Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-18-2019, 10:08 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,884
Getting back to the OP (since we are veering far off thread), I don't think the true Tea Partiers are okay with Trump raising the deficit. And if they still support Trump over a (D), it would be like Planned Parenthood endorsing a pro-life Democrat over a pro-life Republican. Not ideal, but you take what you can get.
  #102  
Old 08-18-2019, 11:48 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Getting back to the OP (since we are veering far off thread), I don't think the true Tea Partiers are okay with Trump raising the deficit. And if they still support Trump over a (D), it would be like Planned Parenthood endorsing a pro-life Democrat over a pro-life Republican. Not ideal, but you take what you can get.
As I pointed out, though, if deficits are what matter to them then it's completely illogical for them to support Trump over a Democrat, because Democrats have a far better track record in recent years on reducing deficits than Republicans do (and Trump is one of the most deficit-expanding Republicans we've ever seen).

In fact, it turns out that Tea Party support for Trump has increased since he got going on his deficit-boosting shenanigans:
Quote:
Using survey data from 2014-18, Pew Research Center analysts found that respondents who were supportive of the tea party movement were also the most supportive of Trump, and that support has increased since his election.

A majority of tea party supporters – 61% – had “warm feelings” for Trump in 2016, which jumped to 78% by 2018. [...]

Though Trump has consistently found majority support from GOP voters, his true base seems largely comprised of tea party Republicans, based on the survey data. That could present a problem for the president’s re-election bid in 2020, because the data also revealed dwindling support for the movement. Since the height of the tea party in 2010, support dwindled from 49% to 28% in 2015.
My take on the Tea Party's attitude towards Trump and deficits is different from yours. ISTM that a significant chunk of the Tea Party was never really so much about fiscal policy as about trying to find a "respectable" platform onto which to displace concerns they weren't comfortable confronting or admitting to: primarily racial resentment caused by US demographic shifts and Obama's election, and anxieties about loss of economic security and social status that they can't bring themselves to admit are largely the result of policies championed by wealthy conservatives.

Trump's incoherent and nasty expressions of aggrieved entitlement, swaggering bigotry, and dismissive sneers aren't actually fixing any of these Tea Partiers' genuine problems, but he echoes a lot of the things they're thinking and makes them feel listened to and validated. They don't really care what he's doing to the deficit because for them, it was never really about the deficit in the first place.
  #103  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:20 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
As I pointed out, though, if deficits are what matter to them then it's completely illogical for them to support Trump over a Democrat, because Democrats have a far better track record in recent years on reducing deficits than Republicans do (and Trump is one of the most deficit-expanding Republicans we've ever seen).
Tea Partiers want a very specific form of deficit-reduction: they want spending cuts. If a president raises taxes drastically, that would reduce the deficit, but that's not the kind they want.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
ISTM that a significant chunk of the Tea Party was never really so much about fiscal policy as about trying to find a "respectable" platform onto which to displace concerns they weren't comfortable confronting or admitting to: primarily racial resentment caused by US demographic shifts and Obama's election, and anxieties about loss of economic security and social status that they can't bring themselves to admit are largely the result of policies championed by wealthy conservatives.
Tea Partiers, like almost everyone, are practical when they have to be. If Trump gives them 70% of what they want, they know they'll have to be content with not getting the other 30%.

Many Democrats were less than thrilled with Obama's big defense budgets, drone strikes, and some other things in 2012, but they sure weren't going to vote for Mitt Romney.
  #104  
Old 08-19-2019, 03:34 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Look you guys are having some real problems with this so I’m going to give you one more chart. Please cross reference the chart with the one I provided that shows taxes as a percentage of GDP remaining the same for 70 years. This is the chart that shows spending as a percentage of GDP. There is a clear trend. If you choose not to see it, that is another thing.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

That’s all I’m going to say on the topic because I’m going to get dinged if I keep trying to explain this concept to y’all. Good luck.
  #105  
Old 08-19-2019, 04:24 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post

My take on the Tea Party's attitude towards Trump and deficits is different from yours. ISTM that a significant chunk of the Tea Party was never really so much about fiscal policy as about trying to find a "respectable" platform onto which to displace concerns they weren't comfortable confronting or admitting to: primarily racial resentment caused by US demographic shifts and Obama's election, and anxieties about loss of economic security and social status that they can't bring themselves to admit are largely the result of policies championed by wealthy conservatives.

Trump's incoherent and nasty expressions of aggrieved entitlement, swaggering bigotry, and dismissive sneers aren't actually fixing any of these Tea Partiers' genuine problems, but he echoes a lot of the things they're thinking and makes them feel listened to and validated. They don't really care what he's doing to the deficit because for them, it was never really about the deficit in the first place.
Good post. It never was about debt/deficits. That much is now clearly obvious.
  #106  
Old 08-19-2019, 04:32 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Look you guys are having some real problems with this so I’m going to give you one more chart. Please cross reference the chart with the one I provided that shows taxes as a percentage of GDP remaining the same for 70 years. This is the chart that shows spending as a percentage of GDP. There is a clear trend. If you choose not to see it, that is another thing.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

That’s all I’m going to say on the topic because I’m going to get dinged if I keep trying to explain this concept to y’all. Good luck.
That chart doesn't support your talking point about there being a "drastic" increase in spending. The only noticeable blip since WW2 is during the Great Recession, when it's of course expected, and occurred at the same time that taxes plummeted to around 14% of GDP.

So, your view that our debt has been driven only by spending is not supported by the data at all. Spending has gone up some, and taxes have gone down some.
  #107  
Old 08-19-2019, 07:35 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
My take on the Tea Party's attitude towards Trump and deficits is different from yours. ISTM that a significant chunk of the Tea Party was never really so much about fiscal policy as about trying to find a "respectable" platform onto which to displace concerns they weren't comfortable confronting or admitting to: primarily racial resentment caused by US demographic shifts and Obama's election, and anxieties about loss of economic security and social status that they can't bring themselves to admit are largely the result of policies championed by wealthy conservatives.

Trump's incoherent and nasty expressions of aggrieved entitlement, swaggering bigotry, and dismissive sneers aren't actually fixing any of these Tea Partiers' genuine problems, but he echoes a lot of the things they're thinking and makes them feel listened to and validated. They don't really care what he's doing to the deficit because for them, it was never really about the deficit in the first place.
I think a lot of people in the country are angry, but don't really know what they're angry about. Their world isn't perfect and it must be someone's fault. They've found groups, and news sources, and a political party that tell them their anger is justified and it's all the fault of <insert scapegoat here>. But don't worry, vote for <insert pandering politician here> and everything will be just fine.

In four years, when everything isn't just fine, they get a little bit angrier. The last scapegoat and pandering politician are conveniently forgotten, and the search begins for new ones. Lather, rinse, repeat.

In a sense, the Tea Party were angry about deficits. But all their anger and tax cutting didn't make their world perfect, so it's time to be angry about something else.

We all know what great decisions people make when they're angry, right?
  #108  
Old 08-19-2019, 08:59 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
There is a clear trend.
As more people retire, more people are going to draw Medicare and Social Security benefits that they were guaranteed. Since there were fewer retirees in the past than today, and will be more in the future, spending on entitlements will go up for another couple decades, then head down again.

This has nothing to do with ideology, parties, or elections. Anyone who has paid attention to fiscal policy at any point in the last 50 years knew this would happen.
  #109  
Old 08-19-2019, 09:48 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Trump's incoherent and nasty expressions of aggrieved entitlement, swaggering bigotry, and dismissive sneers aren't actually fixing any of these Tea Partiers' genuine problems, but he echoes a lot of the things they're thinking and makes them feel listened to and validated. They don't really care what he's doing to the deficit because for them, it was never really about the deficit in the first place.
From what I recall of the Tea Party's origins early in the Obama era, what they were most upset about was the idea that "their" tax dollars would be going to bail out underwater homeowners and failed businesses -- from their neighbor who refinanced a mortgage for kitchen remodeling up to and including AIG, Chase and Goldman Sachs. It was a classic cry of "I did everything right -- why should I have to help someone who did everything wrong?"

They never cared about the deficit. They had no sense of macro-economics at all. They just wanted to scapegoat those other people "who did everything wrong."

So of course they support the guy who tells them exactly who those people are. Deficits? Who gives a shit?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #110  
Old 08-19-2019, 12:59 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Tea Partiers want a very specific form of deficit-reduction: they want spending cuts.
But under Trump they're not getting spending cuts as "a form of deficit-reduction": they're getting spending cuts (generally targeted to "liberal" forms of expenditure such as social safety nets and environmental protection) accompanied by deficit increases.

