Red George: Meet America's most profligate president since the Vietnam war

The Economist ^ | July 3, 2003

[Torie]

Did you oppose the tax cut? Just curious.

[Texas_Dawg]

Every otherwise healthy business that has let it's debt and deficit get out of control is no longer in business. Eventually, we end up like California if we don't watch out for the potiential of future mismanagement of the debt.

And don't you think the Bush group realizes this? Don't you think they also might realize that once the economy comes around, as cutting taxes will enable it to do (and cutting taxes only happens if you can win the election in the first place), that the debt/deficits will be dramatically more manageable once again (as they were in 2000 after all the screaming in 1992)? But no... let's go vote for David Duke or Pat Buchanan or someone from that crowd and make a statement. Brilliant.

[yooper]

I'm a conservative, so I'll take the truth, AND staying true to conservative principles. The drug bill doesn't do that. Bush triangulating isn't any more acceptable to me than Clinton triangulating. I'll still vote for him though; he's a good man and a good president.

[squidly]

"Americans want subsidized drugs. The trick is to do it in a larger context of getting market mechanisms to work better in the medicial industry. Another scandal, ingored by Bush, is that the US is subsidizing drug research for the world. We need to have a most favored nation pricing policy, so that drug companies must sell at prices in the US at the same price they sell to to monopsony buyers in Europe, adjused for the cost savings associated with volume discounts."

Torrie gets the lollipop for getting onto the real issue. The right answer in my book is price controls on drugs in this country. Now I know how you all are already shrinking away in revulsion from my last statement, but we have no other choice left to us if we're going to be able to pay for drugs. Virtually every other industrialized nation in the world already has price controls, and our high prices are subsidizing costs for everybody else. We can't win that battle. We can't get them to lift their price controls. If you can't beat 'em, join em. Or, as Confucious say, when a man feels the winds of change blowing, he should build not a windbreak, but a windmill.

[EggsAckley]

No, I don't need to be anywhere else. YOU, on the other hand need to just STHU and let the man do his job. You guys act like you know EVERYTHING that's happening in Washington; you know nothing. Do you honestly believe that they WOULD let us in on the real plans? They'd be fools to do that.

[11B3]

Generally it is your two heroes that have the problem with dissent. BTW: Can you name for me any ELECTED political office which Buchanan has held that qualifies him for anything - much less our president?

[Texas_Dawg]

Now I know how you all are already shrinking away in revulsion from my last statement, but we have no other choice left to us if we're going to be able to pay for drugs.

How about this crazy approach instead of forcing everyone to have to pay for others... if you can't afford the drugs, you don't get them?

[sarcasm]

The tax cut was to a great degree irresponsible since it wasn't matched with commensurate spending cuts. The administration isn't even pretending that there will be a balanced budget in the foreseeable future.

[Torie]

Price controls are only needed to deal with monopsony buyers. The net result is that drug prices will go up in Europe, and down in the US. Drug companies can sell at any price they want, they just can't discriminate in favor of monopsony buyers. Let's keep this price control monster in a tightly reasoned and leashed cage, shall we? Otherwise, drug research will come to an END, and I will have little hope left of living to be 110, and annoying folks around here for another 60 years or so, and that would be a shame.

[squidly]

"How about this crazy approach instead of forcing everyone to have to pay for others... if you can't afford the drugs, you don't get them?"

That would be the perfect world solution, but we're way past living in a world where your solution is possible. However, I do agree. Medical care isn't a right, or shouldn't be.

[Torie]

Well that is a respectible point of view. It all depends on how much it gets the economy going. But the supply side effects, whatever they are, will not pay for the cut. No way, Jose. But it may well get Bush re-elected. Is he worth it? That is for each of us to decide.

[Texas_Dawg]

The tax cut was to a great degree irresponsible

Is it surprising to anyone anymore (I know it isn't to me) how identical the paleo crowd sounds to the radical Left? (Their National Socialist forbears in Germany had lots of political support from the socialist Left as well, thus no surprise here.)

[11B3]

When have we had a true balanced budget? Under 'toon?? hahaha As I pointed out above, his 'balanced budget' was nothing more than waving his hand over the books and inflating the GDP. It was never really balanced.

[yooper]

"How about this crazy approach instead of forcing everyone to have to pay for others... if you can't afford the drugs, you don't get them?"

Well, that approach might work for pot or coke, but we're talking prescriptions. Even I recognize the fact that there are people dependent on meds who can't afford them. Should society let them die because they can't pay? (Not looking forward to the answer to this from some of you)....

[sarcasm]

I see you're avoiding the issue of spending cuts to pay for a tax cut.

[sarcasm]

Under 'toon?? hahaha As I pointed out above, his 'balanced budget' was nothing more than waving his hand over the books and inflating the GDP. It was never really balanced.

I fully expect that Bush will play the same game.

[Sabertooth]

��5{��������problem with people dissing my President.

Hi, I'm Sabertooth...

< "Hi Sabertooth!" >

...and my President is a big-spending vote-buyer.

Let me know when you need a sponsor.

[sarcasm]

But it may well get Bush re-elected. Is he worth it?

Nope. We're seeing a replay of Johnson's guns and butter economics.