The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

You've got to be kidding. Government growth slowed to a crawl.

In 1995 spending was 1.5 trillion.

In 1996 it was 1.56. 4% increase.

In 1997 it was 1.60. A 2.5% increase.

In 1998 it was 1.65. A 3.1% increase.

In 1999 it was 1.70. A 3.0% increase.

Contrast that to government spending increases in any era.

Best quick estimates I could find... YMMV

2012 $3.796T

2013 $3.803T (0% increase)

2014 $3.780T (0% increase)

 

[Lutherman2112]

Countdown to next crisis?

$24 billion from the economy, mortgage loan applications at a 6 year low. I bet you are happy...

And the government sloths got a well deserved paid vacation. Win for everybody.

Nice use of dehumanization.

 

[DrJ]

It seems interesting to me that my entire life, the argument that we have limited resources was always a progressive argument, made in order to justify egalitarian redistribution of wealth. The conservative, pro-business argument was that we actually had unlimited resources, because capitalism as an economic system constantly creates new opportunities that we couldn't have conceived before.

Today's conservatism, as represented by Dr. J here and the Tea Party in Congress, have moved away from this pro-business stance. They seem to believe, like the old-time progressives, that we have limited resources, and therefore we need to cut spending (which ultimately is no different from the old progressive redistribution of wealth argument- they're simply trying to redistribute it in the opposite direction.) Progressives are the ones who have become more pro-business, as witness how th4 Chamber of Commerce was solidly on the side of the Democrats during the shutdown crisis.

It's not an argument that we have limited resources, this is a pretty stupid caricature of my position. Our economy will eventually double and double again. To expect it to happen as quickly as it did in the years following WW2 is absolutely ridiculous and it's stupid to base government and economic policy on these expectations.

 

[timschochet]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

I agree with you about the term "fiscal conservative", which is why I was careful to define what it meant to ME, as opposed to what it might mean to somebody else.

I have heard your argument before- it's made several times by progressives. But my problem with it is that history shows that whenever we have economic prosperity, neither political party seems particularly interested in reducing deficits and/or debt. The Democrats predictably suggest that this is the time for some sort of new spending program since we can now afford it. The Republicans predictably call for a tax cut since the hard working public deserves to get some of their money back. It's actually pretty difficult to come up with ANY examples where either side really attempted to cut spending.

They did a pretty good job of reducing the deficit during the less really strong economy, the late 90s.

They did, but it was mostly by growing the economy, not by cutting spending. That would seem to contradict what Dr. J is arguing.

You've got to be kidding. Government growth slowed to a crawl.

In 1995 spending was 1.5 trillion.

In 1996 it was 1.56. 4% increase.

In 1997 it was 1.60. A 2.5% increase.

In 1998 it was 1.65. A 3.1% increase.

In 1999 it was 1.70. A 3.0% increase.

Contrast that to government spending increases in any era.

Well that's interesting. I wasn't aware of those numbers. You' seem to be arguing that

1. It was deliberate

2. That the spending slowdown created the surplus (rather than the economic boom of Silicon valley, etc.)

3. The surplus was good for our economy, better than a deficit would be.

Not sure any of these points are true, but I'm willing to consider them.

 

[eurotrashman]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

A liberal who doesn't believe in waste and throwing money away? Wow. THIS has got to be the post of the year, right here.

That's as rare as a dodo-bird. Or maybe you meant, "The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing THEIR money away" instead? Then I would agree with you, because liberals love wasting everyone else's money except their own.

Wow...such insight!

 

[timschochet]

It seems interesting to me that my entire life, the argument that we have limited resources was always a progressive argument, made in order to justify egalitarian redistribution of wealth. The conservative, pro-business argument was that we actually had unlimited resources, because capitalism as an economic system constantly creates new opportunities that we couldn't have conceived before.

Today's conservatism, as represented by Dr. J here and the Tea Party in Congress, have moved away from this pro-business stance. They seem to believe, like the old-time progressives, that we have limited resources, and therefore we need to cut spending (which ultimately is no different from the old progressive redistribution of wealth argument- they're simply trying to redistribute it in the opposite direction.) Progressives are the ones who have become more pro-business, as witness how th4 Chamber of Commerce was solidly on the side of the Democrats during the shutdown crisis.

It's not an argument that we have limited resources, this is a pretty stupid caricature of my position. Our economy will eventually double and double again. To expect it to happen as quickly as it did in the years following WW2 is absolutely ridiculous and it's stupid to base government and economic policy on these expectations.

