PDA

View Full Version : The Cost of Bush: $455,000 per household or $32 Trillion


jAZ
12-18-2007, 10:07 AM
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/the-cost-of-bus.html

The Cost Of Bush: $32 Trillion
17 Dec 2007 02:02 pm

The opinion of another shrill hysteric? Just David M. Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the GAO:

In a speech today at the National Press Club, he said, "If the federal government was a private corporation and the same report came out this morning, our stock would be dropping and there would be talk about whether the company's management and directors needed a major shake-up." Walker urged greater transparency and accountability over the federal government's operations, financial condition, and fiscal outlook...

"The federal government's fiscal exposures totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007, up more than $2 trillion from September 30, 2006, and an increase of more than $32 trillion from about $20 trillion as of September 30, 2000," Walker said. "This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household."
Full (PDF) report here.

Brock
12-18-2007, 10:15 AM
When were the democrats planning to do something about that? We're still waiting.

DaKCMan AP
12-18-2007, 10:16 AM
That's some expensive bush!

Cochise
12-18-2007, 10:27 AM
When were the democrats planning to do something about that? We're still waiting.

Actually they would like to make it worse. They're just too inept to get anything accomplished. Stooges

oldandslow
12-18-2007, 12:06 PM
When were the democrats planning to do something about that? We're still waiting.

Actually, the last time a dem owned the white house, the budget was balanced.

SBK
12-18-2007, 12:36 PM
This rhetoric is retarded. The only people in this country that pay taxes are the rich, so the burden is on them. And I'm sure there's no other sources of income, say corporate taxes or tariffs for example, that the gov't collects on.

Do I like this deficit, no? Is this rhetoric doing anything, no!

StcChief
12-18-2007, 12:50 PM
Actually, the last time a dem owned the white house, the budget was balanced.
Can you name one significant thing he accomplished in 8 years.

Cut everything at the expense of military/intell etc.

and look what..... that trigger 9/11.

Thanks Bill.

Nightfyre
12-18-2007, 01:15 PM
Can you name one significant thing he accomplished in 8 years.

Cut everything at the expense of military/intell etc.

and look what..... that trigger 9/11.

Thanks Bill.
I'd ask you to support that claim. I believe the Clinton administration adequately warned the Bush administration about the possibility of terrorist attack. Further, Clinton did more for fiscal conservatives than any republican has in the last 30 years, imo.

Brock
12-18-2007, 01:34 PM
Actually, the last time a dem owned the white house, the budget was balanced.

10 years ago the Chiefs were good, so what?

patteeu
12-18-2007, 01:35 PM
I'd ask you to support that claim. I believe the Clinton administration adequately warned the Bush administration about the possibility of terrorist attack. Further, Clinton did more for fiscal conservatives than any republican has in the last 30 years, imo.

It's eye-opening, and disturbing at the same time, to see you praise Bill Clinton so highly. There is plenty of blame to go around for 9/11. The Clinton administration spent a long time not putting an end to the al Qaeda threat. Michael Scheuer threw such a fit over their reluctance to take decisive action that he got himself relieved of his role as head of Alec Station. But to be honest, I don't think we should waste our time playing the blame game and trying to figure out whether it's Bush or Clinton's fault. I'd rather focus on the future when it comes to the GWoT and use the past for the lessons it can teach us rather than for assessing blame.

Phil Graham, to name just one Republican, did more for fiscal conservatives than Bill Clinton did.

jAZ
12-18-2007, 01:37 PM
10 years ago the Chiefs were good, so what?
The Republican philosphy of borrow and spend hasn't worked. Let's go back to the Clinton plan of pay as you go. That is timeless.

Nightfyre
12-18-2007, 01:39 PM
It's eye-opening, and disturbing at the same time, to see you praise Bill Clinton so highly. There is plenty of blame to go around for 9/11. The Clinton administration spent a long time not putting an end to the al Qaeda threat. Michael Scheuer threw such a fit over their reluctance to take decisive action that he got himself relieved of his role as head of Alec Station. But to be honest, I don't think we should waste our time playing the blame game and trying to figure out whether it's Bush or Clinton's fault. I'd rather focus on the future when it comes to the GWoT and use the past for the lessons it can teach us rather than for assessing blame.

Phil Graham, to name just one Republican, did more for fiscal conservatives than Bill Clinton did.
For clarification:
My praise to the administration was for the fiscal responsibility he displayed. I am not praising them for the way they handled the 9/11 situation, but rather, refuting Stc's claim that the intelligence cuts caused 9/11 when in fact, it had little to do with it.

Also, I should have been more concise: Bill Clinton has done more for fiscal conservatives than any republican president in the last thirty years.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 01:40 PM
The Republican philosphy of borrow and spend hasn't worked. Let's go back to the Clinton plan of pay as you go. That is timeless.

How about pay as we go, AND spend dramatically less?

Nightfyre
12-18-2007, 01:41 PM
How about pay as we go, AND spend dramatically less?
We have a winner! But you must admit, the disparity in the budget created by the disconnect between taxation and benefits is astounding! At least, I find it to be. Us accountants do that whole accrual basis thing though.

jAZ
12-18-2007, 01:45 PM
How about pay as we go, AND spend dramatically less?
The "starve the beast" plan is a failure. Let's get real.

keg in kc
12-18-2007, 01:45 PM
Can you name one significant thing he accomplished in 8 years.That's an ironic question to ask as the current administration finally comes to a close.

The other question would be, of course, "how much more damage can the idiot do in a year?"

jAZ
12-18-2007, 01:46 PM
How about pay as we go, AND spend dramatically less?
BTW, I don't remember (and maybe you did and I just missed it or forgot), but did you ever answer my question of specifically what you would cut/reduce?

Nightfyre
12-18-2007, 01:50 PM
BTW, I don't remember (and maybe you did and I just missed it or forgot), but did you ever answer my question of specifically what you would cut/reduce?
For me:
(1) Defense spending spent overseas.
(2) Social Security
(3) Welfare
(4) Health Care
(5) Dept. of Homeland Security (Redundant)
(6) Dept. of Education
(7) FDA (Severely reduce SCOPE)
Just to name a few.

Brock
12-18-2007, 01:52 PM
The Republican philosphy of borrow and spend hasn't worked. Let's go back to the Clinton plan of pay as you go. That is timeless.

Like I said, I'm waiting. Waiting for the democrats to grow some balls. I think I'll be waiting for a long, long time.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 01:54 PM
We have a winner! But you must admit, the disparity in the budget created by the disconnect between taxation and benefits is astounding! At least, I find it to be. Us accountants do that whole accrual basis thing though.

I'm not satisfied with the Clinton plan of pay-as-you-go if it involves raising spending.

Especially massively raising spending by implementing communist health care, which you know will not come with an equivalent tax increase, or else they'd never be able to sell it.

We need to reduce spending until it matches up with pay-as-you-go. Not increase spending and increase taxation even further so we can "go" 10 times more.

Nightfyre
12-18-2007, 01:56 PM
I'm not satisfied with the Clinton plan of pay-as-you-go if it involves raising spending.

Especially massively raising spending by implementing communist health care, which you know will not come with an equivalent tax increase, or else they'd never be able to sell it.

We need to reduce spending until it matches up with pay-as-you-go. Not increase spending and increase pay so we can "go" 10 times more.
See above! I firmly believe in spending and taxation being directly tied regardless of the level of government involved. I certainly favor teeny-tiny government tho.

jAZ
12-18-2007, 02:38 PM
Like I said, I'm waiting. Waiting for the democrats to grow some balls. I think I'll be waiting for a long, long time.
(Re)elect Clinton (or Obama) and I'm sure you'll see major changes.

jAZ
12-18-2007, 02:41 PM
We need to reduce spending until it matches up with pay-as-you-go. Not increase spending and increase taxation even further so we can "go" 10 times more.
6 years of Republican control of both Congress and the WH... and 12 years of the purse strings in Congress... and you should know by now that "starve the beast" is a massive failure.

Clinton & the GOP raised taxes, but helped build a robust economy in the process. Bush & the GOP cut taxes and torched our economy in the process.

I'll take the former over the latter.

Brock
12-18-2007, 02:46 PM
(Re)elect Clinton (or Obama) and I'm sure you'll see major changes.

LOL, I'm sure we would. The push to socialize medicine would be a great help, I'm sure.

jAZ
12-18-2007, 03:07 PM
LOL, I'm sure we would. The push to socialize medicine would be a great help, I'm sure.
Ask employers whether they would opposed universal healthcare.

penchief
12-18-2007, 03:13 PM
Bush is a great American and a role model for morality. Peace, justice, and goodwill is for pussies. The only way to keep America great is to keep Americans afraid and to steal from those who are less powerful.

JohnnyV13
12-18-2007, 03:14 PM
6 years of Republican control of both Congress and the WH... and 12 years of the purse strings in Congress... and you should know by now that "starve the beast" is a massive failure.

Clinton & the GOP raised taxes, but helped build a robust economy in the process. Bush & the GOP cut taxes and torched our economy in the process.

I'll take the former over the latter.

