Funny stuff, Neo!!!!!!!!
"I am not sure the time frame is so dire,"
Then you are in disagreement with the CBO economists, the OMB economists... and the private econometrics firm hired by the WH (I guess to 'find' some good news for his tax plan by use of 'dynamic scoring'), ALL of whom agree on the timeline:
By '05 or '06 NEGATIVE EFFECTS FROM THE UNCONTROLLED DEFICITS AND GOVERNMENT OVER-SPENDING BEGIN TO OVERWHELM ALL THE BENEFITS OF LOWER TAX RATES. BY THE END OF THE DECADE, WE ARE IN DEEP DOO-DOO.
"That is the reason we need a solid Republican majority in both houses of Congress, and Dubya in the White House, so there is a clear mandate to cut spending."
This is COUNTER-INTUITIVE, and belied by the experience of history. The ONLY periods (post WW II) where we have been able to make serious progress on the deficit, was when we had DIVIDED GOVERNMENT to restrain spending.
(Letting EITHER Party have total control of the government's purse strings merely means that they SHOVEL all the PORK they possibly can to their base.)
Specifically, the best results were achieved with Republican control of Congress, and Democrats in the WH.
Bush's rate of increase in discressionary spending is running 50% higher then even Clinton's.
Recommendation when dealing with politicians: don't pay attention to the platitudes that they utter when their lips move... rather, WATCH WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO! |
