How can we keep doing this?

[rowech]

3 trillion dollar budget? 400 billion dollar defecits? I'm not an ecomonics guy but how in the heck can this work? How can Bush even remotely consider himself a conservative? We're going broke.

[Easy Mac]

http://www.badbeatscrew.com/negro.jpg

[MikeVic]

http://www.badbeatscrew.com/negro.jpg

Exactly.

[molson]

Would we get a bigger or smaller government with Obama or Clinton?

[Easy Mac]

http://www.badbeatscrew.com/negro.jpg

Exactly.
Quoth the Raven

[Young Drachma]

Would we get a bigger or smaller government with Obama or Clinton?

By all accounts, about the same. The only "contender" left who you could figure would be sure to cut government would be Romney. McCain might as well be a liberal as far as fiscal spending is concerned. He's already told us he knows nothing about it and doesn't care, as long as we win the war.

[molson]

By all accounts, about the same. The only "contender" left who you could figure would be sure to cut government would be Romney. McCain might as well be a liberal as far as fiscal spending is concerned. He's already told us he knows nothing about it and doesn't care, as long as we win the war.

What the hell happened to the Republican party?

To your or anybody more knowledgeable than me about such things - what is the meat of Bush's spending? Are we dealing with huge numbers just because of Iraq, or is he a big spender elsewhere?

[cartman]

What the hell happened to the Republican party?

To your or anybody more knowledgeable than me about such things - what is the meat of Bush's spending? Are we dealing with huge numbers just because of Iraq, or is he a big spender elsewhere?

I'm glad the Republicans are the fiscal conservatives. I'd hate to think how much worse off the budget would be otherwise. :rolleyes:

As for the spending, this figure doesn't include funds needed for Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Young Drachma]

What the hell happened to the Republican party?

To your or anybody more knowledgeable than me about such things - what is the meat of Bush's spending? Are we dealing with huge numbers just because of Iraq, or is he a big spender elsewhere?

He's a lame duck. This budget plan won't go anywhere in a Dem-controlled Congress. But the big winner would be the Pentagon, getting an 8% increase.


And I do applaud the OMB for one thing -- even if it's 2008 -- they put the entire thing online in electronic format at budget.gov

At least that way, we can all read it together and laugh at how ridiculous it is, no matter how much he tries to tell us with a straight face that it's good.

[st.cronin]

I just don't think either party differs much in terms of fiscal policy. The differences are in the details, and in some marginal philosophical issues ... but both parties believe in deficit spending and progressive taxation. I don't think either one of those is a bad thing by itself.

[Brian Swartz]

What the hell happened to the Republican party?

It's lost its soul. Bush was elected partly because he was a Republican Clinton -- and other than foreign policy, he basically has been. On fiscal matters the Republican Party has totally lost it's soul. The Gingrinch revolution has long since been over. I remember being proud of the balancing of the budget, and laughing at the whole "war on the kids, war on the elderly, war on the environment" malarkey.

But the malarkey worked. People believed it. And those in both parties who were fiscally responsible learned the lesson, one way or another. Runaway spending of taxpayer money is no longer an ideology: it's a nearly universally-used tactic.

Bush's spending is not limited just to Iraq. He has also pushed extension of unemployment benefits, health care spending, etc. to new heights while doing nothing to curb domestic spending at all and cutting taxes in the process. Welcome to brave new world of the unopposed nanny state. Get used to it, it's going to be here a while I'm afraid.

[lordscarlet]

He's a lame duck. This budget plan won't go anywhere in a Dem-controlled Congress. But the big winner would be the Pentagon, getting an 8% increase.


And I do applaud the OMB for one thing -- even if it's 2008 -- they put the entire thing online in electronic format at budget.gov

At least that way, we can all read it together and laugh at how ridiculous it is, no matter how much he tries to tell us with a straight face that it's good.

Wow do I suck.. I'm about to go find out if it's 508 compliant. :)

[lordscarlet]

ok.. not compliant at all.

[Flasch186]

Would we get a bigger or smaller government with Obama or Clinton?

Let's ask Bill how he did it.

[lordscarlet]

Lame.. I think they get around it with an HTML equivalent.

[Young Drachma]

ok.. not compliant at all.

Well, who knows who's doing the OMB pages. Good thing to inform them, I say.

[Young Drachma]

Lame.. I think they get around it with an HTML equivalent.

Aah...funny.

[lordscarlet]

some number of dola's: except it uses tables and they are not compliant.. (sorry, doing what I do this kills me)

[dawgfan]

Regarding the Democrat/Republican debate in relation to the National Debt - under the last 2 Democratic presidents, the overall debt has declined. Under every Republican president from Reagan and beyond, the overall debt has increased.

On the other hand if you look at the debt as a percentage of the GDP, it's not so clear cut. So, yeah...

And yeah, I'm fully aware that it's far too simplistic to simply say the Democratic presidents have been responsible for reducing the debt and the Republican presidents have added to it - there are important other facts that have influenced those outcomes.

[Joe]

By all accounts, about the same. The only "contender" left who you could figure would be sure to cut government would be Romney. McCain might as well be a liberal as far as fiscal spending is concerned. He's already told us he knows nothing about it and doesn't care, as long as we win the war.

What about Ron Paul? Oh you said contender.

[Buccaneer]

Just watch. The Democratic-controlled Congress will turn this $3.1t budget into a $3.4t one.

[cartman]

Just watch. The Democratic-controlled Congress will turn this $3.1t budget into a $3.4t one.

Bush already has by not including the spending needed for Iraq and Afghanistan in this budget.

[Buccaneer]

Let's ask Bill how he did it.

You act like you even recall the Clinton years.

[Buccaneer]

Bush already has by not including the spending needed for Iraq and Afghanistan in this budget.

Ok, take whatever number and add 7-10% to it.

[Buccaneer]

It's lost its soul. Bush was elected partly because he was a Republican Clinton -- and other than foreign policy, he basically has been. On fiscal matters the Republican Party has totally lost it's soul. The Gingrinch revolution has long since been over. I remember being proud of the balancing of the budget, and laughing at the whole "war on the kids, war on the elderly, war on the environment" malarkey.

But the malarkey worked. People believed it. And those in both parties who were fiscally responsible learned the lesson, one way or another. Runaway spending of taxpayer money is no longer an ideology: it's a nearly universally-used tactic.

Bush's spending is not limited just to Iraq. He has also pushed extension of unemployment benefits, health care spending, etc. to new heights while doing nothing to curb domestic spending at all and cutting taxes in the process. Welcome to brave new world of the unopposed nanny state. Get used to it, it's going to be here a while I'm afraid.

Wait until we have a Dem president along with a Dem Congress. They will raise everything by 10% but will claim savings by not including Iraq. Just look at what Obama or Clinton have been promising. I will not only vote for but support any candidate that will take the $31.t budget (not counting Iraq and Af) and reduce it by 10%. Better yet, tell me that Congress will start with a zero-based budget and build up from there.

[DaddyTorgo]

how can we keep doing it?

robbing peter to pay paul

[DaddyTorgo]

By all accounts, about the same. The only "contender" left who you could figure would be sure to cut government would be Romney. McCain might as well be a liberal as far as fiscal spending is concerned. He's already told us he knows nothing about it and doesn't care, as long as we win the war.

Romney won't cut spending. Look at what he did in Mass. He'll claim he "cut spending" but in reality he didn't. He's a shyster.

[dawgfan]

Wait until we have a Dem president along with a Dem Congress. They will raise everything by 10% but will claim savings by not including Iraq. Just look at what Obama or Clinton have been promising. I will not only vote for but support any candidate that will take the $31.t budget (not counting Iraq and Af) and reduce it by 10%. Better yet, tell me that Congress will start with a zero-based budget and build up from there.
Funny how Clinton, the last Democratic president, presided over a reduction in the debt. And yes, he had a Republican majority for most of his term in office. So we could look back to the last Democratic president that had a Democratic majority in Congress, which would be Jimmy Carter - and he also reduced the debt.

But hey, don't let your preconceptions get in the way of facts.

[miked]

Sigh...a 1% increase in spending for the NIH this year, and mostly for bioterrorism related stuff. Doesn't even account for inflation...yay!

[Buccaneer]

No politician, esp. those in leadership positions, will have the guts to cut spending. If a particular line item only shows a 2% increase instead 4%, they will start screaming that it will kill people, even though their budget is already bloated by 50%. The only thing politicians hope for is another tech-fueled economic boom that can increase income, even if they would wrongly claim that they had something to do with it.

[Flasch186]

You act like you even recall the Clinton years.

I didn't inhale so I recall them just fine.

[Buccaneer]

Funny how Clinton, the last Democratic president, presided over a reduction in the debt. And yes, he had a Republican majority for most of his term in office. So we could look back to the last Democratic president that had a Democratic majority in Congress, which would be Jimmy Carter - and he also reduced the debt.

But hey, don't let your preconceptions get in the way of facts.

Nice switch of words - "presided over a reduction", as oppose to "decreased spending". One gives a president way too much credit/blame for things they preside over that were not within their control. It would be like Carter taking credit over a reduction in oil imports when he presided over an oil embargo.

You can go ahead and cite "facts" but you are no less working with preceptions than anyone else, including me.

[Young Drachma]

Romney won't cut spending. Look at what he did in Mass. He'll claim he "cut spending" but in reality he didn't. He's a shyster.

Well of course. That's what he spent his living doing in business. "Turning things around". I just meant he's the only one that would even claim it, even if it weren't true.

Obviously, Ron Paul would just abolish the government and that'd save us all a ton of cash..but that's neither here nor there.

[Flasch186]

Nice switch of words - "presided over a reduction", as oppose to "decreased spending". One gives a president way too much credit/blame for things they preside over that were not within their control. It would be like Carter taking credit over a reduction in oil imports when he presided over an oil embargo.

You can go ahead and cite "facts" but you are no less working with preceptions than anyone else, including me.

so a democrat in the white house should be fine since they dont effect the deficit or at least cant take credit or blame for it.

[Jas_lov]

Funny how Clinton, the last Democratic president, presided over a reduction in the debt. And yes, he had a Republican majority for most of his term in office. So we could look back to the last Democratic president that had a Democratic majority in Congress, which would be Jimmy Carter - and he also reduced the debt.

But hey, don't let your preconceptions get in the way of facts.

And I seem to remember the Republicans having control over the executive and legislative branches from 2000-2006. Are the Democrats really the ones we should be blaming here? Maybe we could do better with Obama or Clinton. The best scenario is obviously a split executive and legislative like in the 90s when there was a surplus, but it's looking like it's a democratic year. I don't care for Obama or Clinton, but frankly I don't see how they could do any worse.

[Buccaneer]

so a democrat in the white house should be fine since they dont effect the deficit.

Not with this Congress and the promises being made by Obama and Clinton (just like the promises made by Bush with his Rep Congress). It's Congress that controls the pursestrings and they will always announce that such budgets are DOA so they can add a whole bunch of shit to it. If any of the candidates (and voters) really care about they deficit, then they should start with a substantially-reduced budget/expenditures. But that won't happen, will it? So the key is to hope for an external economic boom so they can justify it.

Realistically, they submitted budget should be for $2.7t (that includes I and A). That would be a balanced budget, won't it? You tell me who is going to do that and then tell me that Congress will not add to it.

[Flasch186]

Realistically, they submitted budget should be for $2.7t (that includes I and A). That would be a balanced budget, won't it? You tell me who is going to do that and then tell me that Congress will not add to it.

just wondering where that number came from....not disputing it.

[Buccaneer]

so a democrat in the white house should be fine since they dont effect the deficit or at least cant take credit or blame for it.

To answer your question since what I just posted was a continuation of my previous soapboxing, neither one of your candidates will submit a balanced budget. The budgets alway have to go up year after year, so they assume. They key will be NOT to have rubber-stamping on new programs or set increases because, well, just because everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie. The best way is to have a split executive/legislative since more time will be in fighting, debating and blaming and less time in enacting. We've seen this from 1995-2000, as well as the past year. No one really cares about the deficit, only to make political points one way or the other. The federal govt keeps growing bigger regardless, for whatever reasons.

[Buccaneer]

just wondering where that number came from....not disputing it.

