That's a strange article, for all the things it suggests and all the things it doesn't say.

Others have pointed out that in much more recent exercises with FEMA, as with the made-up Hurricane Pam, the lack of a plan to evacuate and house the poorest was pointed out and ignored, by the director of the National Hurricane Center IIRC. Why no mention of that here? If 9-11 was a wake-up call, then FEMA hit the snooze button and still hasn't woken up.

But the other wierd thing is this claim that no one knows where the money went, contradicted by the claim that some officials DO know where the money went. "Tauzin said he, too, could never find out where the money went." This is JOURNALISM? They let him get away with that answer? Why wasn't he confronted with the real information? Or is it real? What is the paper-trail basis for the first claim?

If that sort of thing bothers you, expect to be much more bothered for years. The whole push of the current administration has been to increase secrecy, increase dramatically classification of documents, reduce transparency in spending -- and increase privatization, with less accountability, less continuity. Pay a (donating) company to do it last year, pay another to do it again this year, pay another next year, and still not have it done right. Where's the incentive? The power to allocate pork is stronger than any accountability.

I liked this stab from the past:

At the time eight years ago, the Louisiana delegation had plenty of political muscle to get the money. Then-Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which controls the government's purse strings.

Livingston, now a lobbyist, said he could not explain what happened either, although he knew of other predictive hurricane studies over the years.

Oh yeah.

And Porter Goss would rather not release the full 9-11 report, the one that documents the extent of the warnings that preceded Sept. 11, including warnings about New York City.

We're only going to get the transparency and accountability that we DEMAND.

And now Bush wants to give the state and local governments even more money to rebuild New Orleans?

Has he learned nothing from dealing with those people? Is he smoking crack? Or does he think the government has too much money laying around and we should get rid of some of it in a way that doesn't pollute the atmosphere like burning it would?

Why no mention of that here?

Because its an article about stolen/diverted money, rather than moonbat agenda, leaps to mind.

PORK: It's what's for dinner!

Just how bad is Bush’s fiscal policy?

Read it here Bold emphasis is MINE.

Excerpts: Whatever his other accomplishments, Bush will go down in history as the most fiscally irresponsible chief executive in American history. Since 2001, government spending has gone up from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, a 33 percent rise in four years! Defense and Homeland Security are not the only culprits. Domestic spending is actually up 36 percent in the same period. These figures come from the libertarian Cato Institute's excellent report "The Grand Old Spending Party,"…

[…]

Bush is not the only one to blame. Congressional spending is now completely out of control. The federal coffers are being looted for congressional patronage, and it is being done openly and without any guilt. The highway bill of 1982 had 10 "earmarked" projects—the code word for pork. The 2005 one has 6,371.

[…]

Today's Republicans believe in pork, but they don't believe in government. So we have the largest government in history but one that is weak and dysfunctional. Public spending is a cynical game of buying votes or campaign contributions, an utterly corrupt process run by lobbyists and special interests with no concern for the national interest. So we shovel out billions on "Homeland Security" to stave off nonexistent threats to Wisconsin, Wyoming and Montana while New York and Los Angeles remain unprotected. We mismanage crises with a crazy-quilt patchwork of federal, local and state authorities—and sing paeans to federalism to explain our incompetence. We denounce sensible leadership and pragmatism because they mean compromise and loss of ideological purity. Better to be right than to get Iraq right.

[…]
We need to secure the homeland, fight terrorism and have an effective foreign policy to advance our interests and our ideals. We also need a world-class education system, a great infrastructure and advancement in science and technology.

For all its virtues, the private sector cannot accomplish all this. Wal-Mart and Federal Express cannot devise a national energy policy for the United States. For that and for much else, we need government. We already pay for it. Can somebody help us get our money's worth?

Just how bad is Bush’s fiscal policy?

Q: Where do spending bills originate?

Hint: not with the president

Tubino:

You're quite right: while off-topic, the budgets under the Bush Administration have the the subject of criticism by most bloggers on the right. In fact, the Katrina speech thread that you participated so actively in started off with complaints by commenters that once again, Bush was going to throw money at a problem.

