Redstate

They're also many of the same promises he made four years ago.

I mean, he's your candidate, but I'm honestly not sure why you'd trust him this time when he failed to follow through last time.

How come this showed on the front page PRIOR to the speech?

Does Lapham work here?

I couldn't get in to it to read the meat, but the intro was there.

Well said.  A very important speech. Kerry is speaking now and looks so small and weak by comparison.

I predict an 8 point bounce.

Bryant - fair statement.  However, I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt because his first term started with a very close election and razor thin majorities in the Senate (which went to the Dems a year later with the Jeffords switch) and the House prevented any type of bipartisan cooperation.  And then 9-11 happened and the entire focus of the administration became the WOT.  And I think Bush at least saying he wants to reform social security while Kerry says he won't touch it when everyone knows it is a train wreck coming down the tracks speaks better for Bush than Kerry.

Sorry DKos might be having tech problems. But...

TROLL BE GONE

He still better than your guy

is not a risk-free subject for the President, particularly because John Edwards has spent a long time keeping his nose clean.  Yes, he is a cut-from-the-cloth trial lawyer Democrat, but the president does not want to try to argue the side of some Bag-O-Glass manufacturer who did in fact make a lousy, dangerous product and was successfully sued by John Edwards.

And as for cutting taxes, as a Democrat hoping that in the long-term we can lay some bile to rest and get back to improving our country, I say to all you sincere limited-government Republicans:

y'all have to get serious about what you really want to cut, and that's actually going to mean weaning many, many otherwise-insolvent companies and industries off the government teat.  Costs for programs like workforce training pale in comparison to fatty contracts with companies from IT to aerospace to pharmaceuticals.  Corporations (and their shareholders) are all in favor of gov't sponsored monopolies as long as they're the monopolist.  And that means making some heavy-hitting enemies.

but the president does not want to try to argue the side of some Bag-O-Glass manufacturer

No, but any sentient human would argue the case of the OB-GYNs he shook down with his entirely bogus and, I might add scientifically false, cerebral palsy claims.

Edwards is going to skate in this election because peeling the hide of a feckless trial lawyer won't serve any real purpose. If he runs for office again, probably for senator from New York, the research is ready.

The whole corporate welfare shibboleth is just so tiring. But for my own edification, could you list the specific companies and industries, nearly insolvent and otherwise, that receive goverment subsidies?

Streiff, what's really atrocious here is that the companies who receive federal benefits may not even be insolvent.  Farm subsidies that go to Archers-Daniel-Midlands, road-building in national forests that benefit Georgia-Pacific, the sale or lease of government land at far below market cost to western livestock and mineral interests, to name a few.  Cute enterprise zones that allow companies to relocate to impoverished areas but continue to import labor from the outside.  Tax laws and shelters which reward clever offshore accounting.  

And, no, I'm not laying all of this exclusively at the feet of the Republican party.  But yours is the party of business, after all.  I'm also not saying I enirely agree with the previous poster, but calling the concept of corporate welfare a shibboleth is willfully blind.  Better to defend giving federal dollars to business as a way to create jobs than deny it happens altogether.

I wasn't actually intending to argue the corporate welfare angle.  I was more trying to say that if you plan on reducing taxes permanently, and balancing the budget, you've gotta get serious about cutting the programs that are spending this money, and that means cutting contractors to whom the government pays out to do work on these programs.

However, since you asked:

The example I had in mind was Boeing.  It was getting its ass handed to it on a platter by the competition before transitioning to more government contracting.  Try this or this for  references to Boeing's revenue mix and its problems.

The Boeing argument is really off point. First and foremost because Boeing does not receive subsidies. The corporate "welfare" you and the left talks about is the work the do for the Defense Department. That is not welfare.

Boeing is getting hurt in its commercial aviation business precisely because it is NOT getting the subsidies that you allege.  Airbus gets subsidies from its consortium members AND Airbus is not subject the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. So Boeing can't go into a third world country and pay the transportation minister a finder's fee to choose their product. Under the tax codes of France and Germany the bribes you pay to foreign governments are tax deductible.

It amazes me how many remarks are made as though 9/11 didn't happen.

Like a family planning a vacation and the day before it starts the house burns down and the car is destroyed BUT the kids ignoring that, scream.

BUT, DADDY YOU PROMISED !!!

How come there is not one word about Bush's behavior before 9/11?  He only wants to talk about what he did right afterwards, not what he did or did not do in response to the warnings about "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S.", including mention of hijackings.  You can quibble about whether or not he should have done enough to prevent the attacks, but he deserves no praise for doing nothing.  He didn't even tell Transp Secy Mineta, who might have been able to add extra security at airports.  At least it would have showed an effort to deal with the warnings, rather than doing nothing.

Kerry focused on his Vietnam service in Boston, and everyone says that opened him up to criticism of that service.  Well, Bush focused on 9/11 ad nauseum in NYC and similarly opens himself up to a FULL examination of his behavior, before 9/11 as well as after.

get serious about budget reductions, and that will entail much more than the elimination of whatever corporate welfare there is in the federal budget.  The largest budget items are, by far, Social Security and Medicare; these are also the programs which will increasingly, by any credible analyses, have the greatest impact on the expansion of the deficit.  Serious efforts aiming toward a balanced federal budget will have to encompass substantial reform of these programs, or there will never, ever, be a balanced budget.  

...but he deserves no praise for doing nothing.



Last I checked he didn't get any praise for handling terrorism prior to 9/11.



...who might have been able to add extra security at airports.



Two problems with this tired rehashed criticism.


1) Richard Clark admitted himself that if the president heeded his warnings and did everything he had suggested to stop it, it still wouldn't have thwarted 9/11. So if the expert critic of Bush openly admits that, who are you to suggest that you know more about what could have been done to prevent the attacks?


2) Adding security at airports implies that we knew that their plans were to use airplanes as bombs beforehand...and of course the intelligence didn't show that beforehand.



Well, Bush focused on 9/11 ad nauseum in NYC and similarly opens himself up to a FULL examination of his behavior, before 9/11 as well as after.



Quite the contrary. He has already undergone full investigations. He has already been accused of betraying his country (Al Gore). He has already been accused of lying (Ted Kennedy). He has already been accused of concocting 9/11 for political gain (Howard Dean). But what is even better innoculation of further attacks is that the democrats share just as much responsibility when you examine all the things that were not done under President Clinton. Both sides have glass houses and both sides have already thrown their rocks.

3-1/2 years into his term, and only now is it time to "get serious" about curbing spending?  He's never vetoed a single spending bill!  What evidence is there that he will ever make the truly "tough choices" and cut spending for programs that many have come to depend on? (Cutting taxes without cutting spending is not a "tough choice"; it's irresponsible.)  He's had almost 4 years, mostly with a compliant Republican congress, to get his fiscal act together, and hasn't done it (for whatever reason--unwillingness or incompetence).  Only Pollyanna wearing rose colored glasses would give him a free pass after all this time.

As many commentors have stated, not accomplishing all first term goals and restating many of them for a second term is par for the course. Ronald Reagan did it. Bill Clinton did it.



Obviously, priorities have changed a bit since that first term. But I will point out that he did pass the "Leave no child behind" legislation which was in his first term promises. So you can't say he failed to follow through. As an aside, Dick Morris also stated that this was Bill Clinton's dream education package.

What unifies Bush supporters is not that we all agree on everything. However, we all do agree that we'd rather our children have a future (even if that means they have to pay for it) than not having a future at all. Again the comparison on budget issues is to Kerry, not some fringe joke of a candidate.



While I agree that spending needs to be curbed, one important thing needs to be said about your one dimensional analysis of the economy and budgets (I thought you guys were supposed to be able to see things in multiple dimensions?). The budget doesn't get balanced by raising taxes and cutting spending. The budget gets balanced by growing the economy. Cutting taxes is the way you water the economy. The long term result of that strategy is more revenue to spend. You are right that you then have to be careful how to spend it. Bill Clinton balanced the budget only because of the growth of the economy, and concurrent growth of revenue.



The summary of the analysis is that on one half of the equation (how to grow revenue), Bush is completely right. On the other half of the equation (how to make sure spending is less than revenue), there are certainly issues. However, his principle opponent, who wants to raise taxes and raise spending, is wrong on both halves of the equation.

is Bill Clinton is the only President since 1980 to produce a balanced budget, after inheriting record deficits from Bush Sr.  He did so in a budget deal, with no Republican help at all, that included raising taxes on the most wealthy.  Kerry is following this plan when he says he wants to raise taxes on the rich.  Clinton later worked with Republicans to institute "pay as you go" with respect to new spending, also something Kerry said he would bring back.

Along with being a fiscal conservative, I'm a scientist, and I look for evidence.  I see no evidence of fiscal responsibility on the part of Bush, and thus no reason he will suddenly turn over a new leaf and become responsible.  If Libertarians get enough votes, maybe that will finally convince Republicans to "get serious" about practicing what they preach but never do.

