Dean is right -America needs a Balanced Budget (Bush's $5 Trillion prob)

[cthrumatrix]

Bush's $5 trillion problem: Rising deficit troubles GOP

Republican Party's tenet of small government has run up against a surge in domestic spending, plus war, tax cuts.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – Even before President Bush's next budget hits Capitol Hill, lawmakers even in his own party are mounting barricades against what many see as a spending binge that's settling into a habit.
The internal revolt, coming from dozens of Republican lawmakers, signals that Mr. Bush faces a rift within his own party over one of its core ideological tenets - smaller government - even as he faces growing criticism on the issue from Democratic presidential candidates.

more

Most experts agree that recent forecasts of US fiscal health are alarming:

• Deficits are expected to reach or exceed $5 trillion over the next decade, according to new studies by groups ranging from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to Goldman Sachs.

more
• The Medicare system is expected to go cash negative for the first time in 2015; Social Security in 2018.

"It's a system that's completely out of control, and it's an absolute disgrace," says Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, commenting on the runaway spending on Capitol Hill.

snip

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0123/p02s02-uspo.html

Are you beginning to understand "what is at stake"? I want somebody in office who has the "ability and detrmination" to address this issue.

[Dudley_DUright]

1. One technical error in the article

The debt (not deficit) is expected to reach $5 trillion in the next decade. Easy to confuse, but a reporter working for a major publication should know better.

[cthrumatrix]

2. our debt is already above that mark.

[denverbill]

3. Actually, the article is right, sort of.

The national debt is already well over $5 trillion. The article should have said the total of deficits, not the deficit. That's what the author meant. In other words, the amount the national debt is expected to increase.

[On the Road]

4. I Think the $5T Refers to

cumulative defecits over the next ten years.

The debt was $6.5 trillion when Bush took office. It should be over $7T now. With interest, it will double over the next ten years should the tax cuts be extended.

And that's not even the worst of it. We're in a period of extremely low interest rates. If interest rates move upwards, like they will at some point, interest on treasury bills will skyrocket. This will increase the defecit and add to the debt in a vicious cycle.

That's why the IMF sent the warning letter to the Bush administration. A third-world-type financial crisis in not out of the question.

[sangh0]

9. You, and the article, are correct

The article refers to $5trillion in DEFICITS. It says nothing about a $5trillion national DEBT.

[Dudley_DUright]

19. Ok, but deficits should only be talked about on a yearly basis

when you have accumulated deficits, then it is debt, so the article should say that the debt will increase from $7T today to $12T after 10 years. Otherwise it is not clear that you are talking about a deficit of $5T (in one year) 10 years out (which would be a huge deficit, but most people would not know this).

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. Dean needs to say: "Debt is a Tax"

His line that "there was no middle class tax cut" is 100% right - Bush RAISED taxes on the middle class by borrowing and spending money that we have to pay back. It's probably the largest tax increase ever.

[ozone_man]

20. Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner.

The tax cut is a tax increase. You and I get it, and I know Dean gets it. This is the winning issue, beyond the Iraq war issue, which still has legs. The deficit and servicing the deficit is really the king of issues and only Dean is uniquely qualified to take Bush head on with this. He has balanced a budget 11 times and Clinton balanced his budget while in office. Republicans have not balanced a budget in 34 years (if Dean is correct, Eisenhauer maybe).

Stepping back a moment, the realistic balancing of the budget has to be done with consideration to creating jobs, health care, and education benefits. Dean is the only one saying that you can't do everything, including tax cuts. Dean is right, we have to rescind the tax cuts to allow other benefits, while not not ballooning the deficit, because there is no tax like the tax of paying interest on our national debt. Also, we are at a critical time not unlike the time of the Great Depression, so we have to balance the use of deficit spending for critical purposes like creation of jobs, while not allowing the deficit to escape the debt servicing potential, i.e., we don't want to cause another Great Depression by strictly balancing the budget. We're between a rock and a hard place now, and I trust Dean in this situation.

[sandnsea]

6. In the 6th or 7th year

That's what he said in Iowa. So, is he going to reduce the deficit by half in 4 years? He hasn't said exactly what he intends to do in regards to the budget in the first 4 years.

Kerry has said he'll reduce the deficit by half within 4 years. He's the one who isn't making vague promises. He's upfront and clear about his tax plan, budgets, and programs. Voters seem to like that.

[cthrumatrix]

7. Kerry said he would take back the Bush cut as well...he just doesn't

talk about it. Maybe he knows it's too painful to discuss.

[Capn Sunshine]

8. One only need wonder

just exactly WHERE John Kerry was when he voted all this crap in in the first place.

This guy has been in office for the past ten years and yet only NOW do we hear any proposals to "fix" problems he and the rest of the senate watched unfold. AND SAID NOTHING.

And WHY he missed this weeks omnibus vote? The people's business always takes a backseat to other things doesn't it?

[sangh0]

10. Untrue

Kerry voted against most of the crap, as you put it. Kerry voted against tax cuts, for example.

This guy has been in office for the past ten years and yet only NOW do we hear any proposals to "fix" problems he and the rest of the senate watched unfold. AND SAID NOTHING.

Kerry has been talking about this for years. You weren't listening. Don't blame your ignorance on Kerry's fictitious inaction.

[cthrumatrix]

11. Read the issues page of each candidate -- it states it there

do i need to read to you his healthcare plan and where he needs plans to get the meoney for the plan...taking back the tax cuts

So YOU do your research and come back....on your candidate

[sangh0]

12. What are you talking about?

A poster claimed that Kerry voted for all of Bush*'s crap. I said that's not true. I don't see how Kerry's proposing to fund health care by repealing tax cuts says anything about how he voted in the past.

[cthrumatrix]

13. Its not about the past...I said future

Health Care


Will allow every American to buy into the same health care plan that the President and members of Congress have



Would pay for health plan by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and closing corporate loopholes


http://www.naswdc.org/pace/2004candidates/nominees.asp?lastName=Kerry

[sangh0]

14. What are you talking about?

I suspect that we actually agree. Do you realize that I was responding to Capn Sunshine who said:

"just exactly WHERE John Kerry was when he voted all this crap in in the first place.

This guy has been in office for the past ten years and yet only NOW do we hear any proposals to "fix" problems he and the rest of the senate watched unfold. AND SAID NOTHING"

[cthrumatrix]

15. I think we got mixed....sorry

[sangh0]

16. No prob

.

[askew]

18. There is no way that Kerry can reduce the deficit and keep the middle

class tax cut. Not with all of the additional spending that Kerry wants to add to the budget. It is simply not realistic. That is what Dean is saying.

[leyton]

17. I'm all for it.

I think it's a shame that budget and deficit issues aren't exciting enough to capture the public's attention (like the war and the economy have). Because it's my generation that will end up paying for Bush's and Reagan's programs, and we don't even get the chance to vote.

If ever I become a single-issue voter, it will be on this issue. (When I reach that age, of course.)