I am not even going to bother reading this piece of spew.
Advice to any readers: just reverse this loser's predictions on anything because he is ALWAYS wrong! LOL

Is this guy a really lispy one?

A typical Bush supporter--refuses to acknowledge that Dear Leader should ever be held accountable for anything, ever. Why post a message only to say that you won't read the piece? Freerepublic.com awaits you, sir. Go howl with the other monkeys.

Stephen Roach has often been, well, overly pessimistic in his claims. Still, that well-known liberal rag _The Economist_ also claimed last week that the because of trade and budget deficits, the dollar is danger of being devalued. Why should you care? When your student loans (which, for people who haven't graduated yet, will be variable-rate, not fixed-rate: thanks, Congress) are at 15% after you finish school, pour a beer out for Bush and thank him for being a "real" conservative, unable to veto even one absurdly high spending bill.

Forty cents of every dollar you give to the federal government in the form of income tax is spent on the INTEREST on the national debt. That is ridiculous. This piece is right on. Our enormous debt is going to cripple this country, but hey, spend now, pay later, right?

Rob is quite right to criticize the current administration for being a spendthrift. It's unfortunate, then, that his argument is so historically, philosophically, and economically illiterate.

Somehow Rob blames Bush for massive spending, while ignoring the fact that huge chunks of that spending on are for programs that Democrats traditionally like. In the first three years of this administration, federal spending on education increased something like 60%. But that's an "investment in America's future", right? Well, wrong. But I would have thought that a good Democrat like Rob would be singing Bush's praises. Then there's the prescription drug benefit. It will cost several hundred billion dollars over the next decade. The Democrats' main objection was that the plan didn't cover enough. So while Rob is right in saying that Republicans can no longer claim to be the party of smaller government, Democrats are utterly hypocritical in condemning Bush's bloated spending. If they had had their way, the budget would have been even more bloated.

If Rob wanted to write an honest column, then I have a suggestion. First admit that when the Republicans took over Congress in the 1994 elections, they immediately produced one of the most fiscally responsible budgets ever. Bill Clinton fought them tooth and nail because he wanted to spend more (no, Rob, the budget was not balanced when Clinton was fighting that battle). So how did Republicans get from that budget to the fiscal monstrosity we see today? It would make for an interesting column, but since it would involve treating Republicans as something other than an amorphous blob of evil, Rob just couldn't write it.

Ok, Lizzy, here's point one. Illiterate means that one cannot understand the language well enough to read or write about it. Therefore, describing his argument as illiterate is incorrect. Your point of view would say he is ignorant or uninformed, but not illiterate.

Two, you can increase spending, but you can't do it and have a tax cut. The Republicans who came in power in '94 did play a major part in creating the balanced budget and budget surplus of the late '90s. Too bad their current incarnation has wasted that away. If not for these ridiculous, unnecessary tax cuts, the deficit would not be anywhere near as bad.

Someone who hears about economic freedom and can't think of anything but Enron is not just missing a few facts. He is basically incompetant to discuss the issue. (Although he might well qualify for tenure.) People like that are economic and philosophical illiterates.

Dumbasses like Lizzy think education is only for the wealthy. Well, when public schools fail, more people who otherwise could have learned to support themselves have to go on welfare, costing the taxpayers even more. I guess then idiots like Lizzy will demand that all welfare programs be eliminated. Then we can have people dying in the streets, more violent crime, and devolve into a Third World country. But never fear, wealthy people will be able to buy machine guns and will legally be able to kill anyone who comes within 100 yards of them because laws about gun control will be repealed. And it's not like those poor people mattered anyway -- what difference does it make if we kill the poor instead of helping them?

Good thing we have Lizzy to tell us who can and can't discuss issues.
Personally I would trust anyone with tenure over you.

Yes, and when we eliminate the National Science Foundation, we'll all have to go back to using steam engines. Thank you for giving that illustration of economic illiteracy.

Oh, goody! Another popular leftist fallacy. Yes, every time I tell you why you're stupid, that's just exactly like getting the police to put a gag over your mouth!

Rob, don't let these imbeciles get to you. You wrote an exceptional piece. Keep up the good work. Also, you are hot-looking!

Even a liberal would have to admit that liberals have a bad history of tax-and-spend. One costly policy after another never really helped this country. And of course Ronald Reagan was one of the biggest spenders in history, although he wouldn't necessarily qualify as the biggest taxer.

