Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 16 Comments
This post is in: Republican Stupidity
I am done defending this administration. I just can not take it anymore.
The Congressional Budget Office predicted today that the federal government would face a $477 billion budget deficit this fiscal year and a further cumulative deficit of $1.9 trillion over the next decade.
The projected 2004 budget deficit would be a record in terms of dollars, although it would still be smaller in terms of the nation’s economy
Comments are closed.
THE REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION
John Cole is done with them, too. I don’t blame him. Miss Cleo moment: The administration is in trouble in November….
Spend, Spend, Spend
Sometimes John Cole makes sense. :) It Is Over And before someone tries to make the case that the majority of it is ‘tax cuts for the rich,’ don;t even bother. It isn’t- it is the reckless , unrestrainied, and…
Learn it, love it, live it
Some of us have been saying it for years, but it always bears – hell, needs – repeating, apparently. And…
ruprecht
Think of the spending as a misguided attempt to ensure Bush is reelected so that he can prosecute the war to its near conclusion.
The huge amounts of spending also give the next Republican candidate something to differentiate themselves from Bush with. Balanced Budget ammendments (or at least promises).
Having said that I really, really, hope he comes to his senses after the election.
Gary Farber
“And before someone tries to make the case that the majority of it is ‘tax cuts for the rich,’ don;t even bother. It isn’t- it is the reckless , unrestrainied, and irresponsible spending.”
I kinda think an objective characterization would have to say that it was both. There are two sides to balancing any books, are there not? Unless one brings yet other principles in to judge, such as that there is some hypothetical objectively “correct” level of spending or taxing.
libertas
C’mon, you republicans knew what you were buying when Bush sold you the compassionate conservative line.
Let me translate….
compassionate = placate the unwashed masses by ratcheting up entitlement spending
conservative = so we can raid the treasury for our corporate executive buddies
message to the middle class = screw you
Jon H
ruprecht writes: “Having said that I really, really, hope he comes to his senses after the election.”
That seems doubtful. Bush himself would have no incentive, being a lame duck.
JKC
It’s a lot of things, John:
It IS income tax cuts that disproportionally benefit the top 1% of taxpayers.
It IS reckless spending on idiotic programs. (“Marriage Promotion” being the biggest idiocy.)
It IS a live-for-the-moment “what-me worry?” attitude the would make the most libertine Vegas lowlife blush with embarrassment.
It IS a complete inability to understand the concept of “sacrifice,” except when aplied to others.
I could go on, but I’m sure I’ve already been labeled a “mindless Bush hater.”
M. Scott Eiland
I remember being similarly disgusted with Bush the Elder (over tax increases and craven behavior toward the Red Chinese, among other issues). I submitted a blank ballot for President in 1992 (after briefly considering a write-in for Barry Goldwater), confident that Clinton couldn’t be worse. . .
Damn, was that a bad call.
Jay
Why does it have to be one or the other? When you have a huge credit card debt do you go out and buy a new big screen TV(i.e. spend more)? No. Do you cut back on your hours at work(i.e decrease your income)? No. Do you go and get a second job(i.e. raise your revenue)? Sounds like a good idea to me.
Brooklyn Sword Style
Check out what the CBPP has to say about this:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-7-04bud.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/1-26-04bud.htm
charles austin
Even NPR questioned some of the CBO assumptions, so don’t get too carried away with this. By all means, criticize away on the runaway spending. But the CBO’s history with these projections is about as good as most climate models at using historical data to get where we aren’t today.
James
Scott, what was so bad about having a surplus and a balanced budget when Clinton was President?
It’s sad to me that when people say why they support Bush, the answer now is always, “he could be worse”. Yes, he could be. And he WILL be since no one keeps him in check as he moves further to the right in social politics and further into the stratosphere on burning money.
Paul
Only when a Republican gets into office do we hear “Give me a tax-cut!” to stimulate growth and get us out of this recession the Dems left us in (happens everytime), and “Don’t balloon the deficit” at the same time. Economics 101 tells us the Tax cuts will stimulate growth and that growth will dampen the deficit, which at the moment is not even statistically high as compared to real GDP. This is the first time I’ve ever been to this site, and I don’t mean to criticize, but you’ve got nothing to worry about and you’ve given up too early. You’re taxes are lower, and you personally won’t be paying back the deficit. So give Bush a break. This argument about spending is abused and overused in MY circles- conservative circles. Yes, reduced spending would be nice. No a dem for president would not do better – for insight check out This OpinionJournal Piece
Randall
There is the chance that some of this increased spending, like that for medicare, will be the straw that forces reform on a system that is in bad need of fixing. You know, the hidden gem of a long range solution to a system that has been a losing idea since its first day.
SDN
Jay,
Do you go get a second job if the extra expenses incurred by that second job (in the extra spending you will do with the money, and the taxes you will pay to get it) are more on the margin than that job will bring in? Only if you’re stupid.