US Politics...the Reckoning

[TheKassi]

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

When did liberals start argueing that Bush spent too much money here at home? I have seen lots of people use the aforementioned example as evidence that Bush wasn't anything akin to a fiscal conservative outside of revisionist and obtuse talking points, but pointing that out doesn't mean liberals think Bush should have invested less money in the American people.

It just means that Republicans jabbering on about fiscal conservatism is analogous to a prophet for the church of vegetarianism lecturing the masses on the evils of butchering beasts for sustenance in between gluttonous gulps of a steak so rare you can still hear the echos of it's final moo reverberating off the slaughterhouse walls.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

When did liberals start argueing that Bush spent too much money here at home?

He's been specifically called out for his prescription drug program, which was the least expensive option being pushed by either party in either chamber, or by his Democratic opponents in the two Presidential elections.

I have seen lots of people use the aforementioned example as evidence that Bush wasn't anything akin to a fiscal conservative outside of revisionist and obtuse talking points, but pointing that out doesn't mean liberals think Bush should have invested less money in the American people.

So you don't really have any specific objection to the cost of his prescription drug bill? Fine.

It just means that Republicans jabbering on about fiscal conservatism is analogous to a prophet for the church of vegetarianism lecturing the masses on the evils of butchering beasts for sustenance in between gluttonous gulps of a steak so rare you can still hear the echos of it's final moo reverberating off the slaughterhouse walls.

And all those Democrats who voted for military action and for all those military budgets? How is their excuse any different?

And by the way, who in here claimed that Bush was a fiscal conservative at all? I don't see anyone doing that anywhere? I'm pointing out that fiscal conservatism had no chance in this country anyway for the past couple of decades because the American people want their goodies.

Shit, Democrats love to point to Bill Clinton's fiscal conservatism. Laying aside the fact that he didn't get close to that point until he had a GOP Congress, if Bill would have had his way, he'd have created a whole new entitlement program that would have dwarfed ObamaCare in its costs. The only reason we didn't get that massive new cost was because it failed in Congress. And again, that's because the electorate wants its goodies on the cheap.

[Shryke]

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is preparing to make clear his intentions to join the Republican presidential race, two associates said, by visiting South Carolina and New Hampshire on Saturday — the same day several of his potential rivals are taking part in the Iowa Straw Poll.

Mr. Perry, who has been inching closer to declaring his candidacy for weeks, is expected to stop short of making a formal announcement. But appearing before Republican crowds in the two early-voting states was intended to clear up any lingering questions about his plans.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/rick-perry-to-make-clear-he-intends-to-run/?hp

[TheKassi]

He's been specifically called out for his prescription drug program, which was the least expensive option being pushed by either party in either chamber, or by his Democratic opponents in the two Presidential elections.

Yeah, generally when Republicans start fallaciously playing the fiscal conservatism card, despite a record of tremendous fiscal irresponsibility, particularly when they control the white house.

So you don't really have any specific objection to the cost of his prescription drug bill? Fine.

I am an actual fiscal conservative. I actually believe in cutting spending and generating the revenue required to restore America's position as the world's largest creditor nation after abolishing the debt. It isn't merely a talking point I level against those who believe differently then I on social issues.

And all those Democrats who voted for military action and for all those military budgets? How is their excuse any different?

And by the way, who in here claimed that Bush was a fiscal conservative at all? I don't see anyone doing that anywhere? I'm pointing out that fiscal conservatism had no chance in this country anyway for the past couple of decades because the American people want their goodies.

For the second point, I would take the time to look back, but why bother when I can just ask you the same question reversed. Who here is praising Clinton's fiscal conservatism, and is it your position that congress gets the sole claim/blame for budgets, or is that only the case when Obama isn't in office?

As for the first point, I would rate Democrats an F- for fiscal conservatism. I would rate Republicans over the last thirty years similarly. I don't much care what specific amount of blame is leveled for each specific expenditure. Both have held a near monopoly on power in that time frame, and neither has made an effort to resolve the issue. The closest that has happened was a slight moratorium on new borrowing that died of crib death the moment it was handed off to a republican caretaker.

The only reason I chase after Republicans more then democrats is because they don't praise a man who stimulated the economy with massive amounts of defecate spending turning our country into the largest debtor nation as one of the last great hopes for fiscal conservatism.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, generally when Republicans start fallaciously playing the fiscal conservatism card, despite a record of tremendous fiscal irresponsibility, particularly when they control the white house.

I honestly think you're beating a strawman here. I don't know of many Republicans who ever considered Bush a fiscal conservative. There was the whole "compassionate conservatism" angle, and most Republicans I know considered Bush pretty much a squishy moderate on spending issues when he was elected.

He got support from Republicans largely because of the wars, which is something with which most Republicans agreed. His domestic policies, other than his tax cuts, were never popular with conservatives.

For the second point, I would take the time to look back, but why bother when I can just ask you the same question reversed. Who here is praising Clinton's fiscal conservatism, and is it your position that congress gets the sole claim/blame for budgets, or is that only the case when Obama isn't in office?