This further reinforces the hypothesis that Tea Partiers really don't care about deficits qua deficits: what they want is a respectable-sounding reason to inflict spending cuts on people and aims they don't like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj
They never cared about the deficit. They had no sense of macro-economics at all. They just wanted to scapegoat those other people "who did everything wrong."

So of course they support the guy who tells them exactly who those people are. Deficits? Who gives a shit?
Yup.
  #111  
Old 08-19-2019, 01:02 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Tea Partiers want a very specific form of deficit-reduction: they want spending cuts. If a president raises taxes drastically, that would reduce the deficit, but that's not the kind they want.
AWESOME! Since 1962, the furthest back the White House offers information, the average Republican President increases discretionary spending over 25% faster than the average Democratic President. In fact, due to the compromise between Obama and Congress in 2011, discretionary spending ended up falling almost 1% per year.

By President, average annual increase/decrease, in 2012 dollars:

Kennedy: 1.22% increase
Johnson: 4.98% increase
Nixon: 3.64% decrease
Ford: 3.4% increase
Carter: 3.51% increase
Reagan: 1.52% increase
Bush: 0.09% decrease
Clinton: 0.55% decrease
Bush 2.0: 3.85% increase
Obama: 0.96% decrease
Trump: currently 1.05% increase

Three caveats, none resulting in partisan differences:
  1. Due to Kennedy's assasination in November of 1963, I cannot find who signed the 1964 budget. It has been attributed to Kennedy;
  2. Due to Nixon's resignation in August on 1974, I cannot find who signed the 1974 budget. It has been attributed to Nixon;
  3. The transition quarter of 1976 created an added "mini-budget' that screwed with my spreadsheet. As it occurs entirely during Ford's administration and hardly moves the needle in total effect, it has been discarded.

In the last 35 years, if you want discretionary spending to go down, elect a Democrat. If you want it to go up, elect a Republican.
  #112  
Old 08-19-2019, 01:18 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
I think a lot of people in the country are angry, but don't really know what they're angry about. Their world isn't perfect and it must be someone's fault.
I think US conservatives have a more specific problem than that. Namely, they're locked into cognitive dissonance about which ideology is actually at the root of their economic problems. American right-wingers have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the notion that problems are all the fault of the "liberal elites", with their anticonservative movements for desegregation and women's lib and gay rights and acceptance of diverse family structures and whatnot, to the extent that they're very unwilling to recognize the harm being deliberately inflicted on them by conservative elites.

So they do a lot of angry flailing around about "taxes" and "identity politics" and "political correctness" and "socialism", none of which is actually responsible for the huge spike in their insulin prices or the closure of their local factory, and they keep voting for more conservative elites who also make angry-sounding speeches about "taxes" and "identity politics" and "political correctness" and "socialism". And none of it helps their problems because the conservative elites they're electing don't in fact give a shit about their problems, but they can't acknowledge that because they've invested so heavily in the mistaken notion that the conservative elites are somehow "on their side".
  #113  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:13 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
In the last 35 years, if you want discretionary spending to go down, elect a Democrat. If you want it to go up, elect a Republican.
Which of the Democrats running for President in 2020 are going to decrease spending, and how and by how much?

Regards,
Shodan
  #114  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:28 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,620
Would it be Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? Joe Biden?

Regards,
Shodan
  #115  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:44 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Which of the Democrats running for President in 2020 are going to decrease spending, and how and by how much?
All of them.

How much? "One Greenland"

I'm not sure exactly how much a Greenland is, but we can decrease spending by at least that much by going Democrat.
  #116  
Old 08-19-2019, 02:46 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yeah, we must be in bizarro world if either one of those candidates actually wanted to cut the largest part of the discretionary budget, which is the military.

I mean, how many times have we heard Warren and Bernie talk about the need to buy more weapons??
  #117  
Old 08-19-2019, 03:59 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Which of the Democrats running for President in 2020 are going to decrease spending, and how and by how much?

Regards,
Shodan
Huh...it's almost as if in the last 20 years, spending increased under Republicans and decreased under Democrats.

It's ok to admit you don't actually care about spending, as long as Republicans are in charge.
  #118  
Old 08-20-2019, 07:03 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,620
Actually it's more like we should vote for Democrats who are promising to massively increase spending because they don't really mean it.

It's odd - right after I post cites that all the Democratic front-runners are going to increase spending, the Dope asserts that none of them will.

