What have Republicons ever done for America's middle class?

323 posts / 0 new
Last post

Comments

Capital
Capital's picture
Pierpont wrote: Demonstrating

Pierpont wrote:

Demonstrating more ignorance of how our system works? It's like claiming Liberal Dems were for NAFTA just because Clinton put together a coalition of GOPers and conservatives Dems to pass it. This is what Reagan did to past ERTA. And BTW, Reagan NEVER submitted a balanced budget.

 

That would depend on whether you think breaking Dems down to subcategories like “liberal Dems” really helps you argument that 140 democrats voted in favor of the Democrat bill. 

 

Can you point to the part of the Constitution that says The president has to submit a Balanced budget, or where the president has the Power of Purse.   President can ask for whatever he wants.  It’s not his job to control Federal spending.  That task rest solely upon the House of Representatives.

 

Quote:
History set up quite the experiment between the 70's and 80's. When Dems were in control... the CUMULATIVE DEBT never reached more than about 960 billion... nothing to be proud of, but at least it wasn't grotesque fiscal irresponsibility. Reagan almost tripled that debt in his 8 years leaving the nation with about 2.7 trillion in debt

 Would you like to see the a graph of the Federal debt by Control of the House of Representatives?    Would you like to hazard a guess on what happens when the GOP gains control of the House?    You do not need to guess,   you remember the Clinton years. 

 

Quote:
In the mind of a political partisan, their side gets all the credit, and the other side gets all the blame. So, of course... for you Reagan is blameless for his Voodoo Economics and it's all the Dem's fault.  

Let me get this straight,  and have it in writing for future generations.   

You apply ZERO blame to the 1 body of the federal government whose sole constitutional purpose is fiscal well being of the country.  Where all matters of Power of Purse must originate.  That without their consent,  not a Single penny can be spent by the federal government on toilet paper.   

I wonder,  who do you blame when you overspend on anything. 

 

If there was an intellegent right winger here,  You'd be really screwed. 

Capital
Capital's picture
Pierpont wrote: Again, your

Pierpont wrote:

Again, your ignorance of our political system is not my fault. While you believe PARTIES have core beliefs, I maintain FACTIONS of parties show that consistency. The far Right of the GOP might retain ideological consistency. That doesn't mean they always control the GOP which at times had been moderate. Likewise, the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party might retain ideological consistency even if the Party strays to the right as it did under Clinton and even Obama. 

Would you care to clarify whether you are actually arguing with or against me.    Because it looks like you are with me now. 

 

Quote:
So I'd argue that it was the LIBERAL wing of the Dems that gave us most of those reforms Thom named… and it was the far Right of the GOP that opposed them... as they do to this day.  

Oooo  the Cake and eat it too argument.    Actually they didn’t “give you those reforms”  Thom clarifies it as “Fought For” .   I’m certain it his way of achieving everything while ignoring what really happened. 

 

DRC
DRC's picture
It really would be

It really would be interesting, maybe even exciting, to have an intelligent right winger here, but we have to deal with what shows up instead.  If we could find one, we could apply for endangered species status for it.

Sophistry is not what I call intelligent, and it is what Capital brings here everytime.  When GOPimp Presidents waste money on wars, it is politically impossible to fail to vote to support the troops in the field, so Congress cannot hold the line.  Democratic Presidents are also under political pressure not to propose budgets that include deficits because Congress will not follow and raise the revenue we need.

When your political climate is poisoned by a combination of FAUX pr and Corporate Lamestream, you do not get fiscal responsibility.  You get less revenue than needed and corporate entitlements in place of social responsibility.  But C wants to act as if it is all Congress and nothing to do with the money and media. 

Calling any intelligent conservatives!  There is an opening here for a conversation with somebody worth your time.  We wait in hope.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital wrote: Pierpont

 

Capital wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

Again, your ignorance of our political system is not my fault. While you believe PARTIES have core beliefs, I maintain FACTIONS of parties show that consistency. The far Right of the GOP might retain ideological consistency. That doesn't mean they always control the GOP which at times had been moderate. Likewise, the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party might retain ideological consistency even if the Party strays to the right as it did under Clinton and even Obama.

Would you care to clarify whether you are actually arguing with or against me. Because it looks like you are with me now.

Again your delusions or ignorance are no reflection on what I write. That you can construe it as agreeing with you is just MORE proof your views are disconnected from reality. All that being said, I'm not a fan of our political or electoral systems and the dysfunctional two party system that arises from them. I prefer a multi-party system that not only offers a citizen the right to vote their conscience and get representation for their beliefs... but more ideological clarity than historically our two party system can offer.

 

But again we stray. So to sum up your argument, you can think of NOTHING the far Right has ever done for the working or middle classes except offer debt-funded tax cuts that we could not afford… but then it wasn't because they cared about the working or middle class. It was just necessary to include them as a fig leaf to provide massive tax cuts for the rich… and as a smokescreen to further sabotage the fiscal health of the government… hoping to undermine Democratic programs the far Right has always opposed.

 

How goddamn noble.

Capital
Capital's picture
DRC wrote: It really would be

DRC wrote:

It really would be interesting, maybe even exciting, to have an intelligent right winger here, but we have to deal with what shows up instead.  If we could find one, we could apply for endangered species status for it.

