So now that Obama 'Won' will he come to the table?

[Doc Savage Fan]

They did, and the Republicans should be given due credit for that. Bush's tax cuts were deeply irresponsible from a budgetary standpoint, though.

And while Democrats displayed some pretty craven political cowardice in the run-up to the war in Iraq, I think most people would agree that had Al Gore been president we probably would not have invaded. Both parties share some responsibility for that, but the blame is not equal.

Now you're splitting hairs in my opinion regarding the 2 wars....I could post the vote tallies if you like and we don't really know what Gore would have done.

In regard to the "Clinton" surplus, I would argue that Republicans were much more responsible than Clinton for creating this.

So we have Republicans primarily responsible for the Clinton surpluses and both Dems/Reps responsible for 2 unfunded wars (and I'll even concede that Republicans were very slightly more reponsible for Iraq only).

 

[shadow9d9]

Now you're splitting hairs in my opinion regarding the 2 wars....I could post the vote tallies if you like and we don't really know what Gore would have done.

In regard to the "Clinton" surplus, I would argue that Republicans were much more responsible than Clinton for creating this.

So we have Republicans primarily responsible for the Clinton surpluses and both Dems/Reps responsible for 2 unfunded wars (and I'll even concede that Republicans were very slightly more reponsible for Iraq only).

This is why you are not to be taken seriously.

 

[fskimospy]

Now you're splitting hairs in my opinion regarding the 2 wars....I could post the vote tallies if you like and we don't really know what Gore would have done.

In regard to the "Clinton" surplus, I would argue that Republicans were much more responsible than Clinton for creating this.

So we have Republicans primarily responsible for the Clinton surpluses and both Dems/Reps responsible for 2 unfunded wars (and I'll concede you that Republicans were very slightly more reponsible).

I would say that more than anything widespread economic growth was responsible for the Clinton surpluses but Republicans definitely deserve significant credit, and among political actors they deserve more credit than Clinton.

While we don't know what a President Gore would have done, I personally find an invasion of Iraq from him would have been highly... highly unlikely. You also left out the Bush tax cuts, for which Republicans are nearly entirely responsible, and which caused close to $2 trillion in deficits over their 10 year lifetime. (although going forward clearly the Democrats share responsibility for this)

 

[chowderhead]

Didn't Republican spending cuts negotiated during the Clinton administration help significantly to help drive those surpluses that Clinton so generously handed Bush? Didn't Democrats overwhemingly vote to enter those 2 unfunded wars?

zero votes from the Republicans for the 1993 Deficit reduction Act/Budget. Republicans want to spend money just as much as Democrats but just on different priorities. At least the Democrats are somewhat honest in wanting to pay for the spending.

 

[Theb]

I hope Obama comes to the table. He has shown that brinksmanship will not work. Now it's time to show that it's not necessary.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I would say that more than anything widespread economic growth was responsible for the Clinton surpluses but Republicans definitely deserve significant credit, and among political actors they deserve more credit than Clinton.

While we don't know what a President Gore would have done, I personally find an invasion of Iraq from him would have been highly... highly unlikely. You also left out the Bush tax cuts, for which Republicans are nearly entirely responsible, and which caused close to $2 trillion in deficits over their 10 year lifetime. (although going forward clearly the Democrats share responsibility for this)

You're probably right about Gore...but that leaves Afghanistan which both Dems/Reps share equal responsibility. At the end of the day, if you make an attempt to objectively look at both parties during this period...it's quite clear that both have blood on there hands when it comes to our current fiscal problems. To blame one more than another is a fool's game in my opinion.

BTW, here's a good read regarding the "Clinton" surplus I thought you might be interested in. But it appears that you were pretty much aware already of what happened to generate those surpluses.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/05/Clintons-Spending-Cuts-Not-His-Tax-Hikes-Worked

Clinton’s Spending Cuts—Not His Tax Hikes—Worked

<snip>

Nor is that the only bit of ill-informed Clinton nostalgia of late. On NBC&#8217;s Meet the Press last Sunday, the roundtable argued that Clinton balanced the budget mainly on defense cuts. Cato&#8217;s Steve Hanke says Clinton did have the largest reduction in federal spending in the past 60 years as measured in percentage of GDP, but the reduction came primarily from domestic cuts &#8211; not defense.

In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that forced the issue. Defense spending as a portion of GDP declined by 1.8 points, but non-defense spending dropped by 2.2 points. Clinton and the Republicans in Congress cut spending on domestic discretionary programs as well as entitlement spending through welfare reform.

What followed afterward is instructive to the real problem of our current trillion-dollar trajectory of deficit spending. George Bush increased federal spending as a share of GDP by 2.6 points in two terms, and it wasn&#8217;t just spent on defense; the increase was split evenly between defense and non-defense spending, a remarkable statistic considering the two wars waged in those eight years.