It's OK to admit that you don't actually care about spending as long as Democrats are in charge, too, but Dopers are determined not to do it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #119  
Old 08-20-2019, 07:10 AM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It's odd - right after I post cites that all the Democratic front-runners are going to increase spending, the Dope asserts that none of them will.
Just like you continue to maintain that Trump and Obama were equivalently dishonest in their promises to reduce the deficit, despite evidence that reveals your bothsidesism as a laughable exercise in disingenuousness.
  #120  
Old 08-20-2019, 07:19 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Actually it's more like we should vote for Democrats who are promising to massively increase spending because they don't really mean it.

It's odd - right after I post cites that all the Democratic front-runners are going to increase spending, the Dope asserts that none of them will.

It's OK to admit that you don't actually care about spending as long as Democrats are in charge, too, but Dopers are determined not to do it.

Regards,
Shodan
Congressional Budget Office report: If Not for Republican Policies, the Federal Government Would Be Running a Surplus.

Democrats tend to have a plan for increased spending by paying for it with increased taxes.

Republicans still cling to the magic of trickle down economics of tax cuts. Which gives them a rushing warm cozy feeling, like piss running down their leg and filling their shoe.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 08-20-2019 at 07:20 AM.
  #121  
Old 08-20-2019, 07:59 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Actually it's more like we should vote for Democrats who are promising to massively increase spending because they don't really mean it.

It's odd - right after I post cites that all the Democratic front-runners are going to increase spending, the Dope asserts that none of them will.

It's OK to admit that you don't actually care about spending as long as Democrats are in charge, too, but Dopers are determined not to do it.
From what I've seen of Democratic presidents during my lifetime, they may want to do everything they promised, but when confronted with facts and numbers they will accept reality and act responsibly with respect to the budget. That may mean scaling back their plans, making cuts in other parts of the budget, shifting the tax burden, or possibly even raising taxes (including mine). I'm okay with that. I want this country to be around for a long time, and to be on a sound financial footing.

I have no similar faith in Republicans. They promise to bring down the deficit and I know they won't do it.
  #122  
Old 08-20-2019, 08:12 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Congressional Budget Office report: If Not for Republican Policies, the Federal Government Would Be Running a Surplus.
Funny that your cite says it came from a minority of the Senate Budget Committee, not the Congressional Budget Office.

I have no doubt that you thought the cite was objective, but that's much of the problem.
"Spin from your side is clearly false, spin from my side is unassailable truth" is hardly limited to one side or the other.

Regards,
Shodan
  #123  
Old 08-20-2019, 08:37 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Funny that your cite says it came from a minority of the Senate Budget Committee, not the Congressional Budget Office.

I have no doubt that you thought the cite was objective, but that's much of the problem.
"Spin from your side is clearly false, spin from my side is unassailable truth" is hardly limited to one side or the other.

Regards,
Shodan
Are the numbers in the report wrong?

Do Democrats tend to propose raising taxes to pay for additional spending?

Do Republicans tend to reduce taxes but not reduce spending?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #124  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:07 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Are the numbers in the report wrong?
They're spin.
Quote:
Do Democrats tend to propose raising taxes to pay for additional spending?
That's spin.
Quote:
Do Republicans tend to reduce taxes but not reduce spending?
See above.

Regards,
Shodan
  #125  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:19 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,285
Fox News: facts are now spin!
  #126  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:22 AM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,825
"Anything I don't like, or that challenges my pre-existing beliefs is spin"? Why didn't you just call it fake news?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #127  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:28 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
They're spin.
That's spin.
See above.

Regards,
Shodan

IOW: 'LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-.... Regards, Shodan'
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #128  
Old 08-20-2019, 10:36 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Are the numbers in the report wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
They're spin.
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. Facts schmacts."
  #129  
Old 08-20-2019, 12:48 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
They're spin.
That's spin.
See above.

Regards,
Shodan
So no actual rebuttal to the fact that Republicans increase spending at a faster rate than Democrats, who have ACTUALLY reduced spending in the last twenty years, despite Republican claims to the opposite?
  #130  
Old 08-20-2019, 02:59 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
So no actual rebuttal to the fact that Republicans increase spending at a faster rate than Democrats, who have ACTUALLY reduced spending in the last twenty years, despite Republican claims to the opposite?
It's rather odd for someone to claim a source (mostly credible) the CBO says something, and then when told that it actually wasn't said source, you want to start arguing about what the report may 'mean'.