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

 

[drummer]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

A liberal who doesn't believe in waste and throwing money away? Wow. THIS has got to be the post of the year, right here.

That's as rare as a dodo-bird. Or maybe you meant, "The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing THEIR money away" instead? Then I would agree with you, because liberals love wasting everyone else's money except their own.

Wow...such insight!

Yeah, it's not like it's a politicians job to take money and spend it. If there is money to be had, there is money to be spent. The conservative vs. liberal is just shtick to gain more money for they to spend.

 

[Amused to Death]

From the comment section of Fox News article:

“Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."

Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."
Jan 2009: "We're gonna shout you down every time you try to pass healthcare."
July 2009: "We'll fight to death every attempt you make to pass healthcare."
Dec 2009: "We will destroy you if you even consider passing healthcare."
March 2010: "We can't believe you just passed healthcare."
April 2010: "We are going to overturn healthcare."
Sept 2010: "We are going to repeal healthcare."
Jan 2011: "We are going to destroy healthcare."
Feb 2012: "We're gonna elect a candidate who'll revoke healthcare NOW."
June 2012: "We'll go to the Supreme Court, and they will overturn healthcare."
Aug 2012: "American people'll never re-elect you-they don't want healthcare."
Oct 2012: "We can't wait to win the election and explode healthcare."
Nov 2012: "We can't believe you got re-elected & we can't repeal healthcare."
Feb 2013: "We're still going to vote to obliterate healthcare."
June 2013: "We can't believe the Supreme Court just upheld healthcare."
July 2013: "We're going to vote like 35 more times to erase healthcare."
Sept 2013: "We are going to leverage a government shutdown into defunding, destroying, obliterating, overturning, repealing, dismantling, erasing and ripping apart healthcare."
Oct 2013: "WHY AREN'T YOU NEGOTIATING???"”

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Could be a bloodbath in the Republican primaries next cycle. I don't really get Cruz's angle here in terms of how he thinks this will help him win, but he's doubling down.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) stood behind his effort to use a government shutdown to defund the health care law Wednesday, blaming his fellow Senate Republicans for getting in the way of victory in the House.

Cruz told conservative talk show host Mark Levin that Republican senators had been "firing their cannons" at the House Republican caucus and likened the Senate GOP to an "air force bombing our own troops."

Cruz also said that the Senate is "undoubtedly" broken.

"It's a broken institution," he said, adding that Senate Republicans are too concerned with "getting invited to the cocktail parties."

 

[drummer]

It seems interesting to me that my entire life, the argument that we have limited resources was always a progressive argument, made in order to justify egalitarian redistribution of wealth. The conservative, pro-business argument was that we actually had unlimited resources, because capitalism as an economic system constantly creates new opportunities that we couldn't have conceived before.

Today's conservatism, as represented by Dr. J here and the Tea Party in Congress, have moved away from this pro-business stance. They seem to believe, like the old-time progressives, that we have limited resources, and therefore we need to cut spending (which ultimately is no different from the old progressive redistribution of wealth argument- they're simply trying to redistribute it in the opposite direction.) Progressives are the ones who have become more pro-business, as witness how th4 Chamber of Commerce was solidly on the side of the Democrats during the shutdown crisis.

It's not an argument that we have limited resources, this is a pretty stupid caricature of my position. Our economy will eventually double and double again. To expect it to happen as quickly as it did in the years following WW2 is absolutely ridiculous and it's stupid to base government and economic policy on these expectations.

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

Do you ever get tired of arguing? Your household must be a hoot at dinner time.

 

[drummer]

Could be a bloodbath in the Republican primaries next cycle. I don't really get Cruz's angle here in terms of how he thinks this will help him win, but he's doubling down.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) stood behind his effort to use a government shutdown to defund the health care law Wednesday, blaming his fellow Senate Republicans for getting in the way of victory in the House.

Cruz told conservative talk show host Mark Levin that Republican senators had been "firing their cannons" at the House Republican caucus and likened the Senate GOP to an "air force bombing our own troops."

Cruz also said that the Senate is "undoubtedly" broken.

"It's a broken institution," he said, adding that Senate Republicans are too concerned with "getting invited to the cocktail parties."

I think the POTUS run is a bit of a ruse. He's better off in a long term Senate seat, and be the leader of the Republican party. The POTUS run is more to raise funds.

