Fingerprinting and Photographing...

[Pyramid]

...residents arriving in the US from other countries as one step towards avoiding terrorism.

I myself have no problem in stepping up security. However, a spokesman for the ACLU said yesterday on the Today show: This act by Homeland Security is too intrusive and should be stopped.

I just dont understand the problem.

[ 01-06-2004, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Chinookster ]

[Thumper]

Yeah, those big airplanes flying into the WTC and the Pentagon were pretty intrusive too. Tough! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

The ACLU, good grief. I thought American Civil Liberties Union was about protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Why are they even commenting on this issue. Foreigners from abroad should not have the same civil liberties in this country as Americans do.

Brazil wants to implement the same steps for Americans arriving in thier country. What a joke. If they actually think that Americans are threat then to heck with them.

If these countries would get a better grip on security then perhaps these measures would not be necessary. If they don't want to play by our rules then stay out of our country. We have proven that we are not playing around.

I believe that something was stopped over the holidays. We may never know what it was but we must stay vigilant. If that means fingerprinting and cancelling flights then so be it. The safety of Americans comes before anything else. If we hurt some foreigners feelings or cause someone not to come to America, too bad. I really don't care.

So to all those countries out there that don't want to play by our rules.

We will refuse to allow your planes to land
We will deny entry into our county to anyone we deem as a threat
We will photograph and fingerprint you upon entry into our country
We will arrest and hold you indefinately without charge if you are a terrorist or are associated with terrorists
We will board and seize your vessels on the open seas
We will launch preemptive strikes
We will impose harsh economic sanctions
We will freeze your assets in the US and abroad
We will do what we need to do

[1pump]

I have to be fingerprinted just to do my job, and I'm a lifelong American citizen. It's a bit of an insult, but I'm stuck with it thanks to the Patriot Act. I don't want to hear any complaints by foreign nationals. They can put up with the same abuse that American citizens have had perpetrated upon them for the last 2 years.

As for Brazil and anyone else, they can fingerprint anybody they want, just as we can. If I don't like it, I can cancel my vacation to Rio. (not that I was going )

[Thumper]

Originally posted by 1pump:
They can put up with the same abuse that American citizens have had perpetrated upon them for the last 2 years.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What abuse is that?

[Cool Texan]

Lets fingerprint them, photograph them, tatoo them, put a tracking collar around their necks. Welcome to America!

I fully support the new measures.

[Thumper]

We need a whole lot more such "abuses", not less. There is a reason that there have been no significant terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, and it ain't because the terrorists are nice guys.

Keep the heat on, FBI.

[24 on/ 48 off]

Why should this just be for foreigners? Why not everyone? How about a federal requirement that should you ever open a bank account, or get any form if state ID, then you must be fingerprinted? It would certainly decrease (not completely stop) the possibility that "homegrown" terrorists like Tim McVeigh and Ted Kazinski would be able to strike. If we have nothing to hide, then all is good, right?

I have had my prints on the FBI files for 12 years. Big deal. It just means I can never cross over to the "Dark side".


Maybe this is coming, anyway. The government lies to us, right? There are those who believe that raising the price of our licenses and tags means an increase into the general fund. There are some who believe that services like State Police won't be reduced when measure 28 fails.

Jeeez. The government is getting dang big these days. They have to be a part of everything. Another 80,000 federal employees with the TSA! Whoopee! Even if the TSA had been in place on 9-11. the terrorists would have still been able to carry boxcutters on the plane.

Wow! I'm rambling here..

--spud-- :smile:

[Silver Hilton]

There I go again, trying to counter emotion with logic. You boys have fun.

[DanS]

There is a reason that there have been no significant terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, and it ain't because the terrorists are nice guys.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Give me a break, Thumper. Weren't you the one who referred to "leaps of logic"?

If these so-called abuses of our rights are responsible for no terror attacks since 2001, then what was responsible for no terror attacks on US soil prior to that (other than McVeigh)?

You're stating a cause and effect that can't be tested. Using your logic, if we DO have a terror attack, it would be BECAUSE of the Patriot Act.

