By the way Rich Rocket, I am an Economist. I just don't speak like one until my boss asks for the company budget projections or asks me for last months P/L's or asks me to balance the ledger or find out how to transfer millions of company dollars to Milan so that they can pitch an ad to Ford Motor Co. or control the Amex spending of the Media Department or really, really important stuff like Wendys combo #1 without biggie sizing or Taco Bells combo #5 which costs 37 cents more but includes two cheese chalupas but a smaller coke. Anyway, Mr. Spur, let me put it like this to just end my debate. Politicians are the worst people on the planet if you ask me. And that includes Clinton because its obvious that he lied and slimed his way to a successful administration. The problem I have is that one party claims to be "more honorable" than the other and it turns out they are just as slimy as the rest of them. When Bush was campaigning, the f***er had me almost convinced to vote for him! I believed in what he was saying and just because I knew as someone with an "Economist background" that the tax rebate could hit hard if we didn't turn the economy around and because I am pro-choice, I didn't vote for Bush. But it was a debate I thought about alot and took very seriously the night before I headed to the booth. Let me put my work/Econ hat for just a second. I have the privilige to work in a huge ad agency and have the CEO of that company as my direct boss. That allows me to meet alot of influential people from time to time, thank God. One day, I spoke to Ronald Ongaro, a managing partner at Goldman Sachs here in NYC. This guy is the most conservative guy I have ever, ever spoke to. One day, we sat and spoke outside his office about the election back in October. Guess what he said? He told me to think about the lesser of two evils and vote for Gore. Why? Because as much as he disliked the guy and their party, his fiscal and economic policies were more sound and more stable in case of an extended recession than Bush's. On top of that, he said that the main problem he has with Bush is that he was being short-sighted when it came to the economy and that shrinking the surplus is like taking a trip to Atlantic City and betting the farm on a "sure thing". Wonderful if it worked. But will certainly be almost crippling to the economy if we hit more than 3 consecutive quarters of a downward trend. This is from a guy who has the most conservative views on the planet and I truly respect his insight now that I think about how right he was. Take it for what its worth, but I truly think that despite the fact that I know its my money in Washington, if you have it, use it for Healthcare or raising school standards or rebuilding the countrys infrastruture. Its not that I don't need the money. But hell, if I did without it for all these years, what the hell do I have to worry about 300 dollars for if I lived without it? Yea, if you are poor you could use that money. But how many poor people actually put that money back into the economy like Bush thought? How many of the poor actually said "Hey, let me spur consumer confidence"? Its like Jeff said, that rebate went to groceries. I haven't gotten mine yet, but I am damn sure I won't be trying to "spur consumer confidence". I am spending that on 3 boxes of size 3 diapers from Luvs, 5 cases of Imfamil Infant milk and the rest for baby clothes at the baby store. PS, I LOVE THE ROCKETMAN!!!
We will now pause while I address the single most ill-informed remark in this debate: You do realize, I hope... that nobody who actually knows physics believes that a missile defense system that functions properly will be feasible in the next 10 years? In fact, most ballistics experts believe shoot-to-kill will eventually be possible, but that decoys will never be overcome. Even in tests, in which the defense department "cheated," and actually told the NMD systems where to find the fake missile, they only hit their targets 3/17 times. This is the same missile defense system that Bush wants to implement. Think the enemy's going to tell us that? Or only launch one missile for that matter? But you don't even have to make an argument about feasibility. There isn't any danger of a rogue state launch. The CIA has estimated that no rogue state will possess an ICBM capable of reaching the US for at least the next 15 years. Since a missile defense system could be constructed and deployed in 10 years or less, this means that, even if we really want a system, we don't have to deploy it until we know that there's actual danger. The CIA found this twice, despite instructions from the Republican Senate to devise a worst case scenario. The Rumsfeld report found that it MIGHT be possible in 10 (I believe) years... but their methods were a joke... and their explicit instructions from the beginning were to "find a scenario in which it is possible for a rogue state to launch" (paraphrased). Sometime, read the parameters of the instructions... quite amusing. Now, if we're protecting against rogue states as Bush has explicitly stated... that covers us. But if, as many believe, Bush really is seeking to protect against China... well, that's simply not possible. 1. Decoys have an inherent advantage over smart missiles. Right now, 1950's technology can still fool our systems. And China has far more advanced technology in decoys than that. 2. The proposed missile system isn't enough to remotely eliminate the current Chinese thread, much less what they'll start constructing if they pass it. Oh, and NMD will ruin traditional M.A.D assessments... but let's not get into deterrence theory . More defense spending? Well, currently the US military's official mission is to maintain capacity to fight two "Desert Storm" type wars at once. Alas, this is clearly not possible with our current arsenal. And in fact, the attempt to maintain such a force has compelled the military to canibalize future capacity. Readiness is atrocious... and nothing in the Bush budget will change that. We need to either: 1. Make a massive recommitment to military security to enable the military to fulfill its mission or 2. Revise the military's current mission to something more congruent with the % of GDP we seem willing to allocate to defense. Carry on with the budget...