 

[timschochet]

It seems interesting to me that my entire life, the argument that we have limited resources was always a progressive argument, made in order to justify egalitarian redistribution of wealth. The conservative, pro-business argument was that we actually had unlimited resources, because capitalism as an economic system constantly creates new opportunities that we couldn't have conceived before.

Today's conservatism, as represented by Dr. J here and the Tea Party in Congress, have moved away from this pro-business stance. They seem to believe, like the old-time progressives, that we have limited resources, and therefore we need to cut spending (which ultimately is no different from the old progressive redistribution of wealth argument- they're simply trying to redistribute it in the opposite direction.) Progressives are the ones who have become more pro-business, as witness how th4 Chamber of Commerce was solidly on the side of the Democrats during the shutdown crisis.

It's not an argument that we have limited resources, this is a pretty stupid caricature of my position. Our economy will eventually double and double again. To expect it to happen as quickly as it did in the years following WW2 is absolutely ridiculous and it's stupid to base government and economic policy on these expectations.

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

Do you ever get tired of arguing? Your household must be a hoot at dinner time.

1. No. 2. My wife and daughters are all much more liberal than I am, but they will rarely discuss politics with me. But that's OK; I have you guys!

 

[lod01]

the only crisis is the one facing the republican party as they try to pick up the pieces of what's left of their party while lying broken and listless before the charred walls of the damned.

There are some incredibly stupid poeple running that party. They could crush the democrats if one of them had a brain and used common sense.

 

[DrJ]

You've got to be kidding. Government growth slowed to a crawl.

In 1995 spending was 1.5 trillion.

In 1996 it was 1.56. 4% increase.

In 1997 it was 1.60. A 2.5% increase.

In 1998 it was 1.65. A 3.1% increase.

In 1999 it was 1.70. A 3.0% increase.

Contrast that to government spending increases in any era.

Best quick estimates I could find... YMMV

2012 $3.796T

2013 $3.803T (0% increase)

2014 $3.780T (0% increase)

Yeah, I did notice that the budget has been trending positively using this metric the last couple of years. Looking at a similar span of actual numbers and not projections we get the following:

In 2008 the budget was 2.98 trillion

In 2009 it was 3.52 trillion, an 18% increase

In 2010 it was 3.46 trillion, a 1.7% decrease

In 2011 it was 3.60 trillion, a 4% increaes

In 2012 it was 3.53 trillion, a 2% decrease.

Over this span it increased 18%. Which was all in one year, was supposed to be temporary, and essentially became the new baseline.

Over the similar late 90's span it was 13% over the whole period in small increments. So that period was far better. But it does look like the Tea Party has done a good job of at least putting a bit of a leash on all of this since they've come in.

Future estimates this table provides -

2013 - 3.68 trillion, a 4.2% increase.

2014 - 3.77 trillion, a 2.4% increase

2015 - 3.90 trillion a 3.4% increase

2016 - 4.09 trillion a 4.8% increase

2017 - 4.25 trillion a 3.9% increase

2018 - 4.45 trillion a 4.7% increase

Personally I'm not confident it will stay that low as Obamacare starts to roll out, but we'll see. If it does, we still need growth that exceeds these numbers if we're going to even balance the budget maintaining status quo, let alone reduce the deficit. And recent history indicates this isn't likely to happen.

 

[drummer]

It seems interesting to me that my entire life, the argument that we have limited resources was always a progressive argument, made in order to justify egalitarian redistribution of wealth. The conservative, pro-business argument was that we actually had unlimited resources, because capitalism as an economic system constantly creates new opportunities that we couldn't have conceived before.

Today's conservatism, as represented by Dr. J here and the Tea Party in Congress, have moved away from this pro-business stance. They seem to believe, like the old-time progressives, that we have limited resources, and therefore we need to cut spending (which ultimately is no different from the old progressive redistribution of wealth argument- they're simply trying to redistribute it in the opposite direction.) Progressives are the ones who have become more pro-business, as witness how th4 Chamber of Commerce was solidly on the side of the Democrats during the shutdown crisis.

It's not an argument that we have limited resources, this is a pretty stupid caricature of my position. Our economy will eventually double and double again. To expect it to happen as quickly as it did in the years following WW2 is absolutely ridiculous and it's stupid to base government and economic policy on these expectations.

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

Do you ever get tired of arguing? Your household must be a hoot at dinner time.

