply side Economics of Reagan - VooDoo Economics

During the past 24 years the American taxpayer has paid $6.5 Trillion in interest and over 40% is paid to foreign individuals or corporations.

Per the budget projection of George W. Bush which is found at the OMB website, by 2008, if President Bush is reelected in November and continues his fiscal policy, he predicts the national debt will stand at just under $10 Trillion in FY 2008 and we will be running an annual deficit in 2008 of $250 Billion.

Now the Bush supporters say this is all managable. They also blame the deficit on 9/11, the Iraq war and corporate misconduct. The truth is that the deficit began for real in 1980, a few years before 9/11/2001 and the largest contributor this year, about $270 Billion of the $450 billion, is from his tax cuts per the Congressional Budget Office. Now George W. wants to make all his tax cuts permanant which per a study by the Brookings Institute will add yet another $2.4 Trillion to the deficit by 2014. Why should Americans care about the size of our Debt?

The debt creates a mandated expendature in the federal budget. The reason why Bush and his conservatives have been able to get away with taking the national debt from, less than a trillion to 7.5 Trillion is because the interest rates have been at a 45 year low. That enabled the treasury to finance the growing national debt without a large increase in the annual interest. That is about to come to an end. As interest rates return to historic norms, the ability to pay the interest each year will become impossible. If interest rates return to their historic norms by 2008 when Bush predicts the National Debt will be about $10 Trillion, we could have an annual interest obligation of $500 Billion each and every year. That is more than George W. projects we will be spending on national Defense or on all other non military discretionary expendatures. Every cent of that 1/2 Trillion in interest buys us NOTHING! It does not pay for our defense, education, health care, transportation - NOTHING. What that interest pays for is the past when we spent more then we taxed.

If that is not bad enough, at no time does the Bush fiscal policy ever create a balanced budget. If he is successful in making the tax cuts permenant, the situation gets even worse and by 2014 the Brookings Institute study shows we could have a National debt in excess on $13 Trillion. Even if we come to our senses today, it will take a herculean effort to balance the budget and generate the Trillions in surplus to repay the national debt to significantly lower the annual interest required!

I 've been a moderate Republican for over 40 years, I believe we must be willing to pay for what we want or want less. That is not what George W. and his conservates are about. That is why I will vote for Senator Kerry to break the hold the conservatives have on the purse strings. Bush tells us that will bring just more spending - Not so as long as the Republicans hold control of either house of Congress. We need a moderate policy. one that does not create more spending but does not make the current tax cuts permenant. By 2011, the tax rates will return to the levels they were in the 1990's. That was the period of the greatest sustained growth in our history and when the wealthiest Americans did better than any other economic group! When I hear the conservatives say that the tax rates in the 1990's were opressive, I ask how then did the wealthy and the middle income Americans do so well under those tax rates?

The Fiscal policy we are following is passing a debt to our children and grandchildren. That debt and the interest it will require, added to the financial burdens of the Baby Boomer generation retirement is a disaster in the making. As large as our economy is, it can only handle so many multi-Trillion dollar problems. We need to restore the fiscal sanity of the old GOP, the one that wanted a balanced budget ammendment. We can not survive much more of the so called Republican conservatives if we are to remain strong and FREE!
7,078 views 25 replies
Reply #1 Top
Bill Clinton didn't do very well at this either! National Debt went up 1.5 Trillion during his terms in office. And he's a Democrat! I guess the point I'm trying to make is that NO MATTER who gets in, the debt is going to go up. Bush has problems with it and Sen Kerry is full of BIG plans. Who's going to pay for his BIG plans? We will as the national debt goes up and up. Neither one is any good at this.
Reply #2 Top
Reply to drmiller

The impact of the Charge and Spend Republicans continued for 5 of the 8 Clinton years. The only time in the past 24 years we did not have a deficit was during the last three years of Clinton. As soon as Bush took over, the deficits began again. If Kerry was able to get his new spending in place you would be correct. However, unless BOTH houses of Congress are controlled by the Democtrats, this new spending can not take place. The President does not pass laws or the budget. He can only approve or veto what Congress passes.That is why we NEED A SPLIT IN THE POWER! If the Republicans can not cut taxes (or make the tax cuts permenant) and the Democrats can not add new spending, we will return to a balanced budget when the tax rates return to the 1990 levels in 2011. We can not continue on the path we are on!
Reply #3 Top

Reply #2 By: COL Gene - 9/29/2004 6:34:17 PM
Reply to drmiller

The impact of the Charge and Spend Republicans continued for 5 of the 8 Clinton years. The only time in the past 24 years we did not have a deficit was during the last three years of Clinton. As soon as Bush took over, the deficits began again.


