Sorry, lonesome loser, but hey, we had an election, and this guy won.
snort
That wasn’t the issue. The OP was blaming Bush for it. Given that this has been going on from WW2 times, and give that Bush was born in 1946, I suppose that the OP could make a case that he’s responsible simply because Bush has been alive during that time. It would actually make more sense than what was posted.
No, amigo, I’m not. I responded to the post. The post blamed Bush. I pointed out that - and I’ll repeat this, so that I don’t have to do it again - Bush is not (solely) to blame. It’s been that way since WW2. Yes, he was born in 1946. Yes, the more rabid Bush haters will continue to blame him for it simply because he’s been alive during that timespan. But the OP was way off target. I pointed that out and it went right over your head. And yet you called me dumb. :wally
Clothahump:
Actually, the OP blamed the Bush administration, not Bush alone. And you are an idiot if you think anyone would blame Bush for a deficit before he became President. Stop being a drama queen.
Yes, we have generally had a deficit since WWII, but right now our debt is growning exponentially. I suspect that you are being deliberately dense. It is absolutely true that if federal spending continues as it has for the last five years, our country will be in worse shape than it has ever been since WWII. Now, if spending were to come to an abrupt halt, you’d be right, it wouldn’t be quite so bad, relatively speaking. But we all know that isn’t going to happen. I’d like to see you try to convince yourself otherwise.
And why does this happen?
Because when a President wants to cut taxes, it’s hard for the legislature to disagree. Because every congressman that opposes a tax cut can be hit with some pretty embarassing (although quite probably inaccurate) attack ads when standing for re-election. You’ve all seen them, “Congressman So and So voted against lowering your taxes, vote for me, Bill McGraw, I’ll be sure to put money in your wallet.”
So a President has a good chance of getting any given tax cuts he wants as long as it is within reason.
But, just as it’s hard for a legislator to oppose tax cuts, it’s very hard for a legislator (from either side of the aisle) to cut programs. Every federal program out there has voters that consider it “their baby.” And most have powerful lobbying groups that will throw a fit if the programs get cut.
That’s why if I was ever President I’d never do a tax cut until I was sure I could slash spending in areas I felt needed slashing. Unfortunately most President’s seem to go for the tax cuts first then wring their hands when they realize they aren’t going to be able to cut spending like they wanted.
As a Republican I do think that in general, Republicans are more fiscally responsible than Democrats. However I feel that the Republicans that are really big on fiscal responsibility are part of the “old guard” core of the GOP that was around before the religious right, gun lobby, and neo-cons latched onto the party. And I think it’s hard for these old guard Republicans to get elected to the Presidency because they can’t seem to get past the primaries.
However, I must say in defense of Reagan and Bush they governed at vastly different times than Clinton. Reagan was still fighting the Cold War, and of yeah he did have some hairbrained schemes like Star Wars but he also was aggressively trying to make the American military drastically more powerful than the Soviet military machine. A goal which I think, might have been worth the deficit spending.
Bush has had to deal with both the collapse of the 1990s internet bubble (which was already starting at the end of Clinton’s term), 9/11 (disastrous for markets), the global war on terror (increased intelligence and military spending) and the war in Iraq.
Of course, most people on the forum will say the War in Iraq never should have happened. But even if you take away the Iraq war Bush still has had a lot more to deal with than Clinton that would generate expenses within government. And Bush has had to deal with economic issues beyond his control that reduce governmental revenue.
Clinton on the other hand was fortunate to be elected after the Cold War was fully wrapped up. There was no more need for the type of Cold War military we had before. And on top of that he (through no actions of his own) rode the technology bubble that helped fuel the 1990s economy. Of course in spite of all that Clinton was a deficit spender for most of this term as President.
No it hasn’t. Spending has been roughly constant as a percentage of GDP. The deficit hasn’t. The OP isn’t complaining that Bush has spent more. He’s complaining that he’s borrowed more.
Dumb, dumb, dumb … .
Cite?
Earlier in this thread Jpeg Jones presented concrete evidence to the contrary.
I won’t deny that Republicans spend a lot of time patting themselves on the back for being fiscally responsible. But I’m not aware of any proof they actually are … .
They ARE the party of fiscal responsibility. They’re Republicans. Therefore they’re the party of fiscal responsibility. Therefore they’re being fiscally responsible.
Duh.