1. No.2. My wife and daughters are all much more liberal than I am, but they will rarely discuss politics with me. But that's OK; I have you guys!

1.Yeah, that was a stupid question.

2. They probably know the proper way of shutting you up than we do. Maybe something like "tim, go play on the computer".

 

[DrJ]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

I agree with you about the term "fiscal conservative", which is why I was careful to define what it meant to ME, as opposed to what it might mean to somebody else.

I have heard your argument before- it's made several times by progressives. But my problem with it is that history shows that whenever we have economic prosperity, neither political party seems particularly interested in reducing deficits and/or debt. The Democrats predictably suggest that this is the time for some sort of new spending program since we can now afford it. The Republicans predictably call for a tax cut since the hard working public deserves to get some of their money back. It's actually pretty difficult to come up with ANY examples where either side really attempted to cut spending.

They did a pretty good job of reducing the deficit during the less really strong economy, the late 90s.

They did, but it was mostly by growing the economy, not by cutting spending. That would seem to contradict what Dr. J is arguing.

You've got to be kidding. Government growth slowed to a crawl.

In 1995 spending was 1.5 trillion.

In 1996 it was 1.56. 4% increase.

In 1997 it was 1.60. A 2.5% increase.

In 1998 it was 1.65. A 3.1% increase.

In 1999 it was 1.70. A 3.0% increase.

Contrast that to government spending increases in any era.

Well that's interesting. I wasn't aware of those numbers. You' seem to be arguing that

1. It was deliberate

2. That the spending slowdown created the surplus (rather than the economic boom of Silicon valley, etc.)

3. The surplus was good for our economy, better than a deficit would be.

Not sure any of these points are true, but I'm willing to consider them.

It was most definitely deliberate. This was part of the "Contract With America". The spending slowdown combined with a tax increase and a relatively normal economy all contributed to it. In terms of GDP growth there was nothing all that spectacular about the "economic boom of Silicon Valley". It's silly to think that GDP growth that was small compared to previous decades had such a positive impact on GDP to debt ratios.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I agree we're not going to see growth like we did from 1950-2000.

But I am optimistic that we have an opportunity right now to flatline spending, including some entitlement reform and use increased revenues to further reduce the annual deficit.

What I'm not optimistic about is what happens if we hit another recession before output recovers from the last one. Zero growth + increased safety net spending could offset all of that.

 

[timschochet]

You've got to be kidding. Government growth slowed to a crawl.

In 1995 spending was 1.5 trillion.

In 1996 it was 1.56. 4% increase.

In 1997 it was 1.60. A 2.5% increase.

In 1998 it was 1.65. A 3.1% increase.

In 1999 it was 1.70. A 3.0% increase.

Contrast that to government spending increases in any era.

Best quick estimates I could find... YMMV

2012 $3.796T

2013 $3.803T (0% increase)

2014 $3.780T (0% increase)

Yeah, I did notice that the budget has been trending positively using this metric the last couple of years. Looking at a similar span of actual numbers and not projections we get the following:

In 2008 the budget was 2.98 trillion

In 2009 it was 3.52 trillion, an 18% increase

In 2010 it was 3.46 trillion, a 1.7% decrease

In 2011 it was 3.60 trillion, a 4% increaes

In 2012 it was 3.53 trillion, a 2% decrease.

Over this span it increased 18%. Which was all in one year, was supposed to be temporary, and essentially became the new baseline.

Over the similar late 90's span it was 13% over the whole period in small increments. So that period was far better. But it does look like the Tea Party has done a good job of at least putting a bit of a leash on all of this since they've come in.

Future estimates this table provides -

2013 - 3.68 trillion, a 4.2% increase.

2014 - 3.77 trillion, a 2.4% increase

2015 - 3.90 trillion a 3.4% increase

2016 - 4.09 trillion a 4.8% increase

2017 - 4.25 trillion a 3.9% increase

2018 - 4.45 trillion a 4.7% increase

Personally I'm not confident it will stay that low as Obamacare starts to roll out, but we'll see. If it does, we still need growth that exceeds these numbers if we're going to even balance the budget maintaining status quo, let alone reduce the deficit. And recent history indicates this isn't likely to happen.

So doesn't your argument still essentially come down to "TARP and the stimulus package were bad for us."??? That seems to be the basis of the entire Tea Party complaint (outside of Obamacare.)