The current budget is projected to be over $400b deficit.

By the way, never, ever believe numbers that they deficit will go down (or up) several years from now. That's the external condition I alluded to. All they can do is to hold down promised/future entitlements that will force budgets to go up.

[Jas_lov]

Does anyone know how much more tax revenue they would bring in if they repealed the Bush tax cuts like Hillary and Obama are talking about?

[dawgfan]

Nice switch of words - "presided over a reduction", as oppose to "decreased spending". One gives a president way too much credit/blame for things they preside over that were not within their control. It would be like Carter taking credit over a reduction in oil imports when he presided over an oil embargo.

You can go ahead and cite "facts" but you are no less working with preceptions than anyone else, including me.
What facts did I mangle? The national debt was reduced under both Carter's and Clinton's terms in office.

As I acknowledged previously, there are many factors involved and it's too simplistic to give sole credit to the president for what happened to the national debt during their terms. But the fact remains that Nixon is the last Republican president in office when the debt was reduced, and every Democrat in office since at least the Roosevelt/Truman administration from '45-'49 has seen the debt reduced.

Seems like a pattern, wouldn't you say?

[Young Drachma]

The current budget is projected to be over $400b deficit.

By the way, never, ever believe numbers that they deficit will go down (or up) several years from now. That's the external condition I alluded to. All they can do is to hold down promised/future entitlements that will force budgets to go up.

What should we do about it in the status quo? I mean, in the current election with the candidates as they are. What do you suppose we do?

[Buccaneer]

What facts did I mangle? The national debt was reduced under both Carter's and Clinton's terms in office.

As I acknowledged previously, there are many factors involved and it's too simplistic to give sole credit to the president for what happened to the national debt during their terms. But the fact remains that Nixon is the last Republican president in office when the debt was reduced, and every Democrat in office since at least the Roosevelt/Truman administration from '45-'49 has seen the debt reduced.

Seems like a pattern, wouldn't you say?

A pattern would be too simplistic, wouldn't it? Since 1961, the national debt has never gone down, just slowed down some, speeded up some, and under Bush2, really speeded up. But you are talking about National Debt, which as you mentioned, can be looked at in terms of % of GDP (other than WW2, it last peaked under Clinton, whatever that means). I am more talking about budget deficits.

[Galaxy]

I do believe the budget doesn't include the war spending, just a fyi.

[dawgfan]

A pattern would be too simplistic, wouldn't it? Since 1961, the national debt has never gone down, just slowed down some, speeded up some, and under Bush2, really speeded up. But you are talking about National Debt, which as you mentioned, can be looked at in terms of % of GDP (other than WW2, it last peaked under Clinton, whatever that means). I am more talking about budget deficits.
That's not what the charts and figures I'm seeing are saying. The debt did indeed go down in absolute terms from the mid-1940's through the mid-1980's, and again from the mid-1990's to the beginning of the 2000's. The reduction of debt as a percentage of the GDP is even more pronounced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USDebt.png

[Buccaneer]

What should we do about it in the status quo? I mean, in the current election with the candidates as they are. What do you suppose we do?

That's a good question. My advocacy has always been to do more things locally, things you can directly affect. A culture that continues to look to a federal govt for everything will only get frustrations and irrationality. The attitude one should take and to educate others is to love and care for one another and let Caesar take care of Caesar.

You and I have only 1 vote apiece, that's just they way it works (and should work). We cannot affect a split governmental branch, all we can do is hope for the least amount of affect on our lives (for most of us, it has always been very little anyways).

But many people love the political game that plays out (me included). But just like in sports, people get way too emotional about it and make it personal. And unfortunately, it is mostly driven by hatred for the opposition. But that's human nature.

What we can do to change the status quo is to encourage more grassroots efforts to say that the emperor has no clothes. No matter who is elected in November, we WILL get more and more of the status quo, it's just the details will change. A libertarian message cannot be preached from the top down (as in libertarian-type candidate like Paul) but would be more effective from local upwards. The place to effect governmental change is in the legislative branch and we simply need to elect those who can stand up against the status quo and not add more on top of it. It is a mindset that can best be practiced locally, then at the state level before being effective at the national level.

(sorry for the preaching, I apparently been in a writing mood tonight)

[Buccaneer]

That's not what the charts and figures I'm seeing are saying. The debt did indeed go down in absolute terms from the mid-1940's through the mid-1980's, and again from the mid-1990's to the beginning of the 2000's. The reduction of debt as a percentage of the GDP is even more pronounced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USDebt.png

I looked at a similar chart and what I mentioned about the peak was the years 1993-1996. Not sure now about the statement that it had never gone down (I read that from somewhere) but flatlined for a while.

[lordscarlet]

If the choice is to increase the deficit or abolish the government as Ron Paul wants, sorry, I'm going for the deficit. The idealistic world where private citizens pay directly for public services is nothing but fantasy.

[Synovia]

By all accounts, about the same. The only "contender" left who you could figure would be sure to cut government would be Romney.

You clearly have never been to MA, and seen our $20billion tunnel.


Romney was brought it to do one thing in MA: Cut the corruption out of the big dig. What did he do? Install all his buddies in high positions, making huge amounts of money, and then leave the state never to be seen again.


Yeah, hes the friggen answer.

[Passacaglia]

By covering our ears and screaming.

[Galaxy]

You clearly have never been to MA, and seen our $20billion tunnel.


Romney was brought it to do one thing in MA: Cut the corruption out of the big dig. What did he do? Install all his buddies in high positions, making huge amounts of money, and then leave the state never to be seen again.


Yeah, hes the friggen answer.

Is the tunnel done? I will say this. At least MA/Boston is investing in something that will provide long-term value (depsite the problems, overruns, ect.) instead of a stupid one-year stimulus package.

[chesapeake]

1) Some funding is included for operations for Iraq and Afghanistan, but a supplemental request to fully fund them is expected at some point. The question will be whether the request will come from this Administration or the next.
2) Many things factor into the yearly deficits. Largest among these is the state of the national economy. Stronger economy=more federal revenues+less demand for entitlements. As you can see, we are on the bad end of one of these right now.
3)In the post-war era, the economy has tended to be stronger under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones.
4) The next president and Congress will have to make some very tough decisions on fiscal questions -- entitlement spending, continuing the war, renewing some of the Bush tax cuts -- but encouraging the health of the overall economy is really where they have to succeed.

