Republicans no longer a viable party?

[WhoWee]

DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.

It seems they quit counting in 2009?
(I didn't see Russ's post.)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Bush gets blamed for Obama's failure.

Exactly! This is what I’ve been saying all along! Everything is Obama’s fault!

I mean, for god’s sake, GWB was in *full* control of the economy until he started these 'secret meetings' with Obama, behind closed doors... that’s when the real problem started...

Until then GWB had it all under control.

On Saturday August 30, 2008, in the President's Radio Address, GWB was focusing on the good economy, and told the hardworking Americans that this Labor Day weekend was a good opportunity to stop worrying about the nation's economic health. GWB welcomed the fact that economic stimulus package signed by him earlier this year, is having its intended effect, and the growth package will return more than $150 billion back to American families and businesses, this year:

Bush: Economy Is Getting Better (August 30, 2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxF4zJz3jzg

(Then 8 days later, 'something' happened, right out of the blue...)

• On September 7, 2008, Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae was put under a conservatorship of the U.S. Federal government.
  
  
• On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers (the fourth largest investment bank in the USA) filed bankruptcy.
  
  
• On September 15, 2008, Merrill Lynch (the world's largest brokerage with $2.2 trillion in client assets) is purchased by Bank of America at a discount of 61% from its September 2007 share price.
  
  
• On September 16, 2008, American International Group (AIG) (the 29th-largest public company in the world) received a secured credit facility of up to $85 billion from the FED, to prevent the company's collapse, in an exchange for warrants for a 79% equity stake, the largest government bailout of a private company in U.S. history.
  
  
• On September 20, 2008, President Bush proposes a http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news/economy/bailout_proposal/index.htm" .

Bush Warns "Entire Economy is in Danger" (September 24, 2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXqxN1XBMH8

This is the historical facts, right there; GWB was indeed a 'dynamical swinger', in full control, who could handle the financial 'ups & downs' – even if they were only 3 weeks apart!

All this is Obama’s fault, alone, no doubt about it! :grumpy:

 

[DevilsAvocado]

DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.

Thanks Vanadium 50, I think russ_watters presented a 'compelling story' about this...

 

[mheslep]

Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.

 

[Willowz]

Hot-potato!

 

[turbo]

Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO. Those costs are not insignificant, and they are going to continue.

 

[WhoWee]

Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.

Let's not forget Barney Frank and Chris Dodd - both steering the financial sector - Barney even claimed Freddie and Fannie were in good shape - give credit when due.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO. Those costs are not insignificant, and they are going to continue.

...and now President Obama is in another...

 

[talk2glenn]

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget.

This is one of those oft repeated talking points that everyone just knows is true, because its been said so often without challenge, but nobody is really sure what it means.

Care to explain, turbo? The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for with money appropriated by Congress through supplemental budget bills. These are published - with specific dollar amounts - in the federal register, and available for you to perude as your leisure.

Perhaps you mean that the operations should have been part of the general fiscal budget debate in Congress. On its face, this doesn't sound unreasonable (which is probably why it makes such a good 10 second talking point). In practice, though, the process of budgeting is slow, political, and painstaking (which is why its a really seneless idea if you think about it for more than 10 seconds). The process actually begins over two years before the fiscal year in which the budget is due. Eg, the 2011 budget - if we had one, I mean - is not worked on in 2010, but in 2009-2010.

This is not an effective means to fund a war. Perhaps the administration and Congress could have shifted some of the more stable, ongoing and predictable costs of the wars onto the general budget sooner than they did, but in any case it isn't reasonable to expect these operations to be entirely funded by the general budgeting proecss. Indeed, President Obama has continued the trend. In 2010, the wars were funded by two supplemental appropriations bills. In 2009, when the previous Supplemental Appropriations Act was passed, Obama promised - promised - that this was, for real guys seriously, the last time that'd ever be done.

This year, the entire government is paid for by supplemental approrprations bills.

 

[WhoWee]

This year, the entire government is paid for by supplemental approrprations bills.

Now THAT'S what I call a talking point!

 

[talk2glenn]

And Avocado, I always enjoy graphs that chart deficit spending over the party in control of the White House, as though it weren't in fact the Congress that writes a budget and appropriates funds. Pity the constitution.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Dow%20roller%20coaster.jpg

I submit that this is significantly more honest, and revealing.

 

[turbo]

This is one of those oft repeated talking points that everyone just knows is true, because its been said so often without challenge, but nobody is really sure what it means.

Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nd-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/

 

[mheslep]

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO.

You recognize of course Obama would have also engaged in the Afghanistan conflict, and now is in Libya.

Those costs are not insignificant,

Depends on the context. In the context of the total US $3.6T annual budget one can argue the wars are not significant.

and they are going to continue.

