Why is the Debt/Deficit issue #1 for so many people?

Great Debates
61

Why don’t Republicans protest vigorously when (2001-2009) repubicans are running up the deficit? The man deciding economic policy is depneding on them for his base of support, and if Republicans just let Bush understand how they’d be willing to do ANYTHING, even destroying the country’s credit rating, to reduce the deficit, I’m sure Bush would have had to listen to their demans.

Complaining like this when Obama, who is not beholden to their demands, is in office is just patently obvious political chest-beating. Elections have consequences, and this one of them: Democrats will not take orders from Republican economic policy-makers. Republicans will.

62

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Why don’t Republicans protest vigorously when (2001-2009) repubicans are running up the deficit? The man deciding economic policy is depneding on them for his base of support, and if Republicans just let Bush understand how they’d be willing to do ANYTHING, even destroying the country’s credit rating, to reduce the deficit, I’m sure Bush would have had to listen to their demans.
[/QUOTE]

Some Republicans did protest about running up the deficit during that time (more ‘conservatives’ did), but there were some different factors then than now. For one thing, the economy was doing better and we had more growth then…and a lot of the systemic problems we now know existed were more theoretical then (both our own and those currently happening in Europe which is having a non-zero drag on our economy). Also, we were more in a war mentality then…we had recently been attacked, which spawned an entirely new department (Homeland Security), along with all of the other impacts that had, which everyone knew was going to be costly (both the war and the creation of an entirely new department, along with all those security measures)…and folks wanted a lot of that stuff, especially early on in Bush’s first term.

The real problem with Bush’s spending only really became apparent in hindsight around 2007 and 2008…the main issue folks, especially Democrats had with him wasn’t his spending (except now in retrospect) but his policies and actions such as getting us into those wars. Democrats at the time weren’t pushing for spending cuts…they were simply pissed off that we were spending money on wars and other things they didn’t want or agree with. They would have cheerfully spent the same or even more money on other things they DID think were important, though.

Pretty much politics 101…always blame the incumbent for everything, regardless of whether it’s his fault, if he’s in the opposing party, while attempting to hand wave away any problems or perceived issues if he’s in your own.

-XT

63

You sure about that?

Warning, PDF.

Link.

Link.

There are more variables than just the tax rate but to claim there is no correlation is incorrect. And frankly unbelievable.

Slee

64

The first link isn’t talking about income taxes, which the post I was responding to was; the second seems a bit suspect, since it claims to have supported the original hypothesis and then finds positive correlations with a dozen other things. I’ll concede the point though.

65

If the economy was doing better than why were we increasing our deficits? IN good economic times the government should be spending less and getting more in tax revenues. Now you mention war mentality and Homeland Security, yes, but you should try and pay for those things while you can and not decide when the economy is doing poorly and tax revenues are LOW to think about not paying for it.

The problem with Bush spending was apparent to anyone who wasn’t trying to play politics with taxes and national security, there is no retrospect. The economy was not going to be running in top gear forever and the Bush administration did nothing during the good times to prepare for that.

66

[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
If the economy was doing better than why were we increasing our deficits?
[/QUOTE]

Is this a trick question? We were increasing our deficits because we were spending more than we were bringing in. The economy doing well had nothing to do with is. It’s what happens when you start two major wars, create whole new departments in the government, etc etc while maintaining or even increasing your sunk cost spending on existing programs.

Sure…except when you have something like 9/11 happen to you along with a large non-zero portion of the (voting, tax paying) public clamoring for the government to Do Something™.

Sure, that’s what you SHOULD do…but that’s not what we DID do, unfortunately. And there were quite a few people, early on especially, that wanted the government to Do Something™, to keep them safe while at the same time doling out some lumps to someone and booting them in the ass, etc etc. All that spending didn’t just come from Bush…in fact, Presidents don’t actually control the purse strings. And it didn’t all come from the Republicans…plenty of Democrats (enough to get approval and then some) were involved too. And it didn’t just come from the politicians, regardless of party…WE, The People(arr) were demanding a lot of that stuff and went along with other stuff. Sure, not everyone did…but enough did. And that’s how democracies work.

So, if it was obvious, then it’s your contention that Democrats were pushing for spending cuts across the board? They weren’t agitating for spending cuts to Republican programs while demanding spending increases in the things they thought were necessary?? I don’t remember that…nor do I remember a lot of Democrats/liberals agitating for large spending cuts or balanced budgets. Instead, I remember a lot of grousing (justified btw) over our MILITARY spending, especially wrt the two wars we had dragged ourselves into…while at the same time, lots of grousing that we weren’t spending enough on social programs, the environment and other things along those lines.

Yeah, it is hindsight and retrospect, IMHO, that we were headed for a cliff. Sure, everyone knew that the economy wouldn’t do well forever, but few knew how bad it would be, or were agitating for tax increases and budget cuts in an effort to address the deficit. Both sides wanted spending cuts, to be sure…spending cuts to the other sides programs. The Dems certainly wanted tax increases…for ‘the rich’, and not to address the deficit but to increase spending on programs they wanted or felt were needed.

