The World Forum - Political Forums

Nonpartisan political forums. Political blogs. International news.

Discuss and debate political, cultural, social and environmental issues.

submit story | sections | topics | your account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | RSS
] International %% Africa %% Asia %% Australia/Oceania Europe %% North America %% South America %% Blogs %% Site Talk ]

 Bush Annoys Friends And Pleases Foes In State of the Union Speech


Politics

By Drog (Canada), Section United States of America
Posted on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 08:06:18 AM PST

Noticeably absent from Bush's State of the Union speech last night, as noted by the Telegraph, was the phrase "axis of evil". That should have pleased those who think the separation of church and state is a pretty good idea and get uncomfortable when leaders of powerful countries talk too much about God and the forces of evil, as well as those who think that such rhetoric is ill-conceived and deliberately paints entire populations with the same brush, colouring the way the rest of the world view them.

There were both surprises and no-surprises in his speech.

The largest surprise was probably his softer tone towards North Korea. Three years ago, he branded North Korea part of the "axis of evil", along with Iran and Iraq. But last night, he barely mentioned North Korea, saying only that Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions." Analysts in South Korea predict that the absence of harsh words will help restart the nuclear talks. Several weeks ago, North Korea announced they were willing to return to six-party nuclear talks and would treat the United States as a friend -- if Washington would stop slandering their leader Kim Jong Il.

It came as no surprise, though, that he used no such soft language with regard to Iran, who some people think is next on the US invasion list. "Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

Another surprise was when Bush called for Saudi Arabia to accelerate democratic reforms, just one week before the kingdom's first election is scheduled to be held. "It is strange to utter such criticism as we head towards municipal elections in a week, and as the kingdom presses ahead with enhancing political participation," said Abdul Aziz al-Fayez of the appointed consultative council. "The municipal elections scheduled for next week prove the kingdom is moving forward with its reform plan but this cannot be determined by the presidents of other states, even if they are friends whose friendship we cherish."

The president also talked about domestic issues, of course. Regarding the U.S. out-of-control national debt, currently at 7.6 trillion dollars and growing at $2.05 billion per day, he promised to "send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009." The deficit, of course, not the debt. One has to wonder how that debt got so bad in the first place.

He talked at length about the urgent need to reform the failing Social Security system, which many view as a classic pyramid scheme. He doesn't have a plan of his own to fix it yet, however, but he did say that he "will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer."


Tell the world what you think about this story -- get your free account and post your comments. You can also post your comments anonymously right now.

What's your opinion?
Welcome to our discussion below!
(Free signup required to post comments.)

Advertisement

Coming soon!

The world could use more dialogue about its differences — a little understanding goes a long way. There are many online forums where people with different perspectives yell at each other and hurl abuse. There aren't so many where completely different points of view are expressed rationally and constructively. That's why The World Forum was created.
Display: Sort:
Speaking of national debt... (none / 0) (#1)
by Drog (Canada) on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:00:48 AM PST

Does anyone more knowledgeable than me in economics have a feeling for just how bad that debt of 7.6 trillion dollars really is? Is it sustainable? Can the U.S. ever hope to pay it all off?

If so, what would it take, and how long would it take? Are we talking decades or hundreds of years? What kind of leverage is this giving to the countries doing the lending? What if they decide not to lend any more money?

If not, is the U.S. in danger of plunging into a full-blown major depression the likes of which they have never seen?

It just strikes me as crazy that a debt that size isn't the number one issue in the U.S.

Debt (none / 1) (#2)
by you look like a nail (Canada) on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 12:19:45 PM PST

The problem that the US faces isn't so much that they have a large debt, as that they're adding to it at a rate of between $360 and $400 billion a year (last year the deficit was $412 billion, $377 billion the year before).  A large part of this is spending on Iraq and the tax cuts Bush pushed through in his first term, which he intends to make permanent.

Moreover, the US has a large current account deficit issue; the total volume of money they spend on buying things produced elsewhere is quite a bit larger than what they manage to bring in with things they've produced domestically (unsurprising given that the US manufacturing base has largely been shipped overseas).  If you look at the average household debt in the US, you realize that most families in the US are doing this spending using credit.

So you have a scenario where the US is exporting money via its current account deficit and spending beyond its means, generating large amounts of debt.  This works because the debt is being paid for by foreign central banks, most importantly in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China; and because the US dollar is an international standard reserve currency and the standard currency for sales of things like oil.  As long as this is the case, everything's fine.

If the US dollar stops being the standard currency -- for instance, if  OPEC starts selling oil in Euros, like Iraq was about to do before the US invaded -- or if central asian banks stop being interested in buying the US debt, then a very unfortunate chain of events is kicked off.  The dollar starts to depreciate.  Foreign central banks stop being interested in underwriting the US national debt.  The US finds it harder to buy foreign imports, because the US dollar isn't as intrinsically valuable (people increasingly don't see value in holding US currency, so the problems of converting it to Euros or whatever start to become more important).  Inflation picks up.  Because imported goods are getting much more expensive, and not much is produced domestically anymore, US consumers can't consume like they used to; the people backing all the credit US consumers have been spending with stop making money, so they raise their interest rates, making everything worse, and dropping the dollar even farther.  You get caught in a runaway cycle that just keeps getting worse and worse.

I'm not particularily well educated when it comes to economics, but I've seen the above scenario postulated by people who certainly are, and I haven't seen anything approaching a reasonable explanation of how you can continue to spend massively in excess of your income and buy continuously on credit.  If someone can explain to me where I've got this wrong, I'd love to hear it.

As for paying off the debt, it's certainly doable.  They'd have to roll back Bush's tax cuts, stop burning money in Iraq and be financially conservative for a while, but right now they seem to be doing their best to add to it as quickly as possible.  Why are they doing this?  Why isn't this a bigger issue in the US?  I have no idea.
 

