Hello Righty's:

Here's an assessment of how well Bush and his brain screwed things up. And no, this isn't a lefty speaking…. He's a non partisan figure in charge of the Government Accountability Office. He says we're in big trouble.

"The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon.

David Walker, comptroller general of the US, issued the unusually downbeat assessment of his country's future in a report that lays out what he called “chilling long-term simulations”.

These include “dramatic” tax rises, slashed government services and the large-scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt."

Want to read more about your guy screwed you:

FT.com / World - Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned

excon

History's great lesson is that civilizations ,empires and great nations rise and fall. It would be arrogant on my part to presume that the United States is immune. That being said I think his clarion call is overstated . I also note that he neglects to point out that Rome fall was a victim of the Goth Huns et al that it brought in for cheap labor.
From the article :

Quote:

---

Walker, who was appointed during the Clinton administration to the post, which carries a 15-year term.

---

.

So it is a mistake to call him non-partisan just because he currently serves in the Bush adm. Walker’s message appears to be “more taxes”, not surprisingly for a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Righty's:

Here's an assessment of how well Bush and his brain screwed things up. And no, this isn't a lefty speaking…. He's a non partisan figure in charge of the Government Accountability Office. He says we're in big trouble.

"The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon.

David Walker, comptroller general of the US, issued the unusually downbeat assessment of his country's future in a report that lays out what he called “chilling long-term simulations”.

These include “dramatic” tax rises, slashed government services and the large-scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt."

Want to read more about your guy screwed you:

FT.com / World - Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned

excon

---

The pitiful part is that this will not likely be debated by the news media; or even by Congress. Instead his character, motives, and analogy will be attacked.

Yeah well I'll put some more cheap shots on the guy . Before he came to work for the Clinton Adm . He was a partner at Arthur Anderson . You remember them as Enron's auditors. Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in 2002 to deal with document shredders like Anderson . Do I think he was aware of their faulty auditing practices while he was a partner?? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah well I'll put some more cheap shots on the guy . Before he came to work for the Clinton Adm . He was a partner at Arthur Anderson . You remember them as Enron's auditors. Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in 2002 to deal with document shredders like Anderson . Do I think he was aware of their faulty auditing practices while he was a partner ??? yes.

---

Hah-ha-ha lay it on brother, never mind the facts, they are only confusing and muddy the water:D

What facts ? I have heard about our road to ruin and the faulty analogies to Rome all my life. Let's not make it sound like his cassandra call is something new. I have no doubt that he has the same old tired prescriptions that come from the liberal play book that have not worked since Roosevelt.

He talks about looming retirement as an example . President Bush presented a real solution to the problem and he was met with DOA proclaimations before his plan was reasonably debated. Now we are told unless we shell out more cash and expect less return that the system will collapse. Well yeah ;because the system was fundamentally flawed to begin with .

The way I read it ;Walkers solution to the fiscal cancer it to feed it some more $$$$ .Let's hear him talk about shrinking some of those beloved social programs and then I may take him seriously .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What facts ? I have heard about our road to ruin and the faulty analogies to Rome all my life. Let's not make it sound like his cassandra call is something new. I have no doubt that he has the same old tired prescriptions that come from the liberal play book that have not worked since Roosevelt.

He talks about looming retirement as an example . President Bush presented a real solution to the problem and he was met with DOA proclaimations before his plan was reasonably debated. Now we are told unless we shell out more cash and expect less return that the system will collapse. Well yeah ;because the system was fundamentally flawed to begin with .

The way I read it ;Walkers solution to the fiscal cancer it to feed it some more $$$$ .Let's hear him talk about shrinking some of those beloved social programs and then I may take him seriously .

---

I don’t know what facts, and I don’t know anything about how to fix the economy; I do know the tax collectors are even stealing from poverty stricken retires in order to get all they can. I was simply suggesting that what a comptroller has to say should he investigated by congress and not simply written off as nonsense based on character, possible motives, and poor analogy. He is after all not blogging for some special group, but rather is a government employee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

And no, this isn’t a lefty speaking….

---

It's funny... this is the second time in a week that I have heard someone claim that a statement isn't a "lefty" partisan statement, right before making a statement that is clearly a lefty partisan statement. The other one was from Newsweek's editor who claimed that his story on global warming "isn't leftist cant", which it clearly was.