[st.cronin]

Deficit funding does not work for individuals or families, but what evidence is there that it doesn't work for governments?

[cartman]

Deficit funding does not work for individuals or families, but what evidence is there that it doesn't work for governments?

Well, one current example would be to compare the dollar vs. the Euro. When the Euro was introduced, the governments of the Euro zone agreed to not run deficits. Since that time in 2002, the dollar has fallen greatly in value compared to the Euro. From this example, it can be argued that the amount of deficit spending by the US government has negatively affected the value of the dollar, and lack of deficit spending has appeared to help the value of the Euro. It's not that simple, and there are numerous other reasons, but the deficit spending component is quite a large reason for the discrepancies in the values of the two currencies.

[Young Drachma]

You clearly have never been to MA, and seen our $20billion tunnel.


Romney was brought it to do one thing in MA: Cut the corruption out of the big dig. What did he do? Install all his buddies in high positions, making huge amounts of money, and then leave the state never to be seen again.


Yeah, hes the friggen answer.

I worked at the Globe during 2003 when things were all sorts of crazy with the cost overruns and such alike.

Romney will cite his business experience as a desire to get into the federal government and attempt to clean things up. It's not likely that the Democratic Congress would let him get far and he'd be, at best, a paper-thin version of the current President. At least Bush, the simpleton he may be is guided by "conviction" and "passion" of his ideas.

Romney would probably flip-flop on critical policy positions monthly depending on how much heat he gets.

Beacon Hill is a long, long way from Capitol Hill. D.C. would just chew him up and spit him out, I think.

[JPhillips]

I finally found some numbers on the Bush budget I was looking for.

Social Scurity Surplus for 2009 = 331 billion(btw this is still a good reason for all workers to get a rebate)

Total budget deficit for 2009 not counting SS funds = 738 billion!

Total percent of GPD of the non-SS fund deficit = 4.8%

YIKES!

[miami_fan]

4) The next president and Congress will have to make some very tough decisions on fiscal questions.

Isn't this what we say every election? And you know what? They decide to increase spending, because that is what the voting public wants.

[DanGarion]

Romney won't cut spending. Look at what he did in Mass. He'll claim he "cut spending" but in reality he didn't. He's a shyster.

Isn't every politician? I think that's in the dictionary under the definition for politician...

[DanGarion]

Well of course. That's what he spent his living doing in business. "Turning things around". I just meant he's the only one that would even claim it, even if it weren't true.

Obviously, Ron Paul would just abolish the government and that'd save us all a ton of cash..but that's neither here nor there.
He'd just push the debt to the states.

[st.cronin]

Well, one current example would be to compare the dollar vs. the Euro. When the Euro was introduced, the governments of the Euro zone agreed to not run deficits. Since that time in 2002, the dollar has fallen greatly in value compared to the Euro. From this example, it can be argued that the amount of deficit spending by the US government has negatively affected the value of the dollar, and lack of deficit spending has appeared to help the value of the Euro. It's not that simple, and there are numerous other reasons, but the deficit spending component is quite a large reason for the discrepancies in the values of the two currencies.

Obviously any kind of a deficit will lead to inflation - since you're discounting future dollars in favor of current dollars. But, inflation, by itself, does not indicate a bad economy. You can obviously have too MUCH inflation.

I guess where I'm coming from, is, deficit spending by itself is not a bad thing. Too much deficit spending, or deficit spending in conjunction with other things, is a bad thing. Blind adherence to a balanced budget would be a bad thing, since it would limit the tools available to the government to move the economy.

Note that I am strictly an amateur economist.

[flere-imsaho]

Isn't this what we say every election? And you know what? They decide to increase spending, because that is what the voting public wants.

The toughest fiscal question I remember from 1999/2000 was whether to spend the surplus, use it to pay down the debt, or hang on to it in case the stock market corrected.

Bed of fucking roses compared to 2008/2009.

[JonInMiddleGA]

They decide to increase spending, because that is what the voting public wants.

Ding ding ding.

[finketr]

i don't want them to increase spending.

[JonInMiddleGA]

i don't want them to increase spending.

Welcome to the realistic minority.

There are relatively few who actually seem to want spending decreased, most just want more of it coming their way in the end.

[finketr]

Welcome to the realistic minority.

There are relatively few who actually seem to want spending decreased, most just want more of it coming their way in the end.

sad but true... i suspect that if they really tried to cut spending that the backlash would get the people who don't vote because they're happy. . .

i was watching cnn or foxnews coverage last night (i was flipping back and forth), and it amuses me that every 4 years, i've heard "The youth vote" is very key. I remember that back in '92 with rock the vote, etc..
.
ah well

[Greyroofoo]

Everybody wants spending cut, just not in the areas that affect them.

[chesapeake]

Isn't this what we say every election? And you know what? They decide to increase spending, because that is what the voting public wants.

Spending isn't the only issue involved. Indeed, discretionary spending is only minor part. The Bush II tax cuts expire in 2011. Which to extend and which to let go will be a major issue on the table for the next president. It is possible that entitlement reform will be considered -- especially if you have one party in charge of the executive and legislative branches. Public investment in crumbling infrastructure, an incredibly unsexy issue if ever there was one, will have to be addressed as well.

[Bubba Wheels]

Its all part of the plan. The dollar will plummet to new lows, effectively wiping out folk's retirement saving and any current buying power. Then the NAU people will step forward and offer the new Amero as the replacement, allowing Americans to convert their dollars over. And the NAU effectively takes control over Mexico, U.S. and Canada. Many Americans may even be grateful for being lifted out of a 1930's style depression.

[DanGarion]

Its all part of the plan. The dollar will plummet to new lows, effectively wiping out folk's retirement saving and any current buying power. Then the NAU people will step forward and offer the new Amero as the replacement, allowing Americans to convert their dollars over. And the NAU effectively takes control over Mexico, U.S. and Canada. Many Americans may even be grateful for being lifted out of a 1930's style depression.
Somebodies drinking the KoolAid!

