WH rep: I'm under strict instructions...

Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

<Hopefully President McCain will do a better job at reigning in spending than President Bush did.>

I'd rather put my 'hope' in someone from another party.

The Republicans deserve to not have their party's nominee elected just because of the last 8 years.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

What about the past 7 years? Why are we discussing the 1980's when we need only look back a short while ago to a time when the GOP ran the show?

The president couldn't seem to find a veto pen for anything, but now has the nerve to pretend to be in any way fiscally responsible.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<What's your excuse for most of the past 7 years, when the White House, House and Senate were all under GOP control? I'm sure a Democrat is to blame, somehow....>

Like I said, when Republicans embrace liberal solutions, things get worse.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"So they can't be responsible for spending in the 80's can they?"

Which way do you want it? Do you want it such that the President is responsible for the spending and not congress? Or do you want it that the Congress is responsible? Either way, you still had the republicans running things for 6 years while spending skyrocketed.

And in the 80s? That block of deficit spending was followed by the single largest tax increase in our history, as approved by the Republican George Bush. Know why? Because at least he knew that the money we had spent had to be paid for in some way. Now we're going to be faced with yet another massive tax increase to pay for the current guy's insane policies.

Do you have any idea how much I already pay in taxes? I probaby pay more than what most people here even make. I'm not thrilled with them going up futher. But that's what's going to have to happen to shore up our dollar and get us out of debt, a position we were a lot closer to in 2000 than we are today.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"Like I said, when Republicans embrace liberal solutions, things get worse."

So what makes you think they're going to change and not support "liberal solutions?" The republicans are liberal just like everyone else, it seems, doesn't it?

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Which way do you want it? Do you want it such that the President is responsible for the spending and not congress? Or do you want it that the Congress is responsible?>

You seem to think this is a binary solution. It's not.

<That block of deficit spending was followed by the single largest tax increase in our history, as approved by the Republican George Bush. Know why?>

Yes, and it's not for the reason you gave. The deficit was decreasing under President Reagan. If the first President Bush had not allowed Democrats to greatly increase spending, the tax increase would not have been necessary.

<But that's what's going to have to happen to shore up our dollar and get us out of debt, a position we were a lot closer to in 2000 than we are today.>

Raising taxes will not shore up the dollar. We need to stop spending so much money, and stop cutting interest rates, and allow the market to work its problems out. When government tries to manipulate the free market, it just makes things worse.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<So what makes you think they're going to change and not support "liberal solutions?">

Because I'm going to keep speaking out against it, and hopefully other people will as well, and, whenever possible, we'll vote for people who don't embrace liberal solutions.

 

Originally Posted By plpeters70

"We need to stop spending so much money"

Maybe they should start by ending the war in Iraq - that would put a stop to quite a lot of spending. Or perhaps you had something else in mind...

 

Originally Posted By fkurucz

<<Because I'm going to keep speaking out against it, and hopefully other people will as well, and, whenever possible, we'll vote for people who don't embrace liberal solutions. >>

Unless you speak out at one of those $1000 per plate fundraisers, I think that they will pretty much ignore you.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"You seem to think this is a binary solution. It's not. "

Actually, you're the one saying Republicans=good, Democrats=bad, and I'm suggesting it's not that easy.

"If the first President Bush had not allowed Democrats to greatly increase spending"

Republican Bush I had the same veto power all the other presidents have. Party choice has nothing to do with it. Republicans spend every bit as much as Democrats.

"We need to stop spending so much money"

Yes, that is always the rallying cry, but it is never followed through on. And what would you cut money on? You see, that's why they don't do it. If you cut funding, then people get mad at you and don't vote for you anymore. So instead, you just say you want to but darn it those democrats won't let us, even though they are the minority party in congress and don't control the admin, either.

"we'll vote for people who don't embrace liberal solutions. "

Like who? There is no one who is doing as you suggest. Perhaps Ron Paul, but you saw how overwhelmingly not popular he was.

In the meantime, suggesting that the republican party is the answer to anything is a knee slapper. They don't spend a penny less on anything.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Actually, you're the one saying Republicans=good, Democrats=bad, and I'm suggesting it's not that easy.>

No, I've not said that.

<And what would you cut money on?>

I'd slow the rate of growth on Medicare, Social Security, Foreign Aid, and Farm subsidy spending, for starters. And I'd do it by introducing free market policies whenever possible. And I'd reduce spending by the federal government on Education and Transportation, and rely on state and local governments to do more. If federal taxes were lower, states could raise theirs.

<Like who?>

Well, I'll vote for Sen McCain over Sen Clinton or Obama, to start.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

Senator McCain? The evil liberal? He's not going to do anything like you suggest at all.

As far as slowing medicare and social security, the reason those are so hard to touch? Old people vote. Those are not going to be cut. Foreign aid? Which foreign aid? Shall we stop arming israel, so it can finally just shoot it out with its neighbors? Stop supporting Egypt so it can fall into the hands of extremists?

Those are the top two nations that get foreign aid. other nations actually get stuff like food so people won't starve.

Farm subsidies are there to make sure farms don't go bankrupt. Then we have no food supply, except for whatever tainted products we import from china.

Education and transportation? No schools? No roads? People get touchy about stuff and vote about it.

Lowered taxes? Not going to happen because we have a deficit to pay off. If anything taxes will need to be raised. We are in debt for the next 100 years or so. The only way to pay it off is to make the dollar worthless.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<<What's your excuse for most of the past 7 years, when the White House, House and Senate were all under GOP control? I'm sure a Democrat is to blame, somehow....>>

<Like I said, when Republicans embrace liberal solutions, things get worse.>

That's a howler. The Bush admin/GOP congress of this decade didn't "embrace liberal solutions," though obviously you'd like to think so. They cut taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers (which is not liberal), then got us into a war costing between 10 and 12 billion A MONTH (which most liberals, if not congressional democrats, opposed). And we see where those twin pillars have gotten our economy.

<The deficit was decreasing under President Reagan.>

Not until 1986, when he approved the then-largest tax increase in history. Because he had to. Until then it was increasing.

Here we see the laughable effects of doctrinaire, blindly ideological thinking. A true believer in trickle-down economics and neoconservatism, and even when they demonstrably get us in trouble, in Dougworld they're somehow not to blame. Oh no. They're always good, no exceptions. It couldn't possibly be that sometimes tax cuts, for instance, make sense and sometimes (like in time of war) they don't. Oh no. They ALWAYS do. It would be funny if it hadn't gotten us in such a mess.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>then got us into a war costing between 10 and 12 billion A MONTH<<

Sssshhh!!! Please. Those numbers are very upsetting, and it makes it hard to concentrate on the "no new taxes" mantra when you bring them up. Now, we need to be in Iraq a hundred years if that's what it takes, and we can't raise any taxes to pay for it. Let Americans in the year 2108 deal with it.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>I'd slow the rate of growth on Medicare, Social Security, Foreign Aid<<

Foreign aid? Like Iraq? Bro-ther. Some neocons want their cake and eat it, too.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Here we see the laughable effects of doctrinaire, blindly ideological thinking.>

No, that's what we see in your posts.

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

Douglas, I've enjoyed the fact that you seem to be actually participating in the discussion here in far more depth than usual (I especially appreciate reading some of your proposed solutions...good or bad it's something to discuss and heck, gotta start somewhere)...

But please don't stop now. Instead of the answer in post 36, could you possibly address Dabob's comments and why you might disagree with them?

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Instead of the answer in post 36, could you possibly address Dabob's comments and why you might disagree with them?>

Since you asked nicely, I will try. But don't blame me if it ends up in a digression over semantics, endless repetition of opinion, or personal attacks.

So, Dabob's first comment: "That's a howler. The Bush admin/GOP congress of this decade didn't "embrace liberal solutions," though obviously you'd like to think so. They cut taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers (which is not liberal), then got us into a war costing between 10 and 12 billion A MONTH (which most liberals, if not congressional democrats, opposed). And we see where those twin pillars have gotten our economy."

