NationStates Jolt Archive

How is it that people can still belive that the GOP is the party of "fiscal responsibility" when a vote like this (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/politics/15spend.html&OQ=_rQ3D2Q26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=757b5aeeQ2FCkLyCpuQ7DaeuuQ51,C,Q3CQ3CVCQ3ChCQ25zCju7Q7BQ51Q7BQ7DaCQ25zajL(pNnQ51l7) happens?

It's quite simple, get federal deficits under control by requiring a super-majority (i.e. 60 or more votes in the senate) to approve any more tax cuts unless they're offset by either budget savings or other revenue gathering resources.

Why is it so difficult to grap the idea that credit cards do eventually max out, and that, in this case, the people who will be paying our debs will be our children and grandchildren, and at this rate, our great-grandchildren?

Are we turning into such a greedy, self-serving society that we've become so damned short-sighted as to leave our own posterity out in the cold? What does that say for our future?

How is it that people can still belive that the GOP is the party of "fiscal responsibility"...
I don't think they ever were. They had Reagan, who did cut taxes, but that's pretty much it. They're living off his image.

Well, it's pretty much all politics. The Democrats spent wildly while in power during the 80's and early 90's, and then moderated when the Congress became more balanced...when the Republicans became dominant in the 2000's, they did likewise and continue to do so with possibly grave consequences.

Billions of dollars in spending can cement your reelection and party dominance, and a good politician always tries to cement their power as much as possible...politics is obviously not a forward-thinking profession.

Are we turning into such a greedy, self-serving society that we've become so damned short-sighted as to leave our own posterity out in the cold? What does that say for our future?
Yes and alot. But none of it good.

Are we turning into such a greedy, self-serving society that we've become so damned short-sighted as to leave our own posterity out in the cold? What does that say for our future?

Are most Americans greedy and self serving? Not really; things haven't changed much on our end since the end of WWII economically speaking...it's the trend of political apathy in our society that is the threat.

Congress generally follows the will of the people, and it's the people that want them to spend like this that vote for them year after year. Most people don't vote, but feel free to complain about it while doing nothing to change it...that's the real danger, that apathy.

Well, it's pretty much all politics. The Democrats spent wildly while in power during the 80's and early 90's, and then moderated when the Congress became more balanced...when the Republicans became dominant in the 2000's, they did likewise and continue to do so with possibly grave consequences.

Billions of dollars in spending can cement your reelection and party dominance, and a good politician always tries to cement their power as much as possible...politics is obviously not a forward-thinking profession.

Actually, it's even more about politics than you seem to think. Democrats in the 80's hardly "spent wildly"; in fact, most of the time they moderated the budget requests sent to them by the Reagan administration. This was simple fiction invented to account for the fact that despite Reagan's vaunted Laffer curve, tax income to the government fell when he reduced rates rather than increased as he predicted, leading to a spike in the deficit.

That being said, I would say that the problem isn't Republicans per se, but the fact that districts have been designed to be so secure that the only real battles are in the primaries. As primary fights are usually won by winning the support of the dominant industry or special interest in the district, it comes as no surprise that incumbants practically trip over themselves to serve up goodies to special interests in the form of pork and tax cuts.

Actually, it's even more about politics than you seem to think. Democrats in the 80's hardly "spent wildly"; in fact, most of the time they moderated the budget requests sent to them by the Reagan administration. This was simple fiction invented to account for the fact that despite Reagan's vaunted Laffer curve, tax income to the government fell when he reduced rates rather than increased as he predicted, leading to a spike in the deficit.

There were some big Democratic names when it came to defense appropriations and arms contracts...they did almost nothing to stop the rise of deficits during the late 80's even though they could have. Those that tried were dealt with harshly by the leadership. Of course, at the same time there was that climate of fear that enabled savvy politicians on both sides to get what they wanted at the expense of everyone else...and that climate exists today with the Republicans.

Democrats = Tax + Spend
Tories = Spend + War

I don't think they ever were. They had Reagan, who did cut taxes, but that's pretty much it. They're living off his image.
He also managed to outspend the Democrats, so there goes his "responsible" hat.

I don't think they ever were. They had Reagan, who did cut taxes, but that's pretty much it. They're living off his image.
simply cutting taxes doesn't mean fiscal responsibility. Cutting taxes after reducing spending is good. Increasing spending while cutting taxes (as Reagan did) is bad.
Democrats tax and spend. Republicans borrow and spend. Problem is some day, we'll have to pay that borrowed money back, with interest.

