DescentBB

Sirian I pretty much agree. I debate aggressively but at the end of the day I never hold malice.

I rarely would invoke such an argument on you, but having majored in economics and on my last class right now in economic history, this is one political subject I feel I can make it. The war, social policy, and public opinion is much less open and shut to me.

I am willing to listen to your arguments. If you do decide to bring it to the table, use some numbers. I debate economics a lot on the DBB but the only person that's ever done any research to combat me was Lothar, but it wasn't very in depth. I have however had to repeat a lot of the same arguments I have written several pages in archived posts. I guess I'm just used to the same old crowd that has remembered what I have posted.

Definitely looking forward for a response, just show me the numbers. I do feel as if it is incumbunt on you to respond first, because in it is a widely held view in the economic world that the last 3 republican presidents have massively increased the deficit. The deficits are in fact numbers that are recorded for all to see, so I need to at least see some sort of substantive counter proof to what to me is clear as day.

http://www.littlepiggy.net/deficit/index.php
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=148.html

I do understand the cyclical nature of economics and the degree the president has power over the economy. There is a lot of history to understand about why we started to meddle with economic stimulus, and the original documents that we still use to outline our policy today.

Call me strange, but I call for a "pre-emptive strike" on deficits. In 2000 with the projected surplus (which never came, and we cut taxes), I would have paid down the national debt. When else are you going to be able to it? It doesn't sound like much to you, but some effort would have done a lot to settle the foreign eyes on our deficit (who are our lenders). It would have been a really good move at the time, but bush missed it. Can't say Dems would have pushed for it in the white house, but I am more digressing right now in general overall disgust with the way things are shaping up in the budget office.

I will try to keep this as simple and clear as possible, for clarity's sake.


Neither Reagan nor GHW Bush enjoyed a GOP majority in the House of Representatives at any time. The Dems controlled the purse strings. The only direct power the President had was the veto stamp.

Looking at the raw budget numbers and deficit numbers only carries you so far. I was THERE and I paid attention. Reagan waged a losing war against balooning entitlement spending. He waged a losing war against pork barrel. In order to get his priorities passed, he had to make difficult compromises. Reagan wanted to spend more on defense. House Democrats wanted to spend more on big government. They compromised and did both. GHW Bush was more of the same.

You can quote the raw numbers all that you like, but you're missing the point. The Congress, and not the President, sets the budget. He can veto it and send it back, but only up to a point. When the government shuts down for lack of compromising to get the people's business done, everyone suffers.

Reagan was for higher defense spending. The value of that seems clear to me. Perhaps not to you. Democrats were for higher spending on everything BUT defense. Why did Bill Clinton pronounce that "the era of big government is over"? Because that is what voters insisted upon when a majority came to disbelieve in the McGovern/Carter/Mondale vision of big government.

Fiscal responsibility is tied directly to the GOP taking control of the Congress in 1994. How can you be studying economics and not understand this?

GW Bush is a big spender, I agree. He spends on everything. Maybe that's a problem. But I watched two decades of Democrats talking about nothing but growing the government, and acting upon that when they could. Their idea of fiscal responsibility is to add more and more taxes, and for them to do more and more spending. Kerry was just more of the same. So was Clinton, when you look behind the doublespeak.

"Investments" in our economy? Clintonspeak for bigger government and social spending. Revenues swelled during the internet bubble, Birds. That also happened during the radio bubble of the 1920's. There was plenty of revenue coming in, because there was plenty of phony paper earnings taking place on Wall Street, as stock prices rose on extreme, unwarranted levels of demand. The 1990s, the 1920s, very similar on several key points. Were the GOP presidents of the 20s any kind of fiscal geniuses? No. When the bubble burst, the country went into the worst tailspin in our history. The GOP blew it so badly during that decade, the electorate swung away from them and did not trust them again for several decades.

If not for Gingrich's revolution and the change in the congress that kept President Clinton and his liberal allies from spending all of the surplus of the internet bubble, I believe we would be in the midst of a bona fide depression right now.

Instead, we're doing OK, and oddly, large sections of the country seem to believe the Democrats when they claim that Clinton "created" 20 million jobs and that Bush has "lost" 1.7 million. Sorry, but the President just doesn't have that much impact. Congress is where the money power resides.

