Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

PB alluded to it some time back and, of course, sck5 ignores it, but it's interesting that sck's canidate is proposing very expensive new government programs. Given sck5's concern with deficits one would think that we should have a tax increase to pay for what we're already not paying for now. Why would we increase spending when we're already in the hole?

If any credit is due the government for the deficit reduction during the 90's, and that's a dubious proposition, it's due to Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. Welfare spending used to be non-discretionary spending as well. Non-discretionary spending on social security could be reduced merely by changeing the retirement age from 63 to 70, a perfectly sensible idea given the nature of the social security safety net.

The only route to deficit reduction is fiscal discpline within the Congress and a growing economy. You grow your way out of deficits, you don't tax your way out.

As for what Republicans have done; when I graduated from college I immediately went from pauper status to the fifty per cent tax bracket under a tax code that had the top bracket at nearly 70%. Reagan changed that by forcing through tax code reform. "Bracket creep" coupled with inflation were responsible for citizens making the same, or even less, money and yet entering a higher tax bracket because the tax code was not indexed for inflation. Reagan and the Republicans changed that.

The irony to all of this is that, absent the recent congress, deficit reduction is a Republican issue. That sck5 chooses to trumpet it is quite interesting as you'll not hear a peep about cutting spending from his canidate for the presidency. That's because he's got a whole passle of new spending planned.

Remember, we had to have Carter so we could get Reagan. I'm also not unimpressed by the fact that we might be trailing Yurrup in this case. How ironic it would be that Europe is tossing the libs out, correctly, just as America seems all set to elect the biggest one we've seen in years.

[sailaway21]

What ever happened to the recession? Apparently it hasn't affected federal tax receipts-they're still going up, up quite a bit. I wonder what caused that? More charts, more history....Pajamas Media » Federal Budget Woes: It’s the Spending, Stupid!

[Sailormon6]

Wow! The Dems have gone off like a cheap pop bottle rocket because President Bush made a statement is Israel that he opposes any notion of appeasement in the Mideast. The Dem word-of-the-day is "BS." Their gut response is, "How dare he talk about Barack like that!" The problem is, he didn't mention Barack, or say anything about him. The Dem paranoia is showing. I wonder why they immediately thought he was talking about Barack? Do they believe that's what Barack is about? It appears they have another ultra-liberal candidate whose real agenda they have to try to hide. When will they ever learn that "the truth will out!" Sometimes the Dems themselves unwittingly reveal more about their own candidate than you could ever hope to learn by listening to the candidate.

This is exactly why Hillary is staying in the mix. She's waiting for Barack to implode, or for her own party to fumble the ball.

[sck5]

"I wonder why they immediately thought he was talking about Barack?"

Maybe because numerous Republican spokespeople said he was. Kind of hard to avoid the implication even without them confirming it though. Listen to what he said and you can see for yourself.

Used to be that our politicians kept domestic politics out of foreign speeches. Bush doesnt apparently know that. But Bush is increasingly irrelevant and increasingly unpopular (hard though that may be to imagine), setting new records for unpopularity all the time.

And appeasement isnt talking to our enemies (or Ronald Reagan would be the king of appeasers since he talked to the boss of the USSR lots of times). Appeasement is giving them something for nothing in hopes that it will make them happy.

As for Barack being liberal, absolutely he is. The country seems to be well and truly sick of how the conservatives have done running the country. Why would anyone want to emulate THAT?

[sck5]

sailaway

There is one problem with your tired old caricature of Dems as the spendthrift party and Repubs as the responsible fiscal conservatives. It is in fact the DEMS who presided over the return to a budget surplus and the REPUBS who presided over the biggest turnaround in fiscal balance in the history of the world under Bush. Cant blame the Dems either because the Repubs had the Presidency, the Senate, the House and even the Supreme Court on their side. They own this problem. It is the Dems who are fiscally responsible nowadays.

[erps]

There is one problem with your tired old caricature of Dems as the spendthrift party and Repubs as the responsible fiscal conservatives. It is in fact the DEMS who presided over the return to a budget surplus and the REPUBS who presided over the biggest turnaround in fiscal balance in the history of the world under Bush. Cant blame the Dems either because the Repubs had the Presidency, the Senate, the House and even the Supreme Court on their side. They own this problem.

I see your point.

It is the Dems who are fiscally responsible nowadays.

and then there is this giant leap of faith, probably based on past evidence during the clinton administration while the republicans held the purse strings.

I don't think either party is fiscally responsible right now, evidenced by our current deficit. The dems hold the purse strings right now. Is there current evidence of fiscal responsibility?

[sck5]

erps

you are right that there is no current evidence - the most recent evidence is Bill Clinton's performance which was very good. Campaigns usually generate silliness on both sides with candidates making promises nobody imagines they can or want to fulfill. However, the Republicans seem to NEVER talk about how they will pay for what they want to do except for eliminating "waste fraud and abuse". Noble though that might be, it is a copout and the result is huge deficits because as we all know, either side will keep right on spending. At least the Dems talk about trying to pay for it - most recently by taxing people over 250k/yr - as far as I can tell it doesnt add up but then neither does anything the repubs have proposed or done over the past decade.

The Dems dont really hold the purse strings. Their majority in Congress is narrow and Bush and the Congressional Repubs are using every means they have to block any progress unless they get what they want. For example, they have set a new record for filibusters. We DO know that when the repubs had all the cards stacked in their favor earlier in Bush's admin they really screwed things up. Whether the Dems will do better when they have everything in THEIR favor next year (as seems likely) we have yet to see. So far, they at least talk about paying for things which is a change.

[sailaway21]

Mr Impervious still does not know how to read for comprehension. I'd suggest the second level Evelyn Wood course to remediate the matter.

There is no evidence that Bill Clinton's performance at spending restraint was good at all. We have to look to intent to ascertain what Clinton's restraint involved. Since his intent to spend vast sums of money on health care, for instance, was thwarted by the Republican congress (the same congress that forced NAFTA upon him) it's hardly fitting that one would claim defeat as evidence of Clinton's restraint. The Republican congress deserves the credit for spending restraint in that case.

I tried to write that as simply as possible so even sck5 could comprehend it.

[sck5]

So snarky Sailaway! You need to get out on the water!

Let me quote myself

"as we all know, either side will keep right on spending."

so there is my opinion about spending in the post just above yours. I have tried to type slower this time so that you can comprehend

What IS true (and it must burn you up because you seem stuck on the idea that the Repubs are always right and good and the Dems always bad) is that Clinton is the only president in decades to put us on a course leading to fiscal balance. Bush couldnt piss this away fast enough from the look of it - In any case Bush had the presidence the house AND the senate and not only increased spending but also cut taxes to dig the deep hole we are now in.

And dont blame 9/11 because he was well on his way to doing this before that.

Unlike some around here I am willing to give some credit to the other party for getting to the outcome Clinton achieved. Indeed the Repubs were in charge of Congress during the latter part of clinton's admin.

But here is a puzzle - Why, if they were so good under Clinton did they piss it all away as soon as Bush got in? Two theories:

- They were so hypnotized with thinking about Monica giving Bill a blowjob they couldnt find time to spend money

- They wanted to block all of Bill's spending priorities but were willing to cosign any and everything Bush came up with (and then some)

I vote for the second one. (Even though they sure did spend a lot of time thinking about other people's blowjobs)

[sck5]

and on giving credit where it is due

on the spending side the repubs helped restrain things under clinton

on the revenue side, Clinton got the 93 tax bill passed WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE. What then happened was the highest economic growth in 4 decades and a budget surplus just 6 years later.