Barack Obama managed to hike it 3.5 points in just one term, with 3.2 points going to non-defense spending. Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, and his has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years &#8211; even for two-term Presidents.

The real debate over deficits isn&#8217;t over whether to go back to Clinton-era tax rates. It&#8217;s how to get back to Clinton-era spending levels, and then create a tax system that will adequately fund it. The 18.2 percent level of federal spending is one piece of Clinton-era nostalgia worth recalling &#8211; as well as the bipartisanship that eventually produced it.

 

[JTsyo]

As I pointed out, sequester has already baked in spending cuts and Obama is trying to undo even them. If you're proposing spending cuts above and beyond sequester in trade for tax increases then perhaps you might be realistic. Personally I don't care if we do raise taxes, since it disproportionately impacts high cost-of-living urban dwellers anyway. Tax away on the primarily Democratic residents of places like NYC and San Francisco.

Doesn't the current CR undo the sequestration cuts?

 

[shadow9d9]

You're probably right about Gore...but that leaves Afghanistan which both Dems/Reps share equal responsibility. At the end of the day, if you make an attempt to objectively look at both parties during this period...it's quite clear that both have blood on there hands when it comes to our current fiscal problems. To blame one more than another is a fool's game in my opinion.

BTW, here's a good read regarding the "Clinton" surplus I thought you might be interested in. But it appears that you were pretty much aware already of what happened to generate those surpluses.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/05/Clintons-Spending-Cuts-Not-His-Tax-Hikes-Worked

More Republicans voted for the war in afghanistan and the only one who voted against it was a democrat... So, no, they are not "equal."

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

zero votes from the Republicans for the 1993 Deficit reduction Act/Budget. Republicans want to spend money just as much as Democrats but just on different priorities. At least the Democrats are somewhat honest in wanting to pay for the spending.

eskimospy got it right...it was the spending cuts and economic growth that primarily created the surpluses. Perfect username btw.

 

[TerryMathews]

More Republicans voted for the war in afghanistan and the only one who voted against it was a democrat... So, no, they are not "equal."

So 100% of Republicans and 99% of Democrats voted for it and you want to say that shows they are not equal?

Lol

 

[chowderhead]

eskimospy got it right...it was the spending cuts and economic growth that primarily created the surpluses. Perfect username btw.

What happened first? 1993 or Republicans taking over?
Clinton used the increased revenue to reduce the deficit (500 billion dollars) which coupled with lower interest rates, helped lead to economic expansion which led to more revenues and further lowering the deficit creating a circle of economic expansion.
The spending limits and welfare reform accelerated that but it started with deficit reduction paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So 100% of Republicans and 99% of Democrats voted for it and you want to say that shows they are not equal?

Lol

He's showing us the world he lives in and he's obviously very proud of it. I'd just leave it at that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What happened first? 1993 or Republicans taking over?
Clinton used the increased revenue to reduce the deficit (500 billion dollars) which coupled with lower interest rates, helped lead to economic expansion which led to more revenues and further lowering the deficit creating a circle of economic expansion.
The spending limits and welfare reform accelerated that but it started with deficit reduction paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy.

Then what does the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 have to do with the economic expansion? Nada. You made the point in Post #54 that not one Republican voted for it as if these tax increases were the primary driver of the Clinton surpluses. They weren't.

 

[glenn1]

Then what does the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 have to do with the economic expansion? Nada. You made the point that not one Republican voted for it as if these tax increases were the primary driver of the Clinton surpluses. They weren't.

It's certain one factor, and you could certainly make plausible arguments for it being more or less important than other factors. I'd argue it was the relatively sizable spending cuts Clinton made on both the military and domestic sides. That's one big reason why I think he was a fine President with some exceptions (his healthcare plan, Monica Lewinski, and intervention in the former Yugoslavia, to name 3).

http://www.cato.org/blog/meet-press-check-facts

 

[Moonbeam]

Compromise for pigs is all your food for nothing. Not a good negotiating strategy when you can be turned into bacon.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's certain one factor, and you could certainly make plausible arguments for it being more or less important than other factors. I'd argue it was the relatively sizable spending cuts Clinton made on both the military and domestic sides. That's one big reason why I think he was a fine President with some exceptions (his healthcare plan, Monica Lewinski, and intervention in the former Yugoslavia, to name 3).

http://www.cato.org/blog/meet-press-check-facts

I personally thought Clinton was an excellent President. He was a great leader and he accomplished a lot by negotiating/compromising with Republicans. And no major wars to boot! That's hitting the trifecta in my book!

 

[raildogg]

No, it's not good that Republicans refuse to raise taxes on our highest earners. If they trade spending cuts for higher tax rates, well that isn't exactly creating a bigger government, now is it? This is about lowering the deficit.

Yeah, punish them so government can create more programs. Why not reduce government bloat a little bit? Why does the government need such a large budget? I know I am definitely repeating talking points here but I am wondering if all these lovely government programs are really helping people or not. Or are they merely creating a dependent society that comes to rely on the government.