Yeah, there was no "balanced budget deal" or anything. Not anything at all that might even inspire a friggin book about it.

If you want to troll - at least get informed.

So Clinton produced a balanced budget without even trying?  I didn't think even a Democrat would ever have the nerve to claim that.

Last 8 years of Democratic administrations = gain of 22 million jobs

Last 8 years of Republican administrations = loss of 1 million jobs

Republicans (at least ones named Bush) for whatever reason don't seem to have a clue about truly how to grow the economy (at least since Reagan).  The stock market confirms this, looking at gains over the past decades.  Remember, look for evidence and ignore the rhetoric.

What are you talking about - "not even trying"?

For what it's worth - the tax increases I assume you're talking about happened in 1993. The budget deal was 1997.

to take your position.

Farm subsidies are not subsidies. They are price supports. There is more than a semantic difference. Price supports are in place to provide stability in commodity prices and stability in the prices of food at the supermarket. These, as you may or may not know, originated under FDR. I am not a big supporter of these payments but the bottom line here is that they do not keep ADM or Cargill in business. To the contrary, ADM and Cargill will make money regardless. It is the "family farmer", so romaticized by Sissy Spacek and Willy Nelson, that have come to rely on these payments for their existence. I'm willing to give these up if you are.

The road building story is off target. The real story is that the there is a depreciation and tax credit given when logging companies build their own logging roads. It's a little known fact that business can depreciate capital investments and often get tax credits for investing. If you don't like the lumber industry, why don't you just say so. But don't tart it up as a "subsidy" when home builders, factories, and everyone else gets exactly the same treatment.

The western lands are public lands. I think we can do a better job of managing them but for what other commodity do we charge "fair market value". A great case can be made for allowing these lands to be used for free - after all the people using them are part owners. Did your Dad charge you room and board? Regardless of our philosophies on this subject, classifying it as a subsidy is just not honest.

Your take on enterprise zones is also misguided. During the first round of military base closings it was well documented that one GOCO (government owned contrator operated) factory produced five jobs in the community for every one job it produced. Likewise with enterprise zones. You may be right if you are only counting a handful of direct jobs, but when you start counting the jobs created downstream they are a bargain. But what would you recommend as an alternative?

You were the one who said there was no balanced budget deal.  Yet, a balanced budget was the result.  Hence, a balanced budget by "accident" (according to you).

I said that Clinton's budget with the tax increases (which I'm not saying was good or even helped reduce deficit) was done without Republican help (1993).  I also said he "later" worked to produce "pay as you go" (1997), what you refer to as the "budget deal".  Every year involves a budget "deal" since there's a budget every year.

Bottom line is Bush administrations (Sr., Jr.) have been paragons of fiscal recklessness.  Must be genetic.

Or a sarcasm meter. (I think that linking to a book about the budget deal sort of implies that I believe there was a budget deal)I said nothing of the sort. You said, "He did so in a budget deal, with no Republican help at all, that included raising taxes on the most wealthy. "

My point was that there was a deal between Clinton and Republicans - hardly a reflection of you're "no republican help at all" garbage.

"accident" in quotes? What are you smoking. The 1993 "deal" certainly didn't balance any budget (deficits as far as they eye can see) so isn't germane to this discussion at all.

If you can become an entertaining troll, you're welcome to stay. If you remain both uninformed *and* antagonistic, you can get lost.

not become so distracted by the less-than-stellar record of the Bush administration on spending that we blind ourselves to the reality of a Kerry administration: no serious effort whatsoever to reform entitlement programs that, more than any other factor in the budgeting process, create the budget deficits that so outrage you.  

a surplus OR balanced budget:

  09/30/2003        $6,783,231,062,743.62

  09/30/2002        $6,228,235,965,597.16

  09/28/2001        $5,807,463,412,200.06

  09/29/2000        $5,674,178,209,886.86

  09/30/1999        $5,656,270,901,615.43

  09/30/1998        $5,526,193,008,897.62

  09/30/1997        $5,413,146,011,397.34

  09/30/1996        $5,224,810,939,135.73

  09/29/1995        $4,973,982,900,709.39

  09/30/1994        $4,692,749,910,013.32

  09/30/1993        $4,411,488,883,139.38

  09/30/1992        $4,064,620,655,521.66    

  09/30/1991        $3,665,303,351,697.03

Go here for more.

There was a definite trend though.