I mean, you kinda lost that high ground from the get go, no?
  #131  
Old 08-20-2019, 04:26 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Actually it's more like we should vote for Democrats who are promising to massively increase spending because they don't really mean it.

It's odd - right after I post cites that all the Democratic front-runners are going to increase spending, the Dope asserts that none of them will.

It's OK to admit that you don't actually care about spending as long as Democrats are in charge, too, but Dopers are determined not to do it.

Regards,
Shodan
Would you rather have increased spending and a balanced budget, or flat spending a trillion dollar deficit? And you can't say "neither," those are the only two options in our current political climate.

There's a problem with large scale policy, in that at some level the small sample size leaves everything open to interpretation. So when Kansas implements Republican policies full-bore and suffers catastrophic budget shortfalls as a result, Republicans can just shrug and say whatever they want. "Sure things are bad, but they would have been much worse if the Democrats were in charge." "Yes, these specific Republicans didn't do a good job, but the next batch I vote in will implement those same policies better, and we won't have these problems." Etc, etc.

It's a convenient way to ignore obvious conclusions. "Yes, we've elected Democrats in the past and they seem to have been better about being fiscally responsible, but these next generation of Democrats are going to blow up the budget! Just you wait!"

Last edited by steronz; 08-20-2019 at 04:27 PM.
  #132  
Old 08-20-2019, 08:53 PM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
It's rather odd for someone to claim a source (mostly credible) the CBO says something, and then when told that it actually wasn't said source, you want to start arguing about what the report may 'mean'.

I mean, you kinda lost that high ground from the get go, no?
The report explains the methodology and the sources from which the information was gathered, including the Congressional Budget Office. If you think there's anything about it that's factually incorrect, by all means say so.

Personally, I'm amazed they could track trillions of dollars of Republican-caused debt and not even bother to mention Medicare Part D; another policy they passed with no attempt to pay for.
  #133  
Old 08-20-2019, 09:24 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
It's rather odd for someone to claim a source (mostly credible) the CBO says something, and then when told that it actually wasn't said source, you want to start arguing about what the report may 'mean'.

I mean, you kinda lost that high ground from the get go, no?
When did I quote anything from the CBO? Is your reading for comprehension on par with Shodan?
  #134  
Old Yesterday, 08:17 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Would you rather have increased spending and a balanced budget, or flat spending a trillion dollar deficit?
I want a balanced budget, which will require decreased spending and increased taxation, at a ratio of about 2:1.
Quote:
And you can't say "neither," those are the only two options in our current political climate.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans will accept either option.
Quote:
It's a convenient way to ignore obvious conclusions. "Yes, we've elected Democrats in the past and they seem to have been better about being fiscally responsible, but these next generation of Democrats are going to blow up the budget! Just you wait!"
The last two times the budget was balanced, Republicans controlled Congress.

Which of the Democrats running for President in 2020 are going to decrease spending, and how and by how much?

Regards,
Shodan
  #135  
Old Yesterday, 08:33 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The last two times the budget was balanced, Republicans controlled Congress.
The Republican congresses of the late 1990s were constrained by a long-term plan put in place by Democrats in the early 1990s. As soon as Republicans held the presidency again, they got rid of the constraints and surpluses turned back into deficits.

I think you said upthread that you find this unpersuasive. Would you care to elaborate on exactly why?
  #136  
Old Yesterday, 08:36 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
When did I quote anything from the CBO? Is your reading for comprehension on par with Shodan?
YOU did not, Quicksilver did (Which started this entire line of hot seat questions towards Shodan, you know the one you just participated in)

When Shodan said "see above" I guess you never saw the above.

Last edited by Kearsen1; Yesterday at 08:37 AM.
  #137  
Old Yesterday, 08:52 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
whose gore is getting oxed
What does it mean when you invert the phrase "whose ox is gored"?

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; Yesterday at 08:53 AM.
  #138  
Old Yesterday, 09:21 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
In line with Rush Limbaugh stating "nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore" recently, is it fair to suggest the Tea Party movement was never about the debt, fiscal conservatism is a myth and the GOP will do a total u-turn once a Democrat is in the Oval Office again?
I'm not particularly well informed about the Tea Party movement in general (I thought Ted Cruz was a Tea Party member, but I was wrong), but your conclusion needs more support. Just because Rush Limbaugh says "nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore", doesn't mean Tea Party members never cared about debt or fiscal conservatism. It is possible that the members have simply left Congress, thus the movement lost its significance. It is possible that Mr. Limbaugh is wrong. Presumably Mr. Limbaugh himself is still a fiscal conservative, and he meant "nobody" in a figurative sense, as if referring to some zeitgeist of fiscal conservatism.