-- Your Reality Check is in the mail.
[ Parent ]

Tax cuts (none / 0) (#6)
by Mead (USA) on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:40:01 AM PST

Tax rate cuts are not a permanent outbound drain on federal revenue. It's not something that has to be "paid for", since it's not already-collected money being disbursed. Spending needs to be correspondingly reduced in the short term to keep things balanced, but even that's only a temporary problem.

As the tax rates are lowered, it becomes essentially cheaper to take money out of shelters and funds, declare it as income, and use it to generate a higher rate of return (even after paying taxes on it) than it would to leave it in those funds and shelters. You get more people paying the lower rate, which translates into higher revenue. Businesses do it all the time with prices. The trick is to find the right curve.

Tax rate cuts pay for themselves over time. Yes, in the short term, revenues decline. But it helps to think past the first stage.

[ Parent ]

Tax cuts (none / 2) (#7)
by you look like a nail (Canada) on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:04:56 AM PST

Spending needs to be correspondingly reduced in the short term to keep things balanced, but even that's only a temporary problem.

They don't seem terribly inclined to meaningfully reduce spending, though.  A few cuts here and there to social programs doesn't balance out the significant funds being expended in Iraq, or on other massively expensive and totally unnecessary expenses. One would also feel compelled to point out that Bush is only going to be in power for four more years, so it being a temporary problem could also be read as "someone else's problem".

As the tax rates are lowered, it becomes essentially cheaper to take money out of shelters and funds, declare it as income, and use it to generate a higher rate of return (even after paying taxes on it) than it would to leave it in those funds and shelters. You get more people paying the lower rate, which translates into higher revenue.

Has there been any evidence of a positive impact from these tax cuts in the time since they've been brought into effect?  I haven't seen any sign of improvement which might be attributed to them, but then I might not know what I'm looking for.  What sort of a time frame would you expect to have to wait to see a benefit?

Tax rate cuts pay for themselves over time.

The war in Iraq is generating costs now, though.  That has to be paid for.  Are large tax cuts really the best idea right now?

-- Your Reality Check is in the mail.
[ Parent ]

Haven't looked up the numbers (none / 0) (#8)
by Mead (USA) on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:42:41 PM PST

But I certainly do expect federal revenue to have gone back up by now. Not as much as a capital gains rate cut would have generated, but we can't have everything at once.

IMO the tax cuts were necessary to prevent the economy from falling even further into disarray after the dot.bomb.

For the record, no, I'm not a fan of the New Spendmaniac Republican Plan. Although I do think they may be backing the opposition into a corner for when the time comes to seriously look at budget cuts and balancing the budget. After the huge outcry we've seen thus far, no Democrat can afford to suddenly go 180 and be against deep budget cuts. (not an attempt to change the subject, it just seemed the next logical step)

[ Parent ]

it's incomprehensible (none / 0) (#3)
by janra (Canada) on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 12:27:41 PM PST

The number, that is.

7.6 trillion is an abstract number. We have no experience to relate to it, all we know is that it's big. 7.6 trillion spread between 400 million people (not exactly the population of the US, but it makes the math easier) gives $19,000 per person. That's a more comprehensible number, and is probably why I've seen national debts broken down into "per person" amounts as a way to explain them.

And given that all of the financial books I've read start by assuming you have a credit card debt that you're paying for on top of normal expenses and new purchases, it isn't very surprising to me that people think that a country having debt is a normal state, since it's their normal state...

[ Parent ]

Comparisons (none / 1) (#4)
by you look like a nail (Canada) on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 01:06:30 PM PST

The US spends more on its military than all the other countries in the world put together, and the amount that they spend is less than the amount added to the debt every year.

The amount added to the debt in 2004 was roughly equal to the GDP of Russia.  

And given that all of the financial books I've read start by assuming you have a credit card debt that you're paying for on top of normal expenses and new purchases, it isn't very surprising to me that people think that a country having debt is a normal state, since it's their normal state...

Very good point.  The average US household credit card debt is approaching $10,000.  That's a mind-boggling number.  Now just imagine what inflation and interest rate hikes could do to a population carrying that kind of debt load.

Running a deficit isn't the end of the world, lots of countries do it.  What amazes me is that, while running that kind of a deficit, the US administration spends $300 billion in Iraq and $260 billion on tax cuts.  If the tax cuts are made permament and if spending on Iraq and Afghanistan gradually decreases (which is optimistic), the US could be looking at a price tag approaching $3 trillion over the next 10 years.

I'm not a financial expert, but when you're heavily in debt, shouldn't you slow down the rate at which you spend?

-- Your Reality Check is in the mail.
[ Parent ]

On the subject of debt (none / 0) (#5)
by pHatidic (USA) on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 11:53:49 PM PST

This reminds me, I was reading Beyond Fear by Bruce Schneier tonight and he writes about digital money and the security thereof. With real money even if you can counterfit it then you can only counterfit so much. However with digital money you can counterfit an infinite amount, so our entire economy could be ruined overnight. Literally hundreds of trillions of dollars could come out of nowhere and that would be it.

Granted our debt is still ridiculously high. I'm not an economist, but to me this makes no sense. Other countries have much lower per capita incomes than the US does but they have higher standards of living . This is in part because a huge part of our annual incomes goes to pay off the interest on our debt.

World Forum Poll

Did you like Bush's State of the Union speech?
Loved it
Liked it
It was okay
Didn't like it
Hated it
Didn't see it, didn't read it

Votes: 20
Results | Other Polls


Login

Username:
Password:

Signup to post comments, to vote on story submissions and to set preferences.

create account | faq | search