SH......you make some good points. But how do you stop KNOWN terrorists at your borders if incoming foreign nationals can't be photo ID'd and fingerprinted? I'm sure a terrorist isn't averse to using forged passports.

[roadsend]

I am waiting for the ACLU to announce its counter-terrorism suggestions to protect our country.

[1pump]

We need a whole lot more such "abuses", not less. There is a reason that there have been no significant terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, and it ain't because the terrorists are nice guys.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Other than the '93 WTC bombing and the OK City bombing, there WEREN'T any significant terror attacks in the US BEFORE 9/11. If the Patriot Act and the Dept of Homeland Security had existed then, it wouldn't have done any good. The perps in both of those attacks were so far under the radar they wouldn't have been nailed before the fact.

This whole situation saddens me. The terrorists have won this round. The government's only interested in creating the illusion of security so GW can win the next election, based on the appearance that he "did domething" about the terror threat. He did something, all right. He made us even more enemies around the world. Just what we needed.

[Pyramid]

[quote]Originally posted by 1pump:

. The government's only interested in creating the illusion of security so GW can win the next election, based on the appearance that he "did domething" about the terror threat. He did something, all right. He made us even more enemies around the world. Just what we needed.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What should the government have done? Heck, don't get mad because our government is taking steps toward ending terrorism. At least he's not whooping it up in the Oval Office.
They can have my prints if they want. I have nothing to hide.

[ 01-06-2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Chinookster ]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
Headquarters chose to ignore reports coming up from the field, and I have yet to hear of anyone getting fired for that little lapse in bureaucractic judgement.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">SH - Now,now SH...you know dang well Ashcroft, Cheney & Bush have probably got those bureaucrats who goofed off locked up incommunicado for the duration at Camp Xray down in Gitmo...

[roadsend]

"They can put up with the same abuse that American citizens have had perpetrated upon them for the last 2 years."

"What abuse is that?"


Listening to the assorted leftists whine, without offering any realistic suggestions themselves.

[kamloops]

An open letter to the FBI.

Ship em all back to whatever rock they crawled
out from under, that includes the ACLU.

[ 01-06-2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: kamloops ]

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by DanS:


SH......you make some good points. But how do you stop KNOWN terrorists at your borders if incoming foreign nationals can't be photo ID'd and fingerprinted? I'm sure a terrorist isn't averse to using forged passports.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think you're missing my point. I don't care if we fingerprint and photograph every person that comes in. The issue is that it simply isn't likely to do much. The most salient feature of the Al Qeada cannon fodder is that they are unknown to us. We don't have a list of their fingerprints and pictures, because we don't know who there are. If we did, we'd go and get them right now, right? Building a list of pictures and fingerprints of people that we haven't seen before just doesn't do much.

If a terrorist is already known to us, he or she is already in custody, is an assassination target, or is unreachable. I doubt we have most of these folks' fingerprints anyway, but on the off chance that we did, we might nab one of these folks on his way into the country. I think it's unlikely, however, as the history of these groups has been to use young zealots on suicide missions. By the time we know these people are dangerous, they are usually dead. Very few people get to run two suicide missions, if you know what I mean.

The fingerprinting idea is really based on a flawed premise, which is that our law enforcement investigative model applies to the current conflict. The law enforcement model is based on trying to link someone to an event that has already happened, where trace evidence including fingerprints exists on the scene. We're trying to figure out who did something, past tense. Implicit in this model is the notion that if you try something, you'll get caught. This is far from true, but that's the notion of deterrence that we would like to set up.

The current conflict is about preventing an event from happening. Implicit in this desire to take fingerprints and pictures is a belief that this will prevent new acts, because the perpetrators don't want to get caught. This is, in my view, not supported by what we know about the philospohy of jihad. Jihadist's don't mind dying. It is a great honor to them, and they believe that if they die in the war against infidels (that's us, by the way), they get the pole position in heaven. 70 virgins, and all that rot.

