Going with the global herd. Everybody’s doing it.
In fact, until Reagan’s second midterm, the Senate was also controlled by Republicans, and there were quite a few Dixiecrats in both chambers who deferred to Reagan. He really gets a lot more credit for negotiating with a ‘Democrat Congress’ than he deserves.
There used to be somewhat of a “gentleman’s agreement” in Congress that when a new President took office the Congress went along with and voted in the budget that the new President submitted. A Democratic Congress approved Reagan’s radical budget proposal. The Republicans had trouble stomaching that after the embarrassment of the Reagan budget fiascoes that ran up the national debt to unforeseeable levels. When Clinton submitted his budget it passed by one (1) vote because the 'Pubs didn’t want to raise taxes. I watched the vote and it was a cliffhanger. As we all saw, the Clinton budgets only led to a balanced budget that the country hadn’t seen since the Johnson years. What a calamity! Eight years of relative peace and prosperity! The horror!
Of course we’ve all seen the insanity of GWB’s economic policies. They cook the books and still produce record deficits by any definition. Now the 'Pubs are acting like crybaby’s because there aren’t enough tax cuts for the wealthy.
When the next Webster dictionary comes out the definition of “failure” and “hypocrisy” should be accompanied by the picture of the Republican elephant logo. (I don’t want to disparage elephants.)
In fairness, this is inaccurate. Clinton’s original budget reduced the deficit for a few years with a projection for rising deficits in the late 90s. The GOP took over in 1995 with a demand for a balanced budget by 2002. Clinton counted with a program to balance the budget by 2005.
(As an aside here, we can see how ridiculous these long term plans are. Look how different 2002 and 2005 were when they arrived as opposed to their projections in 1995)
The GOP “won” the negotiations and came up with a compromise plan to balance the budget by 2002. The compromise was a farce. The deficits in the plan increased until the year 2000 with huge cuts factored in the year 2001 and 2002 (cuts which would be made after Clinton left office by the next President). It was a sham, and everyone knew it.
So what happened? The budget was balanced in 1997. By having a Congress and a President talking about a balanced budget, along with the rise in Dot Com businesses, the economy boomed. That is to the praises of a Dem President who didn’t go crazy with spending, and a GOP Congress who insisted on a balanced budget. But it was mostly dumb luck.
Neither side had the courage to really plan on a balanced budget. This idea that Clinton did it all is not consistent with the facts…
Maybe this thread will be easier on you if you can just point out a couple cites here on the SDMB where you were so very concerned about fiscal responsibility and ballooning deficits between 2001 and 2008?
-Joe
What is accurate is to say that every year of Clinton’s presidency, the deficit gap shrank from the preceding year, whether he had a Democratic congress or Republican congress to work with. It shrank until it was actually a surplus.
This “surplus” of which you speak? These words are not known amongst my people. What is this thing, this “surplus”?
Perhaps, but look at how different 2002 and 2005 were when they arrived, in contrast to their projections.
I mean, they just “arrived” and they were not what was expected. Or course, nothing happened between 1995 and then to influence their outcome. I hope that 2010 just falls from the sky with dollars flowing from people’s pockets!
It’s kind of like how the Iraq War just happened to Bush. Fell right in his lap.
This is stupid way to measure. In recent history. The republicans owned the gov’t from 2003 to 2007. The Democrats owned it from '93 to’95. The rest of the time it was split. So the republicans might have 16 out of 18, but the Democrats did 14 out of 18.
You can argue that the 4 years the Republicans controlled everything recently is significant, but then you’ll have to confront the fact that our economy was doing fine at the time. It wasn’t until Democrats took control of Congress that it started to tank.
Six years. Having 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans in the Senate when Jeffords flipped didn’t make much difference.
Aww, how cute. He’s trying to link correlation with causation.
That’s when Iraq turned around, too. Should we be thanking the Democratic Congress for the improvements in Iraq then?
-Joe
I’m sorry. I was just trying to fit in.
No - we should thank the Shia for winning the Civil War and completing their ethnic cleansing and the Sunni for building big walls to huddle behind.
Quite possibly. Putting congressional pressure to withdraw certainly upset the status quo, which wasn’t really working.
The only real counter I would offer is that the President is explicitly in charge of the military forces, while Congress is explicitly in control of the purse strings, as such I’d tend to give credit/fault to the President for things military, and to Congress for fiscal things.
It’s good to see you finally embrace the idea that you are responsible for the shit that goes down on your watch.
Now there’s a little hurricane damage I’d like to talk to you about. And some buildings with an airplane stuck in 'em. And a dot-com bubble.
[quote=“Sinaijon, post:234, topic:487322”]
Quite possibly. Putting congressional pressure to withdraw certainly upset the status quo, which wasn’t really working./QUOTE]What congressional pressure? For the most part, Congress has yet to find its balls. (Pelosi on the first bailout: “We have yielded . . . on almost every point…” You control Congress! Why are you yielding so much?!)
No, you weren’t, but nice try.
Of course it is - the rarity is when one party controls both branches. It doesn’t make my statement inaccurate.
From 2001 through 2003, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, and, arguably, the Supreme Court as well (witness the 5-4 Bush v. Gore fiasco.)
To hijack the thread back to the original topic…
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindal_admits_katrina_story_was_false.php
From Talking Points Memo, without which no citizen can hope to be adequately informed…
Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False
Putting words in the mouth of a dead man; that’s pretty damn low.