No, they will end as all wars do and as the Iraq war is imminently doing. However, one can easily argue that entitlement programs in fact do continue forever, or at least until the collapse of a nation.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nd-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/

I can't find anything in their piece regarding private contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan/Africa and elsewhere in the region?

 

[WhoWee]

However, one can easily argue that entitlement programs in fact do continue forever, or at least until the collapse of a nation.

As long as the global welfare mindset doesn't become too popular.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... I submit that this is significantly more honest, and revealing.

I don’t know about "honesty", but maybe it’s revealing that you’re presenting data from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, as some form of 'objective truth'... At least my data came from Wikipedia, and AFAIK Wikipedia is not controlled by any political party.

But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html" :

[emphasis mine]

"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."

Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.​

​

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??

PS2: I think Paul Ryan missed one label on the graph; "2008 – George W. Bush is one or two pennies from ruin the world economy."

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Hot-potato!

:rofl:

 

[Willowz]

Charts are only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[mheslep]

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??

Yes the Congress writes the budget law, specifically the House does, and only the House. Of course the President, Senate Chairmen, and my granny are free to write up their own ideas on the subject and frequently do, but have only political significance, not legal.

According to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_bill#United_States

 

[Proton Soup]

obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default.

 

[russ_watters]

But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html" :

[emphasis mine]

"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."

Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.​

​

So he's saying that no part of the state of the American economy up to Feb 1, 2010 was his doing. You can believe whatever you want, but I'd say that based on the 2010 election results, the voting public didn't buy it.

 

[russ_watters]

obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default.

The way the media and the politicians are harping on this issue, it makes one forget that the due date here is more than 3 weeks away. They can grandstand about this for another 2.5 weeks before even trying to get anything done! And I'm already fatigued from the last three times they did this!

 

[russ_watters]

Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nd-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/

It doesn't look to me like you read past the header, tubo-1. "supplemental spending" still happens and it is still off-budget (by definition). They gave him a pass because he also put some war funding on the budget and didn't say he wanted to end their use, just their "abuse" (which is meaningless). Obama has asked for more suppliments (3) than budgets (2).

 

[mege]

I don’t know about "honesty", but maybe it’s revealing that you’re presenting data from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, as some form of 'objective truth'... At least my data came from Wikipedia, and AFAIK Wikipedia is not controlled by any political party.

But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html" :

[emphasis mine]

"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."

Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.​

​

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??

PS2: I think Paul Ryan missed one label on the graph; "2008 – George W. Bush is one or two pennies from ruin the world economy."

As I've already pointed out - Bush Tax Cuts weren't the issue. 2006-7 Individual+Corporate tax income was higher than it was in 2000 even accounting for inflation. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203 (note - TPC is associated closely with the Brookings Inst. which is generally associated with collectivists). While you can attribute 3 years of debt under President Bush to the tax cuts, that doesn't hold any water any further (esspecially since President Obama extended them...). IMO, the 2008 crash could have been prevented if policy earlier in the decade wasn't hamstrung by Democrat's political correctness. Let's not forget that clinging to our entitlements caused the economic mess we're in now, not 2 wars (in this case a 'stealth' entitlement in the form of sub-prime loan subsidies). It could be argued that the wars actually staved off the crisis a little bit because of the additional spending that was happening. The GD plant near my old house in metro Detroit produced land systems, that plant would have likely been idled if it weren't for the demand of the wars.

Also, let's not forget that the 'Iraq war' was still approved by almost 1/2 of the Democrats in congress. The 'Afghan War' had almost zero nay votes from either party. Only when the wars started becoming unpopular did Democrats start bailing. It's also important to note that President Obama's decisions to withdraw troops from both Iraq and Afghanastan were not good ideas in the eyes of his military heads. Withdrawing is a political move only, and in noone's best interest (except maybe the DNC).

Lastly, Just because the President says something doesn't mean it's true. His entire campaign for 2012 is going to be 'well it's not really my fault' and unfortunately many seem to believe him. Quoting political speeches isn't really good sourcing for any information IMO.

 

[daveb]

obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default.

Threaten? He didn't threaten. He merely stated that a consequence is that he cannot guarantee checks will go out. That's a far cry from threatening. If nothing happens, he can't send out checks, since that would be tantamount to forcefully usurping Congressional power, an (IMO) impeachable offense.

Basically, if nothing happens, his hands are tied.

 

[WhoWee]

Lastly, Just because the President says something doesn't mean it's true. His entire campaign for 2012 is going to be 'well it's not really my fault' and unfortunately many seem to believe him. Quoting political speeches isn't really good sourcing for any information IMO.

Actually, the President will have to run against his own sound bites in 2012 - all of the flip flops too.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.

 

[WhoWee]

I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.

IMO - the people who protested outside the Democrat Convention in 68 are now the core of the Party.
http://www.google.com/search?q=demo...MEJGEsALcqISxCA&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1216&bih=780

Isn't the President's re-election campaign based in Chicago?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.