As near as I can tell, none of the 9/11 terrorists had any run ins with the law before they boarded the planes on that morning. If we had had their fingerprints and pictures, FBI headquarters would have had pictures to ignore as well as the field reports that someone with an arabic surname was trying to hijack a plane. But guess what, we already had surveillance, and there is no reason that we couldn't have already had photos, if we had wanted such a thing.

So, if someone doesn't fear death, and believes that he will die before being captured or come under legal scrutiny, what does that imply about the issue under consideration? I think it means that border tactics based on our law enforcement practices aren't likely to be effective. Deterrence through fear of capture is just not likely to work. That is why I believe that the current tactics are just a waste of time and money, and worse, they divert attention and resources from other potential measures that might actually do some good, like requiring that FBI central HQ listen to their flipping field agents.

More effective tactics, in my mind, have to be targeted at the source of the danger, which is in the source countries (Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, for example).

How many of us have worked for managers who confused action with progress? These new border measures are simply action, not progress.

In this, I will not point fingers at the administration, because I think the customs bureaucracy would make the same flawed approach in this situation regardless of who is at the helm. It is a flaw of how people think, which is to use old habits in new situations until you are punished for doing so. The American people reward action even if it's ineffective, and are often oblivious or even resistant to progress. Therefore we can expect more actions like this. I hope that we'll get a little progress thrown in as well.

[Rakkasan]

Hey my prints are on file for my job. Oh the poor imigrants [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[DanS]

SH,

Good reply. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Kruechief]

Think about it for a second. Let's say a new Johnny Terror comes across the border at Blaine tomorrow. Johnny comes from, say, Saudi Arabia, where he has spent his life in a Madrassa, getting hatred of America drummed into his head. (The Madrassa, incidently, is funded largely by contributions from the Saudi royal family. We could think about doing something about that support, or we can take fingerprints after the damage is already done.)

Johnny gets fingerprinted and photographed. Johnny then goes to live in Seattle, where he builds a bomb. Johnny straps the bomb to himself, walks down to the federal building, and blows himself up. The cops picking up the pieces find his hand, fingerprint it, and announce that they have identified the terrorist. The people are still dead.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ok, same scenario, but...

Johnny's fingerprints are matched up upon trying to enter the country. He is arrested, prosecuted and sent to a nice prison where he is forced to eat pork and enjoy a stormy relationship with a 6'5" biker named "Meat." :shocked:

Nobody dies and the USA is a safer place.

Krue

[ 01-06-2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Kruechief ]

[Thumper]

Well, actually, Johnny doesn't die, but he ends up with a major oweee!!! :tongue:

[Silver Hilton]

Krue,

That's all nice and good, but tell me how we get Johnny's prints in the first place so that a match can happen? The odds are that the prints taken at the border would be the first ever taken of Johnny. There just isn't anything to match to.

Remember, the Al Qeada soldiers aren't a bunch of drug addicted crack addicts that have been in and out of jail all their lives. They are generally extremely, pathologically devout muslims, from poor countries. They probably haven't run afoul of the law yet, because where they come from, if they had, they'd be dead. However, even if they had run afoul of the law, it's not clear that Pakistan has a working connection to AFIS (the fingerprint identification system). So how, in Mohammed's name, could we have prints to match to? And, if we have prints to match to, how come we haven't gone and gotten the boy already?

Unless there is an answer to those questions (and there may well be one that I'm not aware of, but no-one has yet brought it up in the various places I have been following the issue) taking fingerprints at our border is basically an expensive, meaningless hobby. It makes people feel better, increases government employment and spending, and probably does absolutely nothing to make us safer.

Many of you are fans of Ronald Reagan. One of the things that Reagan did, whether consciously or not, was incent the Soviets to spend themselves into governmental bankruptcy seeking security. I suggest that Bin Laden could very well be trying the same tactic. He learned from history. Will we?

[Thumper]

SH --- So we should make no attempt to document such travelers? Just let them pass in and out of the country?

I believe that the principal reason for the documentation is to provide a retrospective track should these individuals actually participate in a terrorist act. That kind of information ought to be worth 15-30 seconds of time.