First of all, there is no reason that taxes HAVE to be raised. Walker is simply stating how HE would handle things if he were in charge. And his position on raising taxes clearly IS a lefty position. The best way to grow the economy is to LOWER taxes, as has been proven time and time again. Walker simply disbelieves this fact, and so threatens us with tax increases that he wishes to blame on Bush. I fail to see how you can blame a guy who has consistently lowered taxes for higher taxes, but Walker is clearly doing just that.

Second, we have had a 5-year period of sustained economic growth, the lowest level of unemployment in 60 years, record-breaking stock-market prices, etc. Walker's argument seems to be that "this level of growth isn't sustainable". Ok. Maybe he's right and growth will diminish. Maybe he's wrong and economic growth will sustain and even increase. But that isn't a valid argument that "Bush screwed up" everything that has happened UNTIL NOW. Given the historic economic growth we've seen over the past 5-years that simply isn't a factual statement.

So... exactly which part of this post is the part that's not supposed to be "lefty" pablum? Because I can't find it. Couldn't find it in the Newsweek article either.

Elliot

Here is his solution as per his address to the National Press club last month :

Quote:

---

“immediately increase state and local tax revenues by 16.8 percent, or immediately decrease state and local spending by 14.1 percent”.

---

(note he doesn't recommend reductions in Federal expenditures)

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d071113cg.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Here is his solution as per his address to the National Press club last month :


(note he doesn't recommend reductions in Federal expenditures)

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d071113cg.pdf

---

You flatter me with the idea that I can comprehend that link; as you know I am a simple Philosopher and Historian; and that is the perspective from which I view life and government.
He is not operating in the capacity of an economist but that of a simple bookkeeper that is saying there is a problem. That is my view and if he were my bookkeeper and said there was a problem I would take it serious. As for his suggestions as to how to rectify the problem, that is another matter altogether.

DC,

If you can't understand the economic issues (and they really aren't too difficult) then you'll have to trust those of us who have experience in that area.

Suffice it to say that there is a huge difference between bookeeping and economics. Bookeepers track where cash comes and goes. Economists make the decisions of where the cash needs to come from and go to. If there is a problem with bookkeeping, it can be solved with an audit in most cases. If there is an economic problem, it usually requires a complete overhaul of strategy.

So the fact that Walker, the bookeeper, thinks that there is an economic problem doesn't make it so. He doesn't have the experience to decide whether there is an economic problem or not. It's not the same thing as Alan Greenspan or Bill Berneke saying that there is an economic problem. And Walker's "solutions" make his lack of experience quite clear.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

DC,

If you can't understand the economic issues (and they really aren't too difficult) then you'll have to trust those of us who have experience in that area.

Suffice it to say that there is a huge difference between bookeeping and economics. Bookeepers track where cash comes and goes. Economists make the decisions of where the cash needs to come from and go to. If there is a problem with bookkeeping, it can be solved with an audit in most cases. If there is an economic problem, it usually requires a complete overhaul of strategy.

So the fact that Walker, the bookeeper, thinks that there is an economic problem doesn't make it so. He doesn't have the experience to decide whether there is an economic problem or not. It's not the same thing as Alan Greenspan or Bill Berneke saying that there is an economic problem. And Walker's "solutions" make his lack of experience quite clear.

Elliot

---

I understand economics in a grand scale; that is; I understand capital, surplus value, the free market, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, Natural Capital and Social Capital. You are correct however in assuming I do not know, nor even Walker, what Alan Greenspan, or Bill Berneke knows. As for an account bookkeeper Walker keeps a detailed list of everything that a company or individual earns or spends and is quite capable in projecting a loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

DC,

If you can't understand the economic issues (and they really aren't too difficult) then you'll have to trust those of us who have experience in that area.

Suffice it to say that there is a huge difference between bookeeping and economics. Bookeepers track where cash comes and goes. Economists make the decisions of where the cash needs to come from and go to. If there is a problem with bookkeeping, it can be solved with an audit in most cases. If there is an economic problem, it usually requires a complete overhaul of strategy.

So the fact that Walker, the bookeeper, thinks that there is an economic problem doesn't make it so. He doesn't have the experience to decide whether there is an economic problem or not. It's not the same thing as Alan Greenspan or Bill Berneke saying that there is an economic problem. And Walker's "solutions" make his lack of experience quite clear.

Elliot

---

By the way, is Greenspan and Walker so far apart?


