OT: 2008 Elections

[matthewk]

It is interesting to see that only 2 of the last 9 presodents has come out with a net gain, and one of those is a Republican.

Which Republican, Bush 41? Bush left Clinton deficits.

If you believe the fiscal conservatives, you wouldn't expect anything but Republican presidents to be responsible for budget surpluses?

Nixon. The chart shows he came out with a net surplus.

I don't think any president by themselves to be responsible for either a surplus or a deficit. There are too many other factors such as congress and world events that can affect things. I do believe in general that those on the far left like to tax and spend more than those on the far right. It's my own personal take on the matter.

As for facts, I did find this during a Google search:
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2 ... nding.html

Basically, they all like to spend. I bet a lot of it has to do with making certain people happy (not us commoners, of course) for politcal purposes.

[matthewk]

Have Obama or Hilary explained where they are going to get all the money for their increased spending, which includes billions for housing bail outs and for govt. run health care?

[JRod]

There are basic services a government has to provide. Taxing and spending is a great little phrase idiotic right-wingers came up with because they hate government and don't want to pay their share.

There's a difference between taxing the country so much that people can't save or invest. And being responsible to have enough money to provide for the general well-being of a country. There's a difference between bureaucratic waste and necessary spending but that's lost on people that think any spending by the government is bad.

What's irresponsible is cutting and spending, though I don't see right wingers complain about that, other than say Bush isn't is a fiscal conservative.

And using Nixon for any sort of argument, means you have to take a timeout.

[Teal]

Our country's going to hell in a handbasket. Now people are choosing candidates based on free tickets to a concert?

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... 8804030466

Does that seem the least bit ethical to anyone?

The concert is a free concert by Dave Matthews in support of the Obama campaign. If Toby Keith gave a free concert in support of McCain, would that be unethical?

I'm not talking about Matthews, I'm talking about some schmuck who decides who's he going to vote for based on a ticket giveaway. Matthews can do whatever the hell he wants. But whether it's free or not, it's buying votes by cheap tactics-it's pathetic. "Obama's handing out free tickets to Dave Matthews-I'm voting for Obama now! Unless Hillary has a better offer!"

It's just braindead.

[RobVarak]

Discussing the budget without discussing the Congressional composition is useless, btw.

To an extent. The interesting comparison is looking at the deficit from 1995-2000 (Democratic President, Republican Congress) and the deficit from 2000-2006 (Republican President, Republican Congress). Or to compare 1976-1980 (Democratic President, Democratic Congress) with 1980-1988 (Republican President, mixed Congress). Congress plays a role...but there are clear differences when with a Democratic vs. Republican executive.

This argument is going nowhere, even for this thread Poor spending/taxing policy isn't the exclusive province of either party. Furthermore, there are those on both sides of the political spectrum who embrace deficits, or at the very least don't regard them as inherently evil. Another problem with the chart is that one President often reaps the benefits or faces the budgetary problems of his predecesor.

I'd be more inclined to lay blame for fiscal policy at the hands of the executive if there were line-item veto power with respect to budgetary matters. But given the cludgy manner in which budgets and appropriations are handled, and the way that earmarks lay waste to the fiscal landscape, it's hard for me to conclude that it's not Congress who plays the largest role in such matters.

I'm not saying that it's not useful to evaluate candidates based on their fiscal policy. But it's worth keeping in mind that the course of events, congressional behavior and economic events beyond the control of the fed's all have a huge (and in my opinion cumulatively greater) impact on things like deficits and debt.

[RobVarak]

I'm not talking about Matthews, I'm talking about some schmuck who decides who's he going to vote for based on a ticket giveaway. Matthews can do whatever the hell he wants. But whether it's free or not, it's buying votes by cheap tactics-it's pathetic. "Obama's handing out free tickets to Dave Matthews-I'm voting for Obama now! Unless Hillary has a better offer!"

It's just braindead.