Ideally I would look at a list of current/former Tea Party members and their published opinions and voting record. Then we can look at the numbers and discuss whether the movement overall is comprised of hypocrites. The substantive debate would be whether an individual member is a hypocrite, based on their actions.

That's my opinion, anyways. I don't see why we are talking about Democrats at all in this thread.

~Max
  #139  
Old Yesterday, 09:56 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't see why we are talking about Democrats at all in this thread.
The suggestion is that when the Tea Party, and Republicans in general, say they want to lower the deficit, that it's a misplaced or expedient way to attack Democrats, rather than a principle that they consistently uphold. As an explanation for the Tea Party's silence now, it does seem relevant.
  #140  
Old Yesterday, 10:01 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
The Republican congresses of the late 1990s were constrained by a long-term plan put in place by Democrats in the early 1990s. As soon as Republicans held the presidency again, they got rid of the constraints and surpluses turned back into deficits.

I think you said upthread that you find this unpersuasive. Would you care to elaborate on exactly why?
I touched on this earlier.

The budget deal to which I believe you are referring was an effort to get Bush 41 to break his "read my lips" pledge and raise taxes. It was an agreement by Democrats to raise taxes now, and cut spending later. (The "later" never happened.) Then Clinton was elected, and his first act was an attempt to increase the budget deficit by $16B based on his assertion that we were in a recession and needed the stimulus. (He was lying, as is probably not necessary to point out - we were not in recession.) The GOP was able to defeat this, although they were not in control of Congress. Then, some time later, the GOP regained control of Congress, and balanced the budget. Clinton vetoed this, but was overridden. (His budgets saw $200B deficits as far as the eye could see.) So, funnily enough, the long-term plan by Democrats didn't balance the budget until after they lost control of Congress and the Democratic President's vetoes were overridden.

Then, as you say, Bush 43 took office, and the deficit reappeared. This was in response to the recession that resulted from 9/11 and the popping of the dot-com bubble. According to the logic, deficits are OK in a recession, except, apparently, unless a Republican is in the White House. And once the recession is over, the deficits should be reduced. Which they did, under Bush 43. But again, apparently that logic doesn't work when a Republican is in the White House.

And again, when the Bush era tax cuts were allegedly no longer needed, and the Democrats controlled Congress, and did not need to do anything to let the cuts expire - just sit still and let them. Yet that is not what the Democratically-controlled Congress did - they voted to extend them.

See also the stuff about the "Republican policy" of the war in Afghanistan, which Quicksilver mischaracterized as coming from the CBO when it was actually Democratic spin. The war in Afghanistan was authorized with bipartisan support. Democrats later regained control of the White House and Congress, and voted to continue to fund it. Yet the spin is that it is all Republicans' fault. That's why it's spin.

So yes, "no matter what, it's never the Democrats's fault and the Obama tax cuts that no Republican voted for don't count and all the Democratic front-runners have said explicitly they will increase spending but don't believe them and vote for them because they won't do what they say and the tax increases that won't cover what they will spend will cover what they spend" is unpersuasive.

Regards,
Shodan
  #141  
Old Yesterday, 10:39 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The budget deal to which I believe you are referring was an effort to get Bush 41 to break his "read my lips" pledge and raise taxes.
You are incorrect. I was referring to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. It was not an attempt to get Bush 41 to do anything, since he was out of office by that time.

Do you have cites for any of your other claims? In particular, I'm asking for evidence that Clinton's budget proposals had extended projections of $200 billion deficits and that Congress overrode his veto of a balanced budget. I can find evidence of only two overridden vetoes during his administration, neither of which was a budget.
  #142  
Old Yesterday, 11:00 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,620
Quote:
And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see.
Cite.
Quote:
CLINTON VETOES GOP'S 7-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET PLAN
Cite.

:shrugs: As if it's going to help.