 

[Widbil83]

On a separate topic, have any reporters managed to question Obama regarding his bite and quote not to raise the ceiling last time? Sure, we all know he was doing it for politics and not because he actually wanted to not raise the ceiling, but I'd still like him to have to explain his vote and quote from the time.

They did and he said he was wrong to do it. That he was trying to make a point. I hate symbolic votes.

I also hate the 'they do it too' defense.

Obama votes against raising the debt ceiling and his vote is "symbolic." A Republican votes against raising the debt ceiling and their vote is for ruining the economy and destroying the country. What a joke.

 

[DrJ]

You've got to be kidding. Government growth slowed to a crawl.

In 1995 spending was 1.5 trillion.

In 1996 it was 1.56. 4% increase.

In 1997 it was 1.60. A 2.5% increase.

In 1998 it was 1.65. A 3.1% increase.

In 1999 it was 1.70. A 3.0% increase.

Contrast that to government spending increases in any era.

Best quick estimates I could find... YMMV

2012 $3.796T

2013 $3.803T (0% increase)

2014 $3.780T (0% increase)

Yeah, I did notice that the budget has been trending positively using this metric the last couple of years. Looking at a similar span of actual numbers and not projections we get the following:

In 2008 the budget was 2.98 trillion

In 2009 it was 3.52 trillion, an 18% increase

In 2010 it was 3.46 trillion, a 1.7% decrease

In 2011 it was 3.60 trillion, a 4% increaes

In 2012 it was 3.53 trillion, a 2% decrease.

Over this span it increased 18%. Which was all in one year, was supposed to be temporary, and essentially became the new baseline.

Over the similar late 90's span it was 13% over the whole period in small increments. So that period was far better. But it does look like the Tea Party has done a good job of at least putting a bit of a leash on all of this since they've come in.

Future estimates this table provides -

2013 - 3.68 trillion, a 4.2% increase.

2014 - 3.77 trillion, a 2.4% increase

2015 - 3.90 trillion a 3.4% increase

2016 - 4.09 trillion a 4.8% increase

2017 - 4.25 trillion a 3.9% increase

2018 - 4.45 trillion a 4.7% increase

Personally I'm not confident it will stay that low as Obamacare starts to roll out, but we'll see. If it does, we still need growth that exceeds these numbers if we're going to even balance the budget maintaining status quo, let alone reduce the deficit. And recent history indicates this isn't likely to happen.

So doesn't your argument still essentially come down to "TARP and the stimulus package were bad for us."??? That seems to be the basis of the entire Tea Party complaint (outside of Obamacare.)

No, my argument comes down to we're 1 trillion in the red as of today. We'll probably run deficits close to this for the foreseeable future playing the status quo game. Obama's current ridiculous projections have us shrinking this to 500 billion by 2016 with a GDP that magically starts growing at 5-6% a year and hits 18.9 trillion.

But we've never actually hit his projections - I noted that these projections were ridiculous 3 years ago since BFS wants to bring up arguments from 3 years ago. He projected in his 2010 "New Era Of Responsibility" budget that we'd be at a 581B deficit in 2012 with a GDP of 16.47 trillion. We were at 1.087 trillion and 15.54 trillion respectively. So there's no reason to believe Obama's current projections and his ridiculous growth figure - it's far more likely that we're closer to a 1 trillion deficit with a much lower GDP than we are to those projections. We can't continue at that pace and shrink the debt to GDP figure. It's impossible.

 

[Lutherman2112]

It was most definitely deliberate. This was part of the "Contract With America". The spending slowdown combined with a tax increase and a relatively normal economy all contributed to it. In terms of GDP growth there was nothing all that spectacular about the "economic boom of Silicon Valley". It's silly to think that GDP growth that was small compared to previous decades had such a positive impact on GDP to debt ratios.

Press Release Regarding the Contract

September 27, 1994
Contact: Ed Gillespie

202/225-5107

Contract with America Speech

Rep. **** Armey

Today we enter a new era in American government. Today, one political party is listening to the concerns of the American people and responding with specific legislation. We are united here today -- over 150 current Members of the House and over 200 candidates -- united in the belief that "the people's House" must be wrested from the grip of special interest groups and handed back to "the people."

Americans today are cynical. They are tired of broken promises, tired of being misled, tired of "spin" from a White House that seems to govern on the principle that you can fool all of the people some of the time.

Through the lenses of C-SPAN's cameras, Americans are dismayed by the sight of a revered institution corrupted by absolute power, a House of Representatives that now routinely stifles free and open debate, cobbles together thousand-page bills behind closed doors, refuses to live by the laws it imposes on everyone else, and -- most damaging -- has adopted as its central philosophy the belief that ordinary people can not be trusted to spend their own money and make their own decisions.

If the American people are willing to let us, we're willing to change all that.

Today, we Republicans are signing a "Contract with America." We pledge ourselves, in writing, to a new agenda of reform, respect, and renewal: Reform of congress and other government institutions. Respect for the people we serve and represent. And renewal of the american Dream that each day seems to slip further from the grasp of too many families.

We make this explicit offer: Give us majority control of the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades and we will bring to the House floor on the first day real Congressional Reforms. In the first 100 days, we will bring to a vote ten bills that would have an immediate and real impact in the lives of ordinary Americans.

We will bring all these bills to the floor for an up or down vote, with open and fair debate, where everyone's views are heard as we embark on a new direction for congress and a new partnership with the American people.

We put these bills in a contract so people can hold us accountable -- and there's an enforcement clause. We explicitly state, "If you give us control and we don't do what we say, throw us out." We mean it, and we take it as an article of faith that the American people will mean it, too.

Our Contract with America agenda was put together by everyone you see here today, working together to draft common sense legislation to address the many real problems where government can play a proper role. The ten bills that make up our Contract with America are available now, in full legislative language. Unlike the current Ruling Party in Congress that routinely forces us to vote on thousand-page bills without a chance to read them, we are not afraid to subject our work to the purifying light of day. We are making a Contract today to run Congress in the open, with the full participation of the American people -- if they give us the opportunity.

Our Contract with America is just the opening one hundred days of accountable government. The Contract is not the answer to every problem facing America today. It is an honest beginning, and an effort to invest this election with some positive meaning, because running solely against an unpopular president would only deepen the public's cynicism.

Winston Churchill once said, "Americans always do the right thing... after they have exhausted every other possibility." After 40 years of uninterrupted control, the Democrats have exhausted every other possibility, and it is time for the Republican party to accept the role of leadership the American people are demanding. Today we pledge to begin by bringing relief to the average family, which now pays more in taxes than food, shelter and clothing combined; cutting the size and influence of the federal government; and restoring accountability to the political process.

In short, we propose to cede back power from the hallowed halls of Congress to the more hallowed kitchen tables of America, where night after night families bow their heads in thanks and make decisions about education, charity, jobs, spending, debt, and values with a wisdom and compassion that no number of agency heads, cabinet secretaries or members of congress could ever match. Our contract recognizes the limits of government and the unlimited contribution of husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, children and grandparents in a safe and prosperous America.

It is now my pleasure to introduce Congressman Bill Paxon of New York, who chairs the National Republican congressional Committee. Bill made sure that candidates had as much input in this document as sitting members, and he is largely responsible for the prospect of electing the first Republican House majority in 40 years.

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print. This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control/, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right. To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

A balanced budget tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses

THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT

An anti crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, "good faith' exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.
THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT

Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT

A $500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.

THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT

No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.

THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT

Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.

THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT

Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT

"Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT

A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills

Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.

Link

How old are you, and what were you doing in 1994?

 

[DrJ]

And Tim, at a certain point I'd think you'd start to question the guys that keep telling you we'll hit 5-6% growth if we just spend their pile of money and yet when we spend the money we never hit their growth figures. Why do you have any reason to believe they truly understand the economy and the money they're playing with?

 

[bear]

Could be a bloodbath in the Republican primaries next cycle. I don't really get Cruz's angle here in terms of how he thinks this will help him win, but he's doubling down.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) stood behind his effort to use a government shutdown to defund the health care law Wednesday, blaming his fellow Senate Republicans for getting in the way of victory in the House.

Cruz told conservative talk show host Mark Levin that Republican senators had been "firing their cannons" at the House Republican caucus and likened the Senate GOP to an "air force bombing our own troops."

Cruz also said that the Senate is "undoubtedly" broken.

"It's a broken institution," he said, adding that Senate Republicans are too concerned with "getting invited to the cocktail parties."

I think the POTUS run is a bit of a ruse. He's better off in a long term Senate seat, and be the leader of the Republican party. The POTUS run is more to raise funds.

The only thing Cruz could be a leader of is something completely irrelevant. He has shown what he is about and it is not about what is best for this country. He is an absolute disgrace to this country and, I would imagine, his time as someone influential is done permanently.