haven, The point is...the military cannot defend this nation's borders from a missle attack, yet maintains a presence around the globe, subsidizing the defense of a number of nations. I don't find this to be an ill-informed remark. This isn't to say that Bush's program is the best. I can't say I agree with his views on increasing the size of the military at this point. But...you would think that if it is called 'defense'....it could 'defend', especially with the amount of funding that the Department of 'Defense' receives annually. Almu, Bush's tax cut without his pledged spending increases on defense and Medicare wouldn't be a bad deal, IMO. A Republican Congress and Gore as president probably would've been ok, as the Congress would've helped out Gore by not passing all of his promised spending increases. That may have been what your friend had in mind. I think there is hope with the current president, and the almost evenly-split Senate and House that new spending will be held in check. Jeff, I hope to not see Social Security "raided" either. I hope to see it terminated...of course, that will never happen, but it would be a good day. RR, No offense taken.
Mr. Spur, one last thing. I am very encouraged STILL about the economy for the simple fact that from the WSJ that I saw today, inventory stockpiles are DECREASING, which is a great sign of economic upturn. Also, consumers are still buying houses at a good clip for the simple fact that interests rates are so low now and more banks are willing to lend money to minorities. But BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I am still pissed about Bush and his broken promises. And all that talk about integrity was such BS that I can smell it from here.
Indeed that is a good sign...though there is still some excess productive capacity no doubt. As for Bush's "promises", I have no problem with him breaking his ideas about spending more.
Ah ha... I misunderstood the nature of your original remark. I still disagree, quite strongly, but any rebuttal would spark a completely different sort of debate .
One more snippet: The Department of Defense was called the War Department until 1947. Since then (as before the name change), its job has had very little to do with defense...mostly with offense. Just an example of twisting language to meet propaganda needs.
mr spur: I kinda agree with you on SS. Here's why... Social Security is no longer support for the elderly in the way it was supposed to be. When SS was implemented (1917???), the average person didn't live past 60. That meant 5 years of SS. Today, the life expectancy is between 72 and 78 depending on who you ask. That's around 20 years of SS. According to a report done a few years ago (I think it was in the Wall Street Journal - have to look - my grandfather sent it to me with the note: "Don't count on social security for retirement.") stating that SS, in its present form, could not survive the oncoming onslaught from baby boomers. The report showed that, if you take SS at 55, you receive nearly every penny of the money you paid into SS by the time you are 62 years old. After that, the money is simply coming from the government. It also stated that, despite the rhetoric, social welfare (food stamps, aid to dependent mothers, unemployment benefits, etc) only made up 7% of the entire social security package. Another 20% was made up of retirement for veterans and other government pension plans. That means that 73% of the SS fund is for returning money to retired persons. The problem is that because people live so long, the fund is being run dry. Some economists have suggested a roll back of SS so that if you were born in X year (some have suggested somewhere between 1965 and 1980), your benefits will be scaled. The younger you are, the lower the benefits ultimately paid until it gets to zero. The problem is that SS is the sacred cow in politics. People are terrified to touch it because the most powerful voting base in America (and it is expected to get even more powerful as now a person turns 50 every 15 seconds in America!) is made up of people over the age of 55. The AARP is getting stronger and stronger and they don't want ANYONE touching that $$$. Personally, I don't expect to get any and I'm 32. I would prefer if they just took the money and used it to feed the homeless or open battered women's shelters or something.