Actually, Clinton has been praised here constantly for those budgets. But look, I'm NOT giving Congress during Clinton all the credit. The truth is that the GOP tends to be fiscally conservative only when out of power, and I've given what I see as the reasons for that before. I've tried to make the point more times than I can count that neither party has a record of fiscal conservatism because that's not what the American people wanted.

As for the first point, I would rate Democrats an F- for fiscal conservatism. I would rate Republicans over the last thirty years similarly. I don't much care what specific amount of blame is leveled for each specific expenditure. Both have held a near monopoly on power in that time frame, and neither has made an effort to resolve the issue. The closest that has happened was a slight moratorium on new borrowing that died of crib death the moment it was handed off to a republican caretaker.

Here's the problem. Republicans tend to want higher defense spending, lower taxes, and lower domestic spending. Democrats want lower defense spending, higher domestic spending, and higher taxes. The "compromise" has been higher defense spending, higher domestic spending, and lower taxes. From a purely fiscal perspective (not that I think that's correct) we'd have been better off if either had their own way completely.

The only reason I chase after Republicans more then Democrats is because they don't praise a man who stimulated the economy with massive amounts of defecate spending turning our country into the largest debtor nation as one of the last great hopes for fiscal conservatism.

I assume this is directed at Reagan. As I've said many times previously, Reagan tried to address the deficit issue with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. That bill raised taxes, and was supposed to be followed by spending cuts equal to three times the amount of the tax increase. Congress refused to follow through on the promised cuts. I've posted the link to a nonpartisan analysis of those numbers before. I recall the government shutdowns over that budgetary impasse, including my regiment having no money to put gas in our vehicles. So at least from that perspective, I know that he attempted to make cuts, and just didn't have the votes.

[imladolen]

I seriously wish Republicans ONLY existed in my head. Then I'd lobotomize myself and do the world a favor.

How can we blast Republicans who only exist in your head?

[The Anti-Targ]

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

Also, congressional control is a factor.

What that chart tells me is that the best mix for fiscal control is a Dem president with a Republican Congress. So everyone should be trying to: Keep Obama in power (unless a better Dem candidate throws their hat in the ring); keep the house in Republican control; give the Senate a non veto-proof Republican majority in 2012.

One party controlling all branches seems to be least desireable regardless of the colour of the party.

It's funny really. People who live in partisan democracies say they hate / oppose one party states, yet the party faithful desire exactly the same outcome. History suggests that a country does best when voices from all ideological spectrums contribute to policy and law-making. Differeing views clash and generally centrist policies and laws are the result.

[Lord O' Bones]

This doesn't work so well when so much of the population is ignorant and proud of that fact.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I seriously wish Republicans ONLY existed in my head. Then I'd lobotomize myself and do the world a favor.

Regardless, you'd be doing the world a favor.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

One party controlling all branches seems to be least desireable regardless of the colour of the party.

That depends on whether you think gridlock is a good idea. Generally, I think it is, though we seem to have set ourselves up on a moving sidewalk where action is required to stay in place.

[Shryke]

What that chart tells me is that the best mix for fiscal control is a Dem president with a Republican Congress. So everyone should be trying to: Keep Obama in power (unless a better Dem candidate throws their hat in the ring); keep the house in Republican control; give the Senate a non veto-proof Republican majority in 2012.

One party controlling all branches seems to be least desireable regardless of the colour of the party.

It's funny really. People who live in partisan democracies say they hate / oppose one party states, yet the party faithful desire exactly the same outcome. History suggests that a country does best when voices from all ideological spectrums contribute to policy and law-making. Differeing views clash and generally centrist policies and laws are the result.

Where?

[Commodore]

Perry fever!

[lokisnow]

Bush took a 4 trillion debt and gave us a 12 trillion one by the time he was done. Perry will take a 16 trillion debt and give us a 48 trillion debt by the time he's done.

Fiscal Conservativism You Can Believe In. Perry 2012

[TheKassi]

I honestly think you're beating a strawman here. I don't know of many Republicans who ever considered Bush a fiscal conservative. There was the whole "compassionate conservatism" angle, and most Republicans I know considered Bush pretty much a squishy moderate on spending issues when he was elected.

He got support from Republicans largely because of the wars, which is something with which most Republicans agreed. His domestic policies, other than his tax cuts, were never popular with conservatives.

That would be hard to do, because the text you quoted addressed Republicans in general, not Bush specifically. Besides, Bush was selected as the cream of the republican crop. If he was never a fiscal conservative, that only makes it harder to claim Republicans place a high priority on fiscal conservatism as anything but a talking point.

I do not think it is too much of a straw man to claim that republicans own the spending of folk they nominate for the highest office in the land, vote for, and then re-elect.

I assume this is directed at Reagan. As I've said many times previously, Reagan tried to address the deficit issue with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. That bill raised taxes, and was supposed to be followed by spending cuts equal to three times the amount of the tax increase. Congress refused to follow through on the promised cuts. I've posted the link to a nonpartisan analysis of those numbers before. I recall the government shutdowns over that budgetary impasse, including my regiment having no money to put gas in our vehicles. So at least from that perspective, I know that he attempted to make cuts, and just didn't have the votes.