ROTFLMAO....   you guys crack me up,  Going back through the old threads, appears there was a time you guys had a habit of removing them. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital wrote:You apply

 

Capital wrote:
You apply ZERO blame to the 1 body of the federal government whose sole constitutional purpose is fiscal well being of the country. Where all matters of Power of Purse must originate. That without their consent, not a Single penny can be spent by the federal government on toilet paper.

 

The Constitution can say one thing... and when convenient partisans like yourself can use it to spin any argument they want… like to credit Newt for the Clinton Surplus… a subject off topic here… but I've gone through all the CBOs revenue/spending cut/deficit projections and the Right's argument is full of holes and the numbers from GOP spending cuts don't even come to balancing the Clinton Budget. At BEST it sped it up by a fiscal year. Of course lost in this story is how Newt also tried to sabotage the Surplus in 98 proposing a massive tax cut which Clinton vetoed.

 

 

 

Anyway, first of all the House isn't of single mind. We KNOW that bills can be crafted to the liking of a disciplined minority party and they can draw enough defections from an undisciplined other party to pass a bill. This reality makes a mockery of your notion that the party that controls Congress gets all the credit/blame for fiscal matters. And the House exists in a system of check and balances in which it MUST make compromises. If the Senate or President are insisting on more spending, chances are a compromise will be reached. And it's rare for the party in control to refuse a budget from a President of the same party. Your ignorance about the history and dynamics of our system remains breathtaking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Pierpont wrote: But again we

Pierpont wrote:

But again we stray. So to sum up your argument, you can think of NOTHING the far Right has ever done for the working or middle classes

 

As I stated before,  I do not even know who the "Far Right" is,  Nor would a sub group have the power to pass anything.   I have already covered what the right has done,  but the left doesn’t want to be associated with the American Blight of slavery or civil rights.….  Although ironically claim victory on Civil rights. 

 

If it makes to feel better to sub group it, micro dissect into tiny ideological group.   Knock yourself out,  It has nothing to do with This thread nor Thom’s List. 

 

Quote:
  except offer debt-funded tax cuts that we could not afford

I don’t recall the issue being whether or not anything done for the Middle Class being Good or Bad in the long run,  But clearly tax cuts helped the Middle class which is the premise of the thread,   Try to keep up. 

 

Quote:
and as a smokescreen to further sabotage the fiscal health of the government

Do you know who is to blame for the fiscal health of the Government,  Those whose job it is to the federal Budget.   Read into that anything you want. 

 

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Pierpont wrote:   The

Pierpont wrote:

 

The Constitution can say one thing... and when convenient partisans like yourself can use it to spin any argument they want… like to credit Newt for the Clinton Surplus…

Newt was the Speaker of the House.  as you undoubtedly know by now, House is responsible for Budget. 

 

I hope this doesn't hurt....  Too much

http://images.quickblogcast.com/3/9/1/7/6/177752-167193/USBudgetBalanceasofGDP1.JPG

 

Quote:
 Anyway, first of all the House isn't of single mind. We KNOW that bills can be crafted to the liking of a disciplined minority party and they can draw enough defections from an undisciplined other party to pass a bill. This reality makes a mockery of your notion that the party that controls Congress gets all the credit/blame for fiscal matters. 

Does politics absolve them of thier constitutional duty? 

 

If the President comes along and ask the house for $100 Billion more that they have and the House Gives the money to the President thereby going $100 Billion in the hole.  Who's fault it that,  the president for Asking or Congress for Giving?   Congress is under no obligation to spend 1 dime more than THEY WANT. 

 

You speak of reality, yet refuse the basic tenets of it. 

 

Quote:
And it's rare for the party in control to refuse a budget from a President of the same party. 

Yet as history has shown,  a GOP house exerts more fiscal restraint than the DEM House.

DRC
DRC's picture
We do not confuse sophistry

We do not confuse sophistry with intelligence or a discussion with debating tricks.

Capital
Capital's picture
DRC wrote: We do not confuse

DRC wrote:

We do not confuse sophistry with intelligence or a discussion with debating tricks.

I'm sure that is what it was... 

DRC
DRC's picture
Sorry, but I do find that to

Sorry, but I do find that to be the substance of your posts.  Most Progressives here are not trying to defend the record of the Democratic Party or unable to appreciate the politics of the Two Santa Republicans.  We say that Supply Side and the con rhetoric about dereg and lower taxes is GOPimp for corporate and not how to have a successful economy or society.  You tend to want to make a case against political realities by raising how the Constitution ought to have been observed when it clearly has not.  To say that Democrats have controlled Congress when the Corporate Majority has been the story is sophistry when we are talking about Progressive alternatives.

chilidog
Capital wrote: Who

Capital wrote:

Who constitutionally authorized the spending over lagging revenues during the Reagan years?   DEMOCRATS!!!   Let's blame that guys who couldn't spend a Nickel from the treasury without permission.   That is always intellectually honest. 

Bob Dole was a Democrat?

DRC
DRC's picture
There was always a Corporate

There was always a Corporate Majority no matter which "party" held the gavel.  Progressives have not had a chance at public policy for a long time.  Even so, Democratic Presidents have been better at the Republican philosophy on its face.  The Republican game plan is another thing than what it is said to be.  This is why the only fiscal conservatives have been the Progressives while the better managers of the Corporate Majority are Democrats.  The Republicans have driven Empire and a war on democracy.