That is even the way it was intended to be. Note that the Congress gets attention in Article I. There's a reason for that.


I'm not arguing the facts of your numbers. I'm arguing that you're overlooking other relevant facts, such as how the lawmakers actually arrived at those decisions. I was there to see many of the debates. I lived through that era. My life experience is richer than your education on this point. In fact, I have to wonder at your professors, if they are not challenging you on views of this sort.

That you insist I argue the numbers with you shows our disconnect. I'm not disputing your numbers. I am disputing the conclusions that you reach with them.

Politics is the art of the possible. As President, unless your party controls a supermajority of Congress, you have no choice but to compromise on some things to obtain others. President Reagan prioritized rebuidling our neglected national defense. Bunches of new carrier groups were built and floated, and those are ungodly expensive. BUT HE WAS RIGHT, as our naval power now ensures our security by allowing us to project power around the globe. Gulf War I was the hot war test of Reagan's naval vision and it proved out. Kosovo was another test, where we shattered the notion that air power alone could never win a war. Then on to Afghanistan, where naval power plus special forces plus alliance with locals won a war with handfuls of men. These are legacies of Reagan's military vision, and they have served us well. Without this power, we'd still be wringing our hands over Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, much as President Carter had to do with the Iranian hostages.

Fiscally unsound? The fiscally unsound part of the 80s super spending was the part that the Democrats insisted upon, and got, because the President was so worried about our depleted and demoralized armed forces that he basically made an emergency decision to make sure we got our military fixed and NOW, and worry about cleaning up the mess made by the Democrat Congress later. He was even right about that, as during the Clinton era, we DID get the deficit under control and we DID start to reduce the debt.

Problem is, the internet bubble burst AND we had a culture of greed and corporate corruption that grew up in the 90s come home to roost, AND we've got a new threat and a new war on our hands. So now we're back to big deficit spending. That Bush worries about the war first and the deficit second is a pattern I can believe in. Reagan took that path and it worked out for us IN EVERY WAY.


The chief problem I have with the Democrats is that during the times of peace when we need to be paying off our debt and storing up for a rainy day, they want to p!ss away our surpluses on social spending. I am not against helping people, when it's of the "teach a man to fish" variety, but constant "soak the rich" rhetoric just gets old, Brian. I can't believe in that philosophy when it's the only "plan" they offer, year in and year out. Maybe I could accept it once, pick a level of taxation that is fair AND THEN NEVER CHANGE IT AGAIN. But no, that's not how it works. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. No matter how much the rich give, it's not enough, soak them for more. At some point we end up eating the seed corn. I'VE SEEN IT IN ACTION, watching every move that President Carter undertook making things worse, then watching things turn around as soon as Reagan's policies stopped the bleeding.

The Dems don't want to save up during boom times. They think it's party time and let's spend even more! Then along comes the next lean time, and we're in a H3LL of a mess. The Dems seem so short sighted to me. They don't understand the need for strong defense. They claim to be for the poor man, but they look down upon him and undermine his ability to climb up out of the hole. They offer only enough to sustain his position, it seems -- just enough to keep him down. The soft bigotry of low expectations for minority races and religions, for Islamic peoples, for South America... It's a bloody crime, Brian. It's the worst kind of elitism, in my view, the kind that pretends to befriend but sticks a knife in the gut. I loathe that kind of duplicity.

I can understand how you can look at the raw numbers and draw the obvious conclusions. But I was there and I know that's not how it went. Yes, I know that Carter suffered from the lingering effects of the oil embargo. I know he suffered from the lingering effects of the Vietnam war. Was Vietnam itself a mistake? The easy answer would be yes, but nothing is ever that simple. The combination of fighting TWO hot wars with China (in Korea and in Vietnam) along with President Nixon's bold outreach to China that opened up our relationship and has allowed us to find diplomatic solutions with them ever since... These moves, combined, may have saved us from a catastrophic direct war with Red China. No one can say for sure, because that's a road not travelled, but even there, it was the Republicans who were cleaning up the messes in foreign policy.