[1pump]

"They can put up with the same abuse that American citizens have had perpetrated upon them for the last 2 years."

"What abuse is that?"

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What abuse?

First of all, abuse of office to start a baseless war in Iraq that's cost hundreds of American lives, billions of American dollars and will most likely take years to clean up.

I'm a voter and taxpayer, I was lied to, and to me that's abuse.

Shortly after 9/11 I got a letter in the mail from the FBI telling me that my background was being scrutinized. No particular reason, other than the fact that I have a HazMat endorsement on my license. I could have told them it would be a mighty dull background, but I'm sure they figured that out eventually.

A few months ago I get another letter from our newfound friends and protectors at the Transportation Security Administration saying they need $50 from yours truly for the privelege of being fingerprinted and investigated all over again.
Let me get this straight- they tax the living crap out of me to the point where I can't afford to pay attention, and then they want $50??
Backup the effing trolley, mister. Pay me the fifty bucks, and I'll think about it. Or maybe I should just get arrested. That way I get fingerprinted for free. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

3 weeks ago I had to sit thru a meeting mandated by the Dept of Homeland Security, complete with a Powerpoint presentation provided by the Feds. Guess what I learned- absolutely nothing. Any time you have to sit thru a mandatory meeting, that's abuse. We've all been there.

This blanket approach to combatting terror isn't working. Try to drive tacks with a sledgehammer, and you just wind up hitting your thumb.

Many of you are fans of Ronald Reagan. One of the things that Reagan did, whether consciously or not, was incent the Soviets to spend themselves into governmental bankruptcy seeking security. I suggest that Bin Laden could very well be trying the same tactic. He learned from history. Will we?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Bin Laden is laughing his arse off somewhere while the US persecutes it's own citizens and pillages a country that had vague links to terrorism and phantom WMD's. All he has to do is produce an occasional video and thumb his nose at us.

[1pump]

Oops....I forgot there was a ban on political posturing and bluster.
I hereby cease and desist.

[Silver Hilton]

Thumper,

I enjoy debating issues on their merits. If we're going to play red herring, I have no interest in continuing.

Are you suggesting that the status quo is that no documentation or recording of border transits takes place now? I think we both know better. We know when the 9/11 crew came into the country, and where they went. We know all sorts of stuff about them, despite them not having been printed at the border. I have heard no reports of law enforcement agents saying, "if only we had their prints..." What we HAVE heard is FBI agents wondering why headquarters didn't react.

Fingerprinting foreigners at the border reminds me of the old joke about the drunk looking for his car keys under the streetlight. A passerby comes by and tries to help the drunk look. "Where did you lose the keys?" the passerby asks. "Over there in the parking lot." the drunk responds. "Well, why are we looking for them over here?" The passerby asks. "It's too hard to look over there", the drunk responds.

The keys are in Saudi Arabia. When do we start looking there.

BTW, there is a great article in this week's New Yorker magazine on Saudi culture and the news environment. It has some good perspective on the cultural environment we are up against. Check it out.

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by 24 on/ 48 off:
Why should this just be for foreigners? Why not everyone? How about a federal requirement that should you ever open a bank account, or get any form if state ID, then you must be fingerprinted? It would certainly decrease (not completely stop) the possibility that "homegrown" terrorists like Tim McVeigh and Ted Kazinski would be able to strike. If we have nothing to hide, then all is good, right?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Unless you feel like many of us old time conservatives, that it is our money, and our lives, and the whole point of America is living in a land where the government doesn't have the right to live our lives for us.

[roadsend]

1pump:
"A few months ago I get another letter from our newfound friends and protectors at the Transportation Security Administration saying they need $50 from yours truly for the privelege of being fingerprinted and investigated all over again."

We here in Oregon have been making our teachers pay for their own fingerprinting and investigation for years.

[DanS]

I guess foreign nationals can't expect the same constitutional rights we do. And when we travel abroad, we should expect the same scrutiny.

I'm sure the tourism industry is groaning, though.

