Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Captain]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Perhaps so, yes.

Your epistle about the vagaries of coalitions is true as far as it goes, though we appear to differ about which factors of the Republican coalition are in ascendancy and which are in decline.

Your post suggests that the religious right is a force that needs to be tended and occasionally placated, but doesn't run the joint. I believe that today's edition of the GOP is a fine example of money power marinated in social conservatism. Attribute it to shifting coalitions if you must, but regardless it is a political cocktail that I find particularly unappetizing.

Gattigap

I'd say the coalition members with roughly similar standing include the religious right, the instinctive hawks (including a lot of people who care deeply about guns), and the business-oriented conservatives. I would say that the business oriented conservatives are a group that is always in the minority because there are just not a lot of them, but they can sometimes buy their way to dominance. I think the religious right is one of the constituencies running the show, just not the only constituency doing so.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Attribute it to shifting coalitions if you must, but regardless it is a political cocktail that I find particularly unappetizing.

And when a grown-up takes over as President and has to confront the Reagan/Bush/Bush debt, it'll be a bitch of a hangover.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I actually agree with this. Note that the last serious third party challenge was based on the need for fiscal discipline (and a guy with big ears).

I think the best way for a third party to form in a two party system is to grow up within one of the two main parties and then break off. This is essentially how the National Republicans (which morphed into the Whigs and then whose stragglers were picked up, mostly after a period with the Know-Nothings, by the modern Republican Party) was born.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Watch to the end.

(work-safe)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm OK with an R president if the house and senate are D.

I think I'd rather have legislators who believe in passing few laws paired with an executive who believes in using government power vigorously, rather than the opposite.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Once again -- tax and spend beats borrow and spend, every single time.

It does not beat cut and cut.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
what is the Repub congress doing now?

Spending less than if the Dems were in power.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. You people have been crowing about how the Bush tax cuts ended the recession and stimulated the economy. Yet the deficits continue to loom over us.

Yes and they were looming in 1994. But it was the growth that pulled us out. Every year the budget kept getting readjusted because of the added revenue because of growth. This year the deficit was adjusted by 28% because of projected growth. If we continue growing we will pull right out of these deficits. You keep the economy growing and this years deficits will seem like chump change in ten years. Just like the deficits of the early 1990 seem like chump change now. They key is growth, growth, growth.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Either that's a crock of shit -- and you admit that, after five years, Bush's monetary policies have been an abject failure -- or the recession has been long over, and is not the cause of the ever-growing national debt. Which is it?

There hasn't been as many cuts as I would like but the economy is growing.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch The deficits are the result of spending more than we take in. Very simple.

Yes but the biggest factor determining how much we bring in is how much the economy is growing. Not tax cuts, tax raises, or spending increases but economic growth. Economic growth has had more to do with the deficits in the past twelve years than anything else.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch Bush and the Repub congress made the problem worse on both ends of the equation -- spending increases plus massive tax cuts

Do you know of a better way to get out of a recession.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch Clinton may not have been a fiscal conservative, but he certainly exercised fiscal prudence. We haven't seen any in five years now.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget. End of story. .

Sorry. Congresses spending restraints balanced the budget. Remember - Clinton fought the Repub spending cuts every step of the way. You guys keep forgetting that. All Clinton did after the Repubs took over was prolong the time until we reached balanced budgets.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch And if you still blame Dems for increases in spending, after five years of total Repub domination, you are delusional. The earth is flat.

The Dems had congress for forty years and never balanced a budget. The Repubs had congress for like five years and balanced teh budget. Now the Repubs have taken us into a deficit, but during a recession. So when we are growing who has the best track recording of balancing budgets. The Republicans.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So you are a social liberal who believes in things like balancing the budget, NAFTA, and sending troops to Kosovo to stop the genocide?

Yeah, it's easy to understand why you hate the Dems.

Only a minority of Dems in Congress and the Senate supported NAFTA. A majority of Repubs in both houses was the reason NAFTA passed. I supported Kosovo and Iraq. Many Dems did not support Kosovo. The only congress in the past fifty years to have balanced a budget is a Republican congress. Congress is in charge of the budget (in case you have not read the constitution lately).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
It does not beat cut and spend.

"cut and spend" is exactly what Bush and the Repub congress have been doing. Cut taxes, spend more money. Borrow to make up the difference.

Spending less than if the Dems were in power.

Name the Dem congress or administration that has caused deficits this big.

Yes and they were looming in 1994. But it was the growth that pulled us out. Every year the budget kept getting readjusted because of the added revenue because of growth. This year the deficit was adjusted by 28% because of projected growth. If we continue growing we will pull right out of these deficits. You keep the economy growing and this years deficits will seem like chump change in ten years. Just like the deficits of the early 1990 seem like chump change now. They key is growth, growth, growth.

Oh, okay. So all we need is ten years of uninterrupted growth and we can start dealing with the Bush debt. Great news!

There hasn't been as many cuts as I would like but the economy is growing.

I'm sorry -- I thought we were in a deficit-causing recession. Which is it?

Or do we need to be 10 years into an expansion before we see fiscal sanity?

Yes but the biggest factor determining how much we bring in is how much the economy is growing. Not tax cuts, tax raises, or spending increases but economic growth. Economic growth has had more to do with the deficits in the past twelve years than anything else.

Under Reagan, there was economic growth, but massive deficits.

Under Clinton, there was economic growth, and a surplus.

Under Bush II, there is (supposedly) economic growth, and massive deficits.

Yeah, I'm sure tax cuts to the wealthy have nothing to do with deficits.

Do you know of a better way to get out of a recession.

