----Budget deficits and the national debt are a huge drag on the economy, because they insure that a future percentage of GDP gets sucked off into an economic black hole to pay for expenditures made years ago.—
First of all, you can’t count costs without considering the benefits: and in this case, they cancel out, leaving only the spending (and the efficiency loss from taxation). Was the spending worth it? Was it not? That’s what matters. WHEN you tax people barely matters at all.
—We’re still paying off the Reagan-Bush enthusiasm for deficit spending.—
What does this fundamentally have to do with taxation? Sure, the fact that they didn’t tax enough then to cover the spending means we have a deficit… it also means that the people who otherwise would have been taxed ended up with a lot more money.
—For fiscal year 2002, Congress spent $333 billion on debt payments, around ten percent of the federal budget. The total national debt right now is closing in on $6.3 trillion, and we’ve got to pay off every damn penny–plus interest, of course.—
What’s your point? The debt represents money that had to be paid back… at some point. If we don’t want to have it around today, that means we had to pay it off yesterday: which means higher taxes back then.
It’s amazing to find that there are people in existence that think that interest is some sort of extra, evil price… as opposed to be due to the fact that money tommorow isn’t worth as much as what money today is.
—It’s like swimming with a 20-lb. weight around your neck, and then somebody wants to come along and add another 5 pounds. While it makes a certain amount of economic sense to go into deficit spending from time to time, it is stupid in the extreme to keep running up debt like you never have to pay it off.—
—It’s lending to anyone who’ll buy bonds - taxpayers, institutional investors, foreign individuals and governments, whoever. So it’s not a wash transaction in any meaningful sense.—
Uh, so? How does that change the fact that borrowing is to finance NOT taxing.
—For the same reason you don’t pay off your mortgage in one year: it would be extremely painful.—
Let’s say this one more time so everyone gets it: the government borrowing is not like an individual borrowing. It’s not even like a corporation borrowing. These analougies are completely misleading. The government is not a person. It’s account balance is NOT the correct measure for how well an economy or a country is doing financially, because it only includes a tiny part of the relevant information.
—We could pay off the national debt this year, if we were willing to devote slightly more than half the GDP to that end. You volunteering your share? Neither am I.—
Now think about WHY we wouldn’t want to pay it off all at once: despite your story telling us that this would be the best thing of all: no interest to pay, right?
—Government can borrow seemingly without end. But like you and me, governments have to pay interest on their borrowing, in order to get people to loan them the money.—
Again, you’re missing the point of interest entirely. Interest, especially government interest, is not some extra punishment.
—So having less of an interest bill is good, and having more of one is bad, because it’s money that you have to spend, that doesn’t do you any good right now.—
Eh? “Good”? Where is the money? Is it sitting in a vault somewhere? (even that, by the way, couldn’t hurt society as a whole any) The government’s borrowing does not consume money. Your story can only survive as long as you fail to notice the implicit loan the government makes to a taxpayer by NOT taxing them right away. As a result, interest on the deficit does not “tie up” any money, and it isn’t a burden on anything.
—There’s no need to balance the budget every year. But if you borrow faster than your income grows, you wind up digging yourself deeper into debt, and paying out more of your income in interest. That’s true if you’re a householder or a government.—
The government does not earn income, it taxes it away. It’s still government SPENDING beyond its means that causes the problem, not whether or not it borrows to cover that spending.
Uh, no. Reagan was elected because he ran against Carter’s deficits. And Reagan inherited a structural problem because he was elected just as the recessionary effects of Volcker’s tightening of the money supply kicked in. There was not a man alive who could have avoided huge deficits.
The problem with the Democrats is that they have no unifying principles. The Democratic party is more a loose coalition of special interests and single issues. The party is made up of everything from trial lawyers to Hollywood to Boll Weevils in the south, heavy union supporters in the industrial states, the various Black coalitions, and the more academic center-left intellectuals much like the people on this board, I’d guess.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are pretty unified on some very fundamental themes - low taxes, small government, privatization, the constitution, etc. You can really see that if you read the respective monthly publications on each side. Read The Nation, and you see a lot of articles about tactics, and the various individual issues. Read The National Review, and you see a lot more writing about the fundamental principles they believe in. The Republican party has become the party of ideas, while the Democrats are the party of interests.