Regards,
Shodan
  #143  
Old Yesterday, 11:21 AM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
:shrugs: As if it's going to help.
That's about how I feel in trying to get you to explain or retract the false equivalency you drew between Trump and Obama's deficit promises.
  #144  
Old Yesterday, 11:22 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
As if it's going to help.
Well, posting a cite that Clinton vetoed the Republicans' proposed budget indeed does not help with fulfilling Robot Arm's request for a cite that Congress overrode Clinton's veto. What exactly were you referring to when you claimed "Then, some time later, the GOP regained control of Congress, and balanced the budget. Clinton vetoed this, but was overridden"?
  #145  
Old Yesterday, 12:25 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
The suggestion is that when the Tea Party, and Republicans in general, say they want to lower the deficit, that it's a misplaced or expedient way to attack Democrats, rather than a principle that they consistently uphold. As an explanation for the Tea Party's silence now, it does seem relevant.
I still don't see why we need to discuss Democrats for this thread. Whether or not current/former Tea Party members are hypocrites has nothing to do with Democrats. Perhaps Tea Party members recently compromised fiscal integrity for a concession on some other issue, but if they refused to do so for the same issue under Obama, that constitutes hypocrisy and we need not discuss the merits of the compromise itself.

~Max
  #146  
Old Yesterday, 12:44 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I still don't see why we need to discuss Democrats for this thread. Whether or not current/former Tea Party members are hypocrites has nothing to do with Democrats. Perhaps Tea Party members recently compromised fiscal integrity for a concession on some other issue, but if they refused to do so for the same issue under Obama, that constitutes hypocrisy and we need not discuss the merits of the compromise itself.

~Max
The Tea Party started as a reaction to Obama and the 2009-11 Democratic congress, ostensibly over concerns regarding fiscal irresponsibility. Now they're silent in the face of Trump's fiscal irresponsibility. If we're to judge the alleged hypocrisy of the Tea Party, we have to weigh the relative fiscal irresponsibility of Obama and the Democrats vs. Trump and the Republicans. That's hard to do without talking about Democrats.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #147  
Old Yesterday, 01:02 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
The Tea Party started as a reaction to Obama and the 2009-11 Democratic congress, ostensibly over concerns regarding fiscal irresponsibility. Now they're silent in the face of Trump's fiscal irresponsibility. If we're to judge the alleged hypocrisy of the Tea Party, we have to weigh the relative fiscal irresponsibility of Obama and the Democrats vs. Trump and the Republicans. That's hard to do without talking about Democrats.
There are hard numbers cited in the original post. Exactly how much better (or worse, I suppose) the Obama administration's fiscal policy was is irrelevant because the Tea Party still found room to criticize Obama. I don't think anybody here is arguing that Trump oversees a fiscally conservative administration. If they did, the response would be simple: the Tea Party is dead because Trump balanced the budget. Nobody is saying that because it is untrue.

The budget is unbalanced, where is the Tea Party? Is their dissent being drowned out by other issues? Did they all die? Are they hypocrites?

How do the Democrats fit into those questions?

~Max
  #148  
Old Yesterday, 01:47 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
There are hard numbers cited in the original post. Exactly how much better (or worse, I suppose) the Obama administration's fiscal policy was is irrelevant because the Tea Party still found room to criticize Obama. I don't think anybody here is arguing that Trump oversees a fiscally conservative administration. If they did, the response would be simple: the Tea Party is dead because Trump balanced the budget. Nobody is saying that because it is untrue.

The budget is unbalanced, where is the Tea Party? Is their dissent being drowned out by other issues? Did they all die? Are they hypocrites?

How do the Democrats fit into those questions?

~Max
Bolding mine.

Yes, the Tea Party found room to criticize Obama because that was their true -- maybe only -- reason for being. The "fiscal responsibility" part was just a fig leaf.

How do we know? Because the Tea Party is silent on Trump, despite his administration's being demonstrably at least as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats under Obama.

If the Tea Party had been criticizing the fiscal performance of every administration since Reagan, then you could call their current silence hypocritical without discussing Democrats. But they came into being specifically in reaction to a Democrat, so you can't.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; Yesterday at 01:48 PM.
  #149  
Old Yesterday, 06:24 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Yes, the Tea Party found room to criticize Obama because that was their true -- maybe only -- reason for being. The "fiscal responsibility" part was just a fig leaf.

How do we know? Because the Tea Party is silent on Trump, despite his administration's being demonstrably at least as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats under Obama.
This is actually the conclusion of the debate, not an argument for a conclusion. I would rather see the argument and evidence. It has not yet been established that the Tea Party movement is silent, only that they are not effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
If the Tea Party had been criticizing the fiscal performance of every administration since Reagan, then you could call their current silence hypocritical without discussing Democrats. But they came into being specifically in reaction to a Democrat, so you can't.
Can't I?

