US Politics...the Reckoning

[TheKassi]

That chart shows Obama with a higher level of debt than any POTUS since Truman.

Also, congressional control is a factor.

I like how it doubles under Reagan and Bush, yet I am told we need to look back at that era as to to relearn fiscal responsibility.

I also like how when Clinton left office, it was claimed that he didn't leave us with a surplus, because the 2001 budget was his. Major talking points used by the GOP for years and years. For this graph however, that has been reversed, and Obama is responsible for the 2009 budget. Guess it would really screw up Republican talking points if the graph showed that Obama rise in borrowing vs GDP mirrored Reagan's.

As Wiki is a quoted source, lets see what they have to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008-September 2009. Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2009.

Interesting.

Also, I am not quite sure how it claims that Control of Congress was split in 2003 and 2004... Lets check Wiki again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_United_States_Congress

Odd.

Anyway, I guess the moral of the graph is both parties really suck at controlling the debt. Also political rhetoric and the statistics used to bake it up really has nothing to do with reality, but how it may be manipulated to fit current talking points.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Presidential debt as percentage of GDP.

Maybe we can finally bury that tired argument that the GOP is the fiscally conservative party? That might have been true before Reagan, but it's been a bold-faced lie for the last 30 years.

It's always been a mystery where this "Republicans support balanced budgets, small government, and less federal interference" line comes from. Reagan and the Bushes ran massive deficits, Nixon was hardly "small government", and Eisenhower tried to use federal power to enforce desegregation. before that you're looking at the likes of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover: do the Republicans really want to claim those guys?

[Selmy]

I'm a bit afraid to see what happens Monday.

I think it's a bit fucked that they screwed their own analysis and still downgraded.

Something I'm curious about and wonder if someone could explain - Moody's didn't downgrade but S&P did - does this have any significance or does one take precedent?

I in large part blame the Tea Party. I honestly think that Boehner would have negotiated a better deal that had a better long term outlook for the country, but I think he's terrified of the Tea Party.

[peterbound]

It's always been a mystery where this "Republicans support balanced budgets, small government, and less federal interference" line comes from. Reagan and the Bushes ran massive deficits, Nixon was hardly "small government", and Eisenhower tried to use federal power to enforce desegregation. before that you're looking at the likes of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover: do the Republicans really want to claim those guys?

There's really no arguing the fact that the GOP in it's current form has anything to do with balanced budgets, small government, and less federal interference. They like to talk a big game but they rarely, if ever, put their money where their mouth is.

I hope this changes. I truly believe in these principles.. but i have a hard time seeing the right as more than greedy, little men, throwing temper tantrums in the aisle of congress. The 'trickle down' effect has proven to be nonsense (taxes are lower than they ever have been and still.. fucking still we have employment problems), and i'm starting to honestly believe that the GOP only gives a shit about the top 10% of the American population.

This saddens me, as i lean to the right, but i just can find anything about the current representatives of the party that make me want to vote, and support, the republicans.

ETA: And fuck, i told myself i'd never post in this goddamn thread again

[Jon Sprunk]

There's really no arguing the fact that the GOP in it's current form has anything to do with balanced budgets, small government, and less federal interference. They like to talk a big game but they rarely, if ever, put their money where their mouth is.

I hope this changes. I truly believe in these principles.. but i have a hard time seeing the right as more than greedy, little men, throwing temper tantrums in the aisle of congress. The 'trickle down' effect has proven to be nonsense (taxes are lower than they ever have been and still.. fucking still we have employment problems), and i'm starting to honestly believe that the GOP only gives a shit about the top 10% of the American population.

This saddens me, as i lean to the right, but i just can find anything about the current representatives of the party that make me want to vote, and support, the republicans.

ETA: And fuck, i told myself i'd never post in this goddamn thread again

PB,

This is exactly where I found myself about 5 years ago. After being a pretty staunch conservative since 1979 (the year I discovered politics), I could not stomach the GOP anymore. I'm in a much better place these days, as I can reconcile my personal code of ethics with my polital leanings for the first time with honesty.

[Jon Sprunk]

That chart shows Obama with a higher level of debt than any POTUS since Truman.

Also, congressional control is a factor.

As a percentage of GDP. You're statement implies the same mistake I made. Obama's 2 years are spiked on that chart because GWB handed him an economy in free-fall.

I'm actually wondering if permanent economic turmoil is the GOP's newest political strategy. Like they used the specter of terrorism to justify everything from ill-conceived wars to torture to wire-tapping, they can (and are) now trying to wrap all of their political desires around the economic collapse that they themselves initiated. If unemployment never rises, if the disparity between rich and poor never closes, if America continues to sink in education and health and economic power, the GOP can trot out the same old platitudes every election. "Lower taxes (for the rich), less regulation (for the powerful), and spending cuts (for the poor and working-class)!"