Jaz...that's a simplistic analysis. The economic boom during the clinton years was driven mostly by external events in the world economy. Clinton has always tried to take credit for the 90's booms due to "freeing up money" for venture capital.

But, the numbers really don't work. THe amount of capital "freed" was a pin drop compared to the flood of foriegn investment which came to the US simply because there was no other stable economy with solid growth.

Asia had the asian currency crisis plus the collapse of the Nikkei. China was not yet the cheap labor power it is today. Europe was stuck in long term stagflation. Then, the United States drove development of the internet.

You also cannot forget the securities deregulation by Ronald Reagan that helped create the financing system that fed these small 90's startups.

Remember, in the mid 90's, Clinton called demands by the new Repub congress for a balanced budget amendment "irresponsible". THe budget "balanced" simply due to burgeoning growth of the economy caused by impressive gains in revenue. Clinton did not "plan" for it.

Of course, Clinton did not screw up the economy with all of the capital coming in. Clinton also enjoyed a productivity boom in industry, driven by companies deriving efficiency gains from the micro computer. (The trend with any new technology that globally affects manufacturing systems is productivity goes down for about 10 years, they you see an economic boom driven by worker productivity gain. Converstion to steam power, then electricity showed this tendancy in previous generations).

Given the world capital conditions, the efficiency gains from the mircro-computer (IBM produced its first PC in 1981), and the hype from another globally revolutionary tech (the internet), a shaved monkey would have had a burgeoning economy if he had managed to win the white house.

penchief
12-18-2007, 03:17 PM
Ask employers whether they would opposed universal healthcare.

Absolutely they won't. Taking that out of the marketplace would relieve so much of a burden it's not even funny. I've heard more than a few company reps say that it's time for the government to do something. It's dragging our economy down. The only people benefitting are government whores and corporate opportunists.

Nightfyre
12-18-2007, 03:22 PM
Ask employers whether they would opposed universal healthcare.
Ask the physicians. Oh wait, I already have. All the ones I talk to universally oppose medicare/medicaid. Why? Because half the time, they don't even cover the COST OF SUPPLIES, let alone time. Doctors end up subsidizing healthcare.

Cochise
12-18-2007, 03:30 PM
6 years of Republican control of both Congress and the WH... and 12 years of the purse strings in Congress... and you should know by now that "starve the beast" is a massive failure.

I did not and would not point to this congress or this administration as my ideal of fiscal responsibility. I merely said the Clinton plan of continuing to increase spending and increasing taxes to compensate and then some was not satisfactory either.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-18-2007, 03:36 PM
i want my half a million, and i don't need healthcare because until the real problems are fixed i wouldn't bother going to a doctor.

Brock
12-18-2007, 03:59 PM
Ask employers whether they would opposed universal healthcare.

Ask employers whether they would oppose slavery.

jAZ
12-18-2007, 04:18 PM
Ask employers whether they would oppose slavery.
They would oppose that.

Brock
12-18-2007, 04:20 PM
They would oppose that.

Then why do they do business with slavers?

jAZ
12-18-2007, 04:26 PM
Then why do they do business with slavers?
Not sure what you are refering to, but feel free to expand in detail about this.

stevieray
12-18-2007, 04:34 PM
Clinton & the GOP raised taxes, but helped build a robust economy in the process. Bush & the GOP cut taxes and torched our economy in the process.


:rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-18-2007, 04:37 PM
Not sure what you are refering to, but feel free to expand in detail about this.

It's called non-sequitur.

Brock
12-18-2007, 04:55 PM
Not sure what you are refering to, but feel free to expand in detail about this.

Well, having been to China 3 times at the behest of maybe the largest company in the world (american), and having seen where the workers lived (were kept), let's just say I have a perspective on what "employers" want that you don't have. You act like if corporations want it, it must be good. I'm here to tell you you're wrong. I mean, Jesus tapdancing Christ, of course the corporations want health care off their backs and on to the backs of taxpayers. Why wouldn't they?

JohnnyV13
12-19-2007, 12:18 PM
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/the-cost-of-bus.html

The Cost Of Bush: $32 Trillion
17 Dec 2007 02:02 pm

This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household."
Full (PDF) report here.

Do you mean to tell me the cost of getting married has gone down for the average man????

BucEyedPea
12-19-2007, 12:29 PM
Do you mean to tell me the cost of getting married has gone down for the average man????
Maybe, it's different out your ways, but I always thought it was the Bride's family that paid for the wedding. Before this, men got a dowry from the lady's family. I don't understand this post. :p

Cochise
12-19-2007, 01:24 PM
Do you mean to tell me the cost of getting married has gone down for the average man????

According to my friends getting married was the biggest expense of their lives!