Why does bush blow off the deficit

[i_am_not_john_galt]

I don't get the strategy that they are trying to bankrupt the system so they can kill medicare, ss, etc. I could see it if it was just via tax cuts, but where it's also huge new spending it seems like the response would just be to cut back the new spending (guess we can't afford to put a rain forest in Iowa after all). I dun get it!

[deminflorida]

1. Well that's what Arnold is doing right now in California....

cutting the hell out of social spending....

[mrdmk]

12. Arnold is just a spokesperson

Jeb Bush is cutting Social Spending in California!

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. Because its part of his plan to bankrupt SS, and Medicare.

It's not like his administration spends billions without thinking of the reprecussions!

They aren't going to raise taxes to cover the shortfall people! They are going to eliminate SS and Medicare!

WAKE THE FUCK UP!

[Don_G]

3. It Hasen't Bit Him On The Ass Yet

And Dimbo thinks le can leave it alone until the next Administration "must" deal with the situation.

[lastknowngood]

4. He dosn't have to pay

n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. Jesus is coming...

...before all the T-Bills mature.

6. It goes back to Reagan/Bush I

According to my research.

They also wish to make their friends rich quickly.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

7. If he's gonna eliminate ss and medicare

what's he going to do with all the poor people rioting in the street, and voting him out? Wouldn't the pressure be to eliminate everything else first - all the stuff we keep adding in?

I get it that tax cuts are a strategy to cut back programs, but what's up with adding all the other stuff into the budget? You'd think Bush would be a big hero to his base if he vetoed some stuff.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

8. just to avoid pointless flaming

by "we" I meant "we the people", not "we" as in democrats

[Stabidak]

9. There globalists

I think maybe the Bush family is trying to break the bank to make it easier for the international terro, oops, I mean the international bankers and the corporate ceos have an easier time of taking over.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

10. That's some paranoid s***. Don't you think he could just be

a weak, spineless weasel who is trying to give everything to everyone (tax cuts + more spending) and kicking the problem down the road? That's what the republicans said about Clinton.

[countmyvote4real]

11. Proposed spending on new programs is just a diversion

to appeal to his base and for the fascist media to pass on to the sheeple. I must admit that I don't have a high regard for our so called journalists. I also don't have much confidence in the media controlled masses to make a decision beyond cosmetic boundaries. Having qualified my perspective up front, you are free to dis my reasoning, but don't blast me for being cynical when I've already admitted to it.

So here goes...

Look at his record and his promises in his 2000 campaign and previous State of Delusion speeches. Just a few to recall in no particular order:

Campaign 2000... Not for nation building, but now has $87 billion to fix what we broke with the invasion of Iraq. (And last year we were going to break it for WMD, but since we didn't find them, this year it's to bring them democracy.) Can you say nation building?

SOD 2003… What's up with the hydrogen fueled car? I haven't heard anything about that program since it was first brought up. I think it was only brought up at all to counter the notion that the WH had its sights on Iraqi oil instead of the still illusive WMD.

Also mentioned in that address was billions of dollars in AIDS support for Africa. Any progress reports this year? I didn't hear any. Did it really happen? Or maybe the supplied pamphlets preaching abstinence were not as effective as the promised drugs.

NCLB (unless the child is in a public school.) I don’t feel that I need elaborate, but they do want to dumb us down if we think there’s an alternative to a fundamental Christian viewpoint. NCLB wasn't intended to happen. Just a talking point.

SOD 2001…All that compassion and the appeals for tolerance for American Muslims led to the Patriot Act. Okay, they funded that one, but my point is that it wasn’t positioned that way and we’re all suspects if we’re not with him.

SOD 2004… This year we further get marriage training (for straight people) and a call for permanent tax cuts with the biggest deficit in history. Not mentioned in the address was a proposal to put a man back on the moon in order to get a man on Mars. (Maybe Mars has the secret to single payer health care coverage, but neither were mentioned in the SOD.)

Bottom line, the stuff this administration hawks that might make you feel good is just not going to happen. There’s no money for it. That money is reserved for the stuff that should scare the shit out of you: No descent. Goodbye democracy. It will only take four more years of * to make that happen. That’s why they don’t care about the deficit hole they’re digging us into. 1984 (the book) becomes real in 2008 unless they are stopped now.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but we desperately need to awaken the sheeple.

Apologies for contempt of the sheeple already expressed. Rant now over.

[NewJeffCT]

16. terror attacks - marshall law

another preventable terror attack will possibly lead to marshall law...

[havocmom]

25. What's up with add the other stuff to the budget is $$ for his corp. pals

The $$ goes somewhere and I would guess if we dig a bit, we would find it goes to bush*/Cheney cronies. Kill a lot of birds with one stone. Bankrupt the treasure (by giving sweetheart deals to their pals) and make it so we have to completely remove any remaining social safety net.

$$ to promote marriage = payoffs to ministeries to keep the fundie base worked up over a pretend issue and keep them preoccupeid so they don't notice the real issues

$$ for schools = money to chaps (like brother Neil?) who sell programs to schools.

$$ for defense = money to defense contractors while the troops have to BYOK (bring your own Kevlar)

$$ for developement of space = see above, same guys probably benifit here too

[Kanary]

26. It doesn't look like there will be any rioting... just dying quietly...

I can tell you from first-hand experience, as I'm one of those who are possibly going to be affected by cuts in July, many of us will just quietly fade away. I mean, do *you* see any uprising? I can't very well "riot in the streets" all by myself. I have posted quite a bit about the situation, but this isn't something that is a popular topic, either with the population in general, or the Dems/Liberals in particular. Those of us who will be in the first wave of those cut will just be the "examples".... Possibly the people in te next wave or two will start getting upset, and speaking out. But, they will need the support of liberals, or it just isn't likely to happen.