[finketr]

what the hell is NAU?

[cartman]

what the hell is NAU?

Naughty America University?

[rkmsuf]

what the hell is NAU?

Now All Upinya

[Bubba Wheels]

what the hell is NAU?

Ha! North American Union! Never heard of it? No worries, like the NAFTA Highway, its just a figment of my imagination. Or so the One World Globialists would like you to believe! :)

[Young Drachma]

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/

[Buccaneer]

Everybody wants spending cut, just not in the areas that affect them.

Which is what? Would they know how any of it affects them? There are probably some examples but most are perceptions, histrionics and fear mongering.

[Buccaneer]

Ha! North American Union! Never heard of it? No worries, like the NAFTA Highway, its just a figment of my imagination. Or so the One World Globialists would like you to believe! :)

Really, why do you care and why is this sooooooo important to you? Would you stop being a believer because of this or would somehow God's grace would be less because of this? Don't you have more important things to do than to worry about what Caesar is going to do?

[JPhillips]

Its all part of the plan. The dollar will plummet to new lows, effectively wiping out folk's retirement saving and any current buying power. Then the NAU people will step forward and offer the new Amero as the replacement, allowing Americans to convert their dollars over. And the NAU effectively takes control over Mexico, U.S. and Canada. Many Americans may even be grateful for being lifted out of a 1930's style depression.

NAU = Maximum customization

[Alan T]

You clearly have never been to MA, and seen our $20billion tunnel.


Romney was brought it to do one thing in MA: Cut the corruption out of the big dig. What did he do? Install all his buddies in high positions, making huge amounts of money, and then leave the state never to be seen again.


Yeah, hes the friggen answer.

I will never vote for Romney, but is it fair to blame that tunnel on him? The Big dig was well over budget when I moved here in 1999, well before he came into the picture. I don't know the full story about how this disaster happened, but I don't think it can be pinned on someone who came like 15 years after the Big Dig started can we?

[AENeuman]

My advocacy has always been to do more things locally, things you can directly affect. A culture that continues to look to a federal govt for everything will only get frustrations and irrationality.

We cannot affect a split governmental branch, all we can do is hope for the least amount of affect on our lives (for most of us, it has always been very little anyways).

What we can do to change the status quo is to encourage more grassroots efforts to say that the emperor has no clothes. No matter who is elected in November, we WILL get more and more of the status quo

Bro, first off, I gotta say it's nice to see you and bubba mix it up.. most of the time you are npr, but bubba brings out your fox news

Anyways, I'm having a hard time understanding your thinking. You stated before, "I do not believe that, since 1980, presidential and congressional politics have had any direct or measurable effect on my life." And now the above bold statement. Isn't this already the libertarian dream? Right now you live under a government rule that has little effect on your life.

For the government to become very libertarian wouldn't it first have to be authoritarian, albeit (hopefully) temporarily?

Maybe it's because I've been teaching it all week but I really see Federalism as a better way to keep me free from government control (ie little affect). I see that my grassroots local government controls the bags i can use, which days I can drive through the park, while at the same time refusing to give teachers a COLA raise for the last 12 years and update a 19th century zoo. and it's not just sf, think kansas school boards and southern voting.

i guess i would like you to quantify how much less than the already "very little" influence a Libertarian or more local government control would make things. what specific power does the federal government have over me to where if a local government had the power it would be a lot less noticeable?

[Bubba Wheels]

Really, why do you care and why is this sooooooo important to you? Would you stop being a believer because of this or would somehow God's grace would be less because of this? Don't you have more important things to do than to worry about what Caesar is going to do?

Because, for one thing, many American Christians believe that it is because of God's Grace in the first place that the United States is able to be the 'Shining City on the Hill" as an example to others. The New World Order is an attempt to destroy this. It is anti-Christian at heart.

I get a tremendous thrill to see someone's eyes being opened to what is really happening to them and their country by the political and corporate machinations of the few. Ron Paul's candidacy has really sparked interest and spot-lighted things.

Interesting bit: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0655798320080206

And a map to ponder: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/new_world_order_map.htm

[Fighter of Foo]

i guess i would like you to quantify how much less than the already "very little" influence a Libertarian or more local government control would make things. what specific power does the federal government have over me to where if a local government had the power it would be a lot less noticeable?

Well law enforcement and homeland security for one. If each state and city/county already has their own law enforcement, why do we need the DEA or FBI for example? Not saying we should do away with them entirely, but I'm sure they're overly funded and largely redundant.

Education is another big area. No Child Left Behind is a federal mandate, but it doesn't offer funding. States either comply or lose federal funding for something that I can't remember. There shouldn't even be a department of education at the federal level, yet there it is, another layer of bureaucracy that sucks up money for something that's a local or state issue.

The taxes are another big issue. In a libertarian world, we wouldn't have a military whose primary purpose is imperialistic rather than defensive. We wouldn't be supporting massive entitlement programs and a ridiculously complex tax code. And we sure as hell wouldn't have the majority of states running deficits trying to keep up with federal mandates on everything imaginable.

You'd have more choice on where to live because each city/state could have vastly different laws compared to now. They'd have different tax rates and different schools and different priorities. You'd have more money in your pocket to use as you please. In short, you'd have more freedom. Every single time the government expands, a little bit of that freedom goes away.

[Buccaneer]

bro. excellent questions and ones that I will answer tonight. Foo hints on some of it. As a soundbite answer, it works for some things but not for other things but nearly everyone is expecting it to work for everything. We don't expect localism to take up the mantle because that would be redundant, they say, except the attitude should be federal redundancies at much higher costs. Instead, we put them in the hands of lobbyists and special interest group so it can be out of sight, out of mind, except when we want to make political points.

[Bubba Wheels]

One last: The real value of Ron Paul's candidacy. Also, pretty cool Nolan Chart. Never saw one before. http://www.nolanchart.com/article2501.html

[Synovia]

I will never vote for Romney, but is it fair to blame that tunnel on him? The Big dig was well over budget when I moved here in 1999, well before he came into the picture. I don't know the full story about how this disaster happened, but I don't think it can be pinned on someone who came like 15 years after the Big Dig started can we?


I don't blame the tunnel on him.