Sorry but your incorrect. The 1.5 Trillion increase was from his first day to his LAST day as president. Here's a link

Link

Reply #4 Top

Reply #2 By: COL Gene - 9/29/2004 6:34:17 PM
Reply to drmiller

The impact of the Charge and Spend Republicans continued for 5 of the 8 Clinton years. The only time in the past 24 years we did not have a deficit was during the last three years of Clinton. As soon as Bush took over, the deficits began again.


According to the US Treasury Dept, Clinton NEVER had a zero deficit!
Reply #5 Top
Drmiller... are you trying to be dificult? The increase came because of deficits during his first 5 years. Bush and Reagans nonsense had to be undone. Now clintons good policies have gone to waste because of another looney. Reagan economics didn't work. Its horrible policy. You know why the dollar was worth money in the early days? Do you know why we were able to come out of the great deppression? Because we had more gold than debt. Now we have more debt than gold. We do not have enough liquid assets to cover our debt. The country could be in grave danger if we run out of cash and have to go to war, and no one will buy our bonds. I will show below some research that I took the time to do, more than an hour of work, because I feel so strongly about this.



Notice that the GDP per capita has remained on a fairly liniear fashion. Notice that this is in year 2000 dollars (takes into account inflation). The country did fine before reagan, and did not really do any better after.
Reply #6 Top

Reply #5 By: sandy2 - 9/29/2004 7:04:58 PM
Drmiller... are you trying to be dificult? The increase came because of deficits during his first 5 years. Bush and Reagans nonsense had to be undone. Now clintons good policies have gone to waste because of another looney. Reagan economics didn't work. Its horrible policy. You know why the dollar was worth money in the early days? Do you know why we were able to come out of the great deppression? Because we had more gold than debt. Now we have more debt than gold. We do not have enough liquid assets to cover our debt. The country could be in grave danger if we run out of cash and have to go to war, and no one will buy our bonds. I will show below some research that I took the time to do, more than an hour of work, because I feel so strongly about this.



Notice that the GDP per capita has remained on a fairly liniear fashion. Notice that this is in year 2000 dollars (takes into account inflation). The country did fine before reagan, and did not really do any better after.


Yes on an upward trend! We have done nothing but gain according to your OWN chart. And NO I'm not trying to be difficult. The Col made the statement:

The only time in the past 24 years we did not have a deficit was during the last three years of Clinton.



And I'm saying his statement is wrong per the US Treasury Dept!

Reply #7 Top
Yes but you also said that he had an overal debt. Obviously. And the overall upward trend begins BEFORE reagan, which shows it was NOT reagans policies that did it. I can provide a chart of yearly increases if you like, dating back further than shown in the graph.
Reply #8 Top
The economy started to fall down right after Bush took office. It was still Clinton's budget, so what could Bush have done about it?
Reply #9 Top
Notice Chris, NO ONE Is criticizing Bush's economy, except for the debt.
Reply #10 Top

Reply #7 By: sandy2 - 9/29/2004 7:22:05 PM
Yes but you also said that he had an overal debt. Obviously. And the overall upward trend begins BEFORE reagan, which shows it was NOT reagans policies that did it. I can provide a chart of yearly increases if you like, dating back further than shown in the graph.


I never said it was due to Reagan now did I? And Clinton DID have an overall debt. Check the link below (US treasury dept link) and look at the years he was president (1993-2000).

Link

Reply #12 Top
You didn't take into account interest on the debt, which is why the debt grew even while he may or may not have had a deficit. So then you agree that the creation of debt to lower taxes does not help the economy?
Reply #13 Top

Reply #12 By: sandy2 - 9/29/2004 7:36:43 PM
You didn't take into account interest on the debt, which is why the debt grew even while he may or may not have had a deficit. So then you agree that the creation of debt to lower taxes does not help the economy?


Never said it did! I was just refuting somones erronious statement. And it wasn't your statement I was trying to correct.
Reply #14 Top
Ok, Sorry about the misunderstanding. So we both dislike Bush's fiscal policy?
Reply #15 Top

So what would you do to decrease the deficit/lower the debt?

Are you willing to make significant cuts to medicaid, medicare, social security benefits, education and the military to lower the deficit? Or are you just posturing?