A July piece in the New York Times says one hundred thirty-two Republicans voted against the recent budget agreement (Cochrane, 2019). Notably, Mrs. Pelosi didn't need any Republican votes to pass the bill, so it really doesn't matter what the House Republicans think about it - nobody cares what they have to say. The Washington Examiner and National Review are still complaining about the budget (Klein, 2019; Riedl, 2019). So does the Heritage Foundation (Bogie, 2019). So does Rand Paul (Re, 2019). I'm sure some other Republican senators voted against it, such as Ted Cruz, John Kennedy, and Tim Scott.

But then we look back at the 2017 and 2018 sessions, to the Republican-controlled House under Paul Ryan, himself a Tea Party politician. Why didn't he rein in spending, like he tried so hard to do under Mr. Obama's presidency? Is this not hypocrisy? The National Review article places the blame on Mr. Trump's election in 2016 (Riedl, 2019):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riedl for the National Review
But the election of President Trump — with the tea-party Senator Ted Cruz, among others, defeated in the process — may have finally killed the tea party as a whole. Trump, who called himself the “king of debt,” deemphasized spending restraint and even promised that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the overwhelming drivers of long-term deficits, would be off limits to reform...

With a president not focused on deficit reduction, and even Republican voters opposing many spending cuts, congressional Republicans largely surrendered on spending and deficit restraint.
I think that is an accurate political analysis, although it removes none of the apparent hypocrisy from the shoulders of the Republican party. Wasn't it Mr. Ryan who appeared in The New York Times back in 2010, saying “Both parties have done a poor job of doing adequate oversight of the federal government, from a fiscal and good-government standpoint. We need to do a better job” (Zeleny, 2010)?

I have no doubt that Mr. Ryan would have cut entitlement programs if he had the support of the Presidency and the Senate. Even in January of 2018 Mr. Ryan said he wouldn't be tackling entitlement reform that year despite it being the biggest item on his "wish list" (Stein, 2017; Bryan, 2018). He didn't even try (publicly) because the Senate's slim majority preempted the debate. Maybe he was trying to avoid Senate deadlock and another government shutdown a la 2013, but as we all know, he failed spectacularly - the government shut down both a week after making that statement and again at the end of the year.

I personally think Mr. Ryan stopped representing the Tea Party movement and started representing House Republicans as a whole when he became speaker. Party over ideology. That is the only explanation that I can find for his behavior. Republicans like Mr. Trump or Mr. Nunez probably thought Mr. Ryan was too passive. Tea Party Republicans probably think he traded his soul for the tax cut. I don't agree with most of the cuts typical of the Tea Party or championed by Paul Ryan, but I don't think Mr. Ryan practiced what he preached.

Would anyone else care to look at other Tea Party Republicans?
Bogie, J. (2019, July 19). Congress Must Fully Offset Any Budget Control Act Cap Deal. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved August 21, 2019 from https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-...l-act-cap-deal

Bryan, B. (2018, January 12). Paul Ryan is already giving up on his biggest goal for 2018. Business Insider. Retrieved August 21, 2019 from https://www.businessinsider.com/paul...id-cuts-2018-1

Cochrane, E. (2019, July 25). A Two-Year Budget Deal to Raise Spending Passes a Divided House. The New York Times, p. A17.

Klein, P. (2019, July 23). With budget deal, Trump drains the swamp - of the Tea Party. The Washington Examiner. Retrieved August 21, 2019 from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-the-tea-party

Re, G. (2019, July 31). Budget deal is 'death of the Tea Party movement,' Rand Paul says. Fox News. Retrieved August 21, 2019 from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bud...rand-paul-says

Riedl, B. (2019, July 22). New Budget Deal Puts Final Nail in the Tea-Party Coffin. The National Review. Retrieved August 21, 2019 from https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...-party-coffin/

Stein, J. (2017, December 6). Ryan says Republicans to target welfare, Medicare, Medicaid spending in 2018. The Washington Post. Retrieved August 21, 2019 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on

Zeleny, J. (2010, September 14). G.O.P. 'Young Guns' See Opportunity. The New York Times. Retrieved August 21, 2019 from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/u...cs/15guns.html
~Max

Last edited by Max S.; Yesterday at 06:27 PM. Reason: added signature
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017