And when it comes down to it, that's the chief duty of the US government: to protect our people, to preserve our freedoms, to do what it takes to get along in a difficult world. Taking care of the poor is important, but it can often be handled by churches, communities, charities. Where it makes sense, sure, get the government involved, but we need to be wise about it. We need to be productive. The money spent needs to save us even more money in the long run. That's why Reagan's wild defense spending was worthwhile in the end: it has saved us even more than it cost us. Vietnam, too. (That's another subject, though). Bush's wartime spending now... We are only talking about a couple hundred billion for Iraq. The rest is coming out of the disappearance of the rosy projections of surpluses based on revenue rates from the internet bubble. That was phantom money all along.


- Sirian

Birds wrote:
Conservatives, starting with ronald reagan, have cut taxes but at the same time racked up massive deficits... spare me the fiscally conservative line. It is an outright falsehood.

Birds, while Sirian flirted with the idea, the best way to think of Reagans deficit accrual is this:
How much more would the country be in debt if the cold war was not won. Or even worse, how much would the deficit be if a war broke out between Russia and America? I think we can all shudder togeather on that.

By Reagan winning the cold war, how much capital was freed up so Clinton could look good and have a terrific peace dividend? So not only was the Contract for America a player in the pay-off but so was the capitulation of the Rooskies in the "My nuclear warhead count is larger than yours" game.

On the flip side, Clintons policy of using the stage set by Reagans administration to look good and say "See how I'm reducing the deficit" was self serving.
Clintons inability to handle the terrorist problem beyond lobbing a few cruise missle only exacerbated the problem to it's ultimate conclusion in 9/11.
So now we have all the money from the peace dividend earned by Reagan squandered by a president who refused to handle the terrorist problem in order to "save money".

Now we get to Bush (hey Ferny, haven't forgotten the thread) and he has to handle the red headed step child from Clinton. So first off, how much did the 9/11 attack cost america's economy?
Second, how much did 9/11 further stimulate the Clinton recession and thirdly how much is the cost of the war on terror?
Lastly and most importantly, how much of all the deficit accrued by Bush would have been mitigated if only Clinton would have fought terrorism much as Reagan fought the cold war?
So a more expanded reason for voting for Bush and conservatives in general is that the conservatives tend to look at the bigger picture and consequences there-in as opposed to liberals who navel gaze.

I must defend President Clinton, here. There is no way he could have done more about terrorism. His political enemies would have shredded him had he tried.

In order to learn from mistakes, the mistakes have to be made in the first place. Did President Clinton make mistakes? With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that he did. However, it is neither fair nor useful to leap from there to blame.

Nor did Clinton squander the peace dividend. With the GOP taking over the Congress in 1994, Clinton's vision of huge government health care died on the vine. Other spending was fairly reasonable. We did get rid of the deficit and we did pay off some small parts of the debt.

Money controls everything. Money is the resource that we have to apply toward our priorities, and there are always competing priorities. The whole point of the government is to put the decision-making power in terms of priorities into FEW ENOUGH hands to get things done, but not TOO FEW lest corruption and despotism take hold. That is always a balancing act, and it is why a strong Republic may be better in the end than a strict Democracy.

We should not point fingers over the terrorism issue. Until Al Qaeda broke through with their successful strikes on 9/11, we did not take them seriously. We never would have taken them seriously. This is just one of those unfortunate things where there could not ever have been a political will until the NEED for action became perfectly clear.


The important thing now is not to repeat our mistakes, and that is one thing Americans are rather good at: learning our lessons and improving our situation. That certain other cultures around the world do NOT seem to learn the lessons of their mistakes can be disheartening, but we can't worry too much about that, either. Let's just move on already.


- Sirian

I think there is a key point that the supply siders fail to come to terms with: If there are not offsetting spending decreases, if you cut taxes your tax cut is essentially a nationwide loan. The rich got a greater proportion of the loan, and it's likely they will be paying a greater proportion to amortize the loan and pay it off. This loan hangs on as government waste, when each year that percentage of the budget is wasted in loan payments. Reagan claimed that the tax cut would be offset by revenue increases, but it didn't happen.

For argument's sake, let's say Reagan really did need to spend as much as he did on defense, although I don't think he did it's too much to argue about at once. Knowing that you are going to massively going to need to increase spending, and also knowing the democrats are going to be firm on certain issues, the supply side tax cut was ill-advised.

I view the tax cuts as a conscious loan. They knew how much Dems would budge, they knew they had to increase defense spending.

