Also, I apologize for falling into the Alterman Trap. I didn’t mean to imply that JB meant they were trying to bankrupt us. (I hope you can follow that.) I meant that I don’t really think the Bush admin can bankrupt us. The economy is really damn big, and it would take something along the lines of nationalized healthcare to do it.

And speaking of money, it’s going to be pouring into the Gulf region to the tune of at least $200 billion, I imagine.

This project will be funded by Chinese cosmetic companies. And no, I’m not kidding.

Well, at least in some small part…

And will it REALLY cost $200,000,000,000 to rebuild the Gulf coast? How the hell would anyone know for sure at this point in time? Just another chance for pork barreling….

Well, they’re saying at least $100 B. One can assume that it’s going to go up from there, but that’s Sullivan’s assertion, not mine.

To some other points, I don’t think JonBuck said that they are TRYING to bankrupt us. But their policy and fiscal philosophy will just by its very nature. Correct me if I’m wrong JB.

Justin, Greenspan came out a year or so ago and said that Bush’s tax cuts probably provided the stimulas needed to keep the country from sliding into an outright depression. Are you saying that would have been a better option?

I’m almost certain he said “recession” instead of “depression.” The difference is non-trivial and I would hope you’d be more careful in the future. And given that, I don’t think I really need to answer the question since I don’t even believe he said that in the first place. But let me say that Greenspan is most certainly in favor of a more top-down approach to the economy. Remember, he’s a follower of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, which calls for extreme selfishness and nearly unbridled captialism. And also know that Rand’s Objectivism was a reaction to Soviet Communism, and I think her philosophy was on the opposite side of that extreme. And having a follower of that school of thought, like Greenspan, certainly troubles me.

But let me say that personally I agreed with tax cuts for the middle class, but not for those making over $250,000. Call me old-fashioned, but I think those who make more usually do less of the heavy lifting. Therefore, they should bear more of the burden. In other words, they’re not in the trenches making the engine of this economy work. Somebody who makes that much money is living in splendor and has nearly every luxury at their fingertips. Trust me, I have been around these people for the past year. They aren’t bad people. Far from it. They’re just extremely shrewd and they know how to protect what’s theirs. Somebody making 30K doesn’t, so I think our government should recognize that and give them back more.

The problem is a Republican Party that has abandoned all pretense of small government conservatism in favor of the more ancient style of bread and circuses goverrnment.

In a word: agreed.

And will it REALLY cost $200,000,000,000 to rebuild the Gulf coast? How the hell would anyone know for sure at this point in time? Just another chance for pork barreling….

Jon, if the admninistration was really trying to bankrupt the country, they would have nationalized health care. Instead, we’re just going to get stuck with the prescription drug benefit. It’s one hell of a bill, but not enough to break us. I don’t envy whoever gets stuck with the presidency in 2009, though.

Justin, Greenspan came out a year or so ago and said that Bush’s tax cuts probably provided the stimulas needed to keep the country from sliding into an outright depression. Are you saying that would have been a better option? That kind of fiscal conservatism died with the Hoover Administration! The tax cuts weren’t the problem. The problem is a Republican Party that has abandoned all pretense of small government conservatism in favor of the more ancient style of bread and circuses goverrnment.

The Republican Party has become corrupted by the power they wield–and the voters are ultimately responsible.