PDA

View Full Version : Tax cuts without spending cuts a huge failure for Bush, US Economy...


Taco John
03-21-2005, 05:02 PM
Economists: Federal deficit a bigger risk than terrorism

WASHINGTON (Reuters) The budget deficit has overtaken terrorism as the greatest short-term risk to the U.S. economy, and concern about the current gap is rising, a survey of U.S. businesses shows.
In a survey of 172 members of the National Association for Business Economics, 27% said the deficit or government spending is the largest short-term threat to the economy, up from 23% who thought so in August. (Related: Top economic forecasters.)

Terrorism dropped to second on the list, with 24% saying it is the biggest threat, down from 40%. Those most concerned about the deficit in the current account the largest measure of U.S. trade with other nations tripled, to 15% from 5% in August.

"Longer term, the costs related to the aging of the population dominate the challenges to sustaining economic growth. However, the panel is doubtful that this Congress will pass needed Social Security reforms," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, who conducted the analysis for the report.

Concerns about energy costs rose to 11% from 6%, while just 6% saw inflation as the biggest short-term threat, down from 9% in August.

Unemployment, seen as the greatest risk at this time last year, was cited by just 2% of respondents a clear sign of how the labor market has improved in the past 12 months. Some 2.2 million jobs were created in 2004.

The survey, taken between Feb. 28 and March 8, found U.S. businesses had three nearly equal concerns about longer-term risks: health care, the aging population and the federal deficit.

The panelists also gave the Federal Reserve a strong vote of confidence, with 63% saying monetary policy is about right, up from 59% in August.

However, two-thirds of respondents believe short-term interest rates should be increased the next six months, and 97% believe they will be. Respondents were about evenly split between increases of 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 percentage point the next six months.

Fed policymakers have raised rates six times since June, taking their target for overnight borrowing costs among banks to 2.5%, and they have said they believe rates can continue to be increased at a what the Fed calls a "measured pace." The Fed is trying to get rates to a "neutral" level that neither increases nor retards economic growth.

The survey showed less confidence in the federal government, with only 17% saying fiscal policy is about right. More than three-quarters said the tax and spending of the government was too stimulative to the economy and 31% expect deficits to increase.

While 69% said the Social Security retirement system has serious problems and should be fixed, the respondents rate the odds of major reform as only 36% the next two years.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/survey/2005-03-21-deficit-threat-nabe_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Taco John
03-21-2005, 05:08 PM
For the record, I was all for Tax cuts, provided they were spelled by spending cuts. Without spending cuts, I saw Tax cuts as nothing more than a political football for the brainless base to latch onto and promote without actually thinking things through.

Donger
03-21-2005, 05:14 PM
Isn't this the same group that just released a report entitled: "Green Light For the Economy, But Red Ink to Persist?"

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 05:18 PM
Isn't this the same group that just released a report entitled: "Green Light For the Economy, But Red Ink to Persist?"
Depends on which headline sells better for the week.

Calcountry
03-21-2005, 06:58 PM
For the record, I was all for Tax cuts, provided they were spelled by spending cuts. Without spending cuts, I saw Tax cuts as nothing more than a political football for the brainless base to latch onto and promote without actually thinking things through.I agree with this Taco.

RINGLEADER
03-21-2005, 09:13 PM
Without the LIV you'll never be able to adequately address spending IMO. The tax cuts have spurred growth. Too bad congress won't go along with the spending cuts Bush wanted.

Of course he'll sign the spending bill anyway so it's not like the pork barrel spenders have anything to worry about...

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2005, 09:35 PM
Dang, TJ....next time you think you could enlarge the Title bigger?

Taco John
03-21-2005, 11:43 PM
Without the LIV you'll never be able to adequately address spending IMO. The tax cuts have spurred growth. Too bad congress won't go along with the spending cuts Bush wanted.

Of course he'll sign the spending bill anyway so it's not like the pork barrel spenders have anything to worry about...



No way on the Line Item Veto. You want to talk about a poor idea... This one is the worst. Line Item Veto is a threat to democracy.

What spending cuts Bush wanted? News to me. And if he wanted them so bad, he sure didn't show any leadership in that direction. This is the first time I've ever even heard someone try to assert that Bush so much as *tried* to cut spending.

Taco John
03-21-2005, 11:46 PM
Dang, TJ....next time you think you could enlarge the Title bigger?


Why? You trying to fit it up your... Nevermind...

Simplex3
03-22-2005, 12:41 AM
Without the LIV you'll never be able to adequately address spending IMO. The tax cuts have spurred growth. Too bad congress won't go along with the spending cuts Bush wanted.

Of course he'll sign the spending bill anyway so it's not like the pork barrel spenders have anything to worry about...
We don't need a LIV, we need to stop this nonsense of bills riding under other bills. Attach some useless pork to an education spending bill and your opponents have two choices, pass it and give you your pork or block it and be decried as a child hater who wants to keep inner city blacks stupid. Make every bill pass on it's own merit and there would be no reason for a LIV.

RINGLEADER
03-22-2005, 12:43 AM
No way on the Line Item Veto. You want to talk about a poor idea... This one is the worst. Line Item Veto is a threat to democracy.

What spending cuts Bush wanted? News to me. And if he wanted them so bad, he sure didn't show any leadership in that direction. This is the first time I've ever even heard someone try to assert that Bush so much as *tried* to cut spending.


The ones the congress voted against a couple days ago. He wanted to keep non-defense, non-discretionary spending at something like 1%. Of course the congress wanted much more.

But ultimately we have to cut entitlements. Saw an interesting show the other night about how close to 75% of the budget will be entitlements in a couple decades.

And as I originally posted you won't get any complaints from me about dogging Bush for not fighting harder to keep the reduced spending. He won't veto anything so it's no surprise congress just ignores him on that front.

And I also agree with you on the Line Item Veto. Seems interesting in concept but it's so unconstitutional as to not even be funny. They could probably create some kind of LIV as long as congress maintained the A&C role, and maybe that would give some of them political coverage, but it would still be a long-shot. That said, as long as congress and the two-party system control the spending it's going to keep going up and up and up.

RINGLEADER
03-22-2005, 12:44 AM
We don't need a LIV, we need to stop this nonsense of bills riding under other bills. Attach some useless pork to an education spending bill and your opponents have two choices, pass it and give you your pork or block it and be decried as a child hater who wants to keep inner city blacks stupid. Make every bill pass on it's own merit and there would be no reason for a LIV.

The Dems would never allow. Neither would most of the Republicans...Once upon a time I was good friends with Harris Fawell. He tried to propose similar things but never seemed to have a lot of success with it...

Taco John
03-22-2005, 12:46 AM
We don't need a LIV, we need to stop this nonsense of bills riding under other bills. Attach some useless pork to an education spending bill and your opponents have two choices, pass it and give you your pork or block it and be decried as a child hater who wants to keep inner city blacks stupid. Make every bill pass on it's own merit and there would be no reason for a LIV.



Bingo...

Easier said than done... The solution, however, is *not* to give the president powers that the framers never intended to give him.

This is basic Star Wars Episode II stuff here folks. Just watch what happens now that Palpatine gets his "emergecy powers." Jedis die.

You don't want a bunch of dead Jedis on your conscious do you?

Do you!?

Simplex3
03-22-2005, 12:46 AM
The Dems would never allow. Neither would most of the Republicans...
Hell, none of them would want any part of it. They would never even allow it to be discussed. It would put them back in their rightful place as servants to their constituents and they surely wouldn't want that.

If you can't feed pork to your state then someone else will.

Simplex3
03-22-2005, 12:48 AM
You don't want a bunch of dead Jedis on your conscious do you?

Do you!?
I'll gladly take that heat.

Taco John
03-22-2005, 12:48 AM
The ones the congress voted against a couple days ago. He wanted to keep non-defense, non-discretionary spending at something like 1%. Of course the congress wanted much more.


Oh, a couple of days ago... You acted like he had really tried to do something before.


And I also agree with you on the Line Item Veto. Seems interesting in concept but it's so unconstitutional as to not even be funny. They could probably create some kind of LIV as long as congress maintained the A&C role, and maybe that would give some of them political coverage, but it would still be a long-shot. That said, as long as congress and the two-party system control the spending it's going to keep going up and up and up.

I'm glad we agree on the LIV.

I think a better idea to LIV is to introduce a watchdog party into the system... Know of any? ;)

Taco John
03-22-2005, 03:04 AM
As far as Bush goes though, at least he's singing my song on Social Security. This is the first time since 9/11 that I can stand to listen to the guy talk.

Amnorix
03-22-2005, 07:19 AM
Without the LIV you'll never be able to adequately address spending IMO. The tax cuts have spurred growth. Too bad congress won't go along with the spending cuts Bush wanted.

Of course he'll sign the spending bill anyway so it's not like the pork barrel spenders have anything to worry about...

Until THIS budget, Bush didn't propose any meaningful spending cuts.

And yes, the Republican Congress seems content to keep spending where it is while maintaining, extending or increasing tax cuts wherever possible. Nice job!! :shake: :shake:

Amnorix
03-22-2005, 07:21 AM
Without the LIV you'll never be able to adequately address spending IMO.

Funny how we got by for nearly 200 years without running chronic, massive deficits without the line item veto.

The veto requires a Constitutional amendment, and shifts even MORE power from the legislature to the executive, which has been the steady trend in this country for a VERY long time now. No thanks.

Amnorix
03-22-2005, 07:23 AM
We don't need a LIV, we need to stop this nonsense of bills riding under other bills. Attach some useless pork to an education spending bill and your opponents have two choices, pass it and give you your pork or block it and be decried as a child hater who wants to keep inner city blacks stupid. Make every bill pass on it's own merit and there would be no reason for a LIV.

I agree with the concept, but in the real world this is unworkable. First off, you'd have 20 billion bills each year, which would be a procedural nightmare. Second, your example is easy, but it's often hard to figure out whether a rider is closely related to a bill or not. It's not always pounding a square peg into a round hole.