[awesome possum]

The 'trickle down' effect has proven to be nonsense (taxes are lower than they ever have been and still.. fucking still we have employment problems)

Just hearing the words "trickle down" always reminds me of this picture

I'm actually wondering if permanent economic turmoil is the GOP's newest political strategy. Like they used the specter of terrorism to justify everything from ill-conceived wars to torture to wire-tapping, they can (and are) now trying to wrap all of their political desires around the economic collapse that they themselves initiated. If unemployment never rises, if the disparity between rich and poor never closes, if America continues to sink in education and health and economic power, the GOP can trot out the same old platitudes every election. "Lower taxes (for the rich), less regulation (for the powerful), and spending cuts (for the poor and working-class)!"

That's precisely the plan, for at least a portion of the GOP. It might seem like I'm being hyperbolic when I say something like, "you know those post apocalyptic movies where the super rich (and their servants) live in gated paradises while everyone else tries to eek out a living in a desolated wasteland, well the GOP as it stands gaining complete control over our country is how that begins."

I'm not being hyperbolic. It feels like the truth. The GOP as it currently exists has done and will do nothing beneficial for this country. It truly feels like we're on the verge of the end of our civilization as we know it and the fucking Republican party is happily speeding us towards that end.

It kinda makes me wish there was a God and he'd just Rapture all these idiots already.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Bush essentially used increased social spending to bribe Democrats for their support of military obligations. The result was more of both than we could afford.

Anyway, there is no budget deal of significance possible without structural reform of entitlements, because those are the only cuts that are legislated rather than simply empty promises.

[Kelli Fury]

yeah, not like we could cut the military budget or anything.....

[awesome possum]

But FLoW, why would Bush need support from Democrats? The Republicans controlled all three branches of government throughout his entire first term.

I just wanted to point that out for you again since you have repeatedly pointed out that the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency from 2008 to 2010 and therefore could have done anything they wanted. Anything at all.

Yet somehow when Bush the Lesser had the same control he needed Democratic support?

Sweet, sweet revisionism.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

Medicare part D was the largest new entitlement created since Medicare itself. It wasn't a bribe to Democrats. It was a bribe to older voters. Bush was seeking to beat the Democrats at their own game. Hardly the act of a fiscal conservative.

[S John]

There's really no arguing the fact that the GOP in it's current form has anything to do with balanced budgets, small government, and less federal interference. They like to talk a big game but they rarely, if ever, put their money where their mouth is.

I hope this changes. I truly believe in these principles.. but i have a hard time seeing the right as more than greedy, little men, throwing temper tantrums in the aisle of congress. The 'trickle down' effect has proven to be nonsense (taxes are lower than they ever have been and still.. fucking still we have employment problems), and i'm starting to honestly believe that the GOP only gives a shit about the top 10% of the American population.

I could have written the same post, pete. Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Turns out they're just the worse flavor of big government. At least the bleeding heart Dem's can point to positive social change as motivation for their big government programs. If the GOP wants me to oppose the Dems, then at least show me that the alternative really is small government, fiscal responsibility, and significantly less government in my life. The Republicans fail horribly on all counts with the added bonus that they've let the religious right creep into the mainstream of the party, further diluting any possibility that there's anything left for me to like.

[TrackerNeil]

Was there a memo about providing footnotes and links for every claim made in the politics thread?

Here's a memo for you: the next time you make a factual claim, don't be shocked when someone calls upon you to substantiate it. That's called reasoned debate, and it's a nice planet to hail from. We have much to teach you.

[peterbound]

I could have written the same post, pete. Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Turns out they're just the worse flavor of big government. At least the bleeding heart Dem's can point to positive social change as motivation for their big government programs. If the GOP wants me to oppose the Dems, then at least show me that the alternative really is small government, fiscal responsibility, and significantly less government in my life. The Republicans fail horribly on all counts with the added bonus that they've let the religious right creep into the mainstream of the party, further diluting any possibility that there's anything left for me to like.

This, fucking this is what i forgot to put in. As an atheist conservative (ya, we do exist) i find this to be one of the more unsettling things about the party.

[TrackerNeil]

So he doesn't really believe in an ideology, but he's an insane ideologue?

Oh, Paul Ryan believes in an ideology; it's just not the one you think. Like most Republican politicians, Ryan doesn't really care about deficit spending. He voted for deficit spending many, many times when Bush was in office, and he'll vote for it again when Obama is out. Ryan believes in slashing social programs and cutting taxes, particularly for the wealthy, and he's not too concerned about whether those cuts are funded or not. I'm sure that, given complete freedom of choice, he'd match every dollar of tax cuts with a dollar taken from Social Security or Medicare, but since Americans won't stand for that, he has to be more circuitous.

I have a simple test for measuring the sincerity of those who claim to want to pay down the national debt. If he's willing to consider revenue increases along with spending cuts, a bargain which most Americans support, he may be serious. If he won't even consider increasing revenues, he's faking concern. Paul Ryan is a fake, and so is Boehner and Cantor and McConnell and the rest of the Republican leadership. Their insane stubbornness about that bit of Republican ideology proves it.

[Swordfish]

I like how it doubles under Reagan and Bush, yet I am told we need to look back at that era as to to relearn fiscal responsibility.

By who?

[TheKassi]

By who?