You're preaching to the choir about the budget. This, and the sad excuse for an immigration policy, is why many on the right complain that Bush is not conservative enough.

Another point that I *think* most here agree upon, is that Hurricane Katrina should not serve as a justification for an expansion of federal powers.

If you really wanted to make headway in gathering bi-partisan support for fixing the budget, etc., you'd drop the Iraq war arguments and focus on the domestic issues with healthy (not pejorative) criticism.

geoff, who just keeps being reasonable, points out, "If you really wanted to make headway in gathering bi-partisan support for fixing the budget, etc., you'd drop the Iraq war arguments and focus on the domestic issues with healthy (not pejorative) criticism."

Dang. I have to agree with you, mostly.

I mean there really ought to be the basis for bi-partisan agreement about fiscal responsibility, as well against expansion of federal powers.

But look -- the democrats are already THERE. Some splintering old-school republicans are already there. What seems to me the obstacle are the Bush-over-all hardcore loyalists who can't bring themselves to see that Bush is NOT a conservative.

Sort of related, I just discovered that billmon has a terrific takedown of the notion that this administration can adequately perform watchdog functions on the NOLA project, and catches this one relevant to our other exchange.

A little over a year ago, Stuart Bowen Jr. was lobbying for a company looking for work in the impending reconstruction of Iraq. A former longtime aide to President Bush, Bowen tapped administration contacts on behalf of URS Group, a consulting firm, and the company eventually landed contracts worth up to $30 million for overseeing Iraqi construction projects. Today, Bowen works for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-led bureaucracy running Iraq. In his new job as inspector general, Bowen is the corruption watchdog over more than $20 billion of rebuilding, including the activities of URS, the company he represented.

Chicago Tribune
Insiders Shape Postwar Iraq
June 20, 2004

Fox watching the henhouse etc.
Lots more on the pattern of Bush watchdogs here.

If you want to reconsider that $8.8 B in light of Bowen's two-faced response, read the 25-page PDF report from Waxman. Exciting stuff!

Tony puckers up and whistles,
Q: Where do spending bills originate?

Hint: not with the president

Q. Where in the passages quoted above does it point out the role of Congress?

Hint: in the second one.

Q. According to the article cited, how often has Bush used the veto?

Hint: NEVER.

Q. According to Tony, is there any point in trying to use the means in our political system to reduce corruption and waste?

Hint: Not while republicans are in charge. (see another thread for this one)

Bush is not the only one to blame. Congressional spending is now completely out of control.

Bush doesn't spend anything, congress does.

Q. According to Tony, is there any point in trying to use the means in our political system to reduce corruption and waste?

To what end?

The public wants pork and corruption. The public loves pork and corruption. Were it not for pork and corruption, nothing would ever get built. The dems ensured this when they started sucking on union dick 70+ years ago.

Any president who would buck the overwhelming public support of pork is a fool.

Tony, you're wrong. Mainstream America hates to see its tax money wasted. Expose's are very popular.

Corporate America loves pork and corruption. Corporate America owns the US press. Any politician who would buck the overwhelming support of corporate America is not in office for long.

Over half the country is against the war, but there is no political face for them. Nearly all the Democrats openly supported the war, and continue to do so. Yet look at the incredible support for an unknown outspoken anti-Bush Iraq war vet who ran and ALMOST BEAT a repub in a heavily repub area in Ohio just weeks ago -- sorry, blanking on the name now.

Were it not for pork and corruption, nothing would ever get built.

You forgot to say why.

Yet look at the incredible support for an unknown outspoken anti-Bush Iraq war vet who ran and ALMOST BEAT a repub in a heavily repub area in Ohio just weeks ago -- sorry, blanking on the name now.

The guy's name was Paul Hackett, and he lost by four points. That's not even close to 'almost beat.'

Come on, let's deal with the real issues. What did you think of that call in the Miami-New York game?

Tony tries a silly dodge: "Bush doesn't spend anything, congress does."

Hah, go back and look for the words FISCAL POLICY. See them now?

When you get to fifth grade you'll learn in your civics class that the president submits a budget too.