 

[Lutherman2112]

It was most definitely deliberate. This was part of the "Contract With America". The spending slowdown combined with a tax increase and a relatively normal economy all contributed to it. In terms of GDP growth there was nothing all that spectacular about the "economic boom of Silicon Valley". It's silly to think that GDP growth that was small compared to previous decades had such a positive impact on GDP to debt ratios.

Press Release Regarding the Contract

September 27, 1994
Contact: Ed Gillespie

202/225-5107

Contract with America Speech

Rep. **** Armey

Today we enter a new era in American government. Today, one political party is listening to the concerns of the American people and responding with specific legislation. We are united here today -- over 150 current Members of the House and over 200 candidates -- united in the belief that "the people's House" must be wrested from the grip of special interest groups and handed back to "the people."

Americans today are cynical. They are tired of broken promises, tired of being misled, tired of "spin" from a White House that seems to govern on the principle that you can fool all of the people some of the time.

Through the lenses of C-SPAN's cameras, Americans are dismayed by the sight of a revered institution corrupted by absolute power, a House of Representatives that now routinely stifles free and open debate, cobbles together thousand-page bills behind closed doors, refuses to live by the laws it imposes on everyone else, and -- most damaging -- has adopted as its central philosophy the belief that ordinary people can not be trusted to spend their own money and make their own decisions.

If the American people are willing to let us, we're willing to change all that.

Today, we Republicans are signing a "Contract with America." We pledge ourselves, in writing, to a new agenda of reform, respect, and renewal: Reform of congress and other government institutions. Respect for the people we serve and represent. And renewal of the american Dream that each day seems to slip further from the grasp of too many families.

We make this explicit offer: Give us majority control of the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades and we will bring to the House floor on the first day real Congressional Reforms. In the first 100 days, we will bring to a vote ten bills that would have an immediate and real impact in the lives of ordinary Americans.

We will bring all these bills to the floor for an up or down vote, with open and fair debate, where everyone's views are heard as we embark on a new direction for congress and a new partnership with the American people.

We put these bills in a contract so people can hold us accountable -- and there's an enforcement clause. We explicitly state, "If you give us control and we don't do what we say, throw us out." We mean it, and we take it as an article of faith that the American people will mean it, too.

Our Contract with America agenda was put together by everyone you see here today, working together to draft common sense legislation to address the many real problems where government can play a proper role. The ten bills that make up our Contract with America are available now, in full legislative language. Unlike the current Ruling Party in Congress that routinely forces us to vote on thousand-page bills without a chance to read them, we are not afraid to subject our work to the purifying light of day. We are making a Contract today to run Congress in the open, with the full participation of the American people -- if they give us the opportunity.

Our Contract with America is just the opening one hundred days of accountable government. The Contract is not the answer to every problem facing America today. It is an honest beginning, and an effort to invest this election with some positive meaning, because running solely against an unpopular president would only deepen the public's cynicism.

Winston Churchill once said, "Americans always do the right thing... after they have exhausted every other possibility." After 40 years of uninterrupted control, the Democrats have exhausted every other possibility, and it is time for the Republican party to accept the role of leadership the American people are demanding. Today we pledge to begin by bringing relief to the average family, which now pays more in taxes than food, shelter and clothing combined; cutting the size and influence of the federal government; and restoring accountability to the political process.

In short, we propose to cede back power from the hallowed halls of Congress to the more hallowed kitchen tables of America, where night after night families bow their heads in thanks and make decisions about education, charity, jobs, spending, debt, and values with a wisdom and compassion that no number of agency heads, cabinet secretaries or members of congress could ever match. Our contract recognizes the limits of government and the unlimited contribution of husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, children and grandparents in a safe and prosperous America.

It is now my pleasure to introduce Congressman Bill Paxon of New York, who chairs the National Republican congressional Committee. Bill made sure that candidates had as much input in this document as sitting members, and he is largely responsible for the prospect of electing the first Republican House majority in 40 years.

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print. This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control/, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right. To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

A balanced budget tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses

THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT

An anti crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, "good faith' exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.
THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT

Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT

A $500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.

THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT

No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.

THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT

Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.

THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT

Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT

"Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT

A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills

Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.

Here's another: Newt Gingrich talking to Blue Cross/Blue Shield Execs about the GOPs health plan...which turned out to be Obamacare:

Now let me talk a little bit about Medicare. Let me start at the vision level so you understand how radically different we are and why it's so hard for the press corps to cover us.