March 8, 2004
(FORTUNE Magazine) – When Alan Greenspan testified before congress in mid-February, the Fed chairman delivered a Valentine's Day garland to the recent performance of the U.S. economy, lauding the "stunning increases in productivity" that have fueled the recovery. But that same testimony included a far darker message: Greenspan reminded Americans that the U.S. economy faces a giant threat in the guise of big budget deficits stretching far into the future. In the past, Greenspan had mainly warned of the looming dangers of deficits in a decade or so, when the baby-boomers start retiring en masse. This time he hinted strongly that raging deficits could derail today's recovery. "Deficits could cause difficulties even in the relatively near term," intoned the chairman in his usual courtly style. In Greenspan-speak, that means the wolf is at the door, and he could start biting in months, not years.
It is astonishing how quickly we've gone from big budget surpluses to massive budget deficits. Between 1998 and 2001, the U.S. generated some $560 billion in surpluses--including a $236 billion surplus in 2000--and it was widely assumed that the era of big deficits was over. Indeed, in 2000 the Clinton administration was giddily predicting that the country would pay off all of the debt held by the public--some $3.4 trillion--by 2010.

What's truly scary--what makes this deficit problem different from past deficits--is the trend: huge budget deficits from here to eternity. There is simply no way, with current government spending patterns, that the budget will ever be back in balance--not without tax hikes that would be unacceptably high and ruinous to the economy.

Unless there is a down turn in the ecnomy ;the budget deficit should be wiped out by next year. I have to say that it is really not that unusual to finance growth .

I went into huge debt to purchase my home as an example. Walker is correct that entitlements are a concern. I dispute his remedy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Unless there is a down turn in the ecnomy ;the budget deficit should be wiped out by next year. I have to say that it is really not that unusual to finance growth .

I went into huge debt to purchase my home as an example. Walker is correct that entitlements are a concern. I dispute his remedy .

---

Tom, your analogy of home purchase, is in my opinion, a “Strawman”; and the reason why is, that your income reflected your ability to pay of the debt at a given date, otherwise, Capitol would not have financed you. This is simply not the case with Americas’ debt and printing more… money which is money only, as opposed to your analogy where money is capital.

Well my income and my assets... I imaging the US gvt. Owns quite a bit of tangibile assets beyond the "full faith and credit " .

I do understand your concern . But do you really think that the income of the federal government is the issue ? I think they collect plenty of money . But after they collect it... that's the rub.

Anyway back to Walker . I see you agree he is but a bean counter . I tried earlier to point out some conflicts on interests that makes what he says suspect.

Back in 2002 as GAO Comptroller he was prepared to sue the Bush adm. To find out if Enron had any role in developing the Bush energy policy . Given his former position as a member of Arthur Anderson and it's relationship with Enron( global managing director of Andersen's "human capital services practice and a member of the board of Arthur Andersen Financial Advisors) ;and being a Clinton appointee, that made questions about a conflict of interest a reasonable one to raise . If Walker was demanding transparency from Bush then he should've been willing to go through full disclosure himself ;and he probably should've in all fairness recused himself from the probe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

well my income and my assets ...... I imaging the US gvt. owns quite a bit of tangibile assets beyond the "full faith and credit " .

I do understand your concern . But do you really think that the income of the federal governement is the issue ? I think they collect plenty of money . But after they collect it .....that's the rub.

Anyway back to Walker . I see you agree he is but a bean counter . I tried earlier to point out some conflicts on interests that makes what he says suspect.

Back in 2002 as GAO Comptroller he was prepared to sue the Bush adm. to find out if Enron had any role in developing the Bush energy policy . Given his former position as a member of Arthur Anderson and it's relationship with Enron( global managing director of Andersen's "human capital services practice and a member of the board of Arthur Andersen Financial Advisors) ;and being a Clinton appointee, that made questions about a conflict of interest a reasonable one to raise . If Walker was demanding transparency from Bush then he should've been willing to go through full disclosure himself ;and he probably should've in all fairness recused himself from the probe.

---

As you probably know, I tend to view most events from a strictly philosophical position; that is, I tend to concentrate on the whole and pay little attention to the particulars, counting them, as it were, incidentals, or distractions. This of course does not always work and I sometimes find that a particular, such as Walkers possible motives might be important to the event.

Does that thoroughly confuse you?