Sure, the dems should have a been a little more fiscally responsible and cut some more from their turf. Big military spending while cutting taxes is in the conservative court, though--that was their agenda. They expected to pay for it by just cutting from the democratic pie--foolish. In politics there is a delicate policy balance, but both dems and repubs knew each others intentions. Republicans tried to have their cake and then pay for it from the democratic political pie. It just doesn't work to assume the democratic controlled congress is going to bow in such a fashion. It's a political misjudgement.

Remember, I'm not arguing FOR the democrats. I'm just arguing that the massive deficits run up during republican administrations were their own fault. The soaring debt was a conscious loan in my opinion.

I definitely think Clinton squandered an opportunity to cut spending and pay down the debt during his time, but I do think the conservatives have racked the deficit up in their own right.

I DO think you are mistaken about Perot not having an effect on the budget discussion in the early 1990s. I was there for that one, even though I was only 10 I was in a GATE class on politics in 5th grade. I watched the debates and talked about it for several hours a week in class. I also watched Perot's 30 minute spots, which were largely about the budget. As a wealthy billionare, perot had a lot of early support (poll leads) before he withdrew his name from consideration and brought it back on the ballot. It's funny, you blame Ross Perot for bush losing, but you fail to acknowlegde Perot's most famous issue: budget balance and smart fiscal policy.

It's fun to massage your own party, but the reality to me is that clinton failed in paying down the debt during a boom though there was a balanced budget effort made (a welcome change from the 80s), reagan and the bushs have failed by racking up debt.

If you want to leave the cold war as a feather in reagan's cap--fine. But bad budget control lingers as his mistake. Judge the net outcome as you wish.

Sirian wrote:I must defend President Clinton, here. There is no way he could have done more about terrorism. His political enemies would have shredded him had he tried.

Kinda like Bush's enemies tried to shred him over Iraq? Sorry Sirian but your reply, while well thought out, is really a cop out answer. Clinton was never a leader in the true sense. His administration was a reactionary one determined by polls and news headlines. Clintons allowing of american troops in Bosnia was a knee jerk response to his gettin quite literally caught with his pants down. Before you nay say this, remember Clinton had plenty of time to commit troops prior to his almost impeachment scandel. Serb troops were carrying out terrible war crimes a full year or more before the public airing of the Lewinski matter.

Sirian wrote:Nor did Clinton squander the peace dividend. With the GOP taking over the Congress in 1994, Clinton's vision of huge government health care died on the vine. Other spending was fairly reasonable. We did get rid of the deficit and we did pay off some small parts of the debt.

On the health care issue, I would submit that the initiative died when Billy Boy gave the job to Hillary. First off Hillary was a complete novice to the dealings and machinations of getting a bill passed through both the House and the Senate.
Secondly awarding Hillary the job was a slap in the face to those who would normally head up such a committee. This was a mistake that should not have been too easy to miss.

Sirian wrote:We should not point fingers over the terrorism issue. Until Al Qaeda broke through with their successful strikes on 9/11, we did not take them seriously. We never would have taken them seriously. This is just one of those unfortunate things where there could not ever have been a political will until the NEED for action became perfectly clear.

I'm not so sure. The CIA was hamstrung by the Church Committee pushing a policy through where disreputable types were deemed unacceptable to hire. This restriction alone caused god only knows how much intelligence from being gathered. Slashing the CIA's budget was another hindrance. One could almost say that Clinton did not want to know what the scary monsters were planning on doing.

Birdseye wrote:
I DO think you are mistaken about Perot not having an effect on the budget discussion in the early 1990s. I was there for that one, even though I was only 10 I was in a GATE class on politics in 5th grade. I watched the debates and talked about it for several hours a week in class. I also watched Perot's 30 minute spots, which were largely about the budget. As a wealthy billionare, perot had a lot of early support (poll leads) before he withdrew his name from consideration and brought it back on the ballot. It's funny, you blame Ross Perot for bush losing, but you fail to acknowlegde Perot's most famous issue: budget balance and smart fiscal policy.

