Kevin Drum just recently had a very succinct take on Andrew Sullivan’s cries about the deficit and federal spending.
Well, if you really want to feel pessimistic, consider what would happen to the “worlds of opportunity” around the globe if the mounting debt eventually spins the US economy completely into the toilet…
Well, the end times are coming soon - might as well hasten them and spend ourselves into the second coming…
This will continue as long as “I’m going to cut your taxes” is an effective campaign slogan and “He’s going to raise your taxes” is an effective negative tactic. If someone would campaign on the platform of “fiscal responsibility, whatever it takes”, win, and then actually start running surpluses, then there would be hope. As it is, there is none. There will be a financial catastrophe that we’re leaving for our descendants to deal with.
You poor, poor Swine. 
You jabbering fool.
You parade your support for an Idiot’s war, & then are shocked when the bill arrives, howling outside your door, like the Banshee on Crack? FUCK!
The War has been financially mismanaged, too. Ask not For Whom The Bell Tolls, pigfucker, it tolls for THEE! And George The Chimp, Creepy Carl Rove, & Dick “The Prince Of Darkness” Cheney are ringing the bell, dumbass.
The Bill Is Due, Airman, and nobody who is Rich will ever pay a dime of it.
No, you shitpile. The Bill is ours, and our Great-Grandchildren’s, too.
The syphilis-raddled Man-Child in the White House, that you worship like a Pagan God, has kicked you in the Nuts, as every reasonable person told you he would, yet somehow, you’re suprised.
Listening to what passes for the News, and reading your nitwit posts makes me realize why Hunter Thompson shot himself.
Christ, Bosda, you’re being a dick.
-
The current deficit, while exacerbated by the war, is not at all fully dependent on it. Little things like Medicare and other entitlements do nasty things to the budget as well.
-
It’s not just Bush. It’s been well and truly demonstrated that neither side can be truly trusted to maintain fiscal discipline while in office if allowed to run unfettered.
-
Bob up there has it right. It’s not so much the government but the American people that don’t want fiscal discipline. As long as the electorate wants $1.40 worth of services but refuses to pay more than $1.00 in taxes the situation will continue.
-
I repeat, vote for a mixed government or third parties. I don’t see another solution.
In short, tuck it back in your pants before you look more foolish than you already do.
Just out of curiosity, what was the deficit when Bubba left Washington?
Nevermind, I found it.
Yes, please. Could you point to where it has been well and truly demonstrated that neither side can be truly trusted to maintain fiscal discipline? This smacks of a false equivalency or a simple untruth. I’ve already cited to eRipost.com once today, in another thread, regarding the data that shows that the economy consistently does better under Democrats than Republicans. I’d like to square that data with the data you are referring to.
Sorry, eRiposte has an “e” at the end. Here’s the specific link re: economy under Democrats versus Republicans:
Bosda, are you sure you have the right person? I don’t recall Doors supporting Bush. He’s in support of the troops, but so are many people; no one wants to see American lives lost.
Oh the bitter irony that is my life. I have become increasingly disturbed by the miniscule interest rate offered by my savings bank, so I pulled out some money and purchased Series I bonds. The very next damn DAY I heard that the government was at risk of defaulting on their debt.
I am not an economist, but I do have an ability to remember to past. Specifically, was it not the case that we had a surplus when Clinton departed? Also, am I the only one that remembers when the deficit “clock” that they used to have in NYC started running backwards and they took it down?
Not to say that the Democrats are necessarily super disciplined in fiscal matters, but come on guys.
Well, he did have the “I have secret information so this war is a great idea period” but IIRC he voted against Bush this last time and has been one of the more open-minded members of the loyal opposition (as far as seeking facts and looking at events from all points of view) that I have seen. Definitely a far cry from a Party Before Country Partisan Hack.
As Chance said, when allowed to run unfettered. Would you have seen that surplus if the Dems had been in control of all three branches during that time? Doubtful.
What the great googly fuck? What does one have to do to get a cite around here? Jesus Jumping Christ.
Jesus fucking Christ, Hentor. Give a guy a damn chance. And never call me a liar again.
But it’s not about how the economy does. It’s about behavior of federal spending during times of unilateral rule.
Deficit as a percentage of GDP:
Here’s a series of charts regarding the deficit and party affiliation.
This chart, in particular, I find useful. It shows deficits along with party affiliation of the White House, the Senate, and the House.
Barring the split in the early-mid 1980s we can see that when both Congress and the White House have been in one parties control neither side does a lot to get deficits under control.
A chart (though I don’t know how to do them in vBulletin…so bear with me):
Year President Party in Power Deficit as % of GDP
2004 GWB R 4.1%
1993 BC D 3.9%
2003 GWB R 3.5%
1994 BC D 2.9%
1968 LBJ D 2.9%
1980 JC D 2.8%
1977 JC D 2.8%
1978 JC D 2.8%
1979 JC D 1.6%
1962 JFK D 1.1%
1967 LBJ D 1.1%
1964 LBJ D 0.9%
1963 JFK D 0.8%
1961 JFK D 0.6%
1966 LBJ D 0.5%
1965 LBJ D 0.2%
Whoa, look at all of those 'D’s under ‘Party Affiliation’!
Look, the reason Republican’s could run on the ‘fiscal responsibility’ issue was because they never controlled both halves of the spending equation. Therefore they could paint the democrats as the ‘party of deficits’. Now, when they have it all, it turns out they do the same thing. I think I’ll have a heart attack and die from that surprise.
And hey, for a bonus, look at that chart I linked to. Surpluses? See 'em? All of them occured with split governments. From the data available a split government appears to be a requirement for fiscal responsibility to have the opportunity to occur. It doesn’t guarantee it, by any means, but it’s a prerequisite.
How nice of you to try to reframe the debate to your best interest while branding me a liar.
Have you been asleep the last three years? My initial support for Bush went the way of the dodo a long time ago. I voted against the man in 2004, I want to see the Democrats win seats, and hopefully a majority, in Congress, and about the only thing I have in common anymore with your average lockstep Republican is the gun-rights issue.
I’ve been changing before your very eyes, and you missed it. How sad it is that a person can’t admit that he was wrong (numerous times, by the way) and have that accepted by people like you.
OK, I’m wrong about you. Just dump the pisspot on Bricker and his ilk. It will fit them nicely
(Emphasis added.)
I seem to recall that when surpluses started to appear in the budget, the cry arose from the (then) opposition party: “It’s your money! Make them give it back!!!”
Parliament of Whores.
Yes and no. We still had a huge deficit, but we weren’t deficit spending. That is, the gov’t still owed a large amount of money to its various creditors, but outlays were less than receipts. We were still $3 trillion in the hole.