There were some big Democratic names when it came to defense appropriations and arms contracts...they did almost nothing to stop the rise of deficits during the late 80's even though they could have. Those that tried were dealt with harshly by the leadership. Of course, at the same time there was that climate of fear that enabled savvy politicians on both sides to get what they wanted at the expense of everyone else...and that climate exists today with the Republicans.

True, although if you subscribe to the theory that Reagan broke the Soviets with defense spending (to which I partly subcribe; Reagan didn't break the Soviet bank so much as Gorbie recognized that a spending race was one his nation couldn't win and wasn't in the world's best interest), that might have been worth the ratcheting up of the deficit. I don't really blame Reagan for the deficits so much as I don't like the conservative canard that Reagan had nothing to do with them.

True, although if you subscribe to the theory that Reagan broke the Soviets with defense spending (to which I partly subcribe; Reagan didn't break the Soviet bank so much as Gorbie recognized that a spending race was one his nation couldn't win and wasn't in the world's best interest), that might have been worth the ratcheting up of the deficit. I don't really blame Reagan for the deficits so much as I don't like the conservative canard that Reagan had nothing to do with them.

Regardless of the policy's effect, it's pretty much undeniable that Reagan's policies contributed to the large deficits of that decade; of course, the economic benefits of the policy are also not to be understated, but there was profigiliate spending in the late 80's that threatened the economy's relatively tame inflation picture...but also contriubted to the final downfall of the USSR. It's a mixed record in many ways.

Um ,you do realize that since the tax cuts the revenue that the government has been receiving has increased more per year than it was before the tax cuts, right? Your argument is bunk.

The spending issue itself is seperate, and wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the doomed SocSec and Medicare systems in this country.

The spending issue itself is seperate, and wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the doomed SocSec and Medicare systems in this country.
Actually, have you compared the amounts they are actually predicting with the amount of money you are spending in Iraq right now?

If you weren't in Iraq, you could finance social security (even if it were broken) for decades, just out of tax money.

Actually, have you compared the amounts they are actually predicting with the amount of money you are spending in Iraq right now?

If you weren't in Iraq, you could finance social security (even if it were broken) for decades, just out of tax money.
That, and if it weren't for the persistence of earmarks.

That, and if it weren't for the persistence of earmarks.
Found a link:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6822964/the_fake_crisis/?rnd=1142492352671&has-player=false

Found a link:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6822964/the_fake_crisis/?rnd=1142492352671&has-player=false
Ah, excellente. *bows*

I like Krugman - and i did before the post! *nods*

Actually, have you compared the amounts they are actually predicting with the amount of money you are spending in Iraq right now?

If you weren't in Iraq, you could finance social security (even if it were broken) for decades, just out of tax money.
For medicare and soc sec the yearly total is approx. 1.3 trillion. We're spending about 500 billion a year on the war. Soo many years of funding.

Um ,you do realize that since the tax cuts the revenue that the government has been receiving has increased more per year than it was before the tax cuts, right? Your argument is bunk.

The spending issue itself is seperate, and wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the doomed SocSec and Medicare systems in this country.
I'll have to ask you to prove that--and the burden is indeed on you, as you made the claim. I know that the idea that tax cuts increase revenue is an article of faith among supply-siders, but to my knowledge, that's never actually happened. Even in the Reagan years, revenues only rose once Reagan implemented some incremental tax increases after his big slash in 1981.

I'll gladly look at whatever data you can provide, but I think you need to provide it when you make that claim.

For medicare and soc sec the yearly total is approx. 1.3 trillion. We're spending about 500 billion a year on the war. Soo many years of funding.


Or, to be more correct, (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06feb20061000/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget/tables.pdf) Medicare, medicaid, social security, and SCHIP take up 1.09 Trillion.

Defence takes up 510B (+32B for Homeland Defence), but this figure - contrary to your assertion - does not reflect the costs per year of the war because that is largely funded by supplimentals which are not included in the actual budget - such as the nearly 100B that GW just asked for last month (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/16/MNGA9HOPJS1.DTL&feed=rss.news), thus driving up the actual deficit far above the projected amount.

Besides, I am really not sure of your point. Are you actually complaining that you spend twice as much helping people as you do killing them?

Or, to be more correct, (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06feb20061000/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget/tables.pdf) Medicare, medicaid, social security, and SCHIP take up 1.09 Trillion.

Defence takes up 510B (+32B for Homeland Defence), but this figure - contrary to your assertion - does not reflect the costs per year of the war because that is largely funded by supplimentals which are not included in the actual budget - such as the nearly 100B that GW just asked for last month (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/16/MNGA9HOPJS1.DTL&feed=rss.news), thus driving up the actual deficit far above the projected amount.

Besides, I am really not sure of your point. Are you actually complaining that you spend twice as much helping people as you do killing them?It would appear that way. :(