Woodstock CT Café

by Con

Your comment (to A Taxpayer) subtly implies that you somehow know my political beliefs (you don’t). My comment (and this one) is limited to one particular group of conservatives who’s opinions I’ve heard or read extensively. I have no idea what is the basis for any of your flawed assumptions regarding what I believe (or regarding the true causes of California’s problems), but you do illustrate nicely (i) this incorrect notion these conservatives have that they know exactly what others are thinking (often based on tortured and incorrect extrapolation); (ii) how they constantly skip over numerous rhetorical ‘steps’ that are necessary to make a fair, honest and disciplined argument or truly prove a point; and (iii) the tendency to simply blame democrats/liberals for absolutely all problems while predicting (as you put it) “that liberalism is destroying the fabric of our country”. There’s nothing fair, balanced or enlightened about any of that – opinions are not facts and repeating them or screaming them at full volume doesn’t change that fundamental truth.

I said “many similarities to McCarthyism” and you come back with Pat Buchanin rhetoric? Were you trying to provide another illustration? Even in an article about California’s economy, that man can’t resist disparaging race and diversity. His analysis is half-baked and some of that article is just twisted. You talk about ‘telling the truth’, when all of these interpretations are NOT the truth, but mere opinion (on both sides). For example, it’s no foregone conclusion whatsoever that one policy vs. another caused any of the problems in Europe, California, America etc. – people far smarter than us have spent lifetimes studying these matters and they don’t agree – they do their best and give educated opinions (and so much depends, in the first place, whether a given economist believes in Keynesian theories or New classical macroeconomics or what). Read the rest of this entry »

The title reflects Tax’s acknowlegment that he/she is a conservative Republican. Admin

by A Taxpayer

At the Federal level, the Bush II administration budget racked up a $500 billion annual deficit and added more than $4 trillion to the national debt over eight years of governance. During the first Bush term, when the Republicans controlled Congress, government spending grew on average at an annual rate of over 4 percent – far higher than during the previous Democratic Clinton administration. So here you have a point.

I think that George Bush’s rampant spending and expansion of entitlement programs was irresponsible and atypical of a true conservative Republican. Certainly Mr. Bush’s spending and deficit running was no where near the degree of degree what President Obama has accomplished in his first 100 days. I do understand the unprecedented nature of the economy which President (corrected by Admin) Obama inherited, but I am not convinced that his initiatives and budget are the most effective spending measures that could fuel the economy now or for the future.

As far as spending outlook, the Congressional Budget Office puts out a 10-year forecast that includes a projection for government spending. The forecast, at the end of the Bush spending spree, saw government spending in 2009 at about $3 trillion, increasing to $4.3 trillion by 2018.

Well, under the Obama administration, Federal spending for 2009 turned out $900 billion higher than was expected and Obama plans to spend $4.9 trillion in 2018, about $550 billion higher than the CBO’s projection.

Looking at the entire 10 years, and extrapolating out the CBO number to include an estimate for 2019, Obama has proposed that government spending over the next 10 years be $5.3 trillion higher than the CBO projected just last year.

And this already includes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2010! Read the rest of this entry »