Glad to see evidence rather than hyperbole. I've gone to that site often.  Yes, deficit continued up during Clinton, but that was because of continued interest payments on the trillions run up earlier.  Along those lines, does Bush's promise to cut the annual deficit in half (amazing he thinks that's such a huge accomplishment given that he inherited the healthiest budget situation in decades) include those same, now much larger, annual interest payments of several hundred billion?

Given the dire necessity to upgrade security at ports, rail, power stations, etc., where is the money to do this going to come from?  The $150 billion spent so far in Iraq could have covered all this, with a lot left over.  Yet another reason for fiscal conservatives to be disenchanted with Bush.

You sound like the companies trying to exclude line items in the budget in order to falsely claim a profit. Care to try again?

Bill Clinton is the only President since 1980 to produce a balanced budget, after inheriting record deficits from Bush Sr.



Don't forget he also inherited the recovery from the recession from Bush Sr. That is unless your science teaches you to believe that Clinton merely saying the recession was over the minute he took office was a significant policy contribution to stimulate the economy.



with no Republican help at all,



Lay off the cool aid, will ya? Who had control of the Congress at that time?



I see no evidence of fiscal responsibility on the part of Bush



Since you claim to be a scientist, I can trust your objectivity. You pointed out that Clinton inherited record deficits. Surely you will concede that Bush in turn inherited record deficits from Clinton, "the fiscal conservative".



Again the primary part of the solution is to grow the economy. That is something that Kerry is farther from than Bush seeing as he wants to increase spending far more than Bush, and raise taxes on top of that. I do disagree with continuing to increase spending, which is exactly why I am against adding another 2.2 trillion which Kerry wants.

Bill Clinton didn't have a deficit! Get it through your heads! The way he did it was by cutting our military and taxing the heck out of us. Hey, I'm sure we'd be able to handle a tax increase or two!

Come on, the wonderful Bill Clinton fiscal policy would not have included liberating Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm sure if we would have had Al Gore, we'd have an even better budget by looking the other way while Saddam mass murdered his own population so that the US could get in on the oil-for-food scandal.

I'm sure there would be "good will" generated toward the US generated if we pulled out of Iraq right now. I'm sure the majority of the populous of Iraq would just love us. We should do it, it would help balance our budget, screw those Iraqis. Hey women of Afghanistan, screw you too, we're going to pull out of your country so we can balance our budget and not run deficits. Who cares if you are killed because you have a voice? Apparently there are those in the US that don't care about your civil rights when we run deficits!

Funny, those same people that don't care about your civil rights are arguing that their civil rights are being violated because the US doesn't want to increase their income by recognizing their marriages.

Greed sucks doesn't it?

Conservatives:

Thank you for having "good will" towards the rest of the world even if sometimes the media of the rest of the world may portray a people group as not having "good will" towards you. Thanks for stomaching a deficit during this contentious time in our history.

Who called Clinton a fiscal conservative?  That's just the point--Bush can't even match the record of Clinton!

How was the budget in record deficit in Jan 2001? It was in surplus excluding interest payments.  Go back and check the link to the Debt site, showing much more modest annual increases the last several years of Clinton before a return to huge increases under Bush.  

As I've indicated, I'm not arguing in favor of Kerry when it comes to fiscal issues, so you don't need to bash him to get me to pay attention to your comments.  Libertarians are the only fiscal conservatives left, as I said before.

How was the budget in record deficit in Jan 2001?



If you will read the post you agreed with previously, you will see that the deficit number for 2001 was bigger than the one for 2000, which was bigger than the number for the year before that, and before that, ad nauseam. So unless you mean to redefine the word "record" you can't make that case. You pointed out that Clinton inherited a record deficit. I pointed out that Clinton passed along a new record.



showing much more modest annual increases



EXACTLY! Thank you for agreeing with that. So now that we agree upon the fact of increases, lets get off who left who what.



Bush can't even match the record of Clinton!



Yes, but Bush also didn't have the option of spending only a couple of million on a few cruise missiles lobbed at a couple of tents after yet another US embassy was destroyed. While I do disagree with some of the other spending, I hardly criticize him for not saying, "Sorry guys, once we get this budget thing worked out a few years from now, we'll respond to terrorism."



To me it sounds like the real issue is whether a vote should be wasted on someone who I agree with entirely and who has no chance to win, or if I should vote for the guy who has a chance to win and of that subset, who I agree with more. I take the latter, not the former. When doing the former, the risk is that the guy I have the biggest problems with becomes more likely to win.

Obviously, "record" means record annual deficit.  By your use of the word, any annual increase in the debt at all will produce a "record" deficit, in which case the word loses any real meaning.

I'm starting to wonder if, despite misgivings, I'm not giving the Dems enough consideration.  This site really opened my eyes:

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

By your use of the word, any annual increase in the debt at all will produce a "record" deficit,



you said:

after inheriting record deficits from Bush Sr.

I responded to your words. Pick them more carefully.



This site really opened my eyes:



The problem with such a simplistic analysis is that it offends even the most liberal scientific sensibilities. First, economic plans have long term impacts long after they are enacted. Second, things that happen early in office of a new president cannot be attributed to the sitting president who has enacted no policies yet. Third, major world events are not accounted for, or normalized into the study. A sloppy accounting methodology like this cannot be treated scientifically. Surely you understand that the science of statistics requires rigorously correct and accurate methodologies to produce meaningful results...



If you will recall, the economy rebound started with Clinton before he made one policy. Some, of that data should surely be moved into the republican column. If you will further recall, the more recent recession started in the fourth quarter of 2000 (but financials were first reported in 2001 as part of the normal reporting process). This being before Bush did anything. So some of those job losses and other problems should be shifted into the democrat column. The fallout related to 9/11 shouldn't be factored in at all.



I was kidding before with the jabs about science, but now I am not so sure.

I'm beginning to think that you are trying to be dense and confused.  My definition of "record" means largest annual deficit to date.  The last few years of Bush Sr. were the largest annual deficits to date (check site). Hence, those were the "record" deficits inherited by Clinton.  W has broken those records, of course.

As far as the riposte site not including a quarter here or a quarter there in the right place, look at the time frame for most of the comparisons--they are decades!  What difference would a few months make?  Of course, there's cherry picking of the time frames presented, but they are still decades, and not "most recent quarter", like Bush (and you?) emphasizes.

You'd never make it in the lab, pal.

My definition of "record" means largest annual deficit to date



You didn't define your definition until just now silly. I responded your statement about a "record deficit", not record annual deficit. Again, pick your words more carefully.



As far as the riposte site not including a quarter here or a quarter there



I didn't quibble about quarters. I pointed out that the site is extremely inconsistent in it's blanket analysis. For example, GDP is rated for a blanket period of time after the current president, yet stock market performance isn't. Surely a scientist recognizes that inconsistency. If you cut the numbers carfully and cherry pick enough, you can make them say anything you want. Even some of the articles cited, mention that under the methodology republicans bear the entire depression and democrate bear the entire recovery. Now if that doesn't skew the results, I don't know what does.



Also, how much a president influences some of these categories, much less all of them, is not very clear. For example, inflation is intimately tied to interest rates, and yet the Fed controls some interest rates, not the President. The President controls none of the interest rates.



You'd never make it in the lab, pal.



Apparently you don't make it in the lab, lol

is an on-budget item IIRC.  So, yes, it would be included.  And it would also follow that all Bush would have to do to cut the deficit in half is use your fuzzy math and exclude interest.  

But if you are interested in accuracy we could take a bigger step in that direction disaggregating unified budget numbers.  Want to place any bets on whether Clinton had any surpluses not including the FICA fund?       

Given their fondness for a president who loves debt, no wonder Republican-voting states are called "Red States":

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that this election-year's federal deficit will reach $422 billion, congressional aides said Tuesday, the highest ever, yet a smaller shortfall than analysts predicted earlier this year.

After a fleeting four-year return to annual budget surpluses under President Clinton, deficits have returned with a vengeance under Bush.

Whatever the short-term deficits, most analysts agree the budget picture will worsen considerably within the coming decade. That is when the huge baby boom generation will begin relying increasingly on Social Security and Medicare, driving those programs' costs upward.

There was no budget surplus.  As referenced by Polyphemus, the stock of debt each year was:

  09/30/2003        $6,783,231,062,743.62

  09/30/2002        $6,228,235,965,597.16

  09/28/2001        $5,807,463,412,200.06

  09/29/2000        $5,674,178,209,886.86

  09/30/1999        $5,656,270,901,615.43

  09/30/1998        $5,526,193,008,897.62

  09/30/1997        $5,413,146,011,397.34

  09/30/1996        $5,224,810,939,135.73

  09/29/1995        $4,973,982,900,709.39

  09/30/1994        $4,692,749,910,013.32

  09/30/1993        $4,411,488,883,139.38

  09/30/1992        $4,064,620,655,521.66    

  09/30/1991        $3,665,303,351,697.03

Not a single year was there an actual surplus.  But don't think it is past politicians to claim success for a surplus that never happened.  Both sides fought for the right to say "I balanced the budget," even when it never balanced.