The other factor is that the electorate has made a definite shift to the right. I’m hearing a lot of complaining about how the problem with the Democrats was that they wouldn’t stand up and fight for their principles. The fact is, if the Democrats HAD vocally criticized the war and promised to repeal the tax cut, they would have been absolutely slaughtered.
You guys in the U.S. are lucky that you stagger your elections the way you do, and structure your districts to protect incumbants. Because in a wide-open race, the Democrats would have been slaughtered yesterday. On the same scale as the slaughter of conservatives here in Canada in the last two elections, where they were almost completely wiped off the map.
If the Democrats take from this loss that they should move to the left and more actively oppose the President, they’re going to lose another ten seats in the Senate in two years, and Bush is going to be re-elected in a landslide, paving the way for Jeb to run in 2008. Democrats may have 14 more years of Bushes to look forward to.
Call me crazy, but as far as I know, Minty didn’t run for office, so it seems to me that he chose his pronouns to reflect that. Probably for the same reason I haven’t run around all day shouting “We won! We won!” I didn’t run, see, so I don’t really have a claim on their victory other than casting one ballot; and Minty doesn’t need to claim ownership of the defeat on the same grounds.
Without reading the whole thread, I have to agree with the original post. I did my duty, voted, did phone banking to get out the vote, and walked my precinct. We did okay in my local races in a very Republican area.
I’m unhappy with national results, but certainly not bitter and feeling like I did after knowing the election was stolen in 2000 by a bunch of felons. While I am still bitter about that experience, the Republicans won fair and square within the law this time.
And why? Because of low voter turn out by an electorate that doesn’t care and a party leadership that is absolutely cowardly about publicly defining what the party stands for. I’m pleased to hear that Gephart is going to resign his “leadership” role. As nice a man as he is, he hasn’t even tried to demonstrate to the consuming public why his product is better. I appreciate Dashle more because he at least tries and comes across as highly intelligent.
It looks like old white men like me are going to be doing better than the rest of the population, and in the meantime, maybe some leadership will spring up.
Really? Perhaps I missed something. Perhaps with a sufficiently powerful microscope you could detect a difference between Gore and Bush, but the similarities swamped the differences. In the 2nd presidential debate, for example, the two candidates agreed 37 times.
[quote]
** That gave half the population something to buy into. Gore’s virtual tie in the election had coattails: the Dems got a 50-50 Senate out of the deal, after having been several seats down in 1999-2000.**/quote]Actually, the exact opposite conclusion should be reached.
In any election where there is something actually at stake, it is a virtual impossibility for the vote to be close to 50-50. This is even more true in a country as diverse as the U.S. On the other hand, if the entire populace flips a coin, then roughly 50% will land tails, and the other 50% will land heads.
So, the situation is that less than half the electorate even sees a reason to vote, and the half that does vote basically flips a coin, basing their decision on irrelevancies like who they would most like to have beer with, or who is more willing to kiss his wife in public. When there is nothing really at stake in an election, the result is exactly what we have in the U.S.
Really? Perhaps I missed something. Perhaps with a sufficiently powerful microscope you could detect a difference between Gore and Bush, but the similarities swamped the differences. In the 2nd presidential debate, for example, the two candidates agreed 37 times.
Actually, the exact opposite conclusion should be reached.
In any election where there is something actually at stake, it is a virtual impossibility for the vote to be close to 50-50. This is even more true in a country as diverse as the U.S. On the other hand, if the entire populace flips a coin, then roughly 50% will land tails, and the other 50% will land heads.
So, the situation is that less than half the electorate even sees a reason to vote, and the half that does vote basically flips a coin, basing their decision on irrelevancies like who they would most like to have beer with, or who is more willing to kiss his wife in public. When there is nothing really at stake in an election, the result is exactly what we have in the U.S.
This seems to be more like what you wish has happened, than anything that has occurred in reality. In fact, the U.S. population has been far to the left of both political parties for decades.
