According to David Stockman, OMB director under Ronald Reagan, the deficit and debt increase of the Reagan years was intentionally implemented to force the economy into a crisis to achieve a restructuring of government spending and cutting discretionary programs. Fortunately, there were some limits to what Congress would approve at the time although the military spending did get the Soviet Union to bankrupt itself trying to keep up.

Now, there doesn't seem to be any limits on spending with massive tax cuts and, among other things,a bottomless pit of spending in Iraq and the Republican prescription drug "benefits" program for Medicare. The Republicans can't give money to their supporters fast enough. Congressional Republicans don't seem to care how many Billions are wasted or are unaccounted for in Iraq and elsewhere. Coupled with the fact that foreign debt has doubled since Bush took office, adding a Trillion dollars in 5 years, I have to think that the Bush administration wants the economy to crash, wants to default on foreign debt, and wants to radically restructure our economy and government spending if not our entire society.

Are we one more terrorist incident away from having this happen? Does anyone else think that the Democrats and many Republicans don't realize how radical the intent of this administration really is?

According to David Stockman, OMB director under Ronald Reagan, the deficit and debt increase of the Reagan years was intentionally implemented to force the economy into a crisis to achieve a restructuring of government spending and cutting discretionary programs. Fortunately, there were some limits to what Congress would approve at the time although the military spending did get the Soviet Union to bankrupt itself trying to keep up.

Now, there doesn't seem to be any limits on spending with massive tax cuts and, among other things,a bottomless pit of spending in Iraq and the Republican prescription drug "benefits" program for Medicare. The Republicans can't give money to their supporters fast enough. Congressional Republicans don't seem to care how many Billions are wasted or are unaccounted for in Iraq and elsewhere. Coupled with the fact that foreign debt has doubled since Bush took office, adding a Trillion dollars in 5 years, I have to think that the Bush administration wants the economy to crash, wants to default on foreign debt, and wants to radically restructure our economy and government spending if not our entire society.

Are we one more terrorist incident away from having this happen? Does anyone else think that the Democrats and many Republicans don't realize how radical the intent of this administration really is?


Agreed. It might be difficult to engineer a right wing, totalitarian theocracy otherwise.

First answer the why part of it.

Why would would it be crashed.

According to David Stockman, OMB director under Ronald Reagan, the deficit and debt increase of the Reagan years was intentionally implemented to force the economy into a crisis to achieve a restructuring of government spending and cutting discretionary programs. Fortunately, there were some limits to what Congress would approve at the time although the military spending did get the Soviet Union to bankrupt itself trying to keep up.

Now, there doesn't seem to be any limits on spending with massive tax cuts and, among other things,a bottomless pit of spending in Iraq and the Republican prescription drug "benefits" program for Medicare. The Republicans can't give money to their supporters fast enough. Congressional Republicans don't seem to care how many Billions are wasted or are unaccounted for in Iraq and elsewhere. Coupled with the fact that foreign debt has doubled since Bush took office, adding a Trillion dollars in 5 years, I have to think that the Bush administration wants the economy to crash, wants to default on foreign debt, and wants to radically restructure our economy and government spending if not our entire society.

Are we one more terrorist incident away from having this happen? Does anyone else think that the Democrats and many Republicans don't realize how radical the intent of this administration really is?

first of all i dont agree with you that any of that will cause the economy to crash, not within the limit of Bush's term at least, which, according to his poll numbers looks like it will be the end of the republican's 8 year turn at running our country. in that case, the democrats will jump back into office and undo most of what bush has done, and the cycle will continue. our society is locked into a system where you only elect a representative from one of two political parties who are almost identical to each other in terms of structure and ideology. the economy just sways back and forth between them with all of its normal ups and downs no matter who is steering it. to think that the bush administration is doing anything worse to the economy then a Kerry administration would have done, is almost a complete delusion.

i can bet that with a kerry administration, an exit strategy in iraq would have been considered.
as things stand, unless an ideological opposite of bush takes office, things wont get much better economically.

i can bet that with a kerry administration, an exit strategy in iraq would have been considered.
as things stand, unless an ideological opposite of bush takes office, things wont get much better economically. Kerry was funded by the same people Bush was, They are using democracy.

i can bet that with a kerry administration, an exit strategy in iraq would have been considered.
as things stand, unless an ideological opposite of bush takes office, things wont get much better economically.

yeah youre probably right about iraq. but theres no way we would have gotten out of there without spending a lot of money to do it, so although we would be out, we wouldnt be too much further ahead i dont think. plus we would look like pussies. im no supporter of the iraq war, but if youre going to go into a country, fuck it up and rebuild it, you might as well follow through.

maybe to destroy social security.

charles....
i dont think we would be out of the war yet, but i think there would be a well thought out strategy as to how the conflict would end on our part.
that is something that is lacking with this administration: thinking beyond 10 minutes in the future.

charles....
i dont think we would be out of the war yet, but i think there would be a well thought out strategy as to how the conflict would end on our part.
that is something that is lacking with this administration: thinking beyond 10 minutes in the future.

yeah, well i guess i've come to expect a lack of foresight on the part of the Bushies, thus far its been the administrations only distinguishing feature. i can only hope that it blows up in their face and people get so sick of it that they elect someone other than a republican or democrat for the first time in a little over a century.