As for voting.... I've also said this many times. A lot of poor folks haven't voted in quite a long time. Why would they? What has been in ther interest that would cause them to make the effort? Do you hear very much being said in campaigns? It's not a popular issue. Unless/until it once again becomes important to liberals and politicians, it's going to remain a nonissue, and poor folks will see no motivation to become involved.

That, of course, is a generalization. There are many poor folks, such as me, who *do* vote. But I can tell ya, I'm getting more and more discouraged, and more and more hopeless that it makes any difference at all to speak up. I get very little response here, among progressives who are the most likely to care, so... that doesn't bode well, and doesn't make me feel like it's worth very much effort on my part. When people can decide that the lives of poor folks are just as important as the environment, then maybe things will change.

Kanary

[mrdmk]

13. Nobody goes into the Presidency wanting to be a failure

This group of people really does think they are doing the right thing. They do know if they do bankrupt this country it is not going to disappear of the face of the earth. The country will work under a different set of rules. What those rules are can be anybodies guess. What the rules will be according to the Bush Jr. Administration can only be determined by their actions. Of course the Bush Jr. Administration had certain ideas of how Iraq was going to turn out after blowing the country to kingdom come. So if these people have any ideas of how country that is a world leader will turnout after depleting all reserves, I would not count on their vision.

If the dollar totally collapses, which it will on this current course of action, the world can be drawn into either a financial renegotiation (doubtful) or a world war with civil wars in several countries to boot. The feeling is this country can survive without the dollar, because too many people get things for free according to financial Darwinism!

[radfringe]

14. because Cheney and Rove told him

that "...deficits don't matter..."

[truizm]

18. .....

They won't once PNAC has created an empire...

[DiverDave]

15. Drooler raygun said "...deficits don't matter..."

And you know that ronnie is a god to the bootlickers in the junta.

[Killarney]

17. It won't be his problem after 2008. He doesn't care. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. read Krugman's book!!! "The Great Unraveling" explains Bushco intentions

EXECELLENT READ! and if you are not :scared: you're not paying attention!

At a recent book signing Paul Krugman pointed out that in these "absurd" times it is "people who are aggressively non-serious, like Al(Franken), who are telling the truth." He said he anticipated that in Bush's State of the Union address, the President would paint himself as a visionary standing above the political fray. Then the Princeton economics professor and New York Times columnist discussed "stop loss," a concept under which the military will not discharge more than 30,000 people in the all-volunteer armed forces who are done with their service--because of the extensive strain on the military. "I don't think they're volunteer soldiers anymore," he said. "But don't worry, we have a visionary president. He has the answer: 'Let's go to Mars.'"

[wildwww2]

20. Because he is the "Blame Clinton Resident" and the media approves.

It`s all Clintons fault right? I`m still hearing it after 3 years. It sure takes this uniter a while to do things. Because he hasn`t fixed any of the things that Clinton supposedly did wrong. But he can suck money out of wealthy corporatist`s though can`t he?
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[snippy]

21. Since Eisenhower, republican presidents always have run huge deficits.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z3.xls (Note: The surplus or deficit for the first year of a presidential term is from the previous presidential term. Also the estimates for 2003 and subsequent years are no longer valid.)

Since Eisenhower was president the federal deficit has exceeded 3% of GDP 14 times. Every single time it was under a republican president. In that time the federal government has amassed deficits totaling around $3.5 trillion, more than 90% of which was under a republican president.

[EV1Ltimm]

22. he realizes he doesn't have a leg to stand on...

so he's going to leave this monstruous deficit on the next guy in the oval office.

[YNGW]

23. The prevailing thought is...

... that BushCo is creating entitlements so expensive that they can't be funded making it where they eventually must be eliminated.

Now, what happens when a Democratic party president takes office and tries to straighten it out? S/He's got to do one of two things or a combination of both: 1) raise taxes on everyone (because there's not enough rich people that can pay more in to make up the difference), or 2) cut entitlements. So you got a Democrat in office raising taxes and/or cutting social programs.

It could be attempted to be explained to the American people that these entitlements were provided too much funding or that tax cuts on the rich took money out of the treasury. But at the end of the day, to make things balance the Democratic party president will have to run for re-election on the platform of raising taxes or cutting social programs or both, definately not something that's appealing to the American people.

[neebob]

24. Um, because he doesn't give a crap?

Because he has no concept of money other than you can always go see a friend, do a deal, and get some more. Or maybe one of his advisors told him there's really a huge surplus and they're going to announce it just before the election. Or maybe he only cares about being the boss of the world.