# Why Republicans don't trust Democrats and their budgeting **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2011, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585 "2011-04-16T04:56:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/41 "2011-04-17T17:14:01Z")
I am still amazed that since Reagan and all the Repubs that followed, that people are still dumb enough to believe the Repubs represent fiscal responsibility. How much evidence is required to make them see the truth. Bush and Cheney said, “deficits don’t matter, Reagan proved it”. What the hell does it take? ---
**Author:** ![Ace309](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ace309/32/1050_2.png) [@Ace309](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace309)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/42 "2011-04-17T17:41:00Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > It just seems like such a small # of voters, don’t ever remember such a small % voting. With due respect, how often do you follow congressional votes? Do you have an adequate sample such that you not remembering a small number of voters means it is in fact unusual? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/43 "2011-04-17T18:33:06Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Hence the point of my OP. Let’s say the Reps and the Dems get together this year in a bipartisan fasion and create a bill that increases taxes $15 billion every year and reduces spending by $15 billion every year so that at the end of 10 years there is no deficit. Does either side trust the other to live up to their promises over 10 years? > > BTW: [the last time we tried something similar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Rudman%E2%80%93Hollings_Balanced_Budget_Act). Why exactly are we treating increasing taxes and decreasing spending as equally valid courses to cutting the debt? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/44 "2011-04-17T19:10:06Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > :rolleyes: Because only 71 Senators voted? Oh. I’d thought you’d be on about how there’s not a supermajority. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/45 "2011-04-17T20:22:00Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I am still amazed that since Reagan and all the Repubs that followed, that people are still dumb enough to believe the Repubs represent fiscal responsibility. How much evidence is required to make them see the truth. Bush and Cheney said, “deficits don’t matter, Reagan proved it”. What the hell does it take? To be fair, it was just Cheney that said that. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/46 "2011-04-17T20:25:01Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > To be fair, it was just Cheney that said that. He did not live in a vacuum. He was a huge part of the policy direction of the Repubs. By the way, he said it to Bush. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/47 "2011-04-19T05:34:01Z")
The DEms balanced the budget not so long ago. The Repubs completely fucked it up. You can dance around all you want, but the unavoidable fact is huge tax cuts while started 2 unfunded wars put us in a huge hole. That was followed by a banking meltdown fed by deregulation and stupid fiscal policies. We have not been able to fix that mess yet, because the fiscally ignorant, bought off Repubs got control of the House. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/48 "2011-04-19T13:02:09Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This is not the way to balance the budget. > > The first thing to look at is the fact that tax revenues are down because of the lackluster economic growth. Even under Bush with his tax cuts, his pre-recession tax revenue was around 18-19% of GDP in the out years of his last term before the recession hit. Right now, tax revenues are closer to 14% of GDP. > > So let`s assume that as the economy recovers, tax revenues will of their own accord grow back to the 18-19% level. That alone will cut the deficit nearly in half, but it will take a few years for those tax revenues to show up. > All the data about the budget can be found here: [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/hist.html](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/hist.html) This is the most sensible thing that’s been said so far in this thread. As someone of a more liberal bent, I’d urge that the U.S. government take advantage of low interest rates and cheap labor to spend money on infrastructure upgrades\* that we’ll need to make sooner or later anyway, and goose the economy more quickly back up to the level where we’d have that 18-19% tax revenue level. As a conservative, **Sam** , you’d probably disagree, and say we should just wait until the economy finds its way back to normal by itself. But that’s the range where the debate should be taking place, in terms of fixing 50% of our medium-term deficit problem. Either way, it increases revenue enough, once we’re back to normal, to take care of 50% of the problem _without hiking anyone’s tax rates_. This should be good news from all political perspectives: if you’re a conservative, you say we can do the other 50% by spending cuts