After that we could talk about who started the war in Iraq. I'll be interested in your explanation about how Congress did that. Better start boning up now. You might want to keep in mind what was hurled at any politician who even suggested that he/she might vote against the war.

Once again, I hear statements like that and think, "hm. Civil service? Teacher? Unemployed?"

With apologies to the NRA, I am corporate America. When I hear "tax cuts for the big corporations" I think "woohoo! Christmas bonus this year!" You're not going to get traction with this line, because too much of middle America works for corporations, and has a better idea than you do how they work.

Oops! Left off what I was reacting to:
Corporate America owns the US press.

Sigh. That was less than two years ago.

You know what they say about the best laid plans.

But I am happy that he intends to keep the tax cut in place.

lauraw,

Bush's proposed budgets NEVER added up, and so were never taken seriously by economists. In fact they were the most laughably wishful budgets ever submitted.

I'm sure your kids and grandkids are happy about the tax cuts too. If the current deficit spending continued unabated -- which can't happen -- the current tax revenue would just cover INTEREST on the borrowed funds by 2040.

Argentina, here we come!

Tax cuts stimulate the economy and this 'bigger' economy delivers larger sums to the treasury.

Under Bush's tax cut, tax revenues have increased tremendously.

Raising taxes during recession deepens the recession and ends up starving the treasury.

In other words, when the producers of wealth (in our country, that would mainly be small businesses) are suffering, the worst thing you can do is take more money from them.
Then they have to lay somebody off so that the business can stay alive. Then they can't replace their outdated equipment and have to stagnate at a lower level of production than they would otherwise aspire to. Do I really have to list all the ways that taking a bigger slice out of a shrinking economy is bad?

The government will never be as efficient at converting money into wealth for everyone as the individual businesses in the economy are.

lauraw,

I know the theory. It would be fine with me to take all taxes off businesses and corporations. But that's not the agenda of the gang in power.

Check this for a reality check of how theory meets practice. Get down to the charts!

As US debt increases as % of GDP (47-year high in 2006!), the health of the US economy is tied closer to its risk level as a borrower. As Clinton reduced deficit spending to zero, US became lower risk.

Can you guess what's in store for the US with record deficits?

More later.

tubino = the new cedarford

Because, you know, if you can't trust a blog with Americablog, Daily Kos, Juan Cole, TPM and James Wolcott on his blogroll, who can you trust on this cynical internet?

Hmm. Chart looks bad.

Guess he should lower taxes again to raise the funds for paying down that deficit.

What are your recommendations for federal spending cuts tubino?

Yeahp, Slu, our friend tubby is drinking the Kool-Aid a pitcher at a time. But I'm in no mood tonight because there is wailing and gnashing of teeth in Titletown U.S.A.

What are your recommendations for federal spending cuts tubino?

My prediction is our newest moonbat is going to suggest something, oh, defense related? Ya think?

"Guess he should lower taxes again to raise the funds for paying down that deficit."

Because if you want to get out of the hole, keep digging!

Okay, real question here: From 1992 to 2000, the deficit was steadily decreased to zero, with great economic growth, increasing home ownership, decreasing poverty, and investors did well. Practically every economic measure did well. This was done without transferring large amounts of tax revenue to the private sector (what's happening now).

Of course we were told that with Clintonian tax rates, the economy would shrink, the sky would fall, your hairline recede, etc. Instead, the deficit was decreased, which shouldn't have happened if revenue decreases with increased taxes.

Under Bush, we've had years of tax cuts, but personal bankrupties are at a record, personal savings at all-time low, household debt high. Unemployment, when corrected for those who have given up and are so uncounted, may be as high as 8%. The recovery was job-less, and even job-LOSS depending on your stats. Yet times should be great.

Since the record blows your theory out of the water, how do you blame this on Clinton? Extra points for each mention of his penis.

What are your recommendations for federal spending cuts tubino?
-------
I didn't vote for this disaster, and I didn't dig the hole. Tom deLay says there IS NO FAT in the federal budget, and he is YOUR GUY.