The answer to the question, Is this administration trying to wreck the economy?, is yes. Like an Enron exec furiously selling shares before reporting fraud, Bush needs to wreck the economy as fast as possible before the jig is up. That's how he and his wealthy supporters optimally rape the country for personal gain. The common denominator of corrupt governments is an economy in ruins.

yeah, well i guess i've come to expect a lack of foresight on the part of the Bushies, thus far its been the administrations only distinguishing feature. i can only hope that it blows up in their face and people get so sick of it that they elect someone other than a republican or democrat for the first time in a little over a century.

im not necessarily a "doomsayer", but i think that if something isnt done quickly about all of the white house's foreign spending, we wont have anything left for at home.
our education system sucks. the only reason i am above average intelligence is that i learned OUTSIDE of school.
our road systems suck, but mostly because they are handled by the state, and not by the feds.
in a time like this, bush shouldnt be trying to make tax cuts permanent. he should be RAISING taxes, to fund these programs.

instead he spends OUR money on other countries.
its complete bullshit.

All I'm gonna say, to whoever's running this country, is get our house in order before you start trying to clean someone else's.

Hi Zanket,

I am Human 2.0 , so how come your Avatar is 60x60 ?

All I'm gonna say, to whoever's running this country, is get our house in order before you start trying to clean someone else's.

*claps hands*

im not necessarily a "doomsayer", but i think that if something isnt done quickly about all of the white house's foreign spending, we wont have anything left for at home.
our education system sucks. the only reason i am above average intelligence is that i learned OUTSIDE of school.
our road systems suck, but mostly because they are handled by the state, and not by the feds.
in a time like this, bush shouldnt be trying to make tax cuts permanent. he should be RAISING taxes, to fund these programs.

instead he spends OUR money on other countries.
its complete bullshit.


i really think that our government is almost completely beyond the control of the people at this point. its discouraging.

instead he spends OUR money on other countries.

Actually, he spends future generations' money on American mega-corporations that got him into office. They in turn spend a fraction of that money on other countries, spend a fraction on the Republican party's future campaigns and future kickbacks to Bush when he leaves office (think $100K per hour speaking fees), and build mansions with the rest. The military is heavily outsourced to the corporations.

I am Human 2.0 , so how come your Avatar is 60x60 ?

Maybe it got grandfathered in.

Maybe it got grandfathered in. :bugeye:

to think that the bush administration is doing anything worse to the economy then a Kerry administration would have done, is almost a complete delusion.

No. You are wrong about this. The Israeli Loyal Neo Cons and the Bush Administration are purposefully doing all of this.

You really ought to stop reading McNews. It is all propaganda and lies. If you want reality, you might try here.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html

No. You are wrong about this. The Israeli Loyal Neo Cons and the Bush Administration are purposefully doing all of this.

You really ought to stop reading McNews. It is all propaganda and lies. If you want reality, you might try here.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html

i heard you were a child molester.

by the way in case you havent noticed, both sides of the political fence in america have israeli dick in their mouth, dont be so blind.

next you'll say joe leiberman is an anti semite.

youre killin me here.

i really think that our government is almost completely beyond the control of the people at this point. its discouraging.

its more than discouraging....i wont come back to america until bush is gone, or something dramatic happens in the cavern he calls a head.

to think that the bush administration is doing anything worse to the economy then a Kerry administration would have done, is almost a complete delusion.
I think Kerry or Gore would have called for a balanced budget, wouldn't have adjusted the tax scheme to favor the rich, wouldn't have invaded Iraq (so that's half a trillion right there), and would have made moves towards energy independence.

Yeah, I think Gore or Kerry would have called for a balanced budget, but neither would have had success, due to the recession. Add the problem of Republicans really not wanting reduce defense and military spending and Democrats really not wanting to touch social spending and you still would end up running budget deficits. Clinton and a Republican congress only managed to run surpluses on a strong economy they didn't do much in terms of reducing spending.

The only real difference between either Gore or Kerry and Bush as Spidergoat mentioned is that we wouldn't be in Iraq.

If Gore or Kerry had continued Clinton's fiscal strategy then the recession may not have happened at all, or been mild. I don't know of any social spending Clinton did that isn't profitable. He all but ended welfare. We had surpluses under Clinton because his governing was excellent, and that fuels the economy. He didn't need to reduce spending then. Bush's fiscal management has been unbelievably bad (or pretty much what you'd expect from a C-student who never needed to balance a checkbook), and is getting worse.

If the only real difference between either Gore or Kerry and Bush is that we wouldn't be in Iraq, then that's still at least $2 trillion right there that would not have been (or is slated to be) completely wasted. I think the real difference would be about quadruple that, all things considered. Since this is all borrowed money and we already had a huge deficit stacked up from the Reagan and Bush Sr. years, then after including the interest on debt, and future money that will need to be borrowed due to the out-of-control spiral effect of too much debt and interest load (and the interest on that, and so on), the difference would reasonably be over $30 trillion, or about enough to make the difference between a superpower US and a third-world US.