People are already taxed enough. Businesses will hire more if their taxes were lowered and if their regulations were less - at least some businesses will. This tax burden, along with other government burdens create a barrier to hiring. People in general will likely spend more if 30% and more of their money was not taken away. Once again, these things have been already talked about and I am just repeating.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, punish them so government can create more programs. Why not reduce government bloat a little bit? Why does the government need such a large budget? I know I am definitely repeating talking points here but I am wondering if all these lovely government programs are really helping people or not. Or are they merely creating a dependent society that comes to rely on the government.

People are already taxed enough. Businesses will hire more if their taxes were lowered and if their regulations were less - at least some businesses will. This tax burden, along with other government burdens create a barrier to hiring. People in general will likely spend more if 30% and more of their money was not taken away. Once again, these things have been already talked about and I am just repeating.

Did you even read what I wrote? How are they going to create more programs if they are cutting spending?

 

[werepossum]

You're probably right about Gore...but that leaves Afghanistan which both Dems/Reps share equal responsibility. At the end of the day, if you make an attempt to objectively look at both parties during this period...it's quite clear that both have blood on there hands when it comes to our current fiscal problems. To blame one more than another is a fool's game in my opinion.

BTW, here's a good read regarding the "Clinton" surplus I thought you might be interested in. But it appears that you were pretty much aware already of what happened to generate those surpluses.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/05/Clintons-Spending-Cuts-Not-His-Tax-Hikes-Worked

You're definitely correct. Clinton's budgets projected deficits forever, increasing sharply as he near the end of his second term, and he vetoed bills only to increase spending, never to reduce it. However, many of the same Republicans that fought Clinton to establish fiscal responsibility also spent like drunken sailors once they had a Republican President, and even today leadership isn't talking about returning to 18.2% GDP spending but rather about preserving the sequestration cuts. That suggests that Republicans are so much about fiscal responsibility as about being slightly less fiscally irresponsible than the Dems. With a moderate like Clinton, that can be a good result; with a proggie like Obama, it's worse than Clinton when he had a Democrat Congress.

It's also worth saying that a key Republican plank, tax cuts, doesn't really work anymore. The very wealthy invest their money, but our economic system does not encourage investing domestically except in the stock market which is mostly churning existing stocks, not building up new companies. Start-ups are typically either government-funded causes of the moment or service jobs, or else have product built off-shore, which builds wealth for the owners but also net exports wealth from the country. The middle class is now investing more and facing the same problem, but both the middle and lower class spend extra money mostly on consumer goods which are mostly manufactured off-shore. Thus tax cuts don't have the economic impact they once did. Unless and until something changes this dynamic, tax cuts improve people's lives but will always increase the deficit.

 

[ElFenix]

except in the stock market which is mostly churning existing stocks, not building up new companies.

don't forget that nearly all sales on the stock market are secondary, so you're really just passing money around from investor to investor, not to the company being 'invested in'

 

[BUnit1701]

Hey glenn, you were really an expert political predictor on the whole shutdown/default thing. lol. You also claimed Obama had nothing of value to trade then, and it ended in basically his unconditional victory. No pause to think why you might have been wrong?

Obama will come to the table here, but Republicans aren't going to like what he tells them. Now that they aren't (currently) holding the government/national credit hostage, they would actually need to compromise in order to get what they want. That will mean higher tax revenues.

If Republicans are willing to accept tax increases they can probably get quite a bit in return. If they aren't...well... they were never serious about coming to the table to begin with.

Over and over, its the same story. 'Compromise' and 'bi-partisanship' mean 'GOP: Shut the hell up and do what the Dems want.'

 

[Fern]

So now that Obama 'Won' will he come to the table?

No.

We've seen him for 5 years now and that's not the "Chicago Way".

Fern

 

[Fern]

What happened first? 1993 or Republicans taking over?
Clinton used the increased revenue to reduce the deficit (500 billion dollars) which coupled with lower interest rates, helped lead to economic expansion which led to more revenues and further lowering the deficit creating a circle of economic expansion.
The spending limits and welfare reform accelerated that but it started with deficit reduction paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy.

You're wrongly crediting Clinton for PCs (Intel and Microsoft) which greatly increased productivity etc. Then add in the internet. Clinton was merely fortunate in terms of timing. The Cold War was over and the PC revolution beginning; neither of which he had anything to do with.

Fern

 

[Fern]

He said right in his post that the reward is earning much more than they produce.

That's a highly subjective statement. It's not appreciably different than saying "it's not fair". It's just phrased differently.

Fern

 

[Fern]

No, it's tribal when you express your view on policy based on whether it will help or harm groups you view as your opponents as opposed to whether you think it's a good idea or not.

Sounds like the policy of the Democratic Party.

Also, "all politics is local". Sound familiar?

Fern