Bush asks for $87 Billion

[mattp]

Jay-

I actually DO believe that Bush and his buddies are making national policy decisions for reasons that have nothing to do with national security and that big money interests carry an inordinate amount of interest in this administration's White House. I also believe that Rumsfeld et all show a maniacal desire to exercise world domination, and that this is a serious threat to world peace. In short, I DO believe all that stuff so Maybe I should sign up for the New Federalist.

 

I'm sorry, but its been a long week and I cannot muster up the energy to go into your economic analsis. Maybe next time, or maybe somebody else will take you up on that.

[JayB]

I am sure that my evil homonym has got your back on this one. Alas, I too will have to pass the baton. If only The Goat were still here to carry the torch....

[mattp]

What would you do without your evil homonym? Maybe I should get one of those.

[Uncle_Tricky]

After pissing away an hour of my life reading this thread, I feel obligated to reply...

 

Someone asked "where does the $87 billion come from?" (Not to mention the $500 billion we are adding to our bar tab this year alone.)

 

Answer: The government prints up IOUs (treasury bonds and bills) and pays people whatever interest rate is required to get people to buy them. Who buys them? The governments of China and Japan are our largest creditors.

 

Interest rates rise as our creditors become less willing to lend us money because they are either afraid of default (highly unlikely in the case of the US) OR that we will attempt to relieve our debt problems by inflating our own currency (modern version of printing more money) and thereby debasing the dollar, which results in our creditors demanding higher interest rates in order for them to continue to lend us money that is losing it's value through inflation (highly likely).

 

So instead of the "Taxing and Spending" Bush has adopted a policy of "Cut Taxes, Borrow Massive Amounts from China and Hugely Increase Government Spending."

 

A short term strategy that may juice up the economy just in time for the election, while indenturing us to a strategic competitor and virtually assuring much higher interest rates and a weaker dollar in the future.

 

As far as the Iraqi government debts to Russia, France, etc. As occupiers of the country, we've essentially assumed responsibility for Iraq's debts. So in effect, we will be forced to pay (directly or indirectly) France and Russia back for all the military hardware we just finished destroying.

 

While there MIGHT be long term strategic value in occupying the world's largest oil reserves, for the foreseeable future we will be paying through the nose for a non-performing asset.

 

As for the hopes for a democratic government for Iraq that will be friendly to the US? Fuggetaboutit.

 

Imagine if you could magically hold elections in Iraq tomorrow. Who would win? The candidate that best expressed the will of the majority, whose Shiite Islamic fundamentalist platform might best be expressed as "Thanks for getting rid of Saddam. NOW FIX THE SHIT YOU FUCKED UP AND GET THE HELL OUT!"

 

The will of the masses expressed democratically would be a government far less friendly, less stable and more hostile to the US. Thus, a fundamental conflict exists between our (latest) stated goal of creating a democratic, liberated Iraq, and the fact that such an Iraq would be led by people reacting against the continuing US occupation.

 

In strictly pragmatic terms, our foreign policy has consistently shown that we prefer a friendly dictator over a hostile democracy. Thus, the only way we will bring order to the country is to install, arm and train some sort of Saudi-Arabian like totalitarian government that will work with us. Tragic but true.

[mtn_mouse]

We have the Best Polititions that Money can buy!