There are tax cuts that spur growth, and tax cuts that are simply benefitting the wealthy without any growth impact. As an example of the latter, the estate tax cuts.

Sorry. Congresses spending restraints balanced the budget. Remember - Clinton fought the Repub spending cuts every step of the way. You guys keep forgetting that. All Clinton did after the Repubs took over was prolong the time until we reached balanced budgets.

Right. Because increasing gov't revenue thru tax raises had absolutely nothing to do with cutting the deficits. And you are ignoring the '93 deficit reduction.

Since 1980, we have learned:

Repub President, Dem Congress = massive deficit.
Dem President, Repub Congress = surplus.
Repub President, Repub Congress = massive deficit.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
The only congress in the past fifty years to have balanced a budget is a Republican congress. Congress is in charge of the budget (in case you have not read the constitution lately).

I'm afraid this is not true. The House came under the control of the Democrats in 1954; that year, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was 0.3%, down from 1.7% in the last year of the Republican Congress. The Democratic house then proceeded to balance the budget on a regular basis into the Nixon Administration (the 1969 budget was in surplus). The data is on the white house site at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist01z3.xls .

It is pretty clear that the Great Society legislation had less to do with the initial budget deficits than the Vietnam War, and the inflation caused first and foremost by the oil embargo during the Ford and Carter administrations also had a huge impact on creating a period of structural deficits in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
"cut and spend" is exactly what Bush and the Repub congress have been doing. Cut taxes, spend more money. Borrow to make up the difference.

Pulled us out of the recession.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Name the Dem congress or administration that has caused deficits this big.

The economy is always getting bigger. It is not the size of the deficit but the deficits size compared to the size of the economy.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oh, okay. So all we need is ten years of uninterrupted growth and we can start dealing with the Bush debt. Great news!

Yes it is. But it may be a lot less than ten years.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm sorry -- I thought we were in a deficit-causing recession. Which is it?

We were but now we are in growth and that is why the deficits are getting smaller.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch Or do we need to be 10 years into an expansion before we see fiscal sanity?

Depends on the strenght of the growth.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Under Reagan, there was economic growth, but massive deficits.

Under Clinton, there was economic growth, and a surplus.

Under Bush II, there is (supposedly) economic growth, and massive deficits.

Yeah, I'm sure tax cuts to the wealthy have nothing to do with deficits.

You keep focusing on the President like you have never looked at a constitution. Congress passes the budget.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch There are tax cuts that spur growth, and tax cuts that are simply benefitting the wealthy without any growth impact. As an example of the latter, the estate tax cuts.

Your focus on the estate tax demonstrates your incencerity. The Estate tax is an insignificant part of tax revenue. It is like one percent of the revenue we pull in.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Right. Because increasing gov't revenue thru tax raises had absolutely nothing to do with cutting the deficits. And you are ignoring the '93 deficit reduction.

That was just one year. It took many years of controlled growth and a growing economy. All a factor of fiscal discipline instituted by the Repub congress.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch Since 1980, we have learned:

Repub President, Dem Congress = massive deficit.
Dem President, Repub Congress = surplus.
Repub President, Repub Congress = massive deficit.

For the past fifty years we have learned.

Dem Congress = deficits in growing economy and recession.

Repub Congress = declining deficits in a growing economy and increasing deficits in a slowing economy.

What we need is a Repub congress and a growing economy. That is the only formula that works. We have both and the deficits are getting smaller just like they did in the late 1990s.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Captain
I'm afraid this is not true. The House came under the control of the Democrats in 1954; that year, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was 0.3%, down from 1.7% in the last year of the Republican Congress. The Democratic house then proceeded to balance the budget on a regular basis into the Nixon Administration (the 1969 budget was in surplus). The data is on the white house site at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist01z3.xls .

It is pretty clear that the Great Society legislation had less to do with the initial budget deficits than the Vietnam War, and the inflation caused first and foremost by the oil embargo during the Ford and Carter administrations also had a huge impact on creating a period of structural deficits in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

That oil embargo was Bill Clinton's fault. Something to do with his work for the Soviets while he was studying ("studying") in England.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That oil embargo was Bill Clinton's fault. Something to do with his work for the Soviets while he was studying ("studying") in England.

I thought we didn't have to separate Clinton/Carter ? I mean besides distinguishing where all they lusted.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
I'm afraid this is not true. The House came under the control of the Democrats in 1954; that year, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was 0.3%, down from 1.7% in the last year of the Republican Congress. The Democratic house then proceeded to balance the budget on a regular basis into the Nixon Administration (the 1969 budget was in surplus). The data is on the white house site at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist01z3.xls .

It is pretty clear that the Great Society legislation had less to do with the initial budget deficits than the Vietnam War, and the inflation caused first and foremost by the oil embargo during the Ford and Carter administrations also had a huge impact on creating a period of structural deficits in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

We had slight surpluses in 1960 and 1969. Every other year was deficits. We did not get sustained surpluses until the Repubicans took over. There were plenty of times of growth when the Dems controlled congress and we did not pull out of our deficists.

And if you are going to blame Vietnam, funny that we are in war on terror right now.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
And when a grown-up takes over as President and has to confront the Reagan/Bush/Bush debt, it'll be a bitch of a hangover.

I blame it on gerrymandering. Unless someone retires from their seat - what is the average percentage of incumbant re-election? Something like 95%

Congressmen from both sides of the aisle can spend like drunken sailors because there is never any reprisal on election day.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Watch to the end.

(work-safe)

Has long has this NBC "Live at Five" talk show talking-schmoe Jack Cafferty been on CNN?

Somehow I missed this.