I can remember Perot perhaps a bit better than you Bird. I voted for him. I particulary liked Perots business back ground and his willingness to say it lake it was. In particular I will always remember during the three way presidential debates, Perot talking about NAFTA and the big sucking sound. Clinton signed it into law and today the buzz word is "out sourcing" of jobs. Since I have to rely on your far broader knowledge of economic Bird, I have to ask you how much has NAFTA influenced our countries economy...good or bad?

A conscious loan? We're not talking about the government's money here. We're talking about the people's money.


When there are outstanding debts, and the interest being paid on them acts as a constant drain on resources, it does not make sense to keep spending on nonessentials. That is where we run off the tracks, though. Every member of Congress believes the pork barrel for his or her district is "essential". Every bit of spending we do is believed to be essential by somebody. Who gets to decide? We don't have a king. We have a system that avoids concentrations of power.

Although in raw dollars, the deficit and debt are at record levels, in terms of ratio, they are not. This lends some credence to the GOP claims that we're still short of a crisis situation. It HAS been worse than this before. We should not make rash moves. We have time to debate it and try to get it right.


Bush cut taxes three times. The economy has been on a growth spurt for the last 15 months. Some months have been slower than expected, but some have been better.

I hear Democrats talk about lost jobs, but I never hear them talk about productivity. If a new gizmo is invented that lets one person do the same work that used to be done by seven, there goes jobs. Now there's one operator of the gizmo, one to make the gizmo, and one to service it. Three jobs have replaced seven. Is that bad? It is if you're one of the six on the way out. But is it bad for the country? I don't think so.

We have low interest rates, low unemployment, record levels of home ownership, and an economy that is expanding more in terms of small business than it is inside the megacorporations. I think all of these things are both good and important. I'm no fan of big business, believe me. But I am a fan of reducing taxes and reducing the size of government, because I have seen from the inside how enormously wasteful the bureaucracy can be. The system suffers from a lack of accountability. The incentives to improve efficiency are out of whack. It is far too easy for incompetent people to hold on to their jobs. Playing internal politics is often more important than doing a good job, and that is not how it should be.


Bush cut taxes, and the economy is getting better. The GOP talking points include the fact that the latest recession was the shallowest and shortest in the modern era. They attribute that to the tax cuts. Don't point me to some white paper on someone else's website. In your own words, tell me why you disagree. Tell me why the latest recession was short and why we've had booming growth for the last 1.3 years.

All I hear from Democrats is spin. I don't hear explanations. They keep saying the economy is bad bad bad, but I don't see it, and I actually live in a poor area. There's growth in my area. Things are getting better here. Small business is doing better in the wake of the tax cuts.


How can there be so many home owners if things are as bleak as some portray? I just don't see it. I know some areas are hurting, but I also know others are booming. What's the difference? Often it has to do with local laws, politicians, policies, and state laws and so forth. It is not right to lay blame or credit for these things at the Federal level.

Birdseye wrote:Knowing that you are going to massively going to need to increase spending, and also knowing the democrats are going to be firm on certain issues, the supply side tax cut was ill-advised.

This assumes that cutting taxes makes no difference. I don't buy that. Revenues DID go up in the 80's. We pulled out of horrendously bad unemployment and interest rates and a deep national funk on an emotional level. The revenues of the 90's rane whole way on Reagan's tax reform from the mid-80s. The revenues went so far up, we got those rosy (false) projections of "surpluses for as far as the eye can see." When the economy is booming, the revenues rise.

America's economic growth today outstrips that of all European nations. They have high taxes. So high, a friend of mine from western Europe told me that he's taxed at 45%. 45%! And he's not "rich", he's just a normal citizen. That much taxation is choking their societies. Ireland has recently lowered taxes and is starting to show signs of economic recovery and growth. France can turn their noses up at us all they please, but it won't fix their double digit unemployment rate. There are serious problems with the policies in play over there.


Birds, let me put it to you this way. Let's assume that over a decade, that the treasury ought to balance. Spend (borrow) in lean times, save (pay off) in plentiful times, and figure these ought to even out given a larger slice of time.

If we can agree on that, then move on to the question of tax and spend. Each side of the tax and spend equation has strong points. Not enough spending on vital needs and priorities turns out to be foolish, because it creates messes, one way or another, which only cost more to clean up later. Yet too much taxation can kill the goose who lays the golden eggs. Damage can be done to the economy.