-XT

67

When have the Democrats not been willing to give? They’ve constantly caved in to Republican demands. If you want compromise, then the Democrats have to stop giving in, so the Republicans have a reason to stop simply demanding the Democrats give the Republicans what they want in return for nothing.

A stimulus that was much smaller than economists recommended, and therefore failed as the Republicans intended.

68

Okay, now explain how the Medicare prescription drug benefit fits into that.

69

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
When have the Democrats not been willing to give? They’ve constantly caved in to Republican demands. If you want compromise, then the Democrats have to stop giving in, so the Republicans have a reason to stop simply demanding the Democrats give the Republicans what they want in return for nothing.
[/QUOTE]

I realize that to you this makes sense, but I have to say that to me it’s gibberish. If the Dems gave in on everything there wouldn’t BE any political decent in this country. They would be Republicans. So, there wouldn’t have been the recent clash over the budget, for instance. Or over HCR. Or over the myriad other things that Dems and Pubs have been freaking clashing over (with increasing levels of venom and ridiculousness) for the last 2 decades.

Obviously I don’t agree, but the real irony here is this sentence juxtaposed with your earlier statement. See, the Republicans didn’t want ANY stimulus. They (at least the hard core ones) were pretty much opposed, except for some in the middle who were willing to compromise. That there was ANY stimulus puts into perspective your first statement, that being that the Dems cave in on everything and just do what the Pubs want. I could point to HRC as another example of how ridiculous your statement is, but I’ll just leave it there.

The sad thing is that you have exactly the same attitude that the hard core and fanatical Pubs have…that compromise is a dirty word, and that any indication of compromise means a sell out has happened and thus the party (in your case the Dems) is a bunch of pussies and can be dismissed. It’s attitudes like this on both sides that have brought us to the brink, IMHO.

-XT

70

[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
Okay, now explain how the Medicare prescription drug benefit fits into that.
[/QUOTE]

Um…no idea what you are getting at. Bush increased it and it was part of the overall deficit spending? Some Republicans were opposed, but enough in both parties supported it to get it done? It doesn’t really fit into what I was saying there because it wasn’t what I was addressing, so not sure what you are looking for.

-XT

71

We have short term debt problems and long term debt problems. Our short term debts seem largely due to the recession while our long term debts are largely due to health care. Addressing both of those issues will help to reduce the debt either short term or long term.

I tend to think some politicians are serious about cutting long term debts by restructuring health care, but there are certain sacred cows within health care that people are not willing to see cut. Cutting universal coverage is one. You can ration care so only the most cost effective treatments are covered under public plans, but raising the medicare age or abolishing the program is not something I’d support.

However that is more of a policy issue. If two groups have differing plans on medicare (Paul Ryan wants to create a voucher system, liberal groups want comparative effectiveness to bend the cost curve) both are trying to save trillions over a 75 year horizon but doing it differently by addressing different aspects. But both are trying to curb long term health costs.

72

Damn you all. FWIW, a reason I like posting on this board is that when I have biases and prejudices in my opinions I am confronted with people who do not fit that mold.

I disagree that democrats won’t cut spending. In the long term medical care is what is causing our deficits. I think about 80% of our long term debt of $100 trillion or so on the 75 year horizon is medical care related.

The Affordable Care Act was designed, in part, to bend the cost curve so medical costs do not go up at 7-10% a year anymore, but instead go up at a slower pace and save trillions over the coming decades. So democrats are willing to cut spending in various areas. We supported ending the Iraq war, the left is pushing to end the Afghanistan war. We want to make health care more efficient. Many want to end the drug war, etc. On issues of reducing the size of military or domestic law enforcement programs, or on making health care more efficient liberals and democrats are usually proponents of cutting spending.

And before the recession the deficit was barely 2-3% of GDP. Minor policy changes (ending the Iraq war, ending the tax cuts of 2001/2003, minor cuts elsewhere) would’ve balanced the budget. In 2000 one of the big fears voiced by Greenspan was that the national debt would be paid off by 2012. So things can and do change wrt the debt and deficit.

73

It was introduced by a Republican congressman, into a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and signed by a Republican president, with no attempt made to pay for it. Did every Republican vote for it, and every Democrat against it? No, but I found a record of the vote in the Senate and the support was heavily on the Republican side.

So I don’t think it’s fair to say that a change to Medicare was a response to 9/11. And don’t say nobody thought deficits were a problem back then. Plenty of Republicans thought deficits were a problem in the '90s, when they could use them to oppose Clinton. Then, when they’re in the majority, they spend like drunken sailors. Now, deficits are crippling us again.