So the question is, how does Bush plan to pull this off? He says he can. How?

Or is it more smoke and mirrors?

It's your party, you can cry if you want to.

I believe that's what's called "dodging the question."

Since the record blows your theory out of the water

Well it doesn't tubby regardless of how much you'd like to believe otherwise. The surplus Clinton had to work with was a direct result of tremendous cuts to defense spending and artificial boost to the economy from the Internet bubble. A convincing argument can be made that the downturn in the economy that began during his presidency was in part a result of his record setting tax increases.

Yeahp. Typical; you ask a simple question and you get this mountain of accusations, historical non-sequiturs, and pointless jabs, instead of an actual, you know, answer.

Tubino, you have a talent for piling on the kinds of complaints that are easy to allege in one line but the response takes two paragraphs.

Anyway; how about another one, let's see if you can answer a simple question. One more time.

You said that it would be fine with you to take ALL taxes off businesses and corporations. Then you carp that Bush is 'transferring' money to the private sector. Will you elaborate on this, and maybe reconcile these remarks for me?

Okay, let's get this straight. I'm pointing out that Bush's numbers make no sense, and that I can't see how Bush can reconcile his claims (no taxes, yet deficit-neutral etc).

So your response is to demand that I explain how to do what I said I can't see how to do. Bush is claiming what I say is impossible nonsense, and you say that means *I* have to find a way to make his impossible nonsense WORK.

You say it's my mission to make his VOODOO economics work.

Nope, sorry, I don't think they work. Didn't work for Reagan, didn't work for Bush I, aren't going to work for Bush II.

Is there any ONE among you who believe it can be made to work?

lauraw says eventually the tax revenues will magically overcome the deficit. She doesn't say when, or how, or why that never worked so far. She neglects to mention that the estate tax, if repealed, will mean a decrease of some $300 billion over the next few years, as well as a projected decrease in charity giving (you can see the connection).

Anyone else?

Tubino, you say tax cuts don't work. Explain the recent economic growth and the shrinkage in the deficit, then.

Also, please explain the connection between budget deficits and economic growth. If deficits are so bad for growth, explain the recent GDP.

Ok. Lets review tubbys scorecard:

$8.8 Billion stolen/missing - wrong
LA Emergency Declaration - wrong
Reasons for surplus in late 90's - wrong
Conspiracy to enrich Bush's friends - wrong

Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

When I ask for proposed spending cuts, I don't need you to quote Tom Delay, tubino. I do not endorse Tom Delay's view that there is nothing to be cut in the budget. What I am looking for is a clearcut response like this one.

No idea why you brought Clinton into this. I'm looking for a connection, but I don't see it.

Again, actual answers and solutions come from the right, griping and non-sequiturs from the left.

You say that 'voodoo' (supply-side) economics didn't work for Reagan. That is laughable on its face. He performed an economic miracle in this country after the horror of stagflation.

You still didn't answer my second question.

And I didn't 'neglect' to mention the estate tax, you may as well say I neglected to mention any other subject only tangentially related to what we're talking about.

Its becoming more and more clear that discussion with you is pointless. You don't know how to carry on a cogent discussion about the issue at hand. You flail madly at strawmen of your own design.

that last from me

Its becoming more and more clear that discussion with you is pointless.

I came to the same conclusion earlier today. Kind of sad, since I do like having our positions challenged.

Sorry, gotta sign off for tonight.
Slublog, good questions, albeit with some goofy premises.

$8.8 Billion stolen/missing - wrong
NOPE. I posted link to PDF report, and showed why Bowen can't be trusted as watchdog.

LA Emergency Declaration - wrong
NO idea what you're talking about. I asked how Bush could be so incompetent as to name wrong parishes. Answer: a mistake was made.

Reasons for surplus in late 90's - wrong
Shya right.

Conspiracy to enrich Bush's friends - wrong
Uh... so it's all coincidence that the first recipients of NOLA $$$ were donors? Jeez. Who knew. Anyway, I never said CONSPIRACY. You're just making stuff up.