[Silver Hilton]

Well, I guess if you can't catch Bin Laden or anyone that actually has anything to do with terrorism, making a lot of busy work at the borders will make it seem like something is getting done. Between that and making sure I don't carry my pocket knife on the plane, I really feel safer now, don't you?

Lest we all forget, the FBI knew who the 9/11 terrorists were, where they were, and that something was in the works before the bad guys struck, without this measure, or any of the other Patriot act measures. They complain that they need more legal help, when what they needed was to react to the information that they had.

Headquarters chose to ignore reports coming up from the field, and I have yet to hear of anyone getting fired for that little lapse in bureaucractic judgement.

Now we have the crew that failed the first time around asking for new measures to put in place at the borders. I don't particularly care about those measures one way or another, except that I am generally against wasteful government procedures. I am, however, annoyed that the government has managed to convince many of you that these measures actually have some value in increasing our safety. They don't, and they won't. They simply give the government something to point at when we insist that they start doing something.

Think about it for a second. Let's say a new Johnny Terror comes across the border at Blaine tomorrow. Johnny comes from, say, Saudi Arabia, where he has spent his life in a Madrassa, getting hatred of America drummed into his head. (The Madrassa, incidently, is funded largely by contributions from the Saudi royal family. We could think about doing something about that support, or we can take fingerprints after the damage is already done.)

Johnny gets fingerprinted and photographed. Johnny then goes to live in Seattle, where he builds a bomb. Johnny straps the bomb to himself, walks down to the federal building, and blows himself up. The cops picking up the pieces find his hand, fingerprint it, and announce that they have identified the terrorist. The people are still dead.

Oh, boy, I feel safer.

This measure is make work for federal employees. The ACLU is up in arms because they fear that this monitoring measure will be extended to be used against US citizens, as nearly every other law enforcement measure targeted at foreign nationals has been in the past. You can decide for yourself what the wisdom of that is, I'm not going to argue. The fact is simply that the FBI has always worked to extend these measures, and has already done so with the Patriot act.

FBI abuses have been used against both ends of the political spectrum. The FBI has been used to harrass those on the left in the 60's and 70's, and to harrass those onthe right at Waco. If firearms rights continue to be an issue, these measures may be extended against firearms owners, for example. Limits on government power are good, because you never know who is going to end up in control of the government. Or at least, that's what our founding fathers believed.

[Thumper]

Well, I can see that not everybody is voting for good old George next November..... [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
Many of you are fans of Ronald Reagan. One of the things that Reagan did, whether consciously or not, was incent the Soviets to spend themselves into governmental bankruptcy seeking security. I suggest that Bin Laden could very well be trying the same tactic. He learned from history. Will we? [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There is no comparison between the United States and the former Soviet Union. We will never spend ourselves into bankruptcy defending our country.

The Soviet Union failed because communism does not work.

Bin Laden is not smart enough to cause the collapse of the United States. All that he can do is hide in a cave while he cons some young madrassah graduate to commit a suicide bombing in the name of some nonexistent glory.

The finger printing of foreigners may not catch any terrorists. It does however, allow us to start building a database complete with photo's and fingerprints, dates of travel, etc, of foreigners that visit the USA. Knowing who's coming and going from our country, and having photo's and fingerprints of those individuals cannot be a bad thing. The data will most likely prove useful in the future.

Bad guys are coming and going under the guise of legitimate travel. Money men, scouts, etc... Eventually we will come across information linking some of these individuals to terrorists. When they step off the plane and thier print comes back code red, Slam! A free trip to Guantanamo Bay.

And if we can't get them that way it is nice to know that we are working on tactical nukes. Did I hear Nortwest Frontier Province?

With the election coming up there is talk by some about "Taking Back Our Country". Our country is ours already. We need to be thinking about "Taking Back The World".

Terrorists have to go. No matter what.

[Sea Nymph]

Originally posted by Thumper:
SH --- So we should make no attempt to document such travelers? Just let them pass in and out of the country?