Is this problem solely the result of one party’s actions? No, but almost nothing in this country ever is. Do I think the Republican attitude toward the debt has been inconsistent? Yes, and I don’t trust them to fix it.

74

That’s certainly true, at least as a political reality, as has already been discussed and agreed to by, AFICT, everyone in the thread.

Moreover, most in this thread also seem to accept the painful reality that those tax increase will have to be on everyone, not just the rich, and that there will have to be spending cuts as well.

Alas, I don’t think any of the fine, sane folks who understand all that will do well in an election against the kinds of brainless partisans who want it all one way.

75

The irony is that Clinton was the only recent President who pursued deficit-reduction seriously. He did such a great job of this that a GOP/Greenspan meme became that government debt was necessary because many contracts were tied to the yield on Treasury long bonds. :dubious: :smack:

Then the drunken sailors were put back in charge. Dick Cheney (puppet-master behind George of the Empty Cloak) stated his view of fiscal economics: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

Yes, past mistakes are not the subject of this thread. But, frankly, those who voted for such contemptible hypocrites need to have their noses rubbed in their shit until they’re smart enough to know that they’re too stupid to be entitled to ever vote again.

76

The Democrats make a little noise, then cave in and give the Republicans what they demand; then the Republicans demand even more. The Republicans respond with rage and hostility and slander to giving them what they want just as much as they do to opposition. As for venom, almost all the venom has been from the Republicans unfortunately; what the Democrats need is to turn around and fight back instead of constantly cowering like whipped dogs.

77

I don’t think it’s quite that one-sided. Bush the Elder had an attack of fiscal responsibility and raised taxes, although it cost him support within his own party. And the majority of Clinton’s term was was spent with Republicans in control of the House and Senate, although they were working under budgetary rules enacted in 1990 and extended in 1993 with no Republican support.

Voters aren’t dogs, and rubbing people’s noses in shit is not an effective way to change their minds. That said, over the course of my lifetime one party has had a much more consistent approach to responsible budgeting and a greater willingness to make difficult choices to bring it about.

78

No actually, athough I may have been a little hyperbolic in my claims. There is definately a large conservative contingent who believe in cutting spending just for the sake of cutting spending. how else do you explain Regan’s “starve the beast” plan or Norquist’s bathtub remark.

79

Isn’t that going to depend on the tax rate?

If tax rates were at 90%, i could imagine all kinds of tax evasion going on :wink:

80

Our government being fiscally conservative should always be on everyone’s mind, especially in an election year. It’s serious business. We all want the dollar to be worth something, especially when we retire. We do not want hyperinflation to eat nearly all of it away. I’m baffled how hyperinflation hasn’t already started. Our lenders are starting to become a bit hesitant on lending us money these days too, so we truly need to get it together.

We had some great years in the nineties under Clinton’s administration by having some record surpluses. Some economists say that while Clinton deserved some credit for keeping the tax rates at the level he wanted, and Congress also deserving of a part of it too, but from what I remember reading, the real reason for the surpluses during those years was because of the technological boom that our country was experiencing at the time, and was also being felt in Europe too at the same time. We could use another technological boom, and that’s what many economists are hoping for.

Two biggest drags on the American economy are probably healthcare costs and our military. With health care costs skyrocketing in America, our companies continue to complain it’s difficult to compete against other countries.

With our military, America still spends more than the next 10-20 countries combined (depending on which site you go with) with most of these being our allies! And the $700 billion or so figure that often gets cited on defense, doesn’t even include the costs of the wars, past veteran benefits, or the interest on the money we borrowed to finance all of it. Various groups figure the total military costs closer to 1.4 trillion dollars annually when you factor it all in.

And today’s vets are filing for disabilities at a record pace. Just last week, I read in the newspaper that one-third of today’s vets are already receiving compensation from some kind of disability, with much more to follow since 45% of them are seeking disability compensation today. That’s 720,000 of our 1.6 million vets in the Afghan/Iraq wars. On top of that, these vets are just not claiming an ailment or two, that figure had been 8-9 ailments on average with today’s vets, but now the newer claims have jumped up to 11-14. Of the 720,000 Afghan/Iraq vets, 400,000 are claiming PTSD for one of their disabilities. For comparison, the Vietnam vets, receiving compensation for fewer than four on average, while the Korean and WW II vets only had two.

In these patriotic times, it seems vets “ask and ye shall receive.” I don’t want to make light of many vets coming back with definite legitimate claims, the crap that many have had to go through, especially those with missing limbs, serious brain damage, and truly are in our debt and need to be taken care of; I’m certainly not questioning that. But I am questioning how much this is going to cost us, and also just how many of these 720,000 vets claiming this many disabilities, are truly in need of compensation, and at what cost is this truly going to be for American taxpayers when you add up the costs over their lifetimes.

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Front%20Page/2012-05-28-BCUSComing-HomeNew-Veterans1st-LdWritethru_ST_U.htm?csp=34