This means that there's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle. There's a point at which too little spending is harmful, and a point at which too much taxation is harmful. Deciding which harm is greater, and which benefit is greater, is essentially THE WHOLE BALL GAME. That is all that we're doing in the government, trying to identify and fix problems, preferably earlier rather than later.

We should debate the issues. We should argue about priorities. That's healthy.


I've had extra time the past week to engage in some debates here. That won't last. When I get busy again, and it's coming soon, I simply won't have the time. I doubt we can carry these talks far enough to change each other's minds about anything important, but perhaps we'll make some type of gains.

Perhaps also we can set a new standard for debate, a new tone, that will linger after I have vanished back into the mists. Worth a try.


- Sirian

A conscious loan? We're not talking about the government's money here. We're talking about the people's money.

Well, who pays back debt? The people via their taxes. Since the people got the money for the tax cut and they'll pay it back with interest, it is basically a national loan.

Although in raw dollars, the deficit and debt are at record levels, in terms of ratio, they are not. This lends some credence to the GOP claims that we're still short of a crisis situation. It HAS been worse than this before.

That's why in one thread I posted debt as a percentage of GDP. I agree, but considering under bush the debt is rising very very fast right now, it needs to be curtailed.

I am a fan of reducing taxes and reducing the size of government, because I have seen from the inside how enormously wasteful the bureaucracy can be.

This is where I think everyone agrees. Reduce government spending and cut taxes while balancing the budget.

Bush cut taxes, and the economy is getting better

As I've said before: the cuts helped, but were much less efficient than demand side cuts.

Tell me why the latest recession was short and why we've had booming growth for the last 1.3 years

Simple cyclical trends. I don't credit clinton with the boom, I don't blame Bush for the recession. I've stated my analysis of supply vs. demand side cuts in a couple spots on the DBB, but I haven't heard any reply.

This assumes that cutting taxes makes no difference

Actually, it does not at all. I have stated my times that supply side cuts are less efficient than demand side income tax cuts but I don't claim they have no effect.

pulled out of horrendously bad unemployment and interest rates and a deep national funk on an emotional level. The revenues of the 90's rane whole way on Reagan's tax reform from the mid-80s.

Yeah, just like how we rode Bill Clinton's spectacular economic policy in the 1990s...er...well maybe not on either account. The cyclical bounceback had been waiting a long time and we had to fight through stagflation for years, something new and unexpected. Of course we turned around.

Reagan's promises on the specific effects of his policy were not met, not even close. The revenue that we got was nowhere near what was expected.

. Spend (borrow) in lean times, save (pay off) in plentiful times, and figure these ought to even out given a larger slice of time.

Agree--basic Keynsian econ. The original argument stemmed from the notion that republicans have run up much higher deficits, and haven't seen any evidence to the contrary besides blaming the democrats.

Tell me why the latest recession was short and why we've had booming growth for the last 1.3 years.

Not that you need any help from me Birds but don't forget the effect of defence spending in the U.S. economy. The war may be in Iraq but the money is spent at home.

I am Canadina my income tax rate would give you guys a heart attack but 21% of my federal taxes are used to pay off the debt run up by spendthift governments in the 60s and 70s. It used to be 38% of my federal tax but the current goverment has curtailed spending (mostly by downloading it to the provices and municipalites) and low interest rates also help a lot. This year is the fifth surplus year in a row and 9 billion dollars was paid directly on the debt ( all surpluses are legislated as having to be used that way)
Think about what a bind a huge national debt puts your government in. If a third of your tax goes to paying off what has already been provided how can they provide even the current level of services without raising taxes somehow. And although you pay too much tax you don't get what you should for it because so much is going to pay for the past not the present. Deficits will kneecap future governments. You have to pay the piper somtime, and somebody's government is going to have to raise taxes in the U.S. An expanding economy can only cover so much but is is the hope that most govenments lean on.


As a sidelight: Canada's deficit was run up by both the center left Libral party and the center right Progresive Conservative party. The party that finally faced the music was...The Liberal party. The finance minister who at least claims much of the responsibility for the fiscal restraint that has brought the Canadian government into surplus is now the Prime Minister. Paul Martin. Canada's economic growth rate has exceeded that of the U.S. most quarters for the last two years, in spite of high taxation rates.