Posted on 07/30/2004 9:53:28 AM PDT by COBOL2Java
And which of the three- war, recession, or direct attack- is responsible for the $400 billion drug plan for seniors?
You are correct. In percentages it is NOT the highest deficit by far.
Actually, our deficit in % is just a little lower than that of France and Germany
You make my case.
There has been a remarkable turn-around.
The prescription benefit is to fulfill a campaign pledge to create something in that area. I didn't like that part of Pres. Bush's plan, but I voted for him knowing he was going to do something just like what he did.
So what you're saying is that by wasting our money, he's showing that it's okay to waste our money?
Sheesh....
No I'm saying that he told us in his campaign that he'd enact a medicare prescription benefit. If you voted for him, then he was fully above-board about it.
You made your choice.
If he hadn't fulfilled the promise, he'd have been skinned alive by the media and his hide sold to the AARP.
hey you gotta give em credit, they kept it under 450 !
Exactly. And he's dumping a trillion-dollar tab on us to buy Greedy Geezer votes with his "free" pill scam.
Or he could have said "I'm sorry, but in this time of war I can't implement all the social programs I said I would. We must all tighten our belts, and that means we'll have to wait a little while for this new program."
I would have respected that, and everyone who voted for him would have respected that. The only people who wouldn't have respected that are the ones who hate him anyway.
Instead, he went right along with this socialist boondoggle. Wasting our money in a time of war to create a new entitlement - what would we say about a Democrat who did that?
Michael Milliken would be proud!
well the democrats are saying why cut taxes while at war?
I agree. I thought it would take 10 years to recover from 911 and the results. It is amazing to me that we seem to be perking along and the tax cuts helped as did the confidence in GWB.
What is important is the size of the DEBT relative to the size of the economy (the GDP). It is the DEBT, not the DEFICIT, that we and our children will have to pay interest on forever (unless we pay it back).
As can be seen in the table at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/debt05.html, the projected gross federal debt is projected to reach 71.1 percent of GDP in 2008, it's highest level since 1954. According to Bush's most recent budget, however, it gets much worse after the Boomers retire. As can be seen in the table at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/pro2005.html, the public debt is projected to reach 432 percent of GDP by 2080. Of course, something will give long before we reach that point.
No he didn't. He anticipated a $300+ Billion a year defecit for 1999 even if he got his full tax increases. What happened was spending was somewhat limited, but revenue increased dramatically, and completely by surprise to his administration.
Remember back in 1994 when Republicans were "cutting" school lunch programs because they were increasing at a lower rate than had originally been planned?
Doesn't that mean that under the same definition we have somewhere between a $102 Billion and a $146 Billion surplus?
Oops... I did my math off the $375 billion from last year, not $445 Billion...
But still, it would be somewhere between a $32 billion and a $76 billion surplus, right? :-)
"The question is will Japan and China continue to finance us? (Most of the funding for our massive federal debt growth came from Japan and China last year.)"
-- China and Japan are responsible for a ton FOREIGN debt purchasing, along with the UK, but the majority of our debt is bought by American citizens.
I'm very interested in this topic. Can you bump to me anything on this subject? Thanks
"CAP TOTAL SPENDING TO GROW NO FASTER THAN INFLATION. PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS .... That will end the deficit in 5-7 years."
-- Exactly. In fact, we could use this to naturally privatize social security and health care: cap SS and Medicare payment growth to the rate of inflation now, and then step-down from there until growth is COMPLETELY frozen by 2025. Here's an example:
2005 - rate of SS/Medicare growth limited to 100% of inflation rate.
2010 - rate of SS/Medicare growth limited to 75% of inflation rate.
2015 - rate of SS/Medicare growth limited to 50% of inflation rate.
2020 - rate of SS/Medicare growth limited to 25% of inflation rate.
2025 - SS/Medicare growth permanently frozen.
It would be annualized so it would drop 5% every year (95% of inflation rate in 2006 and 5% of inflation rate in 2024, for example).
What this would do (Greenspan hinted at this earlier this year and got hammered for it) is make government retirement funding less and less important over time. By making it gradual, it would allow people to save for anticipated lower payouts. by 2025 the economy will be 2 - 2.5 times larger, but SS and Medicare spending-to-GDP ratio will be AT LEAST 50% - 60% lower than it is now, depending on what the inflation rate is.
And what do we do with these savings? Gradually increase contribution limits on IRAs and Medical Savings Accounts!
What I want to know is when will we have a conservative leader with the balls to propose this idea...
Maybe we repeal/modify it after Dubya is re-elected...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.