Rolling Stone - May 5, 2006

**solypsist** · 04-20-2006, 17:37

skip the first two paragraphs.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/pro...on=6.0.12.1040

/in before teh right-wing group decry the source without reading the article.

**Goofball** · 04-20-2006, 18:00

Originally Posted by The Article

The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006. Yet Bush -- sounding much like Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" -- insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!

Wow.

**yesdachi** · 04-20-2006, 19:07

I don’t think anyone would say this administration has spent wisely but I don’t think it is any big surprise that we have borrowed a lot of money over the last five years.

This is not an excuse but just consideration points:

1- The economy was on a down swing (dot-bomb)
2- Outsourcing was on an up swing (causing massive unemployment followed by a “jobless” recovery)
3- Our financial core was attacked (9/11 – among other things it caused many spending plans to be put on hold)
4- We have been at war (shovels money into fire)

Should we (administration, congress, etc.) have been spending more carefully? Yes. Will this be a black eye on this administration when future generations read about it in history books? Yes.
Is it a surprise? No.

Will we recover form it? I’m not sure how (I doubt anyone would like my suggestions), but I don’t think we have choice.

**Blodrast** · 04-20-2006, 19:26

Well, the US has been through wars before - which I'm sure caused the economy to go down at least as bad as the dot-bomb... and I'm also sure that the world wars were a lot worse on the economy than this one...

And what about '29-30 and the Great Depression ? The economy was bad then, too, and (I'm guessing) there were more jobless people then than there are now (proportionally)...

So I'm not entirely sure those reasons are enough...

**yesdachi** · 04-20-2006, 20:38

Originally Posted by Blodrast

So I'm not entirely sure those reasons are enough...

I don’t think they are either but they are points that cause me to not be shocked.

**Blodrast** · 04-20-2006, 20:46

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I don’t think they are either but they are points that cause me to not be shocked.

heh, okie then, I see your point. I thought you were justifying it through those arguments, and I wasn't exactly convinced...

**Crazed Rabbit** · 04-21-2006, 00:34

Do those figures take inflation into account?

Crazed Rabbit

**Lemur** · 04-21-2006, 02:21

Oh for pete's sake, rather than asking (three time in a row!) whether or not inflation has been taken into account, look up the numbers and do your own calculation. It ain't rocket science, peeps.

**Tachikaze** · 04-20-2006, 20:33

You beat me to it, soly.

I'm glad that Bush is getting the recognition he deserves. He brought about atrocious actions and policies I never thought the US was capable of.