First, notice the completely unnecessary derision in the first sentence. Second, the assertion that the Bush Administration didn't embrace liberal solutions is just wrong. What else would you call the greatly expanded federal spending on education, the prescription drug benefit add-on, and the steel tarrifs? Third, they cut taxes on all taxpayers, not just the wealthiest. In fact, as of a year ago, the wealthiest taxpayers were paying a greater proportion of the total tax than they were prior to Bush's tax cuts. His claim that most liberals opposed the war on terror is also mostly wrong - the Senate that passed the Authorization of Force on Iraq was controlled by Democrats.

Let's then look at his next statement. <Not until 1986, when he approved the then-largest tax increase in history. Because he had to. Until then it was increasing.>

Yes, his first sentence is technically correct. President Reagan did agree to raise Social Security taxes in 1986. But this is one of those times were Dabob misses the forest for the trees. My point was that the deficit was declining during the last years of the Reagan administration. If the first President Bush had continued with the existing rate of spending versus taxes, the deficit would have been fine. Instead, he allowed the Democrats in Congress to increase spending and increase taxes. The economy declined and the deficit increased. You can see it in the chart here - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Public_debt_per_GDP_1791-2006.svg" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I
mage:US_Public_debt_per_GDP_1791-2006.svg</a>

The rest of Dabob's post was just more derision and a strawman argument (that I think tax cuts are always good - obviously, we can't cut them to zero and maintain needed services - I'm not an anarchist.) It's especially irritating that he equates the terms "true believer in trickle-down economics" and "neoconservatism". As I've explained before, fiscal conservatives and neoconservatives don't always see eye to eye.

 

Originally Posted By dshyates

The deficit really started to grow when the King George I started a war with Iraq. Remember? We started that one too.
The real question is why do they keep doing this. It creates a fantastic deficit. But if you follow the money, you start to understand why they keep starting wars. As the US deficit grows Halliburton's profits do to.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<<Here we see the laughable effects of doctrinaire, blindly ideological thinking.>>

<No, that's what we see in your posts.>

Great. No examples of that assertion, of course, just the usual "so's your mother"-type response. But at least Mr. X asked you nicely, and so...

"That's a howler. The Bush admin/GOP congress of this decade didn't "embrace liberal solutions," though obviously you'd like to think so. They cut taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers (which is not liberal), then got us into a war costing between 10 and 12 billion A MONTH (which most liberals, if not congressional democrats, opposed). And we see where those twin pillars have gotten our economy."

<First, notice the completely unnecessary derision in the first sentence.>

Perhaps unnecessary, but certainly not untrue. Nobody I know but you would term the Bush economic agenda "liberal," but since it's been such a failure, you have to term it as such.

<Second, the assertion that the Bush Administration didn't embrace liberal solutions is just wrong. What else would you call the greatly expanded federal spending on education,>

A pet idea on education that Bush called "compassionate (wait for it) conservatism." It was supposed to be conservative because it supposedly made schools "accountable" and would punish "unperforming" schools. Of course, in reality, it just made standardized tests the measure for everything, leading if anything to a less sound educational system of teaching to the test. And though spending went up, it didn't go up enough to cover the costs of this idea, which is why it is often called an "unfunded mandate," straining the states. Thus you have something of the worst of both worlds. Bush pushed this as conservatism, though. In reality it's really neither fish nor fowl ideologically (or both fish and fowl).

<the prescription drug benefit add-on,>

A political ploy for 2004 votes, that's what I call that. And what do you call making sure the government is NOT ABLE to negotiate bulk prices for drugs with the big drug companies, the way the VA already does? That's "letting the market work" conservatism. And that's why Republicans voted for this measure and most of the opposition was from democrats (including me, at the time, if you remember) who said it was a giveaway to the drug companies and HMO's, a huge cost for a modest benefit. You can try to call this "liberal," but most liberals were decrying it as a terrible deal.

