"David Hall" wrote in message
om...
"Mike in Mystic" wrote in message
news:b_m1c.30694
SNIP
One other statistic I read recently but can't find the source is that
the
ratio of national debt to GDP is about 30% at this time. Using the
latest
CBO report for estimates, by 2050 the ratio will be about 200%
(debt:GDP)!!!! Basically, this says that we're running an unsustainable
model and have no choice but to increase the income:costs ratio
substationally. I think Greenspan's suggestion to cut social security
and
increase the retirement age is by far the most sensible approach. If
the
tax and spend Democrats get their way we'll be living in a socialist
state
and have a 50% tax rate. God help us.
Mike
As a long time Republican who will for lack of a better choice vote
for GWB this fall, I must say I would rather have "tax and spend" than
the current "don't tax but still spend". The best would be a "tax
until it hurts and still don't spend until that hurts too" until ALL
the national debt was paid off. I detest the fact that my two little
grandsons (as well as hoped for other grandkids and their progeny)
will have to pay for things that my generation bought and consumed. We
have no pride or self respect in leaving debt to our kids, grandkids
and future generations. I detest that Bush is spending at a deficit
but the Democrats just gave me the choice of him or the most liberal
Democrat in the Senate. Where is Ross when we need him 
Dave Hall
I essentially agree with you. Something noone in the news has stated or
recognized is that thus far the Bush policies have been precisely what was
needed at the time and fully meet most economists expectations for what
should have been done during a recession. Deficit spending IS a good thing
in this situations and it is having exactly the effect that it should.
Increases in productivity are entirely ignored by the press, yet they keep
harping on the lack of job creation. I admit this is relevant, but it is
taken out of context in terms of overall economic growth. Anyway, I want
the debt to be eliminated as well, but I think it has to be addressed in
terms of the economy as a whole. Simply saying "no deficit spending" is
naive and not good economic policy. Protectionist trade policies are also
BAD for our economy as a whole. Sure, some people will lose jobs in the US,
but if you look at the overall benefits to our consumers (i.e. lower prices,
etc.) and the entire economic picture, free trade is a very good thing for
us. I have a 6-month old son, so the concerns you state are mine, too.
Anyway, my main point is you shouldn't detest Bush for his deficit spending
policies - they are appropriate and a good thing. His PROJECTIONS, however,
ARE scary. The weak dollar and dependence on foreign capital to prop up our
bond market is very troubling. If the Asian bond-holders cash out, we could
be heading for the worst recession since the early 80's with mortgage rates
in the teens, etc. Getting the debt down in these terms becomes a big
priority, one that it seems Bush needs to focus on a bit more very soon.
The thing about Bush is that he seems to do what his advisors suggest, and
I'm sure his economic team is aware of these factors and will make the
appropriate suggestions. But, you never know. But, as you said, there's no
way I'm voting for a two-faced "patriot" that has flames coming out of his
drawers.
Mike