Dems need to tie deficit to security

Ross Perot ran a campaign in 1992/1996 mostly on the back of attacking the huge deficits that we would be passing on to future generations. I think it is important that the Democrats speak up on this issue. However, how do you make this issue important when the so-called "war on terror" is always the top headline?

My suggestion is for the Democrats to come out for a "war on the deficit". We need to somehow make the point that having such huge debts will end up making us less secure in the long run. How can we afford to protect ourselves in the future if future generations are forced to repay these huge debts?

I'm not for scare tactics, but how else can you get people to care?

•  Not a bad idea, actually

  One way to start is to read Billmon's post on why Greenspan talked threatened the markets to well, maybe raise interest rates the other day.

  Because you can make a very clear argument that our most likely rival in this world owns a huge chunk of our debt.  And while they're unlikely to get rid of it quickly, if they did, it would be a pretty quick way to prevent us from investing in military goodies.

  by emptywheel on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:07:52 AM PDT

  •  What he said

    The Chinese frickin' own us.

    I'd be willing to have ol' Jug-Ears his own self dragged out of the attic to 'splain it all.

    And I always liked the 'gator claw.

    by hamletta on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:16:22 AM PDT

  •  Good idea, but...

    I've taken many courses in economics to understand all this stuff about the crowding out effect (on investment), raising interest rates, currency issues, and the global economy. Its tough enough for me to get, and not being a pompous fool, I don't think Joe from Main Street will suddenly see the light. I wish it were so however. Good post!

    by Mike from NJ on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:51:59 AM PDT

    •  Slogans

      The GOP has gotten very good at using slogans to full effect. Why don't we play at their own game and come up with slogans of our own?

      By now everyone knows "The War on XYZ" must mean that XYZ is bad and dangerous for us. We need a "War on Bush's Deficit".

      by jaydfwtx on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:40:50 AM PDT

    •  Use fear

      I wouldn't love doing it, but I think you could use fear very effectively  here.

      "We owe trillions of dollars to China, a rival that shares few common cultural interests with us."

      Yes, it's race baiting. And yes, cultural differences are not the problem. But you want to see Joe Sixpack start to worry about this, tell him the Chinese government has a deathgrip on his economy.

      by emptywheel on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 09:39:21 AM PDT

•  Bigger picture

  The Chinese also know that most of our discretionary military resources and budget are now tied up in Iraq, and if they do any sword-rattling in Asia, there isn't a thing we can do about it.

  That's why, when Taiwan made noise a few months ago about declaring independence, the Bush administration had to voice opposition to it. So there you had our president, taking sides with a communist dictatorship over a democratically elected government.

  This is a complex point to explain, but I will be furious if whoever the nominee is doesn't make it.

  by daunte on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 01:44:01 AM PDT

•  Along These Lines...

  I was thinking tonight about what the Dem nominee should say:

  "George Bush was right about one thing: America should always be able to defend itself from any threat, any time, anywhere. It is vital to build strong international coalitions, because for fifty years the most powerful force for Democracy around the world has been the will of foreign peoples to aspire to American values. However, no nation may have veto power over our right to defend ourselves.

  What this president doesn't realize is that while he was busy planning the war in Iraq since day one - which has turned out NOT to be a front line in the war on terror - he's given that veto power to some of our most potent allies. The crushing defecits he's run up put our financial house in disarray and project weakness abroad. Further, the huge amount of T-bills held by Saudis make it possible at any time for them to liquidate their assets and send our now-vulnerable economy spiraling further. The president has refused to invest in alternative fuel sources, making our nation entirely dependent on the good will of nations who may prove to be the deepest threats. He has failed to confront North Korea, which doesn't just have possible nuclear weapon-related activity programs, but ACTUAL nuclear weapons. This president has been distracted and detatched from the real war on terrorism; as president, I will never lose focus on the real war on terror.

  The real war on terror happens right here at home. A strong, respectful foreign policy consistent with traditional American values, not the politics of petulence and arrogance. A robust infrastructure that projects strength abroad and allows America to once again not only defy the global community, but to proudly lead it. A healthy economy and alternative energy so that our fate is never, NEVER in the hands of those who may pose REAL threats to our way of life. Rebuilding education so our students once again lead the world in innovation; civil liberties to remind the world what a REAL democracy looks like. The president has waged some cosmetic battles, but THESE are the true front lines of the war on terror, and only we have the judgement and vision to fight the battles that matter. Join me in this fight to reclaim our nation, and together, we not only be the world's mightiest arsenal, but we can once again aspire to be what Franklin Roosevelt called an Arsenal of Democracy."

  Whaddaya think?

  by EliWho on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 02:34:47 AM PDT