<and the steel tarrifs?>

Protectionism for an ailing industry of the sort that both Republicans and Democrats engage in.

<Third, they cut taxes on all taxpayers, not just the wealthiest.>

The wealthiest received the lion's share of the benefits.

<In fact, as of a year ago, the wealthiest taxpayers were paying a greater proportion of the total tax than they were prior to Bush's tax cuts.>

I think that's largely because real income has declined for the middle class; you make less money, you pay less taxes. Also, your stat must be fairly recent. A google brought this up for Bush's first term:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/56
89001/</a>

"The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent."

<His claim that most liberals opposed the war on terror is also mostly wrong - the Senate that passed the Authorization of Force on Iraq was controlled by Democrats.>

Check that reading comprehension thing again, bud. I specifically said "which most liberals, if not congressional democrats, opposed." I've always said Democratic congressmen and Senators wimped out on this.

<Let's then look at his next statement. <Not until 1986, when he approved the then-largest tax increase in history. Because he had to. Until then it was increasing.>

Yes, his first sentence is technically correct. President Reagan did agree to raise Social Security taxes in 1986. But this is one of those times were Dabob misses the forest for the trees. My point was that the deficit was declining during the last years of the Reagan administration.>

Yes, after the tax increase. As I said. You're missing the tree in front of your face that has "Occam's Razor" carved on it.

<If the first President Bush had continued with the existing rate of spending versus taxes, the deficit would have been fine. Instead, he allowed the Democrats in Congress to increase spending and increase taxes. The economy declined and the deficit increased. You can see it in the chart here - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I</a>
mage:US_Public_debt_per_GDP_1791-2006.svg>

That chart shows deficits rising as a percentage of GDP basically through the Reagan and Bush terms, finally reversing during Clinton. GOP partisans like to blame the Reagan/Bush deficits on a Democratic congress (though the GOP controlled the senate in some years), but Congress never returned a budget that differed from the highly unbalanced budgets Reagan or Bush presented them by more than a small amount. Yet their partisans continue to blame congress rather than the hugely unbalanced budgets Reagan and Bush submitted.

<The rest of Dabob's post was just more derision and a strawman argument (that I think tax cuts are always good - obviously, we can't cut them to zero and maintain needed services - I'm not an anarchist.)>

I've never seen you question a tax cut's usefulness, even in time of war, nor argue for a necessary tax increase. So I never said you would cut them to zero, nor would any supply-sider. THAT's a strawman. But you have seemed to support every tax cut that has been proposed that has been seriously considered in Washington.

<It's especially irritating that he equates the terms "true believer in trickle-down economics" and "neoconservatism". As I've explained before, fiscal conservatives and neoconservatives don't always see eye to eye.>

There I was referring to you specifically, as you have voiced approvals for both ideologies. (Notice the phrase "A true believer in..." That referred to you).

You can try all you like to call Bush's policies "liberal" since they haven't worked, but that dog won't hunt. I've addressed the points you offered, so can you address mine?

Bush tax cuts, most of the benefits going to the wealthy. Classic "supply side" or trickle-down economics. Keeping the cuts even during time of war. Conservative.

Allowing the energy companies to write our nation's energy bill, behind closed doors, and not even disclose who was in on it. Conservative.

The Bankruptcy Bill (for personal bankruptcy, not corporate of course), largely written by the credit card companies. Conservative.

The deregulation of the financial industry, leading ultimately to the sub-prime mess we have today. Conservative. (To be fair, much of this deregulation started in the 80's, but whatever watchdogs Bush was supposed to have obviously weren't watching what was going on very closely, I guess preferring the free market to work its "magic," even when the warning signs were there.)

Bringing our country into war but not raising revenues to pay for it, instead borrowing money (largely from China) and not even putting it on the "official" budget. Conservative. (Or sadly, what passes for "conservatism" these days).

And that's just economics. We could get into social policy, judicial appointments, wiretapping without warrants, and all the rest of it, and I suppose you could try to claim it was "liberal," but even if you're just claiming economics, it doesn't hold water.