Capital
Capital's picture
chilidog wrote: Bob Dole was

chilidog wrote:

Bob Dole was a Democrat?

No,  But niether was he in the House of Representives.  Senate Majority/Minority (depending on the years)

Capital
Capital's picture
DRC wrote: Sorry, but I do

DRC wrote:

Sorry, but I do find that to be the substance of your posts. 

That makes two of us,  Here is a though,  Stop talking to me. 

DRC
DRC's picture
Stop trying to bs here.

Stop trying to bs here.

Capital
Capital's picture
DRC wrote:Stop trying to bs

DRC wrote:
Stop trying to bs here.

Strange I would say the same thing to you.  At least I post links and verify much of what I say.   Dare I say my arguments are least based on facts and less on Political Dogma.   If you do not like what I say,  thet is your deal.  Facts do not change because you don't like them

Ther offer for you to stop talking to me is always open to you. 

 

DRC
DRC's picture
You tend to divert and

You tend to divert and deflect with cherrypicked stats.  You post stuff that when I read it turns out to be ideological sources rather than to the point.  This is not a libertarian free market, and we could use some conservatives who were willing to stay on topic about Progressive criticisms and alternatives instead of making historically distorted detours.  There have been some very find conservatives here at various times who brought ideas and engaged in conversation.  You are not up to their standards.  Try harder.  You don't have to like my answers.  It is your problem, not mine.  I will let others judge.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Capital wrote: Pierpont

Capital wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

 

The Constitution can say one thing... and when convenient partisans like yourself can use it to spin any argument they want… like to credit Newt for the Clinton Surplus…

Newt was the Speaker of the House.  as you undoubtedly know by now, House is responsible for Budget. 

 

I hope this doesn't hurt....  Too much

http://images.quickblogcast.com/3/9/1/7/6/177752-167193/USBudgetBalanceasofGDP1.JPG

 

Quote:
 Anyway, first of all the House isn't of single mind. We KNOW that bills can be crafted to the liking of a disciplined minority party and they can draw enough defections from an undisciplined other party to pass a bill. This reality makes a mockery of your notion that the party that controls Congress gets all the credit/blame for fiscal matters. 

Does politics absolve them of thier constitutional duty? 

 

If the President comes along and ask the house for $100 Billion more that they have and the House Gives the money to the President thereby going $100 Billion in the hole.  Who's fault it that,  the president for Asking or Congress for Giving?   Congress is under no obligation to spend 1 dime more than THEY WANT. 

 

You speak of reality, yet refuse the basic tenets of it. 

 

Quote:
And it's rare for the party in control to refuse a budget from a President of the same party. 

Yet as history has shown,  a GOP house exerts more fiscal restraint than the DEM House.

First what lead to the balanced budget was Pres. Clinton accepting the PayGo rules that Reagan and Papa Doc Bush rejected.

That was done in 93.

Then in 2001 that rule was scrapped, at that point what happened to deficits, who was president, and which party controlled congress?

DRC
DRC's picture
OMG, facts!

OMG, facts!

Capital
Capital's picture
Phaedrus76 wrote: First what

Phaedrus76 wrote:

First what lead to the balanced budget was Pres. Clinton accepting the PayGo rules that Reagan and Papa Doc Bush rejected.

That was done in 93. Then in 2001 that rule was scrapped, at that point what happened to deficits, who was president, and which party controlled congress?

Before DRC hurts himself,   Clinton Did NOT have a choice in the matter.   How did Papa Bush reject them when he was the one that signed them. 

Actually it was Done in 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Bill.   <hat tip> Leon Panetta (D), Passed by a Democrat Majority Congress of both Houses. 

Actually expired at the end of 2002.  On the Heels of the 2003 Bush Tax cuts from a Republican  Congress.    Democrats tried to reinstate Paygo in 2007, lasted less than a year. 

Drc can see things that look like facts,  but apparently doesn't know if they are actually correct...  Sad state indeed. 

 

Now that we have established the Facts of Paygo and the Time frame.…  Your point being? 

 FYI - A balanced budget was NEVER realized.  between 1990-2002

DRC
DRC's picture
As I said, you keep ignoring

As I said, you keep ignoring who has been behind the fiscal irresponsibility in your sophistry about whether Clinton or Panettta did a DLC dance with the GOPimps.  Progressives are not saying that Democons were not part of the Corporate Majority along with all the GOPimp Republicons.  The thread is about what Republicons have ever done for the Middle Class, and you give tax cuts and getting government out of the boardrooms.  We say that pennies for the Middle Class is small change compared to the big bucks that went to the top.  Not good for the Middle Class.

Then, we could also agree that Clinton was complicit in WTO 'free trade' and 'welfare deform.'  It does not make it a Democratic brand, and it does not answer the question of what positive contribution the Wall St. Culture War coalition has done for the Middle Class.  Pure sophistry on your part.

Capital
Capital's picture
DRC wrote: As I said, you

DRC wrote:

As I said, you keep ignoring who has been behind the fiscal irresponsibility in your sophistry about whether Clinton or Panettta did a DLC dance with the GOPimps.  Progressives are not saying that Democons were not part of the Corporate Majority along with all the GOPimp Republicons.  The thread is about what Republicons have ever done for the Middle Class, and you give tax cuts and getting government out of the boardrooms.  We say that pennies for the Middle Class is small change compared to the big bucks that went to the top.  Not good for the Middle Class.