I believe that the principal reason for the documentation is to provide a retrospective track should these individuals actually participate in a terrorist act. That kind of information ought to be worth 15-30 seconds of time.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">with all the partison politics going on these days, the current admin is darned if they do and darned if they don't by the left. i agree with thump. we have to start doing this sometime. should have happened a long time ago but better late than never.

SN

[DanS]

We will never spend ourselves into bankruptcy defending our country.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">He says as we add half a trillion dollars to our already bloated national debt.

Don't kid yourself........it IS possible.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by DanS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> We will never spend ourselves into bankruptcy defending our country.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">He says as we add half a trillion dollars to our already bloated national debt.

Don't kid yourself........it IS possible. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">A non-political comment.....

The debt is primarily to ourselves. The money that is spent is largely spent right here in the U.S. and directly stimulates the economy, creates jobs, etc. Just ask Kim Johns of USIA. That's why wars finance so well. So long as inflation is under control (and it is) there is little to be feared from a war-based unbalanced budget.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by DanS:
Increasing the national debt like we currently are is bad for the economy any way you slice it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yeah, but its not as bad as another major terrorist attack...the stock market is just now back about where it was before 9/11...by all accounts, the terrorists will strike again if we let them...so, I say Iraq Incursion YES!!...and any place else that harbors or supports terrorists had better knock it off, or else.

[DanS]

GSA,

Whether the increased deficits bring us increased security is a matter of speculation. Nobody can state whether or not this is true. It could be......

What isn't speculation is that it's fiscally irresponsible to cut taxes while dramatically increasing spending.

[24 on/ 48 off]

So why is ok for the federal government to spend more than they have? Nobody has a problem with that?

Yet, there are so many complaints about Oregon government not living within their budget.

Why is it ok for one, but not OK for another?

The federal government should have to live like the rest of us- within our budgets.

--spud-- :smile:

[ 01-07-2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: 24 on/ 48 off ]

[Silver Hilton]

There is an argument for allowing deficit spending to even out demand in the economy. It certainly makes sense in time of depression and emergency. However, Congress has fallen into the habit of using deficit spending simply to make the books balance in normal years, and shows no evidence that the practice will go away.

The long term problem, as I see it, is that the interest expense begins to compete with other spending priorities. Every year, a little bit more of the federal spending budget is interest payments. It's currently about 14% I believe.

So if we don't on average balance the budget, eventually we have to get to a point where the amount of interest is too large to be sustainable, given the other demands for goverment spending. At about that time, borrowers of US funds will begin to see trouble signs, and will demand a higher interest rate, as anyone would if the borrower gets riskier. That could precipitate a budgetary crisis, because the government's financial projections will all of a sudden change, as the increasing interest rates put pressure on that line item of the budget.

Now, if the government wants to prevent this, they have to somehow keep the level of interest in the budget overall constant, or ideally, to reduce it. One way to have that happen, which has happened in Germany after WWI, and various South American countries more recently, is that government coins massive amounts of money to pay back these debts. The treasury being who they are, they can just print money to cover the debt. But if they start doing that, what always follows is hyper inflation. Own bonds? They could become worthless quickly.

The deficits scare me. I think they should scare all of us.

[Thumper]

All of the following data are easily Googled up.

Deficits are a totally relative thing. For example, it is widely viewed by liberals that deficits skyrocketed during the Reagan years. Not true.

The budget deficit that Reagan inherited was about $130 billion annually (1982), or 4.1% of the then GNP ($3.13 trillion). When Reagan left office the budget deficit was $152 billion annually (1989), or only 2.9 % of the GNP ($5.2 trillion). Of course the mid-term of the Reagan years saw the deficits spike to 5-5.4% of the GDP as he literally destroyed the Soviet economy with brutal defense spending increases. But that level of deficits then decreased.

To compare the current projected deficit "problem" we must identify both the current projected deficit and the projected GNP (actually now the GDP, a slightly different metric). Incidentally, the difference between GNP and GDP is that the GDP excludes net receipts of income from the rest of the world, about $5 billion dollars (not a significant number compared to the entire GDP or GNP).