Of course, if you have any actual facts to back up your claim, I would love to see them.
Apos, I assumed you were asking an honest question, rather than trying to start a debate. I gave a first cut at an answer, and now it’s clear you meant your question as an attempt to hijack this thread into a debate over the comparative effects of taxation versus borrowing. That’s a pretty large discussion. How about you start another thread for that?
Chumpsky, as a pretty liberal-leaning guy, I’d jump on any evidence suggesting that the US population as a whole is far to the left of both political parties. But I have to agree with Sam Stone - election results mean something. We know how the Greens, the Socialists, etc. have done lately. Why didn’t Ralph Nader get elected in 2000, rather than pulling only 5% - was he too far to the right as well? Sheesh. Meanwhile, a candidate running to the right of the Dems had no problem drawing 47% of the vote. Either there’s ten times more people to the right of Al Gore than to his left, or the ones to the right are a hell of a lot more motivated. I don’t see any way around that.
If you really want to debate further the claim that most of the US population is to the left of the Dems, I’d recommend the “New Thread” button at the top of the page for you, too.
As far as the similarities between the two candidates, it all depends on your POV. If you’re from Alpha Centauri, it’s important to you that Bush and Gore would both agree on defending our planet against extraterrestrial invasion. If you’re from here, that’s trivial, but Gore’s objection to Bush’s tax cut plan on the grounds that practically all the benefits would accrue to the richest 1% of the population seems like a rather major difference: if 9/11 hadn’t come along, that tax cut was likely to have been far and away Bush’s most significant accomplishment. And the two candidates had diametrically opposed views about it.
Does anybody here remember Vera Ly…erm, I mean Bob Kerrey? He was a popular governor and senator for a solidly Republican state, he has that whole “war hero” thing going, he’s gotten married since his last run at the Presidency, he’s now got an education-related job, and if this story is to be believed, he’s got all sorts of useful CIA connections.
I always liked Bob. Would it be worth it for the Dems to drag him onto the political stage again?
I’ll agree that the environment isn’t #1 on most people’s lists; if it were, the Greens would be a major party. But it’s #2 or #3 or #4 on a lot of folks’ lists, especially us suburbanite swing voters. Every election cycle recently, the League of Conservation Voters has kicked most of their “Dirty Dozen” out of office. (I don’t know how that held up Tuesday.) But it’s hard for the environment to be a factor if nobody’s running on it - and with everything from Iraq to Enron this time, it kinda got crowded out.
At any rate, habitat preservation and preserving wilderness is an issue that distinguishes us and them. There are two ways to go: either the Dems can make it a selling point, or they can decide it isn’t important. I’d go for the former, myself.
Aside from the occasional porn shop (and even that stuff’s getting rarer), it’s hard to see a GOP assault on freedom of speech anymore. So it pretty much comes down to religion, and since the Dems will and should continue to defend the Establishment Clause, they need to make a virtue of it, rather than hang their heads sheepishly as they say, “it’s that derned Constitution, you know?”
I think the American public understands fairness; there’s a deep American sentiment that playing fields ought to be level. When stated in those terms, this one’s a pretty easy sell, actually.
I disagree. First, the parties really do divide over this one; there’s no getting around the reality of few pro-choice Republicans and few pro-life Democrats in national office.
Second, you’d be surprised how many women there are out there who are deeply opposed to abortion under most circumstances - but if they got pregnant by rape, or were bearing a spina bifida baby, they want to have the ultimate choice on whether to go through with the pregnancy.
Also, a lot of professional women who are increasingly economically libertarian are still with the Dems mostly because of this one issue, and will remain so until the GOP starts putting pro-choice judges in the courts.
Nah, I’m keeping this one. There is a pro-choice majority, and as a Dem, I want it. In 1989, Doug Wilder won the governorship of Virginia with a woman’s right to choose as one of his core issues. Virginia is not a hotbed of liberalism. This one’s a gimme.
Bob, unfortunately, is most likely screwed as a Presidential candidate because of this story. Do a web search on Bob Kerrey + “war crime” and you’ll find tons of other stories on this, some of them pretty vile, others evenhanded. Regardless of the truth to his situation (which will never be known by any who weren’t there), regardless of his innate decency and sensibility, this is a millstone around his neck politically.