I disagree. It's just a simplified version of thinking that Candidate A's tax policy is going to leave more money in my pocket, or that Candidate B's social policy is going to make funds available to me and others in my socio-economic circumstance. Your vote in exchange for some economic benefit, no matter how fleeting and superficial, is the fundamental building block of democracy

Hell, there are some people who didn't like Al Gore because he looked orange and acted petulant during a debate. People will make up their minds for all sorts of reasons that others may deem dumb.

[JRod]

Bruce Springsteen came out big for Kerry. That's didn't work.

Oh and Toby Keith is a democrat, believe it or not. A very conservative one but still a Dem.

[matthewk]

There are basic services a government has to provide. Taxing and spending is a great little phrase idiotic right-wingers came up with because they hate government and don't want to pay their share.

There's a difference between taxing the country so much that people can't save or invest. And being responsible to have enough money to provide for the general well-being of a country. There's a difference between bureaucratic waste and necessary spending but that's lost on people that think any spending by the government is bad.

What's irresponsible is cutting and spending, though I don't see right wingers complain about that, other than say Bush isn't is a fiscal conservative.

And using Nixon for any sort of argument, means you have to take a timeout.

Talk about someone needing a timeout.

Idiotic right-wingers? Don't want to pay their share? And what people think ANY spending by the goverment is bad? Your crap-o-meter just reached full with those lines.

Nixon was used as a fact, not for an argument. Just pointing out that not all Republicans rana deficit and not all Democrats ran a surplus. It was pretty balanced. Did you even read the rest of that post I made?

I had a more detailed repsonse started, but your bullsh** filled tirade isn't worth any more than this.

[wco81]

Have Obama or Hilary explained where they are going to get all the money for their increased spending, which includes billions for housing bail outs and for govt. run health care?

I believe both are for letting the tax cuts for people making over $200k or $300k expire.

Whether that's enough, I don't know. But a lot of campaign proposals go nowhere. Americans say in polls they're interested in health care reform but when it comes down to paying for it, the response may be different.

Whether the govt. taxes you or makes you buy health insurance, we're already paying for it, more per capita than any other nation. Even if you have insurance through your employer, you've likely seen benefits cut and/or your out-of-pocket costs increase.

Health insurance is a part of your compensation (although a lower percentage of employers are covering their workers since the start of the decade). So arguably, you're paying in the form of a lower remuneration than you otherwise would have received.

In addition, health care costs have made companies less competitive (e.g. Detroit), contributing to job losses. Can we be sure that not having to pay for health care coverage hasn't figured in the calculus for outsourcing jobs to other countries?

Not only that, we're subsidizing lower drug prices for the rest of the world, because pharmaceutical companies are allowed to charge way more to Americans. Drug company lobbyists made sure that we can't negotiate for volume pricing with the drug companies.

Hey but it's not "socialized medicine."

[XXXIV]

This argument is going nowhere, even for this thread Poor spending/taxing policy isn't the exclusive province of either party. .

Bingo...

[wco81]

Poor spending/taxing policy isn't the exclusive province of either party. Furthermore, there are those on both sides of the political spectrum who embrace deficits, or at the very least don't regard them as inherently evil. Another problem with the chart is that one President often reaps the benefits or faces the budgetary problems of his predecesor.

Well if "deficits don't matter" then there's no basis for decrying spending in general or for any specific program as "wasteful," is there?

Also, are you suggesting that the current state of the budget is due to issues which were inherited from the previous govts.?

I'd be more inclined to lay blame for fiscal policy at the hands of the executive if there were line-item veto power with respect to budgetary matters. But given the cludgy manner in which budgets and appropriations are handled, and the way that earmarks lay waste to the fiscal landscape, it's hard for me to conclude that it's not Congress who plays the largest role in such matters.

If I'm not mistaken, it was a conservative jurist who ruled that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. In any event, Bush had chances to veto bills and he hadn't throughout his first term.