When I ask for proposed spending cuts, I don't need you to quote Tom Delay, tubino. I do not endorse Tom Delay's view that there is nothing to be cut in the budget. What I am looking for is a clearcut response like this one.

Do you understand the role that the scandal-plagued Tom DeLay has in the corrupt Republican Party? He's your albatross till you toss him overboard.

The Cato Institute is a good reminder of how numbers can be crunched. Nice crisp list. If US reduces investment in energy R&D, esp. while keeping tax benefits for old industry, US will fall further behind in alternative technologies. US became world leader in part due to an incredibly foresighted plan of research investment dating from the early 50s and Vandevar Bush. Other countries are catching up. The Cato plan helps sink us further.

No idea why you brought Clinton into this. I'm looking for a connection, but I don't see it.

I was trying to make a joke.

Sorry, gotta read books to the kids. Sleep well. There's always tomorrow.

I notice that not one of you slackers can actually defend Bush's econ policies.

That's really all I was asking for. I think I have my answer.

When I ask for proposed spending cuts, I don't need you to quote Tom Delay, tubino. I do not endorse Tom Delay's view that there is nothing to be cut in the budget. What I am looking for is a clearcut response like this one.

Do you understand the role that the scandal-plagued Tom DeLay has in the corrupt Republican Party? He's your albatross till you toss him overboard.

The Cato Institute is a good reminder of how numbers can be crunched. Nice crisp list. If US reduces investment in energy R&D, esp. while keeping tax benefits for old industry, US will fall further behind in alternative technologies. US became world leader in part due to an incredibly foresighted plan of research investment dating from the early 50s and Vandevar Bush. Other countries are catching up. The Cato plan helps sink us further.

No idea why you brought Clinton into this. I'm looking for a connection, but I don't see it.

I was trying to make a joke.

Sorry, gotta read books to the kids. Sleep well. There's always tomorrow.

I notice that not one of you slackers can actually defend Bush's econ policies.

That's really all I was asking for. I think I have my answer.

I notice that not one of you slackers can actually defend Bush's econ policies.

And I noticed you never actually answered my questions.

Not so sad, Geoff. Think of all the time it saves for porn.

Think of all the time it saves for porn.

You're always so upbeat.

See what I mean? I give him an example of the type of thing I'm looking for (which could have come from anywhere and contained any set of suggestions), and he attacks the example. Still no actual thoughts or suggestions of his own to answer the original question.

Either he's fundamentally too dishonest and obfuscatory to deal with, or his thoughts are disorganized and easily scattered to the wind.

Either way, not worth the trouble.

Okay, kids are in bed.

I think I have it. I was going to try to reply in some detail, particularly to Slublog’s claim about tax cuts (of course tax cuts “work” in some sense, but does Bush’s economic policy actually make sense? Do the numbers add up?).

Instead I thought of a simple way to make the point. Imagine we all toss $100 into a pool, and each participant makes his/her best guess about the size of the deficit in 2008 (or earlier if you think midterm elections are too much of a wild card). We could make ranges from 0- infinity in $50B increments. Winner takes all, and if there are more than one name in the winning increment, the pot is split evenly.

I would be guessing higher by far than any of you who believe in the efficacy of tax cuts etc. and of course I think I would win. I’ve posted links to the charts of WH numbers, as well as to the Bush admin’s history of policing its own corruption.

Or would I guess the highest number? How much do you really believe? Do you believe the Republican party, controlling executive and legislative, can reverse the trend in the deficit? How do you think any future invasions will be financed?

I wonder if all this bluster isn’t just a tribal thing against an outsider. I wonder if deep down you all don’t have a lot more doubts than you’re showing around a guy who is skeptical, if not openly hostile of the conservative agenda.

Anyone want to try it?

Do you believe the Republican party, controlling executive and legislative, can reverse the trend in the deficit? How do you think any future invasions will be financed?

Well, to that I'd say that the trends in the deficit are already being reversed. Yes, the government is still spending far too much of my money, but the additional economic growth spurred in part by the Bush tax cuts are forcing the deficit to shrink.

