A flood of red ink - article in The Economist on Shrub's folly

[TacticalPeek]

America's deficits

A flood of red ink
Nov 6th 2003 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

snip

At some point, however, both Mr Bush and the rest of Washington will be forced to leave this fiscal Neverland. When will that be? Many look to the late 1980s and early 1990s as a model. Then, years of persistent fiscal deficits persuaded Americans that belt-tightening was necessary. Budget rules were introduced, spending was cut and taxes were raised. It was politically painful (particularly for George Bush senior, who thereby lost the 1992 election). But the tide of red ink was turned.

This time the turnaround will be much tougher. There will be no “peace dividend” from the end of the cold war (indeed, the pressure on military spending may continue to increase). America is unlikely to see another stockmarket bubble, with its surge in tax revenues. As baby-boomers retire, the pressure from entitlement spending will be more acute. Set against this background, the path back to a sustainable fiscal policy will be extremely painful, even without any dramatic fiscal crisis. Long after Dubya is back on his ranch, Americans will be trying to recover from the mess he created.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2189237

Stolen from atrios.blogspot.com

Someone sane grab the wheel!

[kentuck]

1. Reality check for the politicians in Washington...

Just like Ronald Reagan, there will be a short term stimulus and a long term drag and there is nothing on the horizon to pull us out this time around. Thanks guys!

[Gin]

5. Reading your words reminded me of a caffeine high....then the crash!

gin

[DBoon]

7. Your metaphor requires stronger drugs

both the high and the crash are more than caffeine could describe

[salin]

2. very strong words from the UK- based center/right business journal

not good for georgie when the monied folks start getting caustic.

[Maple]

3. Right wingers

consider the Economist left wing.

Don't see it myself...but they do. :D

[leftofthedial]

4. because The Economist tells the truth

which exposes so many RW lies. Therefore, The Economist must be "liberal."

[RichardRay]

6. Economist - Right or Left?

I got in a RAGING argument (after too many Margarita's) the other night with a guy who was totally certain The Economist is a right-wing rag and that I must be a rabid right-winger for reading it. At the SAME TIME another guy was attacking me as being a liberal for quoting articles from last weeks edition concerning General Boykin and the Clinton Foundation's success in getting low priced retro-virals for 3rd World countries. He figured that if I was reading a magazine that had those articles in it it must be a piece of liberal trash.

I got whiplash!

I've read The Economist regularly for many years - in just about any issue you can find material that will piss off the entire spectrum from left to right. That's why I figure they're a dependable news source.

Do they have a bias? Yep, they sure do - it's called economics. Just about anything anybody at either end of the political spectrum objects to can be traced back to some part of an economic analysis that contradicts the objector's political analysis.

I've seen lots of people on both ends of the spectrum fail to understand economic analysis and believe that you can refute something like comparative advantage by saying it's unfair. Sorry, that's like saying gravity is unfair because someone falling is likely to hit the ground. If I don't want the faller to hit the ground I can try to do something about it, but I'm not likely to succeed by trying to repeal gravity!

-
Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY