Fiscal Responsibility and the Two Parties

[ArnautDaniel]

Something occurred to me...

It seems that in the past 20 to 30 years we've had the following sets of powers between the parties with certain fiscal results -

Rep President and Dem-controlled Congress -> spending like a teen with daddy's credit card

Rep President and Rep-controlled Congress -> spending like a teen with daddy's credit card

Dem President and Dem-controlled Congress -> spending like a teen with daddy's credit card

Dem President and Rep-controlled Congress -> fiscal responsibility

So history points the way, the only way the US get's a fiscally responsible government is with a Democrat President and Republican-controlled Congress.

...

This all prompts me to devise a simple model of American national politics:

1. All presidents (regardless of party) will spend as much money as they can get away with
2. When Congress is run by the same party as the President, it will do what ever he wants and otherwise be a doormat for him
3. A Democrat-controlled Congress wants to spend as much money as it can get away with
4. A Republican-controlled Congress kind of wants to be fiscally responsible, but see 2.

So the only way to achieve responsibility is as indicated in the earlier observations.

 

[JoyJuice]

I have no issue with spending, even in some cases deficit spending, it just all depends on what it's being spent on.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I have no issue with spending, even in some cases deficit spending, it just all depends on what it's being spent on.

Indeed, I, as most Americans, have no problem spending money.

It is the acquiring the money to begin with that is problematic, so we all end up spending money we do not have.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Even the couple years of Bill Clinton with a Democrat-controlled Congress were deficit reducing years. Likewise, we're seeing Democrats in Congress right now, with Obama, pushing for legislation that not only pays for itself - but is deficit reducing to the tune of billions of dollars. The stimulus bill aside which created a one-time expenditure (the idea was to expand the deficit), I don't see the claim that Democratic President and Democratic Congress = Borrow and Spend. The real world experience shows that they have, or at least have tried to, exercise serious fiscal restraint.

 

[Vylo]

Even the couple years of Bill Clinton with a Democrat-controlled Congress were deficit reducing years. Likewise, we're seeing Democrats in Congress right now, with Obama, pushing for legislation that not only pays for itself - but is deficit reducing to the tune of billions of dollars. The stimulus bill aside which created a one-time expenditure (the idea was to expand the deficit), I don't see the claim that Democratic President and Democratic Congress = Borrow and Spend. The real world experience shows that they have, or at least have tried to, exercise serious fiscal restraint.

We will see. I'm not so optomistic.

 

[Kid Fish]

Comparing what we have now to any other time in history is disingenuous and silly. It's not just this administration, rather the trend has been steadily moving toward more and more spending. Bush doubled spending, Obama is doubling it again, and we are indebted to Red China.

The Federal government has stepped so far over the line in their enumerated powers that it is no longer funny, and it is not partisan. this is what happens when citizens allow a centralized federal authority the power to collect and dispense the money of the citizens. Those of you who are fine with it, do so because you believe in centralized power, in lieu of state autonomy. Pretty scary.

Take the power further and further from the people, and you have a system of corruption, with no one accountable, and no way to hold many to account without term limits.

Take Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who together pretty much assured that Fanny and Freddy would never be held accountable, and who claimed up to two years ago, that those institutions were not only solvent, but healthy and thriving. How do those of us not in living in Massachusetts have any say over Barney being in power? Vote him out? The idiots in his district are in charge of that, and they have shown themselves to be sorely lacking in critical thought.

 

[SOAD]

Obama is doubling it again, and we are indebted to Red China.

Do you shop at Walmart?

 

[JoyJuice]

Comparing what we have now to any other time in history is disingenuous and silly. It's not just this administration, rather the trend has been steadily moving toward more and more spending. Bush doubled spending, Obama is doubling it again, and we are indebted to Red China.

The Federal government has stepped so far over the line in their enumerated powers that it is no longer funny, and it is not partisan. this is what happens when citizens allow a centralized federal authority the power to collect and dispense the money of the citizens. Those of you who are fine with it, do so because you believe in centralized power, in lieu of state autonomy. Pretty scary.

Take the power further and further from the people, and you have a system of corruption, with no one accountable, and no way to hold many to account without term limits.

Take Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who together pretty much assured that Fanny and Freddy would never be held accountable, and who claimed up to two years ago, that those institutions were not only solvent, but healthy and thriving. How do those of us not in living in Massachusetts have any say over Barney being in power? Vote him out? The idiots in his district are in charge of that, and they have shown themselves to be sorely lacking in critical thought.

That is kind of true that all admins are borrowing money, heck, it even started with Reagan.

What makes me scratch my head is this delusion of one party that they are all about fiscal conservatism. They are not. I am fine with taxes collected for the sake of society as the collection of taxes is the entry fee to a civilized society. The bigger issue to me is not a centralized organization collect taxes and dispense services, it's once again who through these groups pay their way for access to benefit from the dispensing of those funds to which our decision makers are beholden for the sake of their future. We need to revamp the way we do business, which also means we need to revamp what kind of business we are going to do. If we continue down this path of not making anything here anymore for the sake of the portfolio, then we will continue down the path of having to borrow to sustain a country we don't have enough good earning jobs keeping Americans working to afford it.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

In the end America never can get out of debt with social security and other New Deal/Great Society programs existing. The only way we can ever become a more secure country is if we can start paying off our debt and we could if we really tried do over 1 trillion dollar surplus a year.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

That is kind of true that all admins are borrowing money, heck, it even started with Reagan.

No, I'm fairly sure that borrowing money goes back further than that.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

In the end America never can get out of debt with social security and other New Deal/Great Society programs existing. The only way we can ever become a more secure country is if we can start paying off our debt and we could if we really tried do over 1 trillion dollar surplus a year.

The problem with your assertion is that the entire free world has stronger "New Deal/Great Society" programs than we do, yet they don't face the debt problems we do. You really need to start asking yourself why the politicians you keep voting for blow the debt through the roof, whereas politicians like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama pay for their agenda.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The problem with your assertion is that the entire free world has stronger "New Deal/Great Society" programs than we do, yet they don't face the debt problems we do. You really need to start asking yourself why the politicians you keep voting for blow the debt through the roof, whereas politicians like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama pay for their agenda.

How are the European programs going to work when there aren't any people to work to pay the taxes?

 

[Saving Hawaii]

How are the European programs going to work when there aren't any people to work to pay the taxes?

All of those European countries seem to have figured it out. They've had far less job loss from the current economic crisis, and haven't struggled nearly so much to pay for their social programs. Maybe we could learn a lesson or two and stop listening to the folks who got us into our current problem, you know, the "deregulation will work wonders" crowd.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

All of those European countries seem to have figured it out. They've had far less job loss from the current economic crisis, and haven't struggled nearly so much to pay for their social programs. Maybe we could learn a lesson or two and stop listening to the folks who got us into our current problem, you know, the "deregulation will work wonders" crowd.

You happen to know it all comes from mainly the US banking system causing the whole problem. The US banking system effects these countries, but not as much as it effects acutal Americans.

Oh yeah show me the deregulation that caused the banking crisis. Hint: if you say anyting about Grahm-Leach-Bliley your wrong, don't waste your time. k thx don't reply.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Folks, the shortage isn't in money, it's in energy. Oil, to be precise: the feedstock of industrial civilization.

We all know the American economy grew, excepting the Great Depression, for the first three-fourths of the 20th century...then real growth seemed to plateau. After 2002 or so...stagnation and now decline. Consider this chart to find out why:

The chart shows energy production per capita. It's been declining for quite some time. This is why we're in the mess we're in today.

If we have continuous growth in energy resources, we'll have economic growth, because we can produce more and more of everything. If we have stagnation or decline in energy resources, our economy will shrink, because we won't be able to produce as much. Measure it in dollars, gold, yen, euros, shekels, brass farthings--whatever. It's all ultimately backed by energy. And we've got a wheel in the ditch.

And as you can see from the chart, it's going to get a lot worse...

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

All of those European countries seem to have figured it out. They've had far less job loss from the current economic crisis, and haven't struggled nearly so much to pay for their social programs. Maybe we could learn a lesson or two and stop listening to the folks who got us into our current problem, you know, the "deregulation will work wonders" crowd.

I'm not talking about economics. I was referring to demographics.