Then, we could also agree that Clinton was complicit in WTO 'free trade' and 'welfare deform.'  It does not make it a Democratic brand, and it does not answer the question of what positive contribution the Wall St. Culture War coalition has done for the Middle Class.  Pure sophistry on your part.

 

Did you get a word of the day calendar?   Here I laid out the facts of Paygo, even hat tipped the Panetta, because his name was on it.  And this is what I get in return.  Sophistry indeed. 

Let see Blah blah blah blah….   Although middle class got the same percentage back on their taxes and the Rich,  Whiny whiny ….  Rich got back more money…   Jez it like a broken record with you people.   I understand your frustration with having no actual definition of what is considered “fair” But at least the Con’s do, whether you like it or not .   Come up with your own definition and Pass a Bill.   That is the American Way.  Regardless of your “feelings”  the tax cuts benefitted the Middle Class.  …. 

 

So now you are moving the Goal post to “of what positive contribution the Wall St. Culture War coalition has done for the Middle Class”    

 

For the sake of argument,  I say Everything from the food you eat, products you but, services you get…..    That should about cover it. 

 

DRC
DRC's picture
No, it only gives your cover

No, it only gives your cover to it.  I do not owe anything I want to the Supply SIde Class Warriors, and no, pennies for us and tons of cash for them is not good for us.  Progressive taxes and high marginal rates gave us, once upon a time, a Middle Class.  Your policies have raped it. 

You have not dealt with my Graeber informed position on "fair" or why people who claim to be for freedom for all can justify the enslavement of the poor by the master class.  "Fair" begins with a social morality where a worker is entitled to being paid as a human being instead of an economic factor.  Period.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital wrote: Pierpont

Capital wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

But again we stray. So to sum up your argument, you can think of NOTHING the far Right has ever done for the working or middle classes

As I stated before, I do not even know who the "Far Right" is, Nor would a sub group have the power to pass anything.

Fortunately, reality isn't dependent on your inability or refusal to deal with it. Just because YOU don't believe the ideological extremes of either party can't take control of their party doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Clearly the Looney Tune Right of the GOP took control of the party in 2010. Let me guess, you consider the Tea Baggers the center of the GOP? Of course such takeovers don’t happen in a vacuum. It takes an extensive ideological infrastructure, which the far Right has, and a credible narrative to convince… or con, a good part of the population to go along.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital wrote:FYI - A

Capital wrote:
FYI - A balanced budget was NEVER realized.  between 1990-2002

Perhaps you'll amuse us by providing a credible source for this claim IN ANOTHER THREAD.  

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital wrote:Pierpont

Capital wrote:
Pierpont wrote:
The Constitution can say one thing... and when convenient partisans like yourself can use it to spin any argument they want… like to credit Newt for the Clinton Surplus…
Newt was the Speaker of the House. as you undoubtedly know by now, House is responsible for Budget. I hope this doesn't hurt.... Too much http://images.quickblogcast.com/3/9/1/7/6/177752-167193/USBudgetBalanceasofGDP1.JPG

Ah yes, the simplistic graph argument. And this graph proves your simplistic crediting of the party who controls the House with all things fiscal is nonsense. Newt benefited from the revenues and spending cuts made by Democrats in 1993… a bill the GOP voted AGAINST yet loves to take credit for its effects!!! By 1998 CBO revenue forecasts made in 1993 were already 174 BILLION too low. Problem here for the Orwellian Right that needs to deny that tax hikes can raise revenues and needs to attribute the Clinton Surplus to spending cuts… that's all Newt really did. He did virtually NOTHING to increase revenues. Yet without those revenues (and the 1993 Democratic spending cuts) there'd be no Clinton Surplus. Not that it mattered. Newt tried to sabotage the surplus with a massive tax cut in 1998 and 1999. It revealed the fiscal schizophrenia in the GOP. Where Newt failed, Bush2 succeeded. Which SHOULD make any curious person wonder why the GOP was afraid of a budget surplus… which is necessary to pay down debt.

But we stray from the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss the Clinton Surplus, then perhaps you should start your own thread. But I suspect once the Orwellian Right's rewrite of history is fully exposed, you'll scamper for the hills like you did in the Second Amendment thread. That would be tragic. You might instead be pissed why the Orwellian Right has been lying about this the past 15 years. But I know that will never happen. You LOVE those Orwellian Right delusions.

 

 

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Capital wrote: Phaedrus76

Capital wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

First what lead to the balanced budget was Pres. Clinton accepting the PayGo rules that Reagan and Papa Doc Bush rejected.

That was done in 93. Then in 2001 that rule was scrapped, at that point what happened to deficits, who was president, and which party controlled congress?

Before DRC hurts himself,   Clinton Did NOT have a choice in the matter.   How did Papa Bush reject them when he was the one that signed them. 

Actually it was Done in 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Bill.   <hat tip> Leon Panetta (D), Passed by a Democrat Majority Congress of both Houses. 

Actually expired at the end of 2002.  On the Heels of the 2003 Bush Tax cuts from a Republican  Congress.    Democrats tried to reinstate Paygo in 2007, lasted less than a year. 

Drc can see things that look like facts,  but apparently doesn't know if they are actually correct...  Sad state indeed. 

 

Now that we have established the Facts of Paygo and the Time frame.…  Your point being? 

 FYI - A balanced budget was NEVER realized.  between 1990-2002

Oh, I am sorry. I forgot that it was Rep. Leon Panetta a Democrat, who forced them into the omnibus budget, with the backing of the Democratic Party members in the House and Senate, into a spending bill that Bush needed.

So, which party was responsible on budgetary matters? 

Which party was in power in 2002, that allowed the rule expire? 

And how did that party pay for the 2001 tax cuts? They didn't from WIKI:

Sunset Provision

One of the most notable characteristics of EGTRRA is that its provisions were designed to sunset, or revert to the provisions that were in effect before it was passed, on January 1, 2011. These provisions were extended for two years under the 2010 Tax Act. The sunset provision allowed EGTRRA to sidestep the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule that amends the Congressional Budget Act to allow Senators to block a piece of legislation if it purports a significant increase in the federal deficit beyond a ten years. The sunset allowed the bill to stay within the letter of the PAYGO law while removing nearly $700 billion from amounts that would have triggered PAYGO sequestration.[3]

and my favorite gem:

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub.L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001), was a sweeping piece of tax legislation in the United States by President George W. Bush. It is commonly known by its abbreviation EGTRRA, often pronounced "egg-tra" or "egg-terra", and sometimes also known simply as the 2001 act (especially where the context of a discussion is clearly about taxes), but is more commonly referred to as one of the two "Bush tax cuts".

The Act made significant changes in several areas of the US Internal Revenue Code, including income tax rates, estate and gift tax exclusions, and qualified and retirement plan rules. In general, the act lowered tax rates and simplified retirement and qualified plan rules such as for Individual retirement accounts401(k) plans,403(b), and pension plans. The changes were so large and numerous that many books and analysis papers were published regarding the changes and how to best take advantage of them. All the 2001 tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010 when Congress extended them.[1]

Many of the tax reductions in EGTRRA were designed to be phased in over a period of up to 9 years. Many of these slow phase-ins were accelerated by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which removed the waiting periods for many of EGTRRA's changes.

The Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010.[2]


America, don't listen to the galactically stupid. Cuts to revenues result in lower revenues.

chilidog
Capital wrote: Who

Capital wrote:

Who constitutionally authorized the spending over lagging revenues during the Reagan years?   DEMOCRATS!!!   Let's blame that guys who couldn't spend a Nickel from the treasury without permission.   That is always intellectually honest. 

So, Bob Dole was NOT a Democrat, and he was NOT in the House of Representatives, and depending on the years, we was either Senate Majority Leader or Senate Minority Leader.  Which I suppose could also be said about Howard Baker.

Are you suggesting that the authorization of spending over lagging revenues only occurred in 1987-1988?

EDIT

Scatch that. The statement is true that Democrats constitutionally authorized the spending over lagging revenues during the Reagan years, because more than one Democrat voted for all of those budgets.

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Pierpont wrote: Capital

Pierpont wrote:

Capital wrote:
FYI - A balanced budget was NEVER realized.  between 1990-2002

Perhaps you'll amuse us by providing a credible source for this claim IN ANOTHER THREAD.  

Go to the US treasury

Capital
Capital's picture
Phaedrus76 wrote: Oh, I am

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Oh, I am sorry. I forgot that it was Rep. Leon Panetta a Democrat, who forced them into the omnibus budget, with the backing of the Democratic Party members in the House and Senate, into a spending bill that Bush needed.

I sense sarcaism,  Doesn't translate well.

Quote:
 So, which party was responsible on budgetary matters?  

When?  during PAYGO, Democrat. 

Quote:
Which party was in power in 2002, that allowed the rule expire? 

Republican.

Not exactly sure where you are going with this.   PAYGO didn't stop debt spending.   I'm sure if you have a point you'll make it, eventually

Capital
Capital's picture
Pierpont wrote:Ah yes, the

Pierpont wrote:
Ah yes, the simplistic graph argument. And this graph proves your simplistic crediting of the party who controls the House with all things fiscal is nonsense.

Complicated only confuses you.   But nice to see you disagree with the words of constitution again.   Consistently wrong... 

Quote:
Newt benefited from the revenues and spending cuts made by Democrats in 1993… a bill the GOP voted AGAINST yet loves to take credit for its effects!!!

What happened the next congressional session when republicans gained control?  Government Shutdown,  Why did it shut down?   Clinton Budget was attempting to overspend and the HOUSE said No.   Which lead to the next four years budgets and the closest we’ve ever come surplus since the 50’s.  

I pretty sure no bill was passed in 1993 that lead to the DOT.com bubble.

Quote:
Problem here for the Orwellian Right that needs to deny that tax hikes can raise revenues and needs to attribute the Clinton Surplus to spending cuts… that's all Newt really did. He did virtually NOTHING to increase revenues.

What Newt did was to stop Democrats from spending it like drunken sailor in a whore house. Or Bill Clinton in the oval office.  Same thing. 

Hence, as the graph point out,   When the GOP controls the House,  It’s better for the US Government fiscal outlook.   Seems they have a spine, unlike their counterparts. 

Quote:
Which SHOULD make any curious person wonder why the GOP was afraid of a budget surplus… which is necessary to pay down debt.  

Why don’t you ask the Dot.com recession and the 9/11 recession.  

Quote:
If you want to discuss the Clinton Surplus

You can’t discuss something that never existed.   Go to US treasury “ Debt to the Penny”  you find that surplus you let me know. 

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital wrote:Go to the US

Capital wrote:
Go to the US treasury

TRANSLATION: Cap has no credible source he can cite. 

Grow up Cap, We're not here to do YOUR homework. If YOU make a claim then it's up to YOU to back it up.... and please do so in a new thread on the topic.

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Pierpont wrote: Capital

Pierpont wrote:

Capital wrote:
Go to the US treasury

TRANSLATION: Cap has no credible source he can cite. 

Grow up Cap, We're not here to do YOUR homework. If YOU make a claim then it's up to YOU to back it up.... and please do so in a new thread on the topic.

Since when is the US Treasury not a credible source on matters of the Financial balance sheets of the Federal Government? 

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital wrote: Pierpont

Capital wrote:

Pierpont wrote:
Ah yes, the simplistic graph argument. And this graph proves your simplistic crediting of the party who controls the House with all things fiscal is nonsense.

Complicated only confuses you. But nice to see you disagree with the words of constitution again. Consistently wrong...

It's YOU who can't deal with a nuanced reality. You'll believe ANY spin that gives credit to the GOP and denies it to a Dem. You're AGAIN evading the simple realities of our system works.

 

A budget is the interplay between spending and revenue. The House under Newt did virtually NOTHING to increase revenue but we do know the CBO's projections about Clinton revenues were off by 174 BILLION in just 4 years… and that's for 1997. That from a CBO Paper: PROJECTING FEDERAL TAX REVENUES AND THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN TAX LAW December 1998

 

The GOP only cut spending and even cuts some revenues in 96 and 97. Sure, ANY spending cuts helped balanced the budget. But the main credit goes to the 1993 tax hike/spending cut which DEMS passed… plus a good economy. Newt benefited from that Democratic bill the GOP opposed but you and the Orwellian Right have a pathological obsession to instead credit Newt's small spending cuts for the Surplus. Here's comes your Orwellian spin now:

Quote:
What happened the next congressional session when republicans gained control? Government Shutdown, Why did it shut down? Clinton Budget was attempting to overspend and the HOUSE said No. Which lead to the next four years budgets and the closest we’ve ever come surplus since the 50’s.

Blah blah... so if this case is so easy to make... WHERE ARE THE HARD NUMBERS THAT PROVE YOUR CLAIM???? Show us all how Newt's spending cuts were more of a factor in getting to a surplus that the Dem's tax hikes and spending cuts! Ah, but then this takes some time to look for those numbers and we all know you're too lazy to actually pour through old CBO analysis of those GOP spending cuts just as you were when I challenged you to find some credible scholars that shared your nutty claim the Framers intended the Bill Of Rights to apply to slaves.

 

 

polycarp2
Well,the Fed was concerned

Well,the Fed was concerned that too much debt might be repaid which would shrink the money supply. All money in the U.S. is created through debt. The Treasury doesn't just print the stuff and send everyone a check.

As debt is repaid, the money supply shrinks. It disappers into bank vaults or financial paper. No debt....no money. Our entire monetary system relies on continual debt creation. When you get a loan, the bank uses fractional reserve banking to simply credit your account with the money. They can loan ten times their deposits with this procedure. Government prints it for them. The entire money supply is created with debt.

It's a stupid monetary system, but that's how it functions .If you'd like to pull trillions out of the economy to pay down government debt, you can do that. Maybe we can switch to barter currencies like Argentina did when their money supply disappeared.

If debt concerns you so much, the Treasury can simply issue a few trillion dollar coins and hand them over to the Fed...cancelling debt held by the Fed. That wouldn't shrink the money supply and it wouldn't expand it. The coins would simply disappear into the Fed vaults. Debt cancelled.

Government has the Constitutional authority to do that. The Founding Fathers weren't twits.They didn't bind government to the  same rules that households and businesses are bound by. We should probably stop pretending  they did. Simply issuing coins in exchange for Fed debt was suggested by world class economist Michael Hudson, among others. It would, however, give banksters fits. For a bankster, money creation without debt is a no no. Solutions are off the table.

The problem with our monetary system is that eventually debt becomes so high, it can't be repaid. Yet without it, there is no money."Tis a fatal flaw.

Instead of debating debt, you should be debating a monetary system that relies upon it..Without expanding debt, the system collapses. With debt, it eventually collapses as well...when the continually expanding debt can no longer be repaid. Europe is facing that at the moment. Our turn is coming..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital wrote:Since when is

Capital wrote:
Since when is the US Treasury not a credible source on matters of the Financial balance sheets of the Federal Government? http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

I could have predicted you'd use that source. It also ends in 1999 when the true budget surplus was only about 1.9 billion. This is a tired objection from the Right. Which makes it all the more amusing since they want to credit the GOP with the Clinton Surplus yet if the Dems do, the Right claims there was no Surplus. All you have to is look at the Budget Historical Tables Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS to see the true ON-BUDGET surplus arriving in 1999. But between 1999 and 2000 it only totalled to about 92 billion. This is a surplus in the ON-BUDGET side of the ledger… where no off-budget monies are being used for on-budget spending. But by 2001 it was gone and the GOP under Bush did everything it could to make sure it never came back. In constant dollars, Bush revenues only exceeded Clinton's last year in 2 of Bush's 8 years. Yup, proof there's no revenue problem.

 

Your obvious problem here is you're using a crude annual yardstick and it doesn't distinguish between on and off budget accounts or how one can grow as the other is shrinking. This may not be the best example, but check the monthly numbers such as this report ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds092000.prn

 

Looking at total marketable bonds/bills etc, the debt in 1999 was $3.232998 Billion and by 9-2000 it was paid down to $2.992752 billion. In non-marketable debt in 9-1999 was $5.647241 billion and in 9-2000 it was paid down to $5.622092 Billion. The total debt goes up slightly because of a growth in non-interest bearing debt but there's clear evidence of debt paydown  

 

Also, while interest on the debt is included in an annual budget, the annual budget and the debt numbers don't always correlate. Debt can be long standing and just because someone doesn't cash in their TBills and the debt stays on the books doesn't mean there's no budget surplus. There's a relationship between debt and an annual budget but NOT a perfect correlation.  

I know you prefer to get off the topic of this thread since it makes the GOP look bad. If you want to continue any discussion on the Clinton years... PLEASE START YOUR OWN THREAD AND STOP DISRUPTING THIS ONE.  

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Pierpont wrote: It's YOU who

Pierpont wrote:

It's YOU who can't deal with a nuanced reality. You'll believe ANY spin that gives credit to the GOP and denies it to a Dem. You're AGAIN evading the simple realities of our system works.  

Is “nuanced” code word for “you’ll have to use your imagination from this point on”

Quote:
The GOP only cut spending and even cuts some revenues in 96 and 97. Sure, ANY spending cuts helped balanced the budget. But the main credit goes to the 1993 tax hike/spending cut which DEMS passed… plus a good economy. Newt benefited from that Democratic bill the GOP opposed but you and the Orwellian Right have a pathological obsession to instead credit Newt's small spending cuts for the Surplus. Here's comes your Orwellian spin now:  

Seems your CBO disagrees with your political spin. 

The amount of the unexpected revenues continued to grow rapidly, reaching $174 billion by 1998. Much of that forecast error can be attributed to economic growth that was stronger than expected”

 

Can someone say Dot.Com Bubble.   Even with this Boon,  They still put $113 Billion on the Federal Debt.

 

But as I said,  Newt is credited with hold spending in check as is the House’s constitutional duty.   Thereby reducing federal deficit every year of the Clinton presidency to a near surplus.  Which as the numbers show,  Democrats historically do not. 

 

You can rage against the numbers until your blue in the Face.  History will not be changing to suit your needs. 

 

Quote:
Blah blah... so if this case is so easy to make... WHERE ARE THE HARD NUMBERS THAT PROVE YOUR CLAIM???? Show us all how Newt's spending cuts were more of a factor in getting to a surplus that the Dem's tax hikes and spending cuts! Ah, but then this takes some time to look for those numbers and we all know you're too lazy to actually pour through old CBO analysis of those GOP spending cuts just as you were when I challenged you to find some credible scholars that shared your nutty claim the Framers intended the Bill Of Rights to apply to slaves.  

Can you do Math?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Compare 5 year expenditure growth,  the period between 1995-1999 has the lowest expenditure growth ratio (1.12) compare to anything back though the 70’s.   

Consider the claim proven. 

polycarp2
You do realize that a

You do realize that a government surplus without massive growing debt in the private sector to offset it will collapse the monetary system don't you? Ditto government debt without an economy viable enough to pay it. Your'e debating something insolvable under current monetary structures.

All debt reaches a ceiling in which further debt can't be repaid.Our monetary system requires continually expanding debt.  or it collapses. It's a "Catch 22" being played out globally. A few centuries of continual domestic and global debt expansion has caught up with us.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

 

Capital
Capital's picture
Pierpont wrote:  Which makes

Pierpont wrote:

 Which makes it all the more amusing since they want to credit the GOP with the Clinton Surplus yet if the Dems do, the Right claims there was no Surplus 

You ever catch me claiming there was a Surplus,   Then I automatically lose any argument from that point.

Quote:
All you have to is look at the Budget Historical Tables Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS  

So what you are saying is you need to be bedazzled by governmental accounting tricks and ignore that the Federal debt grew $17.91 Billion in the 1999/2000 fiscal year.  So where they “claim” surplus because “Public Debt” went down, While Intra-governmental Debt went up higher than the “claimed surplus”  thereby growing the Federal Debt.   The surplus is an political accounting gimmick to fool the easily fooled. 

 

You may stop discussing this issue,  for you can not win it. 

DRC
DRC's picture
I believe Poly over-trumped

I believe Poly over-trumped you.  Your team went WTO and got Clinton to accept it.  Progressives are the ones who want a real economy.  This is exactly why I find you a sophist rather than a serious conservative.

Capital
Capital's picture
polycarp2 wrote: You do

polycarp2 wrote:

You do realize that a government surplus without massive growing debt in the private sector to offset it will collapse the monetary system don't you? Ditto government debt without an economy viable enough to pay it. Your'e debating something insolvable under current monetary structures.

All debt reaches a ceiling in which further debt can't be repaid.Our monetary system requires continually expanding debt.  or it collapses. It's a "Catch 22" being played out globally. A few centuries of continual domestic and global debt expansion has caught up with us.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

SOB,  I am marking this day on my calender as the day Poly and I agree on something

polycarp2
Has it ever occurred to

Has it ever occurred to anyone that what they are debating isn't even the problem? It does, however, make for great political theater. I expect we'll see a lot of budget talk in the upcoming campaigns.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital wrote:You ever catch

Capital wrote:
You ever catch me claiming there was a Surplus, Then I automatically lose any argument from that point.

It's one thing to support the Bush tax cuts based on forecasted surpluses that might not materialize. That was irresponsible enough. It's quite another to support the Bush tax cuts when YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THERE WAS A SURPLUS!

But then, it's not like I'm talking to someone with either intelligence or principles. You're just another Free Lunch Right Winger who wants to steal from future taxpayers  so you can party today.

 

How goddamn noble.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital wrote:Seems your

 

Capital wrote:
Seems your CBO disagrees with your political spin.

“The amount of the unexpected revenues continued to grow rapidly, reaching $174 billion by 1998. Much of that forecast error can be attributed to economic growth that was stronger than expected”

Nice try... except that the new Clinton tax rates ARE A GIVEN IN THE CBO PROJECTIONS. Gee Einstein, why do you think the CBO even did the projections!!  

IT WAS ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF THE CLINTON TAX BILL!!!!! 

As Laffer contended with his Laffer curve, if the tax rate is too LOW... something the Right ignores when bringing up tax rates... it will FAIL to capture optimum revenue. Cleary this is what happened with Bush in 06-07 where there was a good economy... spurred in large part by government deficit spending, yet in inflation corrected constant dollars revenues were only then finally exceeding Clinton's last year… SIX YEARS OF DEPRESSED REVENUES!!!  

The reason economic growth during the 90's brought in revenue WAS BECAUSE THE TAX RATE WAS RAISED TO CAPTURE MORE REVENUE. But as I've said revenue is only ONE part of a budget. There were also spending cuts made by both the Dems in 93 and the GOP… which if didn't take effect until FY96… beginning 10-1-95. But if you look at spending levels, they still went UP. Total outlays in trillions were:

 

FY94 = 1.461753

FY95 = 1.515742

FY96 = 1.560484 Newt's first budget

FY97 = 1.601116

FY98 = 1.652458

 

So where are the GOP's massive spending cuts that can account for a unified balanced budget by FY98? Sorry Einstein… Newt was a minor figure in getting to the Clinton Surplus… and all your Orwellian spin can't change that no matter how many papers Cato and Heritage spew out.  

 

Source: THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, HISTORICAL TABLES table 1.1

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital wrote:So what you are

Capital wrote:
So what you are saying is you need to be bedazzled by governmental accounting tricks and ignore that the Federal debt grew $17.91 Billion in the 1999/2000 fiscal year.  So where they “claim” surplus because “Public Debt” went down, While Intra-governmental Debt went up higher than the “claimed surplus”  thereby growing the Federal Debt.   The surplus is an political accounting gimmick to fool the easily fooled. 

Again, your ignorance is NO reflection on reality. The annual budget is stongly related to, BUT NOT EXACTLY CORRELATED TO, THE DEBT.

And I don't use the unified numbers as a true indication of a surplus since they include borrowing from off-budget sources. THAT'S an accounting trick used by both parties.

Capital
Capital's picture
polycarp2 wrote: Has it ever

polycarp2 wrote:

Has it ever occurred to anyone that what they are debating isn't even the problem? It does, however, make for great political theater. I expect we'll see a lot of budget talk in the upcoming campaigns.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

While we seem to be having a Hope and a prayer conservation on the other thread, 

Do I sense you do not believe a government can not run efficiently enough to begin paying back the debt? 

 

You want to know the main reason coservatives are against raising taxes.   Becasue they NEVER go to where they should.   It's wasted money. 

DRC
DRC's picture
Then people who call

Then people who call themselves conservatives should stop Pimping for the Corporations and the Wars and join the fiscal conservative Progressives in cutting the waste while we invest in what has been neglected and will pay off for the country.  I can hardly wait.

I do not think that your recipe of dereg and tax cuts will do this.

chilidog
THE INCREASE IN DEBT WAS THE

THE INCREASE IN DEBT WAS THE FREAKING SMALLEST AMOUNT IN, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW....FOREVER!

WHY THE ARGUMENT OVER WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS TECHNICALLY A "SURPLUS???!!!"

Now then, having gotten that off my chest, I do recall the conservatives that year squealing that "the government took too much of my money! give it back!" They thought it was a surplus.  And they credited the Congress.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital wrote:Can you do

Capital wrote:
Can you do Math?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Compare 5 year expenditure growth,  the period between 1995-1999 has the lowest expenditure growth ratio (1.12) compare to anything back though the 70’s.   

Consider the claim proven. 

Just because you're claiming numbers means nothing. That 1.12 number doesn't even appear on that page. Are we to guess how it was derived? Current dollars? Constant dollars? Just on-budget spending or unified? Or are you pulling numbers out of your butt?

And Newt's first budget is FY96, not 95... which was still written by the Democratic Congess. If there are cuts there, they piggyback on the cuts made in 1993 by the Dems. And why a five year sample period? It's completely arbitrary. Last, as the outlay's prove, there were NO real cuts... so feel free to invent some Newt signal from the noise.