True in part. As predicted by President Johnson when he signed it, passage of the Civil Rights bill cost the Dems the South for the next 40 years [and to this day still true!].

Before that we had the notorious Southern Democrats.

The tea party [Republicans] may go down as the party that destroyed the US credit rating. If we do default, no doubt that poor folks don't get their SS checks [needed for food, not Lear Jets or golf vacations, and not a matter of principle but reality].

Of course, that's just speaking as an Independent voter.

 

[mege]

True in part. As predicted by President Johnson when he signed it, passage of the Civil Rights bill cost the Dems the South for the next 40 years [and to this day still true!].

Before that we had the notorious Southern Democrats.

The tea party [Republicans] may go down as the party that destroyed the US credit rating. If we do default, no doubt that poor folks don't get their SS checks [needed for food, not Lear Jets or golf vacations, and not a matter of principle but reality].

Of course, that's just speaking as an Independent voter.

Funny you bring up golf vacations. How many rounds does the President have in this term?

Why is this solely on the Republicans, even in perception? I blame the Democratic monopoly for almost 2 years which failed to get anything done except spend more money. Why aren't we talking about that? They had an open ticket to raise taxes to nearafter-WW2 rates if they wanted. Instead, President Obama extended the Bush cuts and he and congress started spending more money in the form of health insurance subsidies. (well, taxes will go up ~2% to collect for Obamacare, but even shy estimates say that's not nearly enough). The media is still giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt on policies because of the perception that 'Bush ruined everything!' (even though Congress was Democrats for the last 2 years of his term).

Where's that conversation?

 

[talk2glenn]

I don’t know about "honesty", but maybe it’s revealing that you’re presenting data from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, as some form of 'objective truth'... At least my data came from Wikipedia, and AFAIK Wikipedia is not controlled by any political party.

At the top of the forum, you'll find a stickey titled "Tutorial On Argument and Fallacy". Click it, and review the links provided. When you're done, if you have any substantive critiques of the data - sourced from the CBO and independently verifiable - look me up.

Your data isn't being questioned; I don't need to question it. It is true, during the latter half of Clinton's term the deficit declined. It is also true that the Congress was dominated by Republicans during this same period. I believe the omitted fact of divided government is infinitely more relevant than the legally meaningless fact that the President was a liberal. The connection between the President and the deficit is tenuous at best, and relies on an appeal to the symbolic authority of the office. The budgeting responsibility lies exclusively and absolutely with the Congress of the United States. I believe this is 3rd grade social studies.

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??

Seriously? And you presume to debate budget policy?

 

[WhoWee]

True in part. As predicted by President Johnson when he signed it, passage of the Civil Rights bill cost the Dems the South for the next 40 years [and to this day still true!].

Before that we had the notorious Southern Democrats.

The tea party [Republicans] may go down as the party that destroyed the US credit rating. If we do default, no doubt that poor folks don't get their SS checks [needed for food, not Lear Jets or golf vacations, and not a matter of principle but reality].

Of course, that's just speaking as an Independent voter.

Actually, doesn't President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other Dem leaders deserve a lot of the credit for insolvency of the USA? Haven't they led the charge to outspend all of their predecessors?

 

[WhoWee]

This seems like a good place to insert this bit of opinion.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff284.html
"The Bubble That Must Burst"

 

[daveb]

If democrats are "tax and spend" politicians, and republicans are "reduce taxation and spending" politicians, then nothing would ever get done unless one side gives up on both of these, or each gives up on one of them.

From everything I've seen, the democrats are willing to reduce spending but hold to their increased taxes (whether you call closing loopholes in the tax code a tax increase or not is debateable anyway)http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41257" .

When one party holds both houses, it's fairly (relative to other times) easy for the party to hold to both of their ideas. When the balance of power is mixed, as it is now, it seems the responsible thing to do is to compromise.

Under House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan, passed by the Republican-controlled chamber in April, federal spending would be slashed by $6.2 trillion. The plan would also lower tax rates paid by corporations and top earners, bringing projected savings down to the $4 trillion range.

 

[WhoWee]

If democrats are "tax and spend" politicians, and republicans are "reduce taxation and spending" politicians, then nothing would ever get done unless one side gives up on both of these, or each gives up on one of them.

From everything I've seen, the democrats are willing to reduce spending but hold to their increased taxes (whether you call closing loopholes in the tax code a tax increase or not is debateable anyway)http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41257" .

When one party holds both houses, it's fairly (relative to other times) easy for the party to hold to both of their ideas. When the balance of power is mixed, as it is now, it seems the responsible thing to do is to compromise.

The Dems spent more than our credit line allows. We have 2 choices - ask for more credit or cut spending back to pre-Obama/Reid/Pelosi levels.