Government Finances and You

[Dynamite220]

If you haven't read a copy of the constitution of the United States of America within the past hour then get up, grab a copy, and read it form end to end, including the amendments, at least twice before you even read this. I won't be correcting ignorent people all fucking day long.

I have heard a hundred places about "Bush's" budget deficite and "Bush's" recession. Let me spell it out for you. Decisions that lead to such things are either in the hands of the congress or not in the hands of the government at all.

Nobody knows what causes economic downturns. We just know that they happen after economic uptruns. Recession is not the fault of government unless it is caused by inflation which is the result of flooding the country with unbacked currency. The latest recession was not caused by inflation, or if it was, it was not reacting to something that Bush did, because he hadn't been in office long enough (maybe a month or less) to do any damage.

As for budget deficite, there is a senate finance comitee to look after such things. If we are in debt, then it is either because they haven't done their job, or they decided that it was necessary to spend extra money for programs that they decide must be enacted. Remember, when deciding where to put their money, the congress listens to you. If they decide to put $T20 into pork spending on a random bug farm, god only knows where, it's because they recieved letters from people like you. That's what drove us into deficite.

[ChaosMage]

While you're certainly correct in that Bush is about as impotent as an 80 year old regarding appropriating money, and you're also correct that the president is not a legislator and can't do diddly about it, the President has classically and almost always (there have been some pretty significant exceptions, though even Clinton managed to work with his Congress when it was important) held sway in Congress and been able to push stuff through by finding a legislator from their party to sponsor a bill.

I believe the main reason this gets called "Bush's Deficit" by people is because A) The president is a figure head, who serves the purpose of either taking the blame or taking the credit for when things go well. Its half of the job. B) The 'tax cut' occured when every state in the country is broke and could really use some money. C) The record surplus we were supposed to have kinda disappeared, and the president is a figure head.

[ApathyMan]

Just a few points:

1. The process goes like this with every bill in congress (related to the budget) put forth by the President:

- The President suggests a bill to congress - one that would dramatically help the economy.

- Congressmen of the same political party make minor changes in the bill.

- Congressmen of the opposing party are opposed to it fully, and add to the bill what they feel is right - additions that could dramatically help the economy.

- Congress together make compromise after compromise until, in the end, the president is handed a bill that ends up being a piece of ineffective compromise/garbage.

2. Federal tax cuts make sense when states are in trouble because it frees up room for states to change their tax laws the way they see fit to lower budget deficits (i.e. a blank check to raise state taxes).

3. The government is not responsible for a recession unless it causes it. It's only happened a few times in history because of immense political corruption - that is not the case this time. The recession occurred simply because of the way the market works - it has periods of ups and downs. In this case, the "down" was caused, for a large part, the e-business bubble "bursting". The recovery was so slow becuase of occurrences in the private sector (Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc.), and the terrorist attacks on September 11th.

[fishmonk]

I can't say I'm impressed with your interpretation of our economy, considering it's completely wrong. No offense meant of course.

Believe me when I say that I have read the constitution, and believe me when I say strict constructionism is long gone. The last president to adhere to that doctrine was Thomas Jefferson, and even he ended up a loose constructionist in the end, maybe you've heard of this transgression, it's called the Louisiana purchase. The fact of the matter is government does things that the constitution does not give them the explicit right to. The federal government could cut all discretionary spending from its budget and still uphold its constitutional obligations.

The president plays several major parts when the national economy is considered:
#1. He must sign off on all bills before they become laws. Meaning he needs to agree with them, in that way he plays a key role in the process which shapes all the bills that go through the legislator.
#2. He instills confidence in consumers and investors, both home and abroad.
#3. The "Bush Deficit" is called the "Bush Deficit" because he is the one who proposes our federal budget to Congress. If he wants to run up a deficit and Congress wants to balance the budget, then the budget probably won't be passed.
#4. He handles foreign affairs! When China ties the value of its currency to the dollar, that’s something he is responsible for dealing with.

[Raerlynn]

Originally Posted by fishmonk

#1. He must sign off on all bills before they become laws. Meaning he needs to agree with them, in that way he plays a key role in the process which shapes all the bills that go through the legislator.

Taxes do not qualify. Taxes are not bills or laws. They happen completely within Congress. Sometimes the president gives a "push" one way or another, but he himself has no direct control over it.

Originally Posted by fishmonk

#2. He instills confidence in consumers and investors, both home and abroad.

Which also has nothing to do with the tax rate, interest rate, or anything inbetween. Confidence comes from any number of sources, and to claim that our President and our President alone carries that sole responsibility is foolish.

Originally Posted by fishmonk

#3. The "Bush Deficit" is called the "Bush Deficit" because he is the one who proposes our federal budget to Congress. If he wants to run up a deficit and Congress wants to balance the budget, then the budget probably won't be passed.

Congress makes that vote. Therefore it is not the President's fault if it is passed, it is Congress'. Much like the war in Iraq. It's Bush's fault for bringing it up, but Congress approved the measure. They could have said "no" and they didn't Which is why I hate people who bash Bush simply because of the war.

Originally Posted by fishmonk

#4. He handles foreign affairs! When China ties the value of its currency to the dollar, that’s something he is responsible for dealing with.

No again. China CHOOSES to do such a thing. The President of our country is not responsible for the well being of another. And by handle you mean "provides light supervision". Secretary of State Rice has the joy of the particular problem.

[fishmonk]

Originally Posted by Raerlynn

Taxes do not qualify. Taxes are not bills or laws. They happen completely within Congress. Sometimes the president gives a "push" one way or another, but he himself has no direct control over it.

