Bush asks for $87 Billion

[EWolfe]

Greg_W said:

Here's what will probably happen: Bush will get this loan, somehow; he'll entice all the big international construction companies to invest and go re-build the oil infrastructure. Things will go great for awhile; the construction concerns will be lured in with long-term management contracts with good money for good production. We'll all skip along nice and happy for 10 or 15 years. Then, all of a sudden, the "new, friendly Iraqi government" will decide it is better for "the people" if the oil industry was nationalized. BOOM!!! Out go the Americans and their long-term contracts, agreements, etc. "Thank you very much, don't let the tent flap hit you in the ass as you leave our country."

 

That is what happened in Saudi Arabia back in the 70's. This spells trouble with a capital 'T'.

Greg_W

 

This administration has shown it's inability to learn lessons from history in many other ways, why should this be different?

 

[mtn_mouse]

If you read between the lines, it is clear that Bush wants to make Iraq the 51st state. The good news is that those that want to climb the highest peak in each state, now have another peak to bag, haji ibrahim at 3600 meters.

[mattp]

Jay-

 

We digress, but I can't resist taking your bait.

 

As a society, we took an interest in environmental protection when we did not because we had a capitalistic economic system, but because pollution stinks and we could afford to do something about it. Yes, the governments of Russia and China may not have faced the same kind of electoral politics and therefore didn't have to respond to some growing social movement to recognize environmental goals, but the more important factor is they haven't had the cash to install scrubbers in all their factory smokestacks or whatever. And the "old nations" in Europe, those nations with the disgraceful social programs and high taxes that we hear so much about, are much more likely to engage in long-term thinking than we are.

 

As far as you assertion that leftist fantasies have ben a driving force behind State takeover of private wealth, I again think you are looking at history through some highly distorted lens. Yes, the fact is there have been brutal regimes that were socialistic or communistic, and there have been large-scale nationalizations of industrial production that were driven by socialistic or communistic idealogy. But look at what actually happened, and who profitted from these activities. Did the assets end up in some State-controlled bank account, where they were managed by idealistic leftists? Hardly. Any idealistic goals were quickly sidetracked by individuals who sought to build big palaces and adopt all that wealth as their own. Yes, it would appear that a capistalistic political system MAY offer less of an opportunity for that kind of thing, but who here is arguing that we should adopt the Soviet economic model? Get over your idealistic propoganda, and look at the real world.

 

The current trend toward privitization of everything from public lands to public education and our foreign policy is, in my view, horrific. Do you really think that Thousand Trails or the advocates of private school vouchers and Charter Schools, or Haliburton and Bechtel have ANY real interest in the preservation of public lands, the provision of education for society at large, or in a stable Middle East beyond the time it takes to profit from their current contracts? Do Bush and his buddies in the oil industry or who used to run Enron respect the rule of law? Give me a break.

[Peter_Puget]

From another site but I agree with his basic thought:

 

That 87 billion is chump change for a nation with an 11 TRILLION dollar GDP.

And where do you suppose that 8.7E10 dollars is going? Into a pit somewhere? NOPE.

As for Clinton, his parsimony, his 'I don't give a F**K about national security attitude, and his 'kick the problem into the next guy's administration' is a big contributor to our current challenges.

In short, you have demonstrated you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

To help you separate your head from your colon, Here is a homework exercise for ya, if you have the gonads to try it:

1. What percentage of GDP is 87 billion dollars?

2. What percentage of government spending (all levels) is it?

3. What percentrage of federal spending?

4. Of federal DISCRETIONARY spending?

5. Of national pet product spending?

6. Of national soft drink spending?

Good luck, and thanks for playing.

MG"

[mattp]

Thanks, Puget. I'm not sure about your numbers, but I'm glad to think that we may in fact be able to afford it because think we have an obligation to follow through as best we can. That part about blaming Clinton for giving rise to global terrorism or allowing Saddam to get in power and then stay there is a bunch of idiotic rhetoric, though.

[scrambler]

That 87 billion is chump change for a nation with an 11 TRILLION dollar GDP.