The Republican National Convention would be a good starting place to start pointing as for when it really started getting out of hand. If however you want a more recent example, here is a nice story about how the guy currently running just behind Romney in the polls has insufficient Reagen cred.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/news_columnists/article/Belatedly-Perry-embraces-the-Reagan-legacy-1630466.php

A particularly fun quote:

“From my perspective, there have been three significant moments in history when there has been real hope for conservative reform in Washington and a genuine retreat in the size and scope of the federal government. The first two moments were the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the Contract with America in 1994, when Republicans took control of the Senate and the House for the first time in over 40 years.”

Quote doesn't really seem to point in the direction of social conservatism.

Fun fact: During the Reagan era the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation

[Shryke]

No, I read your excerpt. If that didn't accurately represent the article, that's your fault, not mine.

Ahh FLOW. You post as if I needed yet more confirmation that you are a hack.

Why read what people write when you can just assume what they are trying to say and reply to that, am I right?

[Shryke]

Oh, Paul Ryan believes in an ideology; it's just not the one you think. Like most Republican politicians, Ryan doesn't really care about deficit spending. He voted for deficit spending many, many times when Bush was in office, and he'll vote for it again when Obama is out. Ryan believes in slashing social programs and cutting taxes, particularly for the wealthy, and he's not too concerned about whether those cuts are funded or not. I'm sure that, given complete freedom of choice, he'd match every dollar of tax cuts with a dollar taken from Social Security or Medicare, but since Americans won't stand for that, he has to be more circuitous.

I have a simple test for measuring the sincerity of those who claim to want to pay down the national debt. If he's willing to consider revenue increases along with spending cuts, a bargain which most Americans support, he may be serious. If he won't even consider increasing revenues, he's faking concern. Paul Ryan is a fake, and so is Boehner and Cantor and McConnell and the rest of the Republican leadership. Their insane stubbornness about that bit of Republican ideology proves it.

It's how Starve The Beast works. You cut taxes or the like to generate a fiscal emergency and then use that fiscal emergency to make huge slashes to the social safety net under the guise of "fiscal conservatism".

By separating the government's revenue from it's output like that, you make it much more difficult for the voters to connect the 2 policies together.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

Medicare part D was the largest new entitlement created since Medicare itself. It wasn't a bribe to Democrats.

I didn't say it was. I was referring to a bunch of discretionary domestic programs Bush ended up supporting to get those votes. Separate issue

It was a bribe to older voters. Bush was seeking to beat the Democrats at their own game.

Well, not quite. Bush didn't just pull this bill out of his ass for fun. A prescription drug plan for seniors was a major political issue that built from the 2000 election on. As costly as Bush's plan was, Democrats were pushing an even more expensive bill than Bush's and criticized his proposed plan for not spending enough.

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-06-15/politics/democrats.radio_1_prescription-drug-drug-coverage-prescription-plan?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Here's an extract of an article (original source not available)

The Bush administration analysis contends that the House GOP plan, which would cost $350 billion over 10 years, would give seniors a 60 percent to 85 percent savings per prescription and cut their out-of-pocket costs by as much as 70 percent. The analysis maintains that the competition from private insurers offering the drug benefit would push retail prices down even further and argues that the Democratic plans are too costly.

President Bush had proposed spending $190 billion on a drug benefit. Senate Democrats have proposed spending $500 billion over 10 years while House Democrats want to spend $800 billion."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/702551/posts

$800B House Democrat plan also appears here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june02/rxrelief_6-28.html

Hardly the act of a fiscal conservative.

Oh, I agree with you completely. Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative by any stretch. My issue is with folks on the left who attack Bush for his "expensive" senior drug plan, while conveninently ignoring the historical record that Democrats supported a significantly more expensive plan. In other words, the people on the left now criticizing Bush for an "expensive" new Medicare program would have been accusing him of being too stingy when this issue was actually being debated. Bush only proposed a (less expensive) plan in the 2000 campaign after Gore had pushed his.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123439&page=1

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-09-06/news/0009060104_1_drug-coverage-drug-benefit-drug-plan

And the politics being what they were, once this issue got fully politicized after the election, the House GOP, House Democrat, and Senate Democrat bill all cost more even than Gore's bill did.

But my underlying point is that the real blame for all this stuff lies not with Republicans or Democrats, but with voters. The truth is that the electorate has tended to vote for the candidates that promise the most at the least cost. They want their goodies. So you get into a situation where opposing spending on new programs is political suicide. And many Republican politicians rationalize their support for that spending by saying "well, if I don't support this programs, I won't get elected/reelected, and the result will be an even bigger plan." That may be true in some sense, but it also just resulted in the can being kicked further down the road.

In some ways, Bush was particularly bad because he not only supported expensive military operations, but also supported expensive domestic programs as well. Of course, the blame game is shared because most Democrats did vote for the war, and did vote for that higher military spending. In some sense, for the same reason some Republicans voted for more domestic spending -- because the political pressures were such that opposing it was too difficult.

And while Bush did make some efforts to control spending by proposing some significant Medicare reforms late in his Presidency, he never pushed it, because it was never his priority.

So I'm not defending Bush. I'm attacking those on the left who attack him for his domestic spending as hypocrites.