What it all boils down to is a total lack of fiscal responsibility. The U.S. Government wastes more money on frivolous projects and grants for the most ridiculous things than the average teenage mall rat spends at the arcades and cinemas. The federal government needs to set priorities and they must be held accountable for every dollar they spend.

Liberals and conservatives alike need a wake-up call.

Lizzy,
You, and any other conservative, liberal, liberatarian, reactionary, I don't care...would be extremely ignorant to argue that Bush has been a fiscally irresponsible president.
Yes, some deficits are due to programs pushed forth by Democrats (yet, ones that Bush did nothing to kill), but let us look at the large problem, one unpresidented in history: genious Bush LOWERED taxes during war time, which is the stupidest idea ever. You don't REWARD the country by going to war (especially such a questionably justifiable one), you make them PAY for it, and, if this war is so necessary, then those who support it should be willing to pay for it. That, combined with the costs of the two wars themselves, are mainly responsible for this record deficit.
If you think that was a "great move" by the president, you are simply living in Bushworld. The best way to prevent the public for stupidly saying "let's kill 'em all" is throwing the harsh, real numbers in front of their face and saying, "okay, but it's going to cost you."
Keep arguing, Lizzy, and let me know how it's working when you (along with me and everyone else) is having to pay this deficit back in ten to twenty years.
Rob, awesome column.

Lizzy,
You, and any other conservative, liberal, liberatarian, reactionary, I don't care...would be extremely ignorant to argue that Bush has been a fiscally irresponsible president.
Yes, some deficits are due to programs pushed forth by Democrats (yet, ones that Bush did nothing to kill), but let us look at the large problem, one unpresidented in history: genious Bush LOWERED taxes during war time, which is the stupidest idea ever. You don't REWARD the country by going to war (especially such a questionably justifiable one), you make them PAY for it, and, if this war is so necessary, then those who support it should be willing to pay for it. That, combined with the costs of the two wars themselves, are mainly responsible for this record deficit.
If you think that was a "great move" by the president, you are simply living in Bushworld. The best way to prevent the public for stupidly saying "let's kill 'em all" is throwing the harsh, real numbers in front of their face and saying, "okay, but it's going to cost you."
Keep arguing, Lizzy, and let me know how it's working when you (along with me and everyone else) is having to pay this deficit back in ten to twenty years.
Rob, awesome column.

P.S. Sorry for the repeat

As usual, Lizzy's responses are partially on target, and partially absurd.

Democrats do bear blame for the issue--but primarily in developing programs many people like, such as Social Security. That said, Republicans have complete control of the government now. Blame, therefore, can now only fall on them. Note the lack of any substantive rebuttal from Lizzy on this--there isn't any.

For once, I agree with ol' Vlad. Unfortunately, my agreement must end halfway.

Yes, the president has spent way too much. I cannot believe he bent over and allowed Sen. Kennedy to blow up the education budget from $36 billion to $63 billion. I cannot believe he gave Medicare the largest increase in funding since its beginning. Those were both incredibly irresponsible moves.

However, the problem is not tax cuts. Even assuming everything you say is true, those cuts "cost" the government a negligible amount of the current deficit.

You know, if you would just agree to slash federal spending by 50%, I think we'd have the startings of a political party, Mr. Deters.

Psssssst, borrow as much as you can long-term ,at fixed rates (motgages, student loans) and wait for inflation to reduce the "real" cost - just like the government will!

Anonymous writes:

"[you] would be extremely ignorant to argue that Bush has been a fiscally irresponsible president."

Did you mean to say "responsible" instead of "irresponsible"? Or do you believe that Bush is fiscally responsible? I will assume the former.

Let's see, I agreed with Rob's criticism of Republicans as fiscally irresponsible. I also called the current budget a "fiscal monstrosity". And from this you get that I'm DEFENDING Bush. Do you people ever read anything?