 

Ok, treading in uncertain waters here but, what is the source of the 87 billion? I'm assuming it's tax monies. Taxes are levied as a percentage of the GDP*. Ever heard of a zero-sum game? That means there's a fixed amount of something like money. For you to gain, someone has to lose some. Who's going to lose?

 

*GDP is the total market value of goods and services produced within a given period after deducting the cost of goods utilised in the process of production

Edited September 9, 2003 by scrambler

[lummox]

mattp said:

That part about blaming Clinton for giving rise to global terrorism or allowing Saddam to get in power and then stay there is a bunch of idiotic rhetoric, though.

not for the dittoheads.

[iain]

I don't see how its relation to other expenses has much to do with anything. Do you buy $5 coffees because you spent $250,000 on your house?

[Peter_Puget]

scrambler said:

That means there's a fixed amount of something like money. For you to gain, someone has to lose some. Who's going to lose?

 

Scrambler at a given slice of time that is true. But in the real world the money supply is constantly changing even without the creation of moneyby the Federal government. Heck it is very difficult to even estimate the money supply at any given time let alone measure it accurately. Your zero-sum game is simply not a viable representation of a dynamic economy.

 

 

The main point I believe he was making is that most people have no conception of what $87b is in relation to other thing in the US economy. I believe the same is true when people talk about campaign finance reforn. My standard retort is “do you think too much money is being spent on elections? “ “Oh you do How would you determine the proper amount?” “By the way since the US economy is the largest in the world and its success and failures impact not only the well being of Americans but also millions around the world - in at times literally life and death ways – don’t you think it is worth using resources to campaign for its control?” “How big is the US home detergent market and how much money is spent on advertising to get/gain market share in it?”

 

 

PP

[Greg_W]

mtn_mouse said:

If you read between the lines, it is clear that Bush wants to make Iraq the 51st state. The good news is that those that want to climb the highest peak in each state, now have another peak to bag, haji ibrahim at 3600 meters.

 

Not really sure if this is a troll, but I think this is a myopic view. Nation-building and empire-building are two entirely different things. If we wanted a 51st state, why not just take Peurto Rico or Guam? We already have both of those on the hook.

 

This is a silly viewpoint and not one based in fact or logic.

[scrambler]

But in the real world the money supply is constantly changing even without the creation of moneyby the Federal government.

 

Yes. And Inflation? Isn't it inflationary to increase the money supply?

[Greg_W]

scrambler said:

But in the real world the money supply is constantly changing even without the creation of moneyby the Federal government.

 

Yes. And Inflation? Isn't it inflationary to increase the money supply?

 

There are shifts and changes as the supply of money changes, these are natural. What is unnatural is the way the Fed chases the inflation rate to artificially keep it low or high - let the market tend itself and everyone will be much happier in the long run.

[scrambler]

I think my reading comprehension is delayed this morning by a dose of Percoset. Seems that number, 87 billion, by itself is meaningless (...to me). So, the money supply refers to the money that is available for exchange? And, it's not a bad thing in the long term to allocate this spending as long as the flow of capital is not one way, i.e., results in a deficit??

 

The concept of physical money itself also begins to lose meaning. Today, it's merely 0s and 1s on a computer as transactions are conducted electronically.

 

I am so confused.

[mattp]

lummox said:

mattp said:

That part about blaming Clinton for giving rise to global terrorism or allowing Saddam to get in power and then stay there is a bunch of idiotic rhetoric, though.

not for the dittoheads.

 

That's what I mean. Rush Limbaugh makes things up to fit a certain message that sells advertisements. Thus, the dittoheads don't know that that Clinton doubled the FBI's counterterrorism budget, they forget that he shot cruise missiles at Bin Laden and bombed Iraq, and they don't believe that the Clinton administration had a plan to hit al queda when Bush took office and the Bush folks sat on it largely out of a general hostility to anything that Clinton had his name on. But that is besides the point: to blame Clinton for 911, when it happened during Bush's term, or to suggest that Clinton is responsible for installing and building up Saddam over so many years or for failing to take him out in Gulf War I, or for failing to get our allies to go along with Gulf War II when we had all that political capital after 911, is ludicrous.