without having to increase tax rates at all because we’ve already got 50% from revenue expansion; if you’re a liberal, you might say the other 50% can come from letting the Bush tax cuts lapse, since you’ve still got that in reserve. If you’re somewhere in the middle, you might say 25% from each - but that’s a hell of a lot better than 50% from each. What’s not to like? \*And I’m not even thinking of sexy but controversial stuff like SUPERTRAINS here, but ancient water and sewer systems, deteriorating highway bridges, substantial gaps in our freight rail network, stuff like that. We’ll have to spend this money eventually. Why not spend it now, when we can get the most bang for the buck in terms of labor costs, borrowing costs, and the effect on the economy? If we wait until the economy’s booming again, money and labor will both cost more because we’ll be running into the crowding-out effect, and for that same reason, it won’t help the economy much either: at that point, we’d be substituting public spending for private spending, rather than using money and labor that’s currently on the sidelines. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/49 "2011-04-19T13:10:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I would say the concept of 1:1 tax increases to spending cuts is pretty reasonable. The White House’s deficit commission recommended 3 times more spending cuts to tax increases, which I do not think is prudent. That 3-1 ratio is more salesmanship than reality. First of all, they expect 1/4 of the savings to come in the form of reduced interest payments on the national debt, as a result of implementing the tax increases and spending cuts that take care of the other 3/4. So it’s really more like 2:1:1 of spending cuts to tax hikes to interest savings, just for starters. And my understanding is that the Administration included the reduction or elimination of a bunch of tax expenditures as “spending cuts.” While there’s what I see as a strong argument for categorizing tax deductions and credits as “spending,” it certainly isn’t standard nomenclature as things stand. So IIRC, Obama’s plan is actually fairly close to evenly balanced between things we’d regard as spending cuts and things we’d regard as tax hikes. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/50 "2011-04-19T13:14:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > … A tax system where Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary is not fair. > [@](#): > > The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation’s household income in 2007, according to their tax returns, three times the slice they got in the 1990s, according to the Internal Revenue Service. They paid 2.05% of all individual income taxes in that year. > > … only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket. The 400 best-off taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 16.6% … > > …To make the top 400, a taxpayer had to have income of more than $138.8 million. As a group, the top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income, and paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes. > > About 81.3% of the income of the top 400 households came in the form of capital gains, dividends or interest … 6.5% came in the form of salaries and wages. …[RIGHT][CITE](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/02/17/a-look-at-the-tax-returns-of-the-top-400-taxpayers/)[/RIGHT] > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > … Does either side trust the other to live up to their promises over 10 years? … If conditions change during that 10 years shouldn’t we be free to take that into account? (If China started a (nuke-free) WWIII, I’d think we might just want to make some radical changes in tax rates and spending priorities, maybe that’s just me.) CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/51 "2011-04-19T19:20:50Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Hence the point of my OP. Let’s say the Reps and the Dems get together this year in a bipartisan fasion and create a bill that increases taxes $15 billion every year and reduces spending by $15 billion every year so that at the end of 10 years there is no deficit. Does either side trust the other to live up to their promises over 10 years? > > BTW: [the last time we tried something similar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Rudman%E2%80%93Hollings_Balanced_Budget_Act). By that rationale you can’t hope for any enduring concensus about what is good for the country. What the Republicans need to do is explain to us why medicare needs to be cut and why some of the savings from those cuts need to go back into the economy in the form of tax cuts at the highest brackets. What Democrats need to do is explain to us why taxes need to be increased and more progressive while explaining to us how we are going to pay for medicare over the long term without cuts. Ryan is correct, we need medicare reform and the Democrats are right we need to increase revenue so that the medicare reform doesn’t leave old people deciding between cat food and heart medicine. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/52 "2011-04-20T04:48:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This is not the way to balance the budget. > > The first thing to look at is the fact that tax revenues are down because of the lackluster economic growth. Even under Bush with his tax cuts, his pre-recession tax revenue was around 18-19% of GDP in the out years of his last term before the recession hit. Right now, tax revenues are closer to 14% of GDP. > **[Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP | Department of Numbers](https://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/)** > > Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP This graph tells me that 18-19% is the high point of revenue during the real estate bubble. > [@](#): > > So let`s assume that as the economy recovers, tax revenues will of their own accord grow back to the 18-19% level. That alone will cut the deficit nearly in half, but it will take a few years for those tax revenues to show up. So we are assuming that we will have a perpetual bubble? > [@](#): > > Under George Bush`s last year, government was 20.7% of GDP. You realize that his last year was October 2008 to September 2009, right? > [@](#): > > For 2011, it`s forecast to be 25.3% of GDP, and it`s never forecast to come below 22.6% of GDP again. Not that I doubt you but where does it say that? > [@](#): > > So even if you had tax revenue that matched the historical average, you`ve still got a gap of about 4% of GDP between revenue and spending. It would be very hard to make this up with tax increases, as it would require a tax bite larger than the U.S. has ever seen. The only way you could do it is with a VAT, but I don`t see the political will for a VAT any time in the near future. So like it or not, what you really have to do is find a way to get government back to about 20% of GDP. The easiest, least painful way to do that is to just hold government spending below the rate of inflation for a decade or so. > > The problem with doing that is that the U.S. may not have that kind of time. It`s not clear to me that it`s going to be able to find buyers for all that debt - The last round of `quantitative easing`ends in June, and the government had better hope that there are enough private buyers for all those T-bills that it was buying up that it can still float the debt. Debt crises can happen very rapidly, and the U.S. is in uncharted territory. The problem with your suggestion is that the part over which we have the most control of the budget (the non-military discretionary part) is not the part that is driving the long term deficit. Over the short term, we can shore up our deficit with tax increases and over the long term we need to deal with medicare/medicaid. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/53 "2011-04-23T08:30:51Z")
:: pulls out hair :: I hate it when Republicans equate “ending tax cuts” with “tax rate increase”. Not the same thing. Think about it. When you pay your taxes every paycheck, you’re just giving the government an interest-free loan (most of the time). Yah, sometimes we end up we do our paperwork correctly and still end up with extra deductibles, but come _on_. Republicans LOVE to tout personal responsibility, yet somehow _no one_ is going to pony up? How is that logical? End the cuts. It’s not _doing_ anything. And if I hear ONE MORE person say, “Well my tax dollars go to…” and that person is making less than bank every year, I swear. I’m going to punch them. pshaw, bizzle. your tax dollars get recycled back into your pocket. I understand the importance of framing in politics, but nothing gets me more than hearing _tax relief_. As if the government is reaching into your pocket. :rolleyes: If you really want to help fix the budget, then stop letting money go down the drain in poorly operated ‘social’ programs. (Social Security, public schooling, Medicaid?) If you can’t finance it, it won’t work right. That puts stress on everything. It’s like renting an apt. your whole life - affordable for now, but not saving you anything in the long wrong. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/54 "2011-04-23T15:52:40Z")
How about “effective tax rate increase”? If you step back and say, will a given policy result in my having more money in my pocket at the end of the year, then it should be clear if it is a “cut” or an “increase.” Now the \*exact \*same concept holds true for changing Medicare for those under 55. That would \*effectively \*raise living expenses on the whole, which roughly equates to “raising Medicare taxes” on those under 55. the Republicans have a talent for taking what should be a serious discussion and getting it sidelined on some semantic bullshit like “eliminating the tax break is a tax increase you librul snot” and then stepping back and watching the fireworks that detract from the real discussion. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/55 "2011-04-23T16:19:47Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > :: pulls out hair :: > > I hate it when Republicans equate “ending tax cuts” with “tax rate increase”. Not the same thing. > > Think about it. When you pay your taxes every paycheck, you’re just giving the government an interest-free loan (most of the time). Yah, sometimes we end up we do our paperwork correctly and still end up with extra deductibles, but come _on_. > > Republicans LOVE to tout personal responsibility, yet somehow _no one_ is going to pony up? How is that logical? > > End the cuts. It’s not _doing_ anything. > > And if I hear ONE MORE person say, “Well my tax dollars go to…” and that person is making less than bank every year, I swear. I’m going to punch them. > > pshaw, bizzle. your tax dollars get recycled back into your pocket. > > I understand the importance of framing in politics, but nothing gets me more than hearing _tax relief_. As if the government is reaching into your pocket. :rolleyes: > > If you really want to help fix the budget, then stop letting money go down the drain in poorly operated ‘social’ programs. (Social Security, public schooling, Medicaid?) If you can’t finance it, it won’t work right. That puts stress on everything. It’s like renting an apt. your whole life - affordable for now, but not saving you anything in the long wrong. ``` Social Security ,poorly run? Do you do anything but swallow conservative talking points? ``` > **[IMPACT Press: Article: "Four Lies About Social Security" -- Feb.-Mar. '02](http://www.impactpress.com/articles/febmar02/socsecurity2302.html)** > > IMPACT Press -- a bimonthly socio / political magazine featuring aggressive journalism, biting commentary, humor and indie music reviews - articles on government conspiracy, the war on drugs, human rights, animal rights, racism, equality,... Social Security is run on 1.5 percent of the budget. Healthcare companies filter 35 percent out but disguise it is book keeping. Social Security not only has kept a bottom under the most vulnerable but helps the economy out with permitting low income people to still participate in the economy. They buy food and goods. That is demand. Demand is what makes the economy go. Pick up your eyes, super glue your hair back and open your mind to the facts. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/56 "2011-04-23T17:47:27Z")
You want to see something run financially corruptly? Try the Republican National Committee. Try TARP and TALF.Try the military which seems to have misplaced 11 billion dollars in Iraq. Try the military contractors whose shoddy work electrocuted soldiers, while overcharging the hell out of American tax payers. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/57 "2011-04-23T20:06:16Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Social Security ,poorly run? Do you do anything but swallow conservative talking points? > [IMPACT Press: Article: "Four Lies About Social Security" -- Feb.-Mar. '02](http://www.impactpress.com/articles/febmar02/socsecurity2302.html) > Social Security is run on 1.5 percent of the budget. Healthcare companies filter 35 percent out but disguise it is book keeping. > Social Security not only has kept a bottom under the most vulnerable but helps the economy out with permitting low income people to still participate in the economy. They buy food and goods. That is demand. Demand is what makes the economy go. > Pick up your eyes, super glue your hair back and open your mind to the facts. you’re kidding, right? You think Social Security will be there or mean anything for you by the time I’m 55? I’m putting in money for something that I won’t see. You? How is that a Republican talking point? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/58 "2011-04-23T21:03:50Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > you’re kidding, right? You think Social Security will be there or mean anything for you by the time I’m 55? I’m putting in money for something that I won’t see. > > You? > > How is that a Republican talking point? :rolleyes: SS going away IS a Republican talking point. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/59 "2011-04-23T22:48:49Z")
Let’s try and play the hypothetical. [Nathan Newman’s National Budget Simulation](http://www.nathannewman.org/nbs/) Clicking on that link brings you to a page wherein you can tinker with the budget, both on the spending and revenue side. Each of you go take a shot at realistically cutting $750MM from the budget. I thought I was draconian on some things and cut a lot of items by at least 10% and I only got to about $325MM. It’ll be interesting to see how you do. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585/60 "2011-04-23T23:17:03Z")
My first crack at it cut a trillion dollars. Eliminate the Dept of Education and the Dept of Energy. Dramatically scale back the Dept of Commerce. Get rid of ag subsidies and tax breaks for housing. Cut a whole bunch of tax credits for corporations and individuals. Get rid of local community assistance programs, which should be done by local communities and states. Cut the military budget by 20%, and Iraq and Iran appropriations by 20%. Wind back about half of the 2001-2003 tax cuts. I cut so much that I got a warning that I was creating a 600 billion dollar surplus, and that this was a very bad thing. Of course, no one could possibly want to actually reduce the debt, right? I think the bias of the author is showing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-republicans-dont-trust-democrats-and-their-budgeting/578585.md?page=4)