What I blame on him is that his ENTIRE PLATFORM was based on reforming the big dig, reigning in the corruption, and putting people to task for their involvement. The second he got in to office, he put his buddies in high paying positions and just walked away.


Hes not responsible for the 15 years before him, but he is responsible for the fact that things got EVEN WORSE while he was in office.

[st.cronin]

I often find myself agreeing with AE Neuman, whether here on this forum or in his excellent magazine.

[AENeuman]

You'd have more choice on where to live because each city/state could have vastly different laws compared to now. They'd have different tax rates and different schools and different priorities. You'd have more money in your pocket to use as you please. In short, you'd have more freedom. Every single time the government expands, a little bit of that freedom goes away.

Good thoughts. However, I don't think I'm comprehending how giving cities/states way more power to create "vastly different laws" would result in having the government be less involved in my life. It sounds to me you are describing cities/states where there would be lots of control, but a choice on whether to live in that control. Also, I can't help but think how more local control has lead to segregation, jim crow laws, creationism, etc.

If just a simple majority of voters can radically change their town, how is this an addition of individual rights by subtraction of government control?

While it's far from a reality does not having the federal government limited to enumerated powers prevent control more than the 10th Amendment?

Finally, I think this also may be too relative to demand any radical shifts. For example, a white upper middle class male probably enjoys less government influence with the system now, status quo. As far as other groups, I'm sure military action, social services, etc would make the system now more intrusive.

[Buccaneer]

bro,
Here’s a longer answer but not necessarily better.

Federal powers moving towards libertarian mindsets does not need to become more authoritarian, in the short-term, to achieve such goals. All it has to do to abide by the 10th Amendment and step back or out on some things. That is the authority (or lack of authority) given to them. What has to happen at the same time is for states and metro areas to take hold of the constitutional authority given to them. If that means shifting more of the tax revenues to such entities and away from a central govt, so be it (one cannot happen without the other). The most unconstitutional acts ever devised have been the unfunded mandates, as well as withholding federal funds.

SF is well within its rights to enact bans on plastic bags. Or any other city is fully able to enact bans or promote something as they choose – knowing that such entities realize and take responsibility for the positive and negative consequences of such actions. If the Supervisor of the your Sunset District is promoting something really stupid, because of political favors, that is not in the best interest of your District, you and your neighbors can do something about it. Not just turning him/her out in the next election, but the recall process (which seems to happen a lot here in Colorado) or in the least, bad publicity.

If your state wants to enact a tougher emissions law (again, accepting the positive and negative consequences), they have the authority to do so and should do so to help tackle a problem without the federal govt telling them they can’t. Federal authority has to be applied equally across the board, a one-size-fits-all solution, which doesn’t make sense for some things. California should have more stringent emissions requirements, as oppose to, say, Wyoming. Why do we continue to allow them to apply a single solution or standard to everything? In some things, it can work (like the interstate highway system or the FDA) but many other things, we should respect the diversity that the states have and let the states and localities exceed and control on their own without interference from an entity that does not have your best interest in mind. Sure, there will be failures at the state and local levels but "failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently."

To me, the greatest mark of this country has been the entrepreneurship spirit. To be able to improve upon what doesn’t work and innovate what does work. In other words, be smart about how resources are used. Multi-billion dollar companies have done that, states have done that and you have done that – can that also apply to the federal govt as well? Most people – left, right and libertarians – are fiscally conservative by nature. Why should we automatically allow the federal bureaucracies to get bigger and bigger? Do we trust them that much? History has shown that they cannot do most things well, some things very poorly and many things mediocre at best despite great costs. Do you trust them to do more the same?

I come from a democratic tradition of ye olde towne meetings. I would put my trust into something that I can feel that I have more control over and have them to be more accountable than something otherwise.

Caveat: I know there is an unspoken benefit for the federal bureaucracies – employing hundreds of thousands of people that might not otherwise find gainful employment, as well as keeping everything in check so that the business of America and the world can keep on evolving. However, it shouldn’t be too much to ask to only propose and pass a balanced budget and to not have everything centered on personal power, arrogance and re-election briberies.

[Buccaneer]

Re-reading that, I probably should make clear that any changes advocated will and should take time. It's not like departments will be reduced overnight - even in the business world, that doesn't happen. That's one of the big misconceptions people have about libertarian ideas including those coming from Ron Paul. It's just we need start moving in that direction instead of continuing to move away from that.

[flere-imsaho]

Is this going to be the Bucc-Bubba smackdown thread?! :D

/popcorn

;) j/k guys

[Buccaneer]

I often find myself agreeing with AE Neuman, whether here on this forum or in his excellent magazine.

Who do you think introduced him to both? ;)

[AENeuman]

Yeah, I remember reading your MADs, think they were making fun of Coolidge...

I understand your points. If I want to be an active member of my society, then yes, having more local power would certainly help that. However, if I just want to be left alone, not bothered (much), then I think this system is best. Again, I'm trying to reconcile your statements of how the government now does not interfere much with your life with how town hall meetings would make this even less.

[Buccaneer]

Yeah, I remember reading your MADs, think they were making fun of Coolidge...

I understand your points. If I want to be an active member of my society, then yes, having more local power would certainly help that. However, if I just want to be left alone, not bothered (much), then I think this system is best. Again, I'm trying to reconcile your statements of how the government now does not interfere much with your life with how town hall meetings would make this even less.

Hey, they weren't that old. :)

I think I reconcile the statements in that many today feel powerless, frustrated and disenfranchised - unless you are connected into the powers that feed the halls of Congress and the White House. You hope that the one you want to elect will somehow make a difference and that they somehow change the powers that be. But it never ends up that way or they haven't in my lifetime. If more decisions were forced to be made locally, as prescribed in the Constitution, then more would take an active role, eventually. In the meantime, I continue to make a direct difference in the lives of families here that are hurting. I like how that's done.

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba swings left!

Watch it folks, its a wide arc! James Hoffa on C-Span as we speak talking about the REAL stuff! NAFTA Highway included! The man speaks for me, I vote with him for at least this election cycle.

[cartman]

So, if I understand this correctly, the real reason Jesus got mad at the tax collectors at the temple was because they were accepting shekels and not dollars?