[Jim]

While a one time $87 billion is a chunk of change, PP is correct that it is a relatively small amount compared to GNP. But the money has to come from somewhere, the government doesn't just print more, it borrows. It borrows from private banks, which has an effect on money supply and interest rates.

 

And the $87 billion should be looked at in the larger context, on top of the $60 billion request in April, and the looming $500 billon deficit. That we are spending like crazy at the same time we've cut taxes is not fiscially responsible.

 

Foreign investors are casting a skeptical eye on the US debt levels and lagging economy. To say that the extrodinary and unprecidented spending and debt have no effect on the economy is uninformed.

[minx]

last time i asked for 87 billion someone told me no

 

someone needs to tell bush to find his 87 billion in the already overbloated budget

[Greg_W]

scrambler said:

The concept of physical money itself also begins to lose meaning. Today, it's merely 0s and 1s on a computer as transactions are conducted electronically.

 

The concept of physical money went out the window when the Government (in its supreme idiocy) abolished the gold-standard. Doing so has allowed them to bastardize or exalt the value of the dollar at their whim.

[allthumbs]

minx said:

last time i asked trask for money he told me no.

 

someone needs to tell trask to find sex from another girl

[Jim]

If anyone is interested in the numbers:

 

The deficit must be evaluated relative to the size of the economy, and deficits have been bigger in terms of percentage of GDP. This is accurate, to a certain extent. In the early 1980s, Reagan ran deficits that constituted 6 percent of GDP, the highest percentage ever. By contrast, the current deficit is 4.2 percent of GDP, which is obviously better.

 

But today's $455 billion deficit includes the Social Security surplus -- which Bush, in the 2000 campaign, promised not to touch if elected. If we looked at the deficit without counting the Social Security surplus, the deficit would be 5.7 percent of the economy, the second-highest percentage since WWII.

 

It's also interesting to note that Regan instituted tax raises six times under advice from his economists as his defecit started peaking. The next few years will be interesting as our commitment in Iraq and Afganistan will likely be no less than 5 years and as the spending goes on while the tax breaks continue.

 

 

[iain]

Jim said:

If anyone is interested in the numbers:

not really

[minx]

Jim said:

If anyone is interested in the numbers:

 

The deficit must be evaluated relative to the size of the economy, and deficits have been bigger in terms of percentage of GDP. This is accurate, to a certain extent. In the early 1980s, Reagan ran deficits that constituted 6 percent of GDP, the highest percentage ever. By contrast, the current deficit is 4.2 percent of GDP, which is obviously better.

 

 

why must it be evaluated against GDP?

[Peter_Puget]

Minx - good question. Answer ti doesn't have to be.

 

This site has given me hours of fun: Fairmdel

 

If you want numbers that is.

 

PP

[mattp]

Fairweather said:

We effectively scattered the Taliban and Al Queda. At least for a time.

 

 

Today's paper says:

 

LONDON — The al-Qaida terrorist network is stronger than before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and the U.S.-led war on terror has failed, a British academic concludes in a study published today.

 

Obviously, it is not over yet - but it is probably a little too early to start crowing about even a temporary success at this point.

[mtn_mouse]

Greg_W said:

 

This is a silly viewpoint and not one based in fact or logic.

 

I'm Crushed!

[Fairweather]

Thread drift re: Tax Cuts. While I supported the first round of the "Bush" tax cuts as good economic stimulus, I never supported the second round. The rebate check I received almost two months ago remains uncashed in my desk drawer. I think the more recent federal tax rates for personal income are adequately curved upward. ("Progressive", as some like to call it.) Not outrageously steep as it once was, (70% top marginal was criminal!) but not too flat as to place an unwarrented burden on those at the bottom income levels. I had no problem with federal personal tax rates prior to the latest round of tax cuts. I would like to see the national debt, now at about 6 trillion dollars, reduced so that I may one day reclaim my social security pay-in.

 

State and local is another matter....