0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
16% (1 Vote)
83% (5 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
Of those, I had to vote for Hoover... the first President to oversee a recession that was still getting worse after three years, and didn't involve a war on US territory. There are substantial arguments that the extended duration of this recession was CAUSED BY his policies, and that the inflationary bubble that led to the recession was also CAUSED BY his policies as a senior official in the prior administration - and that at least the inflationary bubble and beginning of the recession he caused DELIBERATELY.But what of the guy who campaigned explicitly against those policies and pointed out how much harm they were doing, won election, and promptly expanded and enlarged them? "X is causing disaster - so let's do twice as much of it" - would that not be even worse? That is exactly what Franklin Roosevelt did.And the Civil War was, at the top level among the politicians, between: people who wanted to preserve slavery and were willing to destroy the Constitution to do so; and people who wanted to destroy the Constitution and were willing to either preserve or end slavery, whichever was more convenient, to do so. The latter won, and slavery was ended - and so was the primacy of the idea that the national government has only those powers the Constitution grants to it.
But what of the guy who campaigned explicitly against those policies and pointed out how much harm they were doing, won election, and promptly expanded and enlarged them? "X is causing disaster - so let's do twice as much of it" Yeah, You are right, Bush ran against federal spending, and then massively increased federal spending.
Yeah, You are right, Bush ran against federal spending, and then massively increased federal spending. But who hasn't?Clinton, after all, informed us that "the era of big government is over" and then enlarged government faster than most of his predecessors - in spite of his biggest single attempt to enlarge it failing in Congress.
There is no Democrat who increased the national federal long term debt as much as Reagan did. "Guns" cost far more than "butter." George W. Bush is on course to be the second highest spending President next to Reagan. The others do not begin to come close. Further, Reagan and W. Bush would have spent billions more on the space age "Star wars" laser/missile defense (which would have done absolutely nothing to stop 911) but the public reacted negatively. We need better espionage/security rather than proving we can beat Afghanistan and Iraq, even though we can not find Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda remains as menacing as ever.
"Guns" cost far more than "butter." Actually, if you look at the federal budget, "butter" costs a lot more. And, after adjusting for inflation, the national government is spending more per capita today than it did in 1944 - when it was spending a lot on guns.
What Reagan did at the time turned out to be the right thing to do. The economy looks somewhat better and W. Bushes riverboat gambles are working. Reagan was moderated by an opppositional Congress. The previous administration was moderated by Republican congress. Mixed government appeares to work best. W. Bush has no countervailing force other than cloture in the Senate (so what). W. Bush looks like it will work out in the short term, but like the environment, it could have long term consequences (noone knows). Medically, recent HIPPA regulations require unneccary and worthless and meaningless paperwork that daunts previous red tape (it does absolutely no good, sort of like his bumbling with education). Ironically, it appears he does better with foreign affairs than he does domestically. The guns versus butter thing, "butter" provides far more to the individual buck for buck than defense spending. Defense needs more long term focus which would include more focus on espionage/security/AlQueda
Horsehocky.You can NOT make a rational statement that Butter cost more than Guns. It is fiscally impossible. Two war items alone prove my point: At $45 million per aircraft for the JSF, and the cost of $144.4 BILLIION (to date) for the Iraq debacle. Butter produced in the US: 145 million pounds, at the national avrage of 1.33= 1,928,500,000 (or 2 Billion). So, unless the US Government has bought ALL Known supplies of Butter for the next 15 years, WE DO NOT SPEND MORE ON BUTTER THAN GUNS.Bush is a Disaster.If he's the best we've got, continue to call me a FORMER Republican.
And, after adjusting for inflation, the national government is spending more per capita today than it did in 1944 - when it was spending a lot on guns. In 1944, the government was spending a huge amount - both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the national government's budget - on guns.Today, after adjusting for inflation and even for population growth as well, it's spending MORE on guns. And that's not including extra expenditures for the war in Iraq. And yet, it's spending a smaller percentage of the national government's budget on guns.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |