March 04, 2004

Bush's Budget Will Actually Increase Deficit Remember, how the White was saying that they were going to cut the deficit in half by 2009? The Congressional Budget Office sheds some light on those projections.
Over the 10-year period from 2005 through 2014, deficits would total $2.75 trillion under the President's policies--$737 billion higher than CBO's baseline projection of the cumulative deficit.(1) Debt held by the public would rise from 36 percent of GDP at the end of 2003 to about 40 percent during the years 2006 through 2014.
posted by Sullivan 20 years ago
  • All those surprised raise your hands? Anyone? Hello? *echo*
  • *crickets chirping*
  • How exactly is this guy "conservative" again?
  • Andrew Sullivan (not me) raises his hand. He's also shocked about the FMA. He must of figured that Bush appointed John Ashcroft because of his love for gays.
  • and of course if the CBO is saying this, the situation is even more dire. the CBO is seen as the more "political" of the "watchdog" agencies... the general accounting office is (supposedly) more neutral so its numbers are even scarier. unfortunately, its web site is kind of confusing, here it is, in case anyone cares to peruse. BTW, the head of the GAO (the comptroller general) came in and spoke to us reporters last week. scary, scary stuff.
  • At least we have that great (lack of) job growth that Dick Cheney likes to brag about. Watch Bush say that he knows "exact where he wants" to lead America. He understands "exactly" wants to do to create jobs and help the economy.
  • Well, that's it for us then. Off to a deserted island. We'll live off of feral monkey dogs and casaba melons. We'll bask in the glow of the burning cities as the general public riots and sing songs about when we had a job...la la la... Anyone care to join us?
  • create jobs and help the economy What? People are poor because they're lazy.
  • From Gyan's link To him [George Bush], Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism." Well, it was, wasn't it?
  • To the far right, anything that benefits poor people is "socialism." And atheistic too.
  • Well, some socialism isn't bad. Imagine pure democracy in America. Only (white?) men above thirty, married and with property allowed to vote? Overly popular candidates pushed into exile for ten years? [ostracism] I think good practices are good practices, notwithstanding the kind of label put on them.
  • Alnedra - wwhy would "pure" democracy, under our current constitution, mean that only (white) men above 30. etc., could vote? Pure democracy isn't determined by outmoded laws - in fact, the extension of rights has made democray purer. The Greeks experimented early to give a voice to their citizens, but they defined "citizen" much differently that the modern world does. Their definition was pretty amazing at the time, but things have changed in 3,000 years. And please tell me what you mean by "some socialism isn't bad." I believe that much of what conservatives call "socialism" just extends rights to more citizens. And could you expand on "good practices" a bit?
  • Come November, I will have no fingernails left, my blood pressure will be sky high and I will have a constant migraine. The worst part, I fear that I will continue to have good reason to be in this state. While I am agnostic, I will be praying very heavily to any god that will listen that this turns out good. And by good, I mean NOT BUSH.
  • What Darshon said.
  • D'you know, I think I might go as far as to say "quite a lot of socialism is good". Particularly fond of that democratic socialism stuff. Lovin' the egalitarianism. Now, wouldn't it be nice if someone actually tried it?... I mean look - these people have many lush forests. On preview: Darshon, squid - you're talking about Seasonal Affective Disorder, right? :-)
  • path: Definitions of what democracy is have changed quite alot. Just consider the amendments to the Constitution. Perhaps "pure" isn't the best word. "Original" would probably be close to what I meant. The original Constitution, remember, did not allow women to vote, for instance. I can't remember for certain (IANAA - I Am Not An American) but the bit about owning property was also a prerequisite for voting in the original Constitution? So whether you're talking about the "original" Greek democratic model, or the "original" American democratic model, there were still alot of flaws. Just because changes have occured doesn't make democracy retroactively the best and only means of decent governance. Good practices: hmm... I meant good policies and programs. Certain resources and facilities being run by the government instead of being private enterprises for instance. (Although, putting this down, I realise that people will disagree with this bit too. Oh well.) Facilities run by the government - using taxpayers' money, of course - to take care of those genuinely unable to take care of themselves (abandoned children, terminally ill who have no relatives or money, etc...) The reason why I made my comment in the first place is that it seems to me (purely a personal observation, mind) that the term "socialism" seems to have taken on a rather unsavoury connotation, as if it were the slimy second cousin to the big "C" word. And that somehow socialist ideas are anathema to democracy.
  • Ok, well... I think what this really means is that those of us in the US who really care (maybe even those who don't) have to get all our disaffected friends/acquaintances to vote against the Shrub. And even the Bush-committed - if you collect enough data you might be able to persuade them that they're wrong. I feel that I'm back in the '60s, when so many people were against extending cival rights, but determined people made a real difference. Are we all so lame now that we'll just give up? If we can just get a little determination going, maybe we can make a difference. But it takes commitment and effort. Discussing this on Monkeyfilter isn't going to change anything. (This commercial brought to you by all the groups who put their lives on the line to turn segration around, including those who died in the effort.)
  • Alnedra - I understand more of what you mean now, and don't disagree. There's a fine line between socialism and US democracy, at its best, and it's my opinion that we need more of the former to make our system better. I don't think (m)any of us here would say that the rules for participation in US government as originally interpreted would satisfy us now, or that that was "pure" democracy. Things change in a couple of hundred years. My fear, however, is that our current US administration is trying to relive a past that happened only in their minds.
  • Hey, but talking about it always helps in some way. We know that we're not alone; we know that it's not right; and eventually, enough people talking will lead to action. Most people are afraid of going against the flow. If enough people talk about it (yes, even in Monkeyfilter), and express their real opinions, others will see that the 'flow' isn't in favour of Dubya. Yes, talking isn't action, and it doesn't do much, but it's way better than keeping quiet and stewing. A moment of silence for those who have fallen in the fight against oppression, of all kinds, everywhere. Path, don't give up on us yet, ok?
  • Whoa, I have a huge problem with some of the things said in this thread. Specifically, the monkey dog is from Europe; how would you expect to find a colony on a deserted island? Also, they don't look like they have much meat after you shear away the fur. On the other hand, they have been in the Stud Book for years. (I shut up now.)
  • Alnedra - I never give up! Especially not on people. But talk leads to action only if people are willing to get out there and do something. Preaching to the choir, which I think these discusions here mostly do, is not going to change anything unless the singers are willing to give voice out in the real world. And, you know what, I'm as much of an introspective deeb as anyone, but I found that I could be really effective if I just followed my beliefs. much more effective that those who are marketing some paid political announcement.
  • Path: Amen! That I do believe as well. Apathy does not lead to a better life. Maybe it makes life easier right now, but not for very long. I had to learn that. Used to be pretty apathetic, until one day I woke up and realised that I have been helping the very people who are trying to do me in - simply by keeping my head down and quiet.
  • Alnedra - plus, it's a lot more fun than sitting on the sidelines. Cheers, and best wishes!
  • Apathy is something I certainly can relate to. I second path. Best wishes, Alnedra.
  • How exactly is this guy "conservative" again? Sooo, I guess that means you all like him, right?
  • I'm moving to Islandia.
  • i'm not moving anywhere. Could we stop acting like he won the last election? Bush was not popularly elected. Repeat this. He's not some monster who is going to be really hard to beat. It is not the end of the world, or democracy.