Sometimes. Not just now. I thought we were talking about the Presidental elections of 1972, 1984, 1988, and 2000, and the Congressional elections of 1994, and 2002. The Democrats did not do as well in those elections as they had hoped.
Of course, for the Dems a move to the center would by necessity be a move to the right for them. If you want to quibble about that, I won’t argue about it.
No offense, but read the title. The Democrats lost because they were perceived as having no new ideas.
They were against partial privatization of Social Security, but offered no alternative to fixing it. They are against the war with Iraq (at least Wellstone was, and his surrogate lost), but offered no alternative except more negotiations. They are against the war on terror, but offer no suggestions on how to proceed except to point fingers at Bush and Co. They are against school vouchers, but offer no alternatives except more spending on the public school system.
Which is why I mentioned Mondale. He wanted to revoke the tax cut, not to reduce the deficit, but to increase spending on everything. We aren’t going to save any money by electing Democrats, and we sure as hell aren’t going to run any risk of eliminating the deficit. If Mondale had been elected in 1984, we would have gotten the tax increases he promised. The deficit would have been exactly what it was when Bush Sr. was cozened into increasing taxes - namely, huge and persistent. The deficit only went away when Republicans got control of Congress.
Cutting spending is a conservative idea. Shutting down government to eliminate the deficit is a conservative idea. Tax cuts are a conservative idea. The economy didn’t boom, and the deficit didn’t disappear, until we applied conservative ideas.
If this thread is about what the Democrats should have done, my suggestion would be exactly what I have been saying - come up with some new ideas. Spending money like a drunken sailor on a boatload of huge new government programs, jacking tax rates back up, and regarding everyone in America as either a victim or a villain doesn’t fly the way it used to.
I know you liberals don’t want to understand the Electoral College system, but losing 525 to 13, doesn’t strike me as a a ringing victory. YMMV.
Clinton took office, when the Democrats controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. What was the first thing he tried to do? Increase the deficit by $16 billion.
Gee, revisionist history much?
Ok, I am really lying. I don’t want the Democrats to come up with ways to win elections. I want them to do pretty much what they are doing now - thrash about helplessly wondering why voters aren’t stupid enough to believe that they are really the paragons of responsible virtue they have been claimed to be on this thread.
As far as I am concerned, carry on. We Republicans are going to be busy for the next two years. Feel free to get back to us if you come up with anything worthwhile.
After the 2000 elections and the Florida debacle, folks on the left kept telling me, “Just you wait. The Republicans stole this election, but at the cost of making the People angry. There will be so much payback in 2002, and the Republicans will win big!”
I’m hearing now that one of the problems this time through was low voter turnout, whih hurt the Democrats.
Is it merely that the public’s memory is not that long?
Or was the effect of the Florida election business simply not that infuriating to the majority of the electorate?
Also, the Democrats had huge majorities in the House. Basically, the Democrats wanted to increase social programs and cut military spending, Reagan want to increase military spending and cut social programs, and the compromise was that they increased both.
It’s pretty clear to me that the Republicans are the party of balanced budgets, however. The fact that the proposed amendment drew its support from the Republicans and was defeated by Democrats cannot be a coincidence.
This does not seem to be reflected in opinion polls about issues, or in election results.
This is demonstrably false. The house of representatives is a wide open race, and the Democrats lost about 5 seats or so. Two thirds of the governers in the US were up for election, and the Democrats picked up seats.
Bricker, I think 9/11 made the Florida debacle much less relevant to the majority. Not so much the fact that a so-called “war” is in process, but the persuasive and unified positions of the Republicans were unanswered by any distinguishable unified position by the Democrats. Any anger people had over the 2000 election has been overshadowed by anger and fear of international terrorism. The Republicans have been the party which has supplied specific solutions, which, when not embraced by prominent Dems, have not been answered with alternatives either.
Err… my post above should have the speaker saying the DEMOCRATS will win big, or the Republicans will lose big; otherwise, of course, it makes no sense.