For Moderates & Independents

1. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 12 years ago

   My Hat's off to Steve Benen for this column from which I post a portion.
   
   "1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
   
   1981 -1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
   
   1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.
   
   1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.
   
   2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
   
   2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
   
   2001 -2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.
   
   2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them.
   
   2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
   
   2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives —including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act —which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.
   
   September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
   
   October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
   
   November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
   
   December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.
   
   March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage —a move without precedent in American history —until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
   
   July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.
   
   August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility...."
   
   http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/politi … 031362.php

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I feel the need to point out that there is some controversy about whether the the various initiatives listed under 2009 would have led to long term deficit decreases. The healthcare reform act is a Good Thing, according to various people I've talked to who work in the medical field, ultimately bringing down the cost of healthcare and therefore the cost of insurance, and therefore the cost of programs like medicare and medicaid.
      
      Cap and trade, I'm convinced, is the wrong way to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It needs to be done, but the Cap-and-Trade plan is flawed in that a company that doesn't do much polluting anyway can sell their pollution allowance to, say, Dow Chemical, and then Dow can pollute all they like. No net change in pollution, but a new securities market is created, which will almost certainly be managed by the same people as gave us mortgage-backed securities*, credit default swaps, derivatives, and the current financial crisis.
      
      Not sure how I feel about the DREAM act yet.
      
      My point is, the assertion that these initiatives will certainly reduced the deficit in the long term is a bit misleading. They probably will, yes, but it's wrong to call it a fact the same way you'd call say, Cheney's quote that "Deficits don't matter" a fact.
      
      *Mortgage-backed securities, minus the fraud and malfeasance, are actually a great idea as they let small investors in on the mortgage loan business. But they need to be meaningfully and consistently regulated or you'll get another housing bubble.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Jeff - I agree there's room for disagreement over the impact of individual programs.
         
         But look at the bigger picture. Republican administrations drive up the deficit by passing tax giveaway for the rich, and democrats come closer to fiscal responsibility.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "Republican administrations drive up the deficit by passing tax giveaway for the rich,..." While at the same time increasing spending, under the Cheney doctrine that 'deficits don't matter.' Don't forget that part!

            replyreport
      2. 60

         lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         What a bunch of LIES! Regan got something for that 2 trillion, the end of communism, and tax cuts, that kicked.off an economic boom that lasted 20 years! Noting Obama passed lowered anything! The republican house isnt even there a year! Obama added 5 trillion in debt in just 2.5 years he called Bush unpatriotic for doing the same in 8 years! Clinton never balanced the budget, he borrowed from social security to make it look like he did. And it was congressional republucans that killed hillary care and forced Clinton to hold the line on taxes. Thats why liberalism is evil, it's sooo dishonest!!!

         replyreport
   2. 62

      American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Wonder why the fact under Clinton the National Debt continued to rise. If we truly had a surplus, we would not have needed to borrow and pay the bills. So much for a surplus,
      
          Date                   Dollar Amount
      09/30/1999    5,656,270,901,615.43
      09/30/1998    5,526,193,008,897.62
      09/30/1997    5,413,146,011,397.34
      09/30/1996    5,224,810,939,135.73
      09/29/1995    4,973,982,900,709.39
      09/30/1994    4,692,749,910,013.32
      09/30/1993    4,411,488,883,139.38
      09/30/1992    4,064,620,655,521.66
      09/30/1991    3,665,303,351,697.03
      09/28/1990    3,233,313,451,777.25
      
      Jeff
      
      I disagree that Obamacare is good for us.Now it may have started out with good intentions, but the result is anything but. I have read the entire bill. The bill is loaded with Government waste, and tax increases that ALL fall on the back of the middle class. Start with the tax on the health care providers. Do you think they will eat that? of course not, they will pass that on in higher premiums. Next, the opt out option and fine. It is already estimated that in 2013 and 2014, at least 1/2 of the small businesses will cease to give healthcare to their employees and pay the $2,000 fine. Why pay $6,000 when you can pay 2. And then those will go on Medicare. IT is an option laid out in the health care plan. Obama's way to get socialized medicine. When this was discovered( I told others about this and they told me I was wrong, so much for me being wrong)., Obama said he would correct that glitch. He has done nothing to date nor do I expect him too. Some of the tax increases have gone unnoticed. But the first big one starts in December. That's when if you sell your home over $250,000 you will pay a 3.8% capital gains tax. And this applies not to just homes but to all real estate transactions
      
      Now a result of opting out and those being dropped means a revenue decrease to the insurance providers. So there is less coming in to offset the claims they pay. So they will raise the rates to offset that loss. So you see, Obamacare will not lower rate but actually raise rates.
      
      While I do not believe the global warming doom as they say is coming, I do believe we can lower pollution . Nothing ever wrong with that, even if there needs to be new regulation to achieve it.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Vote for Paul. He's got a 20+ year track record of dong what he'll say he'll do.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Not really, but I know we agree to disagree on that.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Huh Huh, you said dong...

         replyreport
2. 58

   BillWest165posted 12 years ago

   Clinton was forced to balance the budget by a Republican congress. His economy also benefited from the internet bubble. Bush had 2 wars to fight which ran up the deficits. Taxing people more does not benefit the economy no matter who they are. It just gives the government more money to waste.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting. How exactly do you reconcile the statements "Bush had 2 wars to fight" with "taxing people...just gives the government more money to waste"?

      replyreport
3. 61

   TMMasonposted 12 years ago

   Funny?... I remember a Democrat Congress under Bush tacking mad spending onto war bills and any thing else that was attempted to be passed. And all those Republican Congresses you point to were progressive controlled. Has not been a Conservative Republican controlled congress since ... damn it has been a while.

   replyreport