[Bubba Wheels]

So, if I understand this correctly, the real reason Jesus got mad at the tax collectors at the temple was because they were accepting shekels and not dollars?

Cartman, please! You've named yourself after a character whom, in the one snippet of espisode I ever remember watching, made the stupidest comment ever made in broadcast history. Had to do with celebrating Jesus' life and not His death. If you are anything like that, I could spend the rest of my life trying to explain things to you and would make more progress talking to a rock.

[cartman]

Cartman, please! You've named yourself after a character whom, in the one snippet of espisode I ever remember watching, made the stupidest comment ever made in broadcast history. Had to do with celebrating Jesus' life and not His death. If you are anything like that, I could spend the rest of my life trying to explain things to you and would make more progress talking to a rock.

With all due respect, I think a rock is the only thing that could stand listening to your explanations. At least the audience would be on the same comprehension level as the speaker.

You posted about believing that America is the shining city on the hill because of God's grace. That is well and goodf. You then put two links at the bottom, one an article about some businesses in New York accepting Euros, the other a color coded map from the 1930s about one academics idea of political influence. All three are separate and unrelated, but somehow in your mind there is some sinister "connect the dots" happening with it.

My understand of God's grace is that it is something to be praised and shared, not constrained by artificial political borders and denied to anyone not American. If the message can be spread and amplified by expanding the borders, then that is a good thing, not something to be scared to death of.

[Bubba Wheels]

With all due respect, I think a rock is the only thing that could stand listening to your explanations. At least the audience would be on the same comprehension level as the speaker.

You posted about believing that America is the shining city on the hill because of God's grace. That is well and goodf. You then put two links at the bottom, one an article about some businesses in New York accepting Euros, the other a color coded map from the 1930s about one academics idea of political influence. All three are separate and unrelated, but somehow in your mind there is some sinister "connect the dots" happening with it.

My understand of God's grace is that it is something to be praised and shared, not constrained by artificial political borders and denied to anyone not American. If the message can be spread and amplified by expanding the borders, then that is a good thing, not something to be scared to death of.

Romans 13:1-6 talks about God giving authority to governments to create laws to protect its citizens. Obey those laws and you obey God, rebel against those laws and you are rebelling against God. Couldn't be simpler! Those breaking the laws of this country are rebelling against the government of this country, the citizens who have elected that government to make thos laws, and ultimately God Himself you gives that government His authority.

Enforce the LAW!!!

[cartman]

Since NAFTA is a legally ratified treaty, based on the laws of the US, then you should be all for it.

[Groundhog]

Romans 13:1-6 talks about God giving authority to governments to create laws to protect its citizens. Obey those laws and you obey God, rebel against those laws and you are rebelling against God. Couldn't be simpler! Those breaking the laws of this country are rebelling against the government of this country, the citizens who have elected that government to make thos laws, and ultimately God Himself you gives that government His authority.

Enforce the LAW!!!

Romans 13:1-6 has to be some of the scariest shit in the bible.

[Fighter of Foo]

Romans 13:1-6 talks about God giving authority to governments to create laws to protect its citizens. Obey those laws and you obey God, rebel against those laws and you are rebelling against God. Couldn't be simpler! Those breaking the laws of this country are rebelling against the government of this country, the citizens who have elected that government to make thos laws, and ultimately God Himself you gives that government His authority.

Enforce the LAW!!!

If we want to get biblical...

Jeremiah 5:30-31

"A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?"

Sounds a lot like our government today, no?

[Bubba Wheels]

Since NAFTA is a legally ratified treaty, based on the laws of the US, then you should be all for it.

In the U.S, the citizens are the ultimate government. Hence, if they don't like the law they can get...it...changed! This is why Martin Luther King is a hero for all races, he got the laws changed by peaceful demonstration! Amazing, isn't it?

BTW, treaties are agreements between countries, not laws governing citizens.

Bible does not talk about governments creating laws that throw its own citizens under the bus in order to cater to citizens of another country. That sounds like something that would happen to a country that turns it back on God, punishment actually.

[Bubba Wheels]

If we want to get biblical...

Jeremiah 5:30-31

"A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?"

Sounds a lot like our government today, no?

There are passages in the Bible that do describe governments that go bad, when 'good becomes evil' and when 'black becomes white (not racially speaking!). Again, usually happens to a people that turns it back on God.

[Groundhog]

There are passages in the Bible that do describe governments that go bad, when 'good becomes evil' and when 'black becomes white (not racially speaking!). Again, usually happens to a people that turns it back on God.

Funny that.

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba does math!

If Obama gets 80% plus of the black vote, and black Americans are the ones losing the most in terms of illegal immgration, then it would seem to stand that Obama would have the most incentive to do something about illegal immigration if he becomes President. Maybe that's why white males voting Democratic seem to be shifting their support towards him also?

In the same way, Hillary getting most of the Hispanic vote would seem to have the most baggage in terms of having to support illegal immigration if elected. Something for white working males to keep in mind, demographically speaking.

[cartman]

Bubba does math!

If Obama gets 80% plus of the black vote, and black Americans are the ones losing the most in terms of illegal immgration, then it would seem to stand that Obama would have the most incentive to do something about illegal immigration if he becomes President. Maybe that's why white male voting Democratic seem to be shifting their support towards him also?

In any presidential election, the democratic candidate gets that percentage of the black vote. It has nothing to do with illegal immigration, no matter how much you want it to be the focus.

[Fighter of Foo]

Good thoughts. However, I don't think I'm comprehending how giving cities/states way more power to create "vastly different laws" would result in having the government be less involved in my life. It sounds to me you are describing cities/states where there would be lots of control, but a choice on whether to live in that control. Also, I can't help but think how more local control has lead to segregation, jim crow laws, creationism, etc.

If just a simple majority of voters can radically change their town, how is this an addition of individual rights by subtraction of government control?

While it's far from a reality does not having the federal government limited to enumerated powers prevent control more than the 10th Amendment?

Finally, I think this also may be too relative to demand any radical shifts. For example, a white upper middle class male probably enjoys less government influence with the system now, status quo. As far as other groups, I'm sure military action, social services, etc would make the system now more intrusive.