I wonder if all this bluster isn’t just a tribal thing against an outsider. I wonder if deep down you all don’t have a lot more doubts than you’re showing around a guy who is skeptical, if not openly hostile of the conservative agenda.

Don't. Just. Don't.

It makes you look silly.

You have no idea what's on our minds, and making a bold assertion like that is just ridiculous. We're arguing against what you believe because we don't agree with you. Is there any room for such disagreement in your world?

Okay, nix on the two-bit psychologizing. Let's figure everyone is really meanin' what they're sayin'.

So Slublog is down for deficit reduction, having linked to a story that the CBO is projecting a record $422B. Nice touch. Can you come up with your number for 2006?

lauraw should be putting in a good low number for 2006 and beyond, no?

geoff? A number for 2006, when the dust settles?

I'm going to take a little time to make projections. I'd hate not having the highest number.

Slublog, I'm not dodging anything, and I'm plenty used to disagreement. I just think, as geoff said, that there are plenty of real conservatives who are unhappy with Bush's econ policies. Yet when I show up, suddenly everyone's all smiles and the future looks bright. Whatever. Let's talk numbers.

I never made these claims about growth, deficits, tax cuts as you say... what I *am* saying is that it sure looks like Bush's numbers don't add up, and I'm wondering if anyone else thinks they add up. Not whether deficit spending is good or bad, but what IS the projected deficit, REALLY, and how much is smoke and mirrors?

Easy to play. What will the 2006 deficit be?

I don't like deficits, or deficit spending. However, I think the best way to lower the deficit is to cut spending, not raise taxes. Bush's tax cuts have not led to the higher deficit. The out-of-control spending by congressional Republicans has helped do that.

Raising taxes would just give Congress an excuse to spend more money, in my humble opinion. To truly lower the deficit, we have to impose fiscal discipline on the members of Congress who see the federal budget as a way to ensure their own re-election with pork projects.

Quick one for BrewFan, who brings up the Iraqi funding again: on another thread I explained how the CPA stuck the new Iraqi govt with exorbitant contracts, initially financed with some of the $8.8B. (Did you read the congressional testimony, duffle bags full of cash?) Anyway, there might be a WHOLE LOT MORE to come out on this.

Slublog, no surprises in your post, except that you say "Bush's tax cuts have not led to the higher deficit."

Which number is greater:
1) the amount that domestic spending has increased since 2001

2) estimated amount of Bush tax cuts

I think I know, but in any case, a pertinent comparison, no?

Take a guess at 2006 deficit? I understand what you're saying about pork, and it's not all about Bush!

2) estimated amount of Bush tax cuts

This is an oft-repeated fallacy. Tax cuts do not cost anything - they spur growth.

Honestly, there's no common ground here, it seems. You're operating under what I believe is a false assumption about the 'cost' of tax cuts, and it seems you believe the same about the assumptions we're using to formulate our arguments.

Oh, and my guess on the 2006 deficit? $400 billion. It would have been under $400 but for Katrina.

Meh, like the deficit has ever mattered worth a damn.

lauraw: "You say that 'voodoo' (supply-side) economics didn't work for Reagan. That is laughable on its face. He performed an economic miracle in this country after the horror of stagflation."

The voodoo part was that Reagan's campaign was about the supposedly high deficit. Yet...

By the beginning of 1981, the national debt had fallen to 32.5% of GDP. Then, Reagan took office and the national debt took off. It rose non-stop for 12 years to 66.3% at the end of Bush's term, erasing 25 years of progress in paying down the national debt.

So the economy took off, with the jet fuel of govt-borrowed money jump-starting the process... but revenues never caught up with the borrowing.

And it's happening again, only this time it's more, and faster, and the deficit as % of GDP will likely be still greater than under Reagan and Bush I.

Source

I think that starts to answer your other question?

Slublog sez:
2) estimated amount of Bush tax cuts

This is an oft-repeated fallacy. Tax cuts do not cost anything - they spur growth.
--------------

Excuse me, but you're saying that the phrase, "estimated amount of Bush tax cuts" is somehow a fallacy? The mere phrase as used by folks trying to project budgets is itself a fallacy? Can you offer an alternative, politically-correct phrase?

