USD College Republicans
- All
- Climate Change/Global Warming
- Affirmative Action
- Freedom
- Medicare
- No Child Left Behind
- Economics
- Media
- Taxes
- Ridiculous!
- Trade
- Democrats
- Telecom
- The Courts
- Neo-conservatism
- Presidential Race 2008
- Libertarianism
- Earmarks
- Student Government Association
- Congress
- University of South Dakota
- State and Local Politics
- General
- Republicans
- Grassroots conservatism
- Iraq
- Education
- USD Political Science League
- Afghanistan
- SCHIP
- Subsidies
- Spending
- Health Care
- Social Security
- Africa
- Labor unions
- Political Philosophy
- Hyperion Oil Refinery at Elk Point
- Foreign Policy
- War on Terror
The real story on the national debt
Lots of Democrats- including the USD Dems during Tuesday's debate- have been deriding President Bush for the $3 trillion budget this year.
Fortunately, Mankiw comes to the rescue, yet again. Well, technically, it's Mankiw's friend who works at the White House. Mankiw agrees with his analysis, though.
I'm no econonerd, as Mankiw so properly put it, but I can comprehend what's being said. I would post snippets, but it's midnight and I need to get to bed! Basically, it proves among other things that the Democrats are using scare tactics and misinformation about the national debt. Check it out.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 12:12AM Feb 08, 2008 by College Republicans in Economics | Comments[8]
Matt, what he's saying is that the future debt is the problem and that the relative increase in debt is not as great as Kent Conrad would have you believe - which is true.
The problem remains, though, that as Mankiw said, that future spending projectory has been raised by this administration and that future debt explosion he talks about might happen if we're not careful.
Posted by Xiao Xi Zhang on February 09, 2008 at 02:26 PM CST #
I realize that. I did read the post.
But the $3 trillion budget isn't the kiss of death that Democrats have been saying.
Posted by Matt Hittle on February 09, 2008 at 02:38 PM CST #
No, it's not, but it is an indication of future debt, which would make us all worse for wear - which is what a lot of democrats are saying.
Posted by Xiao xi Zhang on February 09, 2008 at 02:45 PM CST #
The Democrats also need to do their part. Congressional Democrats need to defy Pelosi and Reid and abstain from gratuitous earmarks.
Also, we need to clean house regarding entitlements and social programs. We need to cut the waste and promote personal responsibility.
Posted by Matt Hittle on February 09, 2008 at 03:05 PM CST #
Easy for someone to say when they live in middle-class South Dakota while their education is provided largely on the efforts of their parents. A lot of other people don't have that luxury, and your failure to empathsize with your fellow man is disturbing.
Beyond that let's focus on what's really costly - let's roll back the Pork barrell bills, the tax cuts and the Military spending - the three parts of the budget that we can do without.
Posted by Xiao Xi Zhang on February 09, 2008 at 03:16 PM CST #
On the contrary, my education is funded by loans taken out in my name. This means that I will pay them back, not my parents. I work to financially support myself while in school, and I receive minimal funds from my parents. I hope that, in the future, you can refrain from making assumptions about my personal life, which, frankly, is not your business. Your efforts to reveal my great libertarian hypocrisy have failed.
Also, you are utterly mischaracterizing me. I definitely empathize with poor people- heck, I'm no millionaire. However, I also empathize with those who have worked hard for their money but will be forced to pay higher taxes if we expand bloated, ineffectual social programs. Do you not have empathy for those who work hard for their fortunes? Or don't they deserve it? Should we redistribute their money to people who "deserve it more?" What constitutes "deserving?"
Moreover, it's funny that those liberals and "progressives" who claim to care for the poor continue to prop up policies that fail to achieve those ends. The government hasn't fixed poverty. The government hasn't fixed hunger. The government hasn't fixed homelessness. When will it? How much money must we give the government to do these things? We've given the government bureaucracy a chance, now let's give private enterprise a chance.
I won't even touch the last part of your comment. I don't have time to open that can of worms today.
Posted by Matt Hittle on February 09, 2008 at 03:33 PM CST #
Please, despite what you might think about your own rugged individualistic educational history, I guarantee you that the majority of your educational costs - be they primary, secondary, credit-wise or others, are borne by your parents. The only reason that you have the credit capability or the foundational education to go to college is because of what your parents provided for you before (the same is true for me, Ryan, Chris and most students of this school.)
A lot of people do not have that luxury of a safety net behind them. The socioeconomic factors that limit them at their birth hinders them all their lives. Imagine being born with a crippling disability, that's what life is like for the majority of people who live below poverty line.
The majority of problems with social legislation is that they are good ideas, but there is no infrastructure built to support them. A good example of this is medicare, a program that has good ideas and generally favorable mandates, but lack the infrastructure needed. With more people going to hospitals, more doctors are demanded but the supply doesn't increase, this makes it more expensive, in turn, to see the doctor and cost medicare more money.
I personally believe if we limit spending on tax cuts, military and pork barrelling and more on infrastructure, our social programs will be doing a lot better. What we need isn't reactionary ideals like "let's scrap social programs", it's logical, pragamatic approachces like "let's examine what's wrong and try to fix it." To do anything else is simplistic and akin to trying to fix a radically flawed world by pushing an easy button.
Posted by Xiao Xi Zhang on February 09, 2008 at 04:01 PM CST #
I never said I was a rugged individualist, and your attacks on my self-support are unwarranted. You don't see my checking account or student loan documents, so again, I would appreciate no more incursions into my privacy. Any other comments regarding this will be deleted.
I never said that there shouldn't be a safety net for people who need it. The government needs to stay out of the lives those those people who don't.
Scrapping social programs isn't reactionary. It's a mainstay of the beliefs of all who believe in private charity and personal responsibility.
Let me emphasize- we want the same thing as you. We just believe in private organizations rather than the bloated "infrastructure" (code word for bureaucracy).
We must have SOME government involvement, but there is a point at which that is too much. We are currently experiencing the effects of that glut of governance.
Posted by Matt Hittle on February 09, 2008 at 04:45 PM CST #