The most current expectation of the Congressional Budget Office (note --- not the administration) is that the deficits will be as much as $480 billion in 2003 and 2004, up from earlier estimates of about $300 billion. The projected current-dollar GDP for 2003 is about $11 trillion dollars, and is growing at an annual rate of about 7-8%, which is astounding, and likely due at least in part to the Bush tax cuts and the increased spending on the war on terror.

Based on these Congressional Budget Office projections, the deficits for 2003 and 2004 of perhaps $480 billion would amount to a deficit of about 4.3%, well below the Cold War Reagan deficits of 5-5.4% and grossly behind the WWII deficits of 10-12% of the GNP.

So relax, folks. The good guys are winning the war, and we are doing it at a reasonable cost.

[ 01-07-2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[DanS]

The budget deficit that Reagan inherited was about $130 billion annually (1982), or 4.1% of the then GNP ($3.13 trillion). When Reagan left office the budget deficit was $152 billion annually (1989), or only 2.9 % of the GNP ($5.2 trillion). Of course the mid-term of the Reagan years saw the deficits spike to 5-5.4% of the GDP as he literally destroyed the Soviet economy with brutal defense spending increases. But that level of deficits then decreased.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Take a look at what happened to the national debt during the time period 1980-1989.

The deficit/surplus numbers are only showing half the picture. We've been accumulating this debt at an astounding rate since about 1981. The growth has continued since but has spiked up sharply with Bush's election. You can check out graphs of our debt accumulation here. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

$2.12 billion is added to the debt DAILY since 10/03. The debt is now about 7 trillion dollars, or $23, 875 per every man, woman, and child in the US.

It's a serious issue, and you're making WAY less out of it than it is, Thumper. Sooner or later, they'll be cutting Social Security and MediCare to pay the interest on the debt ( or they'll tax you more, and we know how you love increased taxes, Thump.). Won't that be grand?

I'm surprised to see what was once the "fiscally conservative" party cut taxes, increase spending, and add to the national debt at a rate of 2+ billion dollars a day. It seems that neither party has a clue how to be responsible with our money these days.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by DanS:
It's a serious issue, and you're making WAY less out of it than it is, Thumper .... It seems that neither party has a clue how to be responsible with our money these days.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I disagree, Dan. I think that Clinton was a fiscal conservative, at least for a Democrat. George Bush inherited a cyclical recession (not Clinton's fault, by the way), and on 9/11 the bad guys declared war. We are now fighting that war, and it is causing economic pressure and sacrifice for sure.

But the good news is that so far we are winning the war, and the costs, while significant, are manageable. As a side benefit, the economy is the beneficiary of the war. Nothing new under the sun.

The real question is whether the American people have the stomach to continue the effort. Time will tell.

[DanS]

I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out. It looks like the economy is going to turn around, and GW has a year to show his stuff before the fall elections roll around. I'm hoping for the best.

[skahorse]

1pump,

First of all, abuse of office to start a baseless war in Iraq

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Why do people keep saying this? Did you not listen to the State of the Union address?

(Paraphrased)"We will go after all terrorist and the countries who support them."

The war in Iraq seems to have a base to me.

pillages a country that had vague links to terrorism

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Saddam, gassing his own people, killing thousands... pretty vague. Terrorist training camps(regardless of whether they were Al Qaeda or not)... pretty vague.

A few months ago I get another letter from our newfound friends and protectors at the Transportation Security Administration saying they need $50 from yours truly for the privelege of being fingerprinted and investigated all over again.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You could always find another job.

--Skahorse

[DanS]

I don't agree, Jack. Increasing the national debt like we currently are is bad for the economy any way you slice it.

I guess the only thing worse than a tax-and-spend Democrat is a cut-taxes-and-spend anyway Republican.

[E2]

A pleasure to read your intelligent comments, Silver Hilton. You too, Dan E2

[Thumper]

:depressed: Geez. Well, don't I feel left out.... :depressed:

Oh well.

[ 01-08-2004, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Pyramid]

If it makes you feel any better Thumper, I agree with most if not all of you posts on this thread.