Caveat Emptor, Sic transit glora, whoever smelt it dealt it, etc…
-Joe
Firstly no, he didn’t. And what kind of cite do you want? Do you want me to get data on the performance of every single Republican elected official in the country? Every State governor, every legislator, ever State legislator, every mayor, every county commissioner??
That’s impossible.
Also I’m not really sure what in Jpeg Jones post represents concrete evidence that Republicans are not fiscally responsible.
He just linked to a web page about national debt. It showed that debt went up and down under Reagan, but trended upwards, went up and down under Bush I, but trended upward, showed that it went up and down under clinton, but trended downward, and then showed it skyrocket under Bush II.
If you scroll down the page some more you see national debt as a % of GDP, and that trended down pretty much all the way from WW2 up until Reagan’s term. And that span covers the administrations of Eisenhower and Nixon. So I’d actually say we can’t show causation between party in the White House and increasing national debt.
Interesting? I suppose. “Concrete” evidence about the fiscal responsibility of either party? No.
To say that you’d have to believe that the President = an entire party (he doesn’t he’s one of the thousands of elected officials that belong to one of the big two parties.) And even then there’s not much that proves Republicans are directly responsible for more debt. Over the last 20 years we’ve shown ASSOCIATION, but that doesn’t instantaneously prove CAUSATION.
And actually, if you recall while Clinton was President during the budget surplus, we had a REPUBLICAN house of representatives. And the House has a bigger say on government spending than the White House.
But to get back to it, I say that Republicans are the fiscally responsible party because traditionally our politicians in general are the only ones who are seriously talking year in year out about “balanced budgets” and decreased spending. How successful are they at getting spending out of the way? Not very, but then no one is.
With government I suppose we have to concede there’s no such thing as true fiscal responsibility, only varying degrees of waste and pork barrel spending.
And what I actually think Jpeg Jones link proves is how little administration’s historically have control over national debt.
IF you look at the graph that covers the period 1800-1998, well, you notice the first mega-spike in debt is under Abraham Lincoln (a Republican OH NO!! He must have been a fiscally irresponsible cad!)
Then the next big spike is around the Great Depression. Who do we blame that on? I’d lean towards Herbert Hoover who was President when the depression started, not FDR who was President during the depression and actually responsible for increasing government spending. Why blame Hoover? Because he was a Republican, and I don’t want to break the trend by using logic, I’m just going to carte blanche blame the fattest GOP target available.
Then we see another big spike for WWII. Man, who do we blame there? FDR? Maybe, but wasn’t he trying to you know, win a very “just” war? Well, I guess we can blame Hitler. But then again wasn’t Hitler put in power mainly because of the destabilization of the Weimar Republic due to the gobal depression exacerbated by the Treaty of Versailles–maybe we blame France and the UK? Well there’s also Japan we could lay the blame on. Or maybe the USSR, because hey, we might as well throw them out there.
Of course once Eisenhower got into office debt as a % of GDP went down drastically. So this proves Republicans are the more fiscally responsible party, because he reduced the debt monumentally.
Of course, I’m sure that had nothing to do with the fact he could you know, afford to cut the billions of dollars in spending that was left over from WW2+Post War effort since you know, the war was over and Japan and Germany were largely rebuilt.
So now we’ve had a little exercise in sarcasm, I’ve played the part of average SDMB poster and found it wanting.
Personally I think national debt will increase during times of national crisis, when the nation needs more spending for dire national issues (war, cold war, global terrorism etc.) I guess the fiscally responsible thing to do would be to NOT take out debt, because debt is obviously evil, but to raise the income tax rates to 100% for all the wealthy. Because the ensuing collapse of the United States income tax revenues combined with the borderling economic depression that would send the U.S. into would be the “fiscally responsible” thing to do.
Sometimes I think when dire national issues demand more spending, the only responsible thing to do is take action, and action costs money. And the only way you can raise enormous sums of money is via going into debt.
Didn’t the Clinton administration balance the budget just in time Mr Bush to take over?
On paper.
That’s still more of an accomplishment that what George has done.
As I recall, Clinton’s budget balancing wasn’t done “on paper” - it was for real. And not a one-shot thing whilst the door was hitting him in the butt, but for a few years. The projected ten-year budget surplus when Dubya staggered into Washington was $800,000,000,000.00. He pissed that away quicker than you could say “Saddam is a fink.”
Yes, I believe you are correct…
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/