Bush was the head of the party which controlled Congress. Most if not all of the bills they passed were shaped exactly the way they wanted and they didn't have to twist his arm to sign any of them. You can't absolve the president of being fiscally irresponsible when he signed most if not all of the appropriations bills put before him by members of his own party.

I'm not saying that it's not useful to evaluate candidates based on their fiscal policy. But it's worth keeping in mind that the course of events, congressional behavior and economic events beyond the control of the fed's all have a huge (and in my opinion cumulatively greater) impact on things like deficits and debt.

Congressional behavior such as enacting tax cuts pushed by the administration?

The tax cuts which contributed to turning a surplus into a deficit?

According to this analysis, the 2001 tax bill was intended to help stimulate the economy. But it didn't work, or at least didn't work fast enough. Consequently, the Bush tax cut combined with a weakening economy and the Sept. 11 attacks to eliminate the surplus and create a $157.8 billion deficit.

http://www.slate.com/id/2078115/

[XXXIV]

Go My party!!!!!!!!

Wake up little suzie

[RobVarak]

Well if "deficits don't matter" then there's no basis for decrying spending in general or for any specific program as "wasteful," is there?

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

I didn't say that deficits don't matter. Actually, I didn't opine either way on the topic. I merely stated that there are arguments on both sides of the partisan divide in the U.S. which state that deficits are not inherently bad.

Also, are you suggesting that the current state of the budget is due to issues which were inherited from the previous govts.?

Not really. I was suggesting that no administration operates in a vacuum. There are laws passed by previous congresses that don't take hold or have significant impact until subsequent administrations. There are regulations and executive actions taken by presidents which do not play out until years later.

All I have done on this topic is to emphasize the bipartisan responsibility for occassional lapses in fiscal policy. I don't think it was a particularly inflammatory statement. Nevertheless, it seems that if I were to tell you the sky was blue I would receve a jermiad from you about how I'm just defending Bush's environmental positions.

If I'm not mistaken, it was a conservative jurist who ruled that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. In any event, Bush had chances to veto bills and he hadn't throughout his first term.

...blah...blah..blah Bush... ad nauseum

Seriously, you're starting to display the myopia of the Netroots/MoveOn brownshirts. I didn't say a damn thing about Bush. If I defended him on this topic, it was only by virtue of him happening to be a President and explicitly my defense would extend to Democratic Chief Executives as well.

My point, which I am pretty sure was clear, is that embuing deficits with such dispositive power when discussing fiscal policy was problematic. My references were all to Presidents and the Congress in general, and my criticism of the national fiscal policy was pretty obviously directed at targets on both sides of the aisle. I didnt' say that Presidents have no impact on deficits, only that they are one actor among many.

Feel free to project in whatever manner helps you sleep at night, but I suggest that you not use me as a straw man in your anti-Bush diatribes.

[Teal]

I'm not talking about Matthews, I'm talking about some schmuck who decides who's he going to vote for based on a ticket giveaway. Matthews can do whatever the hell he wants. But whether it's free or not, it's buying votes by cheap tactics-it's pathetic. "Obama's handing out free tickets to Dave Matthews-I'm voting for Obama now! Unless Hillary has a better offer!"

It's just braindead.

I disagree. It's just a simplified version of thinking that Candidate A's tax policy is going to leave more money in my pocket, or that Candidate B's social policy is going to make funds available to me and others in my socio-economic circumstance. Your vote in exchange for some economic benefit, no matter how fleeting and superficial, is the fundamental building block of democracy

Hell, there are some people who didn't like Al Gore because he looked orange and acted petulant during a debate. People will make up their minds for all sorts of reasons that others may deem dumb.

You're equating policies with concert tickets? That's quite a leap. Just because they do it, doesn't make it good, right, or acceptable. But most people are asleep at the wheel in the US these days, so whatever...