And all tax cuts spur growth?

Also, you would be suggesting that essentially all the $400B deficit is due to increases in spending, and would be greater still if not for the tax cuts, is that right?

Oh boy. I'd love to listen in on how you would calculate the effects of the tax cuts. Just the language itself would be interesting.

Why are tax receipts UP since the tax cuts? Algore/Kerry assured me this was impossible.

Deficits are meaningless -- what they represent in reality is continued foreign WILLINGNESS to invest in the USA.

IOW - as bad and as fucked up as we are, foreign investors STILL think we're a better place to invest their money than somewhere else because they keep buying the treasuries. And they're doing this even when the interest rates here are low.

The thing to beware of is the day they STOP buying the treasuries -- forcing interest rates UP.

A funny thing happened. I made a joke about the deficit being Clinton's fault, and then Bob Livingston, cited in the article of this post, in fact SAID EXACTLY THAT.

In other news, I actually agree with Tony when he says, "The thing to beware of is the day they STOP buying the treasuries -- forcing interest rates UP. "

Yup. That's why I keep coming back to the deficit as a % of GDP, and that that figure is ON THE RISE to unchartered territory.

As I started saying up above, one way to stimulate the economy is through govt. spending. Even the worst cases of pork and corruption mean taking tax revenue (or borrowed money) and using it to pay salaries, good, services, to people who then use their salaries and new activity to finance through purchases etc. So the easy fix to an ailing economy is increased govt spending. But it's not sustainable, and only the wise investments lead to self-sustaining growth. (I gave the example of R&D as wise investment, as the last 50 years have shown.)

It's just as true (and just as false) to say that govt spending spurs growth as to say that tax cuts spur growrth. They both can. Neither are always good. Only some are really wise.

Here's a quote from the link above:
"I’m not familiar with the “growth of government scandals.” I do know that under Clinton the federal workforce was cut by 377,000 to it’s lowest level since 1960. During the Clinton years, government grew slower than any time since the Eisenhower Administration. The size of government actually shrank relative to the size of the economy."

Go to the link to get the SOURCES for those claims. Why do you have to vote for a Democrat to get genuine fiscal responsibility?

"As I started saying up above, one way to stimulate the economy is through govt. spending"

Wrong again tubby. Government spending almost never stimulates the economy. Tax cuts stimulate because most of that money goes directly to the market place.

"under Clinton the federal workforce was cut by 377,000 to it’s lowest level since 1960."

Right. Of course the term 'federal workforce' here means the armed forces of the United States. Good move Bill.

"I mean there really ought to be the basis for bi-partisan agreement about fiscal responsibility, as well against expansion of federal powers.

But look -- the democrats are already THERE."

bwuh? the democrats want to prevent the expansion of federal power? rather than wanting a different vector of expansion?

Yo, BrewFan! Got a link for ya! You wanted evidence of the Bush admin's policy of rewarding buddies over performance, no? here's the NOLA version of the little guys getting screwed, and of course the suspension of Davis-Bacon. I don't think I need to link to halliburton's contract in NOlA?

Then you make a fact-free assertion: "Government spending almost never stimulates the economy. Tax cuts stimulate because most of that money goes directly to the market place."

Okay, you give me an example of govt spending that doesn't go to the marketplace. Hint: why are towns worried about their army bases shutting down?

I never said all were equally efficient -- they aren't! But govt spending still goes to salaries, goods services - - even if the initial payment is to salaried GOVT employees (way down after Clinton), the money still goes into the market. Do you imagine a giant vacuum-black hole?

Govt makes almost nothing so contracts go to Boeing, KBR, and thousands of other MARKET companies, like the one Ross Perot founded.

I repeat, not all spending or cuts are equal. But to say that govt spending does NOT go into the market, as you suggest, is just silly. Think of Big Pharma and the recent drug prescription bill, for crying out loud.

So BrewFan, what's your guess for the 2006 deficit?

ipcnuopeooxydflfzicvqlhxnhedjxiie
link http://kmkwss.lsbvzb.com