Wow, you impress me! Oh wait! The president does have to sign a tax cut into law, because it IS a bill.

Which also has nothing to do with the tax rate, interest rate, or anything inbetween. Confidence comes from any number of sources, and to claim that our President and our President alone carries that sole responsibility is foolish

When did I say that he "carries that sole responsibility"? Because I didn't. Are you denying that the president has an effect on consumer confidence? Because you would be wrong.

No again. China CHOOSES to do such a thing. The President of our country is not responsible for the well being of another. And by handle you mean "provides light supervision". Secretary of State Rice has the joy of the particular problem.

If another country does something that is hurting our economy shouldn't the president do something about it? We can't just hope that China stops doing whatever we don't like. If North Korea has, and is developing nuclear weapons, are you going to say that that it's something NK CHOOSES to do? And that we can only provide light supervision? No the president and his administration must take an active role in diplomacy.

Congress makes that vote. Therefore it is not the President's fault if it is passed, it is Congress'. Much like the war in Iraq. It's Bush's fault for bringing it up, but Congress approved the measure. They could have said "no" and they didn't Which is why I hate people who bash Bush simply because of the war.

But there actually needs to be agreement, if the Congress and the President want to very different things, then nothing will get done. Sure it's easy to blame everything on Congress, but the fact the president has veto ability really disallows the Congress from passing anything the president doesn't like. (The budget included)

[Raerlynn]

Originally Posted by fishmonk

Wow, you impress me! Oh wait! The president does have to sign a tax cut into law, because it IS a bill.

And that is the extent of his power, which can be circumvented if Congress wants it badly enough.

Originally Posted by fishmonk

When did I say that he "carries that sole responsibility"? Because I didn't. Are you denying that the president has an effect on consumer confidence? Because you would be wrong.

Read my post before trying to flame me please. That part of the post is meant to point out that some people don't care about the person in charge, and simply crunch numbers and probabilities.

Originally Posted by fishmonk

If another country does something that is hurting our economy shouldn't the president do something about it?

I'd like to see that.

Originally Posted by fishmonk

We can't just hope that China stops doing whatever we don't like. If North Korea has, and is developing nuclear weapons, are you going to say that that it's something NK CHOOSES to do? And that we can only provide light supervision? No the president and his administration must take an active role in diplomacy.

1. Off topic by a metric mile. This is about US domestic tax policy, not NK or China.

2. Is any person or organization outside of the North Korea forcing North Korea to create these weapons? No. Therefore they are choosing to do so.

3. The President has a Secretary of State for a reason. It's so he doesn't have the headache of dealing with every foreign affair that exists. The President himself does not go to North Korea to chat does he? I thought not.

Originally Posted by fishmonk

But there actually needs to be agreement, if the Congress and the President want to very different things, then nothing will get done.

Wrong again. If Congress wants it badly enough they can circumvent his veto with a two-thirds majority vote.

Originally Posted by fishmonk

Sure it's easy to blame everything on Congress, but the fact the president has veto ability really disallows the Congress from passing anything the president doesn't like. (The budget included)

Wrong once more. And in fact if you read the news, it's Bush who tends to take more shit for Congress's decisions than the other way around. Who approved tax cuts? Congress. Who approves the budget? Congress does. Who creates laws, down to their exact wording? Congress does.

Less flames and more facts please.

[Nikkoru]

To my knowledge, the executive and legislative branch are controlled by the republican party, and the Supreme court - well not representing a political party do represent the political ideology of those that gave them their seat, of which most are republican friendly or have a conservative view on the constitution.

Well, as I am not particulairly a political genious, I can't say with complete certainity, but the President - who comes from the republican party - has the most influence throughout his party, well they may disagree with him they are usually consenting into the agenda set forth by him. So in a way, a reasonable way, Bush has far more control of government than, lets say Clinton who had a republican majority in congress. So well Bush is probably not the one to create the economic policy he is the one which would pressure his fellow republicans to put it through.

If it is Bush's direct doing is irrealivent, he created an agenda which wasn't reasonably paid for, that is the difference between a fiscal conservative and a neo-conservative. Neo-conservatives want solutions to some problems without dealing with problems the solutions cause, fiscal conservatives - well being heartless at times have the moral decency to make sure the money exists before creating plans which would require it. Bush campaigned on tax cuts, he paid for tax cuts even though it was clear that the economy was sinking into recession and money wouldn't be there to pay for them and then created more plans which would require more money which America didn't have. Of course congress would allow the money through, it is Bush's congress.

[xr700]

I think the most important things people forget to realize is that there were no surpluses under Clinton. We have a 7 trillion dollar debt (which matters infinitely more than a deficit), and Bush didn't create that after Clinton. All Clinton did was balance the budget, which was easy considering we were experiencing an economic boom under his administration (which also began to end under his administration), yet people act like he saved our economy or something.

[ChaosMage]

Originally Posted by Raerlynn

Congress makes that vote. Therefore it is not the President's fault if it is passed, it is Congress'. Much like the war in Iraq. It's Bush's fault for bringing it up, but Congress approved the measure. They could have said "no" and they didn't Which is why I hate people who bash Bush simply because of the war.

Technically, I believe that we havn't actually been at war since World War 2. That is to say, Congress hasn't declared war since then. There was a court case or something about it where (I think it was LBJ) it was determined that the President could deploy troops to a foreign country for up to 60 days without the permission of Congress and that after that period he only had to seek some small consensus of some kind in Congress and could continue to do whatever he wanted. Basically, the court case hamstrung Congress' ability to declare war.