[Leebo33]

Taxing and spending is a great little phrase idiotic right-wingers came up with because they hate government and don't want to pay their share.

I wish I made enough money to not worry about the government(s) taking 30-40% of my paycheck. Maybe someday I can afford to be a Democrat.

[wco81]

The "deficits don't matter" is a statement attributed to Cheaney.

The people who try to explain away budget deficits are usually supply-side advocates who say a few hundred billion deficits are small compared to the GDP.

Simple facts:

1) Bush came into office with the budget in surplus and Congress controlled by his party.

2) Well before the end of his first term, the budget was in the red by over a hundred billion and have remained in that range.

3) He did not veto a single bill during at least his first term. He signed every appropriation bill and submitted budgets each year.

You can try to dismiss the enunciation of these simple facts as a partisan "jeremiad" but there are plenty of other numbers which could be cited.

Now you can say in theory that you can't assign too much blame or credit for what happens to the federal budget to the president but here's a specific case where there's at least a correlation between a president and Congress working in concert and a certain budgetary result.

[Feanor]

It's the hard right that WANTS to balance the budget. McCain is barely on the right at all. He had one foot on the right and a few toes on the left. The further you go to the left, the further out of balance our budget will get.

That's just sad, dude. Bush is a right-wing president by any reasonable standard and the budget is way out of balance. Going to war AND cutting taxes will do that to a country.

[wco81]

Taxing and spending is a great little phrase idiotic right-wingers came up with because they hate government and don't want to pay their share.

I wish I made enough money to not worry about the government(s) taking 30-40% of my paycheck. Maybe someday I can afford to be a Democrat.

Either you pay or your children and their children pay.

Either as taxpayers or as consumers and workers.

Budget and trade deficits contribute to the decline of the dollar. Dollar-denominated commodities like oil rise in price as the dollar declines.

No free lunch indeed.

[JRod]

Taxing and spending is a great little phrase idiotic right-wingers came up with because they hate government and don't want to pay their share.

I wish I made enough money to not worry about the government(s) taking 30-40% of my paycheck. Maybe someday I can afford to be a Democrat.

Thanks for proving my point. You want highways in good shape. You want a VA to take care of veterans. You want the fire department to show up if your house is burning.

Or do you just want your money. Taxes are about hitting the "happy" medium between having money for the public good, managing bureaucratic misspending, and not over burdening the public. If one of those things get out of gear, a sector, private or public fails.

No one wants to pay taxes but it's a sacrifice we all make.

That's not what you or Matthew are talking about though.

And the idoitic statement of tax and spend democrats is nothing than a propaganda slogan by the right to blame the left. I guess if this was the OS boards for politics then his statement would fit right in.

Rob is right, no party has a monopoly on tax and spend politics.

[Teal]

The talk of surpluses like they are a good thing always makes me chuckle. When the government has surpluses, they are taxing us way too much...it's not like they've been saving THEIR money...they've been storing up OURS.

[Feanor]

That's nonsense. When the government has a surplus it means they can pay down the national debt which is currently at some astronomical figure and rising. Go and see how much the government spends every year just to pay interest on the the debt it already owes.

[JRod]

That's nonsense. When the government has a surplus it means they can pay down the national debt which is currently at some astronomical figure and rising. Go and see how much the government spends every year just to pay interest on the the debt it already owes.

I think Teal means more when we haven't borrowed the money.

[wco81]

Interest on the national debt is over $200 billion a year.

[XXXIV]

I owe on some credit cards.

[Teal]

That's nonsense. When the government has a surplus it means they can pay down the national debt which is currently at some astronomical figure and rising. Go and see how much the government spends every year just to pay interest on the the debt it already owes.

I think Teal means more when we haven't borrowed the money.

Yep. Either way, it's not the government's money. It's either ours, or some other someone else's...never theirs. But good luck convincing them of that.

And for all the talk, the national debt is just a good political talking point to the joe blow's out there...