The debt almost tripled under Reagan. If you want to argue that his heart was in the right place but he was horribly inept, that is fine. I see no reason to bother getting into the nuance of the issue, as I do not give credit for the intention behind consistent catastrophic failure. I do however wonder how he manages to get the credit for the growth of the economy at the time, if his will was so thoroughly ignored.

[The Anti-Targ]

Where?

Everywhere there's a democracy. It so happens that the beneficial effect is diluted most of the time by having only one ideological leaning in power at a time, which from time to time leads to catastrophe. History shows that truly free democracies don't tolerate a single ideological way being in power for excessively long periods. So instead of all ideological views getting a say all the time there's constant swapping, sometimes swinging to dangerous extremes, which is much less stable and less reliable.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I do not think it is too much of a straw man to claim that republicans own the spending of folk they nominate for the highest office in the land, vote for, and then re-elect.

The reality is that, as individuals, we don't get to choose who wins a nomination. And once the major party candidates are selected, you generally get to choose between bad, not as bad, and no chance.

The debt almost tripled under Reagan. If you want to argue that his heart was in the right place but he was horribly inept, that is fine. I see no reason to bother getting into the nuance of the issue, as I do not give credit for the intention behind consistent catastrophic failure.

It's not just "intention". It was clearly setting out the policies, and having them voted down in Congress. I was there at the time, and the picture you're painting just doesn't reflect reality. The only choices were to: 1) let the government shut down, or 2) sign spending bills that busted his budget. And we've all seen everyone go berserk when the former is tried. He did it anyway, but then it got to stuff that had to be paid, so he signed. There were bills he vetoed that were passed over his veto. To some extent, what you're doing is the equivalent of blaming Democrats because they don't raise taxes. They'd like to, but they just don't have the votes.

I do however wonder how he manages to get the credit for the growth of the economy at the time, if his will was so thoroughly ignored.

His tax cuts passed. The spending cuts didn't, and the growth is generally attributed to the former, the deficit to the latter.

That's not letting him have his cake and then eat it, though, because I think even most Democrats would acknowledge that it is possible to bring the budget into greater balance by cutting social programs. They just think that's morally wrong. And that's the basis on which they went after Reagan -- the nasty guy who wanted to starve babies and kill old people.

Look, I certainly agree that Reagan wasnt tough enough on cutting spending. He let himself get sucked into supporting some stupid programs, and deserves blame for that. And ultimately, he was like any other politician in the sense that if the voters seemed opposed to something, he'd drop it. And one result of that failing on his part is that we ended up with bigger deficits than we should have had.

[TheKassi]

The reality is that, as individuals, we don't get to choose who wins a nomination. And once the major party candidates are selected, you generally get to choose between bad, not as bad, and no chance.

Yeah,I figured that would be the reply to that one. I don't feel like trying to chase you back over this fence today, only to see you hop over it tomorrow when you feel like blaming the voters again.

It's not just "intention". It was clearly setting out the policies, and having them voted down in Congress. I was there at the time, and the picture you're painting just doesn't reflect reality. The only choices were to: 1) let the government shut down, or 2) sign spending bills that busted his budget. And we've all seen everyone go berserk when the former is tried. He did it anyway, but then it got to stuff that had to be paid, so he signed. There were bills he vetoed that were passed over his veto. To some extent, what you're doing is the equivalent of blaming Democrats because they don't raise taxes. They'd like to, but they just don't have the votes.

Failing to get people to agree with you, then giving into political pressure and signing off on bills that triple the national debt? At the very best that can be categorized as a catastrophic failure. This is without going into the wisdom of advancing extremely popular ideas like tax cuts, while holding off on addressing unpopular things like spending cuts.

And actually, for the record, when Clinton let the opposition shut down government, he came out ahead, so I will let you have that “I was there at the time, and the picture you're painting just doesn't reflect reality” comment right back. Sticking to your guns even if it means letting the government temporarily shut down isn't always a loosing proposition for the president.

[Commodore]

And actually, for the record, when Clinton let the opposition shut down government, he came out ahead, so I will let you have that “I was there at the time, and the picture you're painting just doesn't reflect reality” comment right back. Sticking to your guns even if it means letting the government temporarily shut down isn't always a loosing proposition for the president.

I never understood this. If the government is not funded, why does the blame not lie with the party that rejected the funding? The GOP passed a funding bill, Clinton vetoed it.

Same thing this time around, the GOP passes multiple bills funding the government. The Dem Senate proposes no budget, passes no budget, yet somehow the GOP would be to blame if there was a shutdown.

[Shryke]

The New Yorker did an interesting article on Bachmann and her history: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

tldr: She Fucking Crazy

[Shryke]

I never understood this. If the government is not funded, why does the blame not lie with the party that rejected the funding? The GOP passed a funding bill, Clinton vetoed it.

Same thing this time around, the GOP passes multiple bills funding the government. The Dem Senate proposes no budget, passes no budget, yet somehow the GOP would be to blame if there was a shutdown.

Because it's not the Senate's role to just pass whatever shit the House throws their way.

The entire point of having 2 houses is that you need to pass something that can make it through both.

I mean, really, this is basic shit here.