Well you'd have a choice to live in, say, Wyoming or New Hampshire where there would inevitably be less government intrusion on your life as opposed to say Georgia or Alabama where there'd inevitably be more. Some people want more government control and higher taxes, and they can live in those places.

It's funny you mention the 10th amendment, because if it were actually enforced we'd me much closer to what I described above. The courts almost never uphold 10th amendment challenges.

[Fighter of Foo]

There are passages in the Bible that do describe governments that go bad, when 'good becomes evil' and when 'black becomes white (not racially speaking!). Again, usually happens to a people that turns it back on God.

Isn't doing something immoral, like torture for example, turning one's back on God? By supporting it, aren't you doing the same thing?

The passage says, "...my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?" By submitting to an authority who is committing evil, you are turning your back on God!

[Bubba Wheels]

Isn't doing something immoral, like torture for example, turning one's back on God? By supporting it, aren't you doing the same thing?

The passage says, "...my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?" By submitting to an authority who is committing evil, you are turning your back on God!

I would say that is where individual conscience comes in. The one instance in which you are not required to follow a governments laws are where they specifically conflict with God's Word. But you may still suffer consequences.

[AENeuman]

By playing the fool I think Bubba has given me insight to this government problem.

what Bubba needs from his religion is vastly different from what other (rational) people need. Even though Bubba (from what he constantly writes) shows no joy or humility in his belief it is still under the umbrella of Christianity. Bubba is very active in his promotion of his dogma, and he feels better when he can (irrationally) inflict in on others.

I think the same can be said about the government. I want a government that leaves me alone, one that barley knows I exist. I do not want a government that compels me to be active, even if it's empowering (civic duty should not take precedence over all other duties). I'd rather be a member of Joel Osteen's congregation than a small local, more active one.

I feel the less restrictions put on me, even if they are good or well intended the better i am able to express my individuality (faith). and i believe that the system of federalism we have now better suits this need

[Bubba Wheels]

By playing the fool I think Bubba has given me insight to this government problem.

what Bubba needs from his religion is vastly different from what other (rational) people need. Even though Bubba (from what he constantly writes) shows no joy or humility in his belief it is still under the umbrella of Christianity. Bubba is very active in his promotion of his dogma, and he feels better when he can (irrationally) inflict in on others.

I think the same can be said about the government. I want a government that leaves me alone, one that barley knows I exist. I do not want a government that compels me to be active, even if it's empowering (civic duty should not take precedence over all other duties). I'd rather be a member of Joel Osteen's congregation than a small local, more active one.

I feel the less restrictions put on me, even if they are good or well intended the better i am able to express my individuality (faith). and i believe that the system of federalism we have now better suits this need

Glad i could help.

My sister would say you desire a church experience that requires no action on your part. "Faith without Works is Dead." "Without Faith it is Impossible to Please God." Just a couple of 'insights' into your comments.

[JPhillips]

Bubba's Bible = Maximum Customization

[AENeuman]

Glad i could help.

My sister would say you desire a church experience that requires no action on your part. "Faith without Works is Dead." "Without Faith it is Impossible to Please God." Just a couple of 'insights' into your comments.

I would say your "grassroots" organization that promotes (or feeds) into the dogmatic (non-spiritual) rhetoric that you profess is exactly why i think being in a less active environment is best.

By the way, without dogma, the Internet and radio I believe you may resemble a certain fowl that runs around trying to convince everyone the sky is falling

[Bubba Wheels]

I would say your "grassroots" organization that promotes (or feeds) into the dogmatic (non-spiritual) rhetoric that you profess is exactly why i think being in a less active environment is best.

By the way, without dogma, the Internet and radio I believe you may resemble a certain fowl that runs around trying to convince everyone the sky is falling

Ha! All I do is tell you what the Bible states about a given subject. Since 80% of America claims to have some Christian-related belief, I think that what I do is entirely reasonable. If you personally have issues with it, well...

[Arles]

Here's some budget data for everyone to check out:

(in millions of dollars)
Year Receipt Budget Surplus or Deficit(−)
1990 1,032,094 1,253,130 -221,036
1991 1,055,093 1,324,331 -269,238
1992 1,091,328 1,381,649 -290,321
1993 1,154,471 1,409,522 -255,051
1994 1,258,721 1,461,907 -203,186
1995 1,351,932 1,515,884 -163,952
1996 1,453,177 1,560,608 -107,431
1997 1,579,423 1,601,307 -21,884
1998 1,721,955 1,652,685 69,270
1999 1,827,645 1,702,035 125,610
2000 2,025,457 1,789,216 236,241
2001 1,991,426 1,863,190 128,236
2002 1,853,395 2,011,153 -157,758
2003 1,782,532 2,160,117 -377,585
2004 1,880,279 2,293,006 -412,727
2005 2,153,859 2,472,205 -318,346
2006 2,407,254 2,655,435 -248,181
2007 2,540,096 2,784,267 -244,171
2008 2,662,474 2,901,861 -239,387*
2009 2,798,307 3,085,473 -287,166*

So, we had an increase of 880 billion in revenue from 2003 to 2008. Yet, we increased spending 750 billion. Add in the fact that we were already in a deficit mode of $380 billion and it's easy to see why the dollar is getting worse.

[AENeuman]

You'd have more choice on where to live because each city/state could have vastly different laws compared to now. In short, you'd have more freedom. Every single time the government expands, a little bit of that freedom goes away.


Don't know if anyone is following the Berkeley Marine recruiting mess, here are some of my favorite quotes:

"To err is human but to really screw up it takes the Berkeley City Council," said council member Gordon Wozniak

Lisa Rubens, historian at the Regional Oral History Office at UC Berkeley's Bancroft Library. "There's been this wonderfully out-of-proportion, knee-jerk response. It's clever, inflammatory and symbolic."
FYI i think "wonderfully out-of-proportion, knee-jerk response"ould be a great city motto

About 60 activists, including a few of the tree-sitters from UC Berkeley's Oak Grove, danced, sang, listened to jazz and drank carrot juice as they pitched their tents for the night.

And the winner: Tim Modok, "I'd rather have a porn (outlet) two blocks from an elementary school and a high school than I would a Marines recruiter