Though both parties are to blame for the excess spending, the Republicans do need to take a great deal of the responsibility for the increase in government we've seen over Bush's years in office. No Child Left Behind greatly increased funding and power for the National Dept. of Education. Weren't test scores higher before the US Department of Education was created in 1979? If war was indeed necessary for the promotion of democracy in the Middle East or for attacking terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, shouldn't the government decrease spending in other areas to compensate for the large increase in military and war funding? Bureaucratic managerial positions at mid and upper-levels continue to increase (during Bush's presidency) while private companies continue to get rid of managers. Conservatives in Congress and in the White House need to be held accountable for decreasing government and spending. While Kerry may not have done much different and the Democrats may want to continue to increase government, the Republicans have not held true to the core conservative beliefs of low spending and less government. Rob presents many strong points.

Lizzy,

Sorry, I should have inserted not, as in "to argue that Bush has NOT been a fiscially irresponsible president." My bad, didn't mean to pull a Bushism.

As to your ridiculous "flip-flop"
you specifically said:
"Somehow Rob blames Bush for massive spending, while ignoring the fact that huge chunks of that spending on are for programs that Democrats traditionally like. In the first three years of this administration, federal spending on education increased something like 60%. But that's an "investment in America's future", right? Well, wrong."

How is that not defending Bush? "Somehow Rob blames Bush..."?? BECAUSE IT'S BUSH'S FAULT. You are obviously backing the president, and contradicting Rob. Can YOU not read?

You would be much more fun to debate with if you weren't such an obvious idiot.

I condemned Bush for embracing the socialistic idiocy that you demand. That is not defending him, you drooling dolt.

I'm a conservative Republican, who voted Bush because of Kerry's downfalls and saw Bush as the greater of two lesser candidates, and I'll freely admit Bush is no conservative. His spending is ridiculous, however so was Rob's article. It's time to look at the real issues instead of continuing party bashing, then maybe we as a country can get somewhere productive.

I agree with another poster, who in my opinion, got straight to the point by stressing the most important aspect of this issue: Rob Deters is definitely a hunk! If my sorority ever has another stripper party...

Lizzy,

You make no sense.

What "socialistic idiocy" are you talking about? Funny how even when you "condemn" Bush you're really just blaming him for going along with the evil democrats.

If democrats were in office, there is no way this deficit would be so large. As I said before, no democratic (and I doubt no republican besides Bush, either) would have been stupid enough to raise taxes during war time. Your conservative leaders may not be able to afford that bigger yacht, but taxes are both necessary and justified during a time of war, which, if you haven't noticed, is expensive, and a major reason the budget is in the toilet, not because of "education" (which, contrary to what you say, is important to fund. If you had to work several jobs and pay your own way you might realize this. Not all of us can be jackoff C students and still become president based on our last name.)

The bottom line is, when you cut taxes for the rich and cut taxes for companies to ship overseas, you're taking a lot of revenue out of the system. There are always going to be expensive programs (like this genious but underfunded creation No Child Left Behind) but if you have irresponsible tax policy, you have a large deficit. That is the problem with Bush's fiscal policy.

But HEY! We can enjoy low taxes now (or our parents can) and then you, I and our families will be paying for these tax cuts in the future. Great plan.

Even today, in the middle of the war against Islamofascism, social spending dwarfs the tax cut and military spending put together. Bush hasn't cut social spending at all - in fact it has expanded enormously. Rob can emit all sorts of meaningless noises about fiscal responsibility, but the fact is that he would have cheered this spending if it had been proposed by a Democrat.

I disagree with the poster who said that Bush isn't really a conservative. He is a conservative, which is exactly why he is unable to resist the socialistic programs that Democrats demand.

The Democrats operate on the premise that need creates a moral claim on someone else's life and property. That's a very Christian doctrine, even when it comes in the form of Marxism. Bush, as a deeply religious man, shares the same Christian premise. The conclusion is the same: the government exists to enforce that moral claim, in the form of social programs. I believe that's why Bush spends like a Democrat.

Lizzy,

"Islamofacism"

Wow, typical ignorant American. Are you trying to diminish the Muslim religion or make is synonymous with "facism"? I would be careful.

I would say we're fighting a similar domestic war against Christianitofacism.

Actually, Bush has cut social programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, programs that help the poor, and is planning on privatizing Social Security.

Out of a 7 trillion dollar deficit, I would say two different tax cuts, the latter being 1.3 trillion, and over a trillion dollars alone being spent on two wars, are a significant part of our deficit. No doubt that social programs are part of it, but Bush's terrible tax policy is not helping.

It's not just that his policies create more deficit, it's that if he was smart with taxes he could cut into the deficit significantly.