Reply #16 Top
Yup significant cuts to social security for sure.. lock in spending to what it is right now... prevent future funding... lock in all spending on medicad, medicare, to what it is right now, adjusting for inflation, create a temporary sales tax, simplify the tax code, create a wealth tax, give an income tax break, repeal bush tax cuts, cut expenses through a review of funding. We all know the government spends way to much money. Cut way down. Cut costs. Release federal employees if needed. Treat it like a company. Remove corporate welfare. Stop bailouts. Open the AWNR and sell it at $50 a barrel to raise money. Recoup social security expenses through the estates of benificiaries.
Reply #17 Top

Reply #14 By: sandy2 - 9/29/2004 8:12:00 PM
Ok, Sorry about the misunderstanding. So we both dislike Bush's fiscal policy?


It needs LOTS of work but it could be fixed! But IMHO we'd be better off with Bush than Kerry.
Reply #18 Top
I am glad to see some people are interested in this subject. Althouigh the comments get at specific issues, the basic issue of the growing debt and its impact is true. When drmiler states we would be better under Bush, he fails to look at the past four years as well as the Bush budget projection that shows the debt growing without end. He also fails to acknowledge the impact of making the tax cuts (on the wealthy) permanant. The tax cuts during the first ten year period were phased in which reduced the loss in revenue. By making them permanent, the following ten year will show a loss in Federal revenue three times greater because all the cuts and in place for the ten year period. That will move us away from solving the deficit not moving us closer. Thus, sticking with Bush and his conservatives is not the answer. In a like mannor, Sandy 2's idea of solving the problem with spending cuts will never happen to the extent required to both balance the budget and produce a surplus to pay down the debt and lower the annual interest expense.

The answer is to split the power between the Republicans and Dermocrats by electing Kerry. That will set up the following:

The conservatives will be prevented from from making the tax cuts permanant and increasing the loss in Federal tax revenue.

The Republicans will not allow Kerry and the left from adding new spending programs.

Even if the tax cuts on the wealthy are not changed now, in 2011 the tax rates return to the pre Bush cuts and revenue available to balance the budget will develop. So long as there is a continued split in the power in 2011 which should prevent the aded revenue from being spent on new social programs. There will have no other choice than to reduce the deficit and even begin to pay down the debt with the added revenue from restoring the tax rates to the pre 2001 levels..

The ideal solution is the following:

Restore the tax rates on the top two income brackets and keep the Estate tax ASAP.

Cut spending were possible including the Pork which is at an all time high under the Republlican controlled congress.

Use some of the money from restoration of the tax rates on the wealthy to begin rebuilding the infastructure of America which will put peoople to work and create profits to the companies doing the work. This will be far more effective in stimulating the economy than tax cuts to the wealthy and depending on supply side impact (Demand is 70% of our economic engine).

Take a realistic look at Social Security. We need to increase the age for full benefits and there should be a means test that would provide people who retire with high non Social Security incomes to limit the benefit to the people above a certain income to the return of their contribution ( not including the employer contribution).

We need to do more to control the cost increases on health care and prescription drug costs to moderate the impact on Medicare. Bush has doen nothing in this area and in fact the prescription drug coverage he touts prevents the control of drug costs!
Reply #19 Top

Reply #18 By: COL Gene - 9/30/2004 7:20:22 AM
I am glad to see some people are interested in this subject. Althouigh the comments get at specific issues, the basic issue of the growing debt and its impact is true. When drmiler states we would be better under Bush, he fails to look at the past four years as well as the Bush budget projection that shows the debt growing without end.


I overlooked nothing. I wouldn't vote for Kerry if my life depended on it!
Reply #21 Top
Well.. I said tax hikes and spending decreases are needed.
Reply #22 Top
If people read anything beside hearing the 30 second sound-bites of the RNC, how can they possibly vote for Bush in all good conscience??
Reply #23 Top
#22 By: Anon (Anonymous) - 10/4/2004 11:26:12 AM
If people read anything beside hearing the 30 second sound-bites of the RNC, how can they possibly vote for Bush in all good conscience??


What I'd like to know is how ANY *patriot* can vote for John Kerry after his treasonous statements to senate in 1971!
Reply #24 Top
I think it is gutsy and patriotic to serve your country and speak out against what you believe to be mistakes your country made. In fact, some would say it is a duty to participate actively in your government since this is one "of the people, for the people".
Reply #25 Top

Reply #24 By: Deference - 10/4/2004 2:53:52 PM
I think it is gutsy and patriotic to serve your country and speak out against what you believe to be mistakes your country made. In fact, some would say it is a duty to participate actively in your government since this is one "of the people, for the people".


NOT while your still in! He got out in 1978 here's the link. Link
Also it's one thing to speak out against what you precieve to be wrong. It's quite another to LIE to a senate commitee under oath! At best he spent 4 years in the reserve maybe 6 (but that's doubtful). His testimony was in 1971 you do the math.