Medicare is the 1964 Blue Cross plan codified into law by Lyndon B. Johnson, and it is about what you'd -- I mean, if you all went out in the marketplace tomorrow morning and said, "Hi, I've got a 1964 Blue Cross plan," I'll let you decide how competitive you'd be. But I don't think very.

So what we're trying to do, first of all, is say, O.K., here is a government monopoly plan. We're designing a free-market plan. Now, they're very different models. You know, we tell Boris Yeltsin, "Get rid of centralized command bureaucracies. Go to the marketplace."

O.K., what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now, we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that that's politically smart, and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it -- voluntarily.

 

[badmojo1006]

It passed the Senate 81-18. It looks like the 18 No's were:

Coburn
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Grassley
Heller
Johnson (Wis)
Lee
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Toomey
Vitter

 

[pizzatyme]

Let me paraphrase...the President is willing to listen to ideas (that create jobs) that overcome the devastating effect of Obamacare on jobs in the US. Got it.

 

[Mark Davis]

This is one of the biggest political debacles I've ever seen. The rollout of Obamacare has been a disaster and yet Republicans have found a way to lose the politics of this. This is worse than nominating Christine The Witch O'Donnell instead of Mike Castle.

 

[igbomb]

This is one of the biggest political debacles I've ever seen. The rollout of Obamacare has been a disaster and yet Republicans have found a way to lose the politics of this. This is worse than nominating Christine The Witch O'Donnell instead of Mike Castle.

Or Sarah Palin instead of anybody else.

 

[3C's]

Just heard some GOP congressman on CNN say he's going to vote no. Have a feeling many of his cohorts will be doing the same. Far from over.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Quote from John Boehner just now: "We fought the good fight; we just didn't win."

Estimated cost of the shutdown thus far per ABC news: 20 billion.

Estimated jobs lost due to silly Republican KooK gamesmanship on budgets/debt ceilings, etc.: over 1 million.

Yay KooKs!!!

 

[Mark Davis]

This is one of the biggest political debacles I've ever seen. The rollout of Obamacare has been a disaster and yet Republicans have found a way to lose the politics of this. This is worse than nominating Christine The Witch O'Donnell instead of Mike Castle.

Or Sarah Palin instead of anybody else.

In fairness, McCain wasn't going to defeat Obama no matter who he chose. The last 2 elections the Republicans have given away control of the Senate by nominating the likes of O'Donnell, Angle, Mourdock, Akin, etc. These were all seats they should have won. Joe Biden's son wouldn't even run in that DE Senate race because he couldn't beat Mike Castle, the Democrats had all but conceded the seat. This stunt may keep the Senate in Democratic hands for the third election cycle in a row where they easily should/could have won it.

 

[Mark Davis]

Just heard some GOP congressman on CNN say he's going to vote no. Have a feeling many of his cohorts will be doing the same. Far from over.

The votes are already there. A majority of Republicans may not vote for it but I think the Democrats are going to supply almost 100% of their caucus. It won't take too many Republican votes.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Curious at why you think I'm not Independent?

Well...

I just picture a cartoon out there somewhere with the skyline of Washington burning and nothing but rubble while two Democrats high five each other and say, "Yay! We won!"

Someone who can draw, get on it!

It is possible to make fun of one side, and not be affiliated with the other. I'm sure that comes as a big surprise to alot of partisan hacks out there. But there are millions of people who laugh at both sides and can clearly see how inept they both are at just about everything.

Very true.

I am Anti-KooK, not Pro-Democrat.

 

[3C's]

Just heard some GOP congressman on CNN say he's going to vote no. Have a feeling many of his cohorts will be doing the same. Far from over.

The votes are already there. A majority of Republicans may not vote for it but I think the Democrats are going to supply almost 100% of their caucus. It won't take too many Republican votes.

I'm sure the D's will vote for it. Not certain how many R's will. This one was a long time Rep, not one of the new tea party types. I'd think several would be sensible about it but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Slapdash]

To clarify my last point- I remain, and always will remain, a fiscal conservative in terms of I believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, I believe that free trade creates a prosperous society (and is the best avenue to bring about world peace and prosperity), and I believe that less government controls and lower taxes, if possible, lead to better societal outcomes in general. These beliefs are part of my core philosophy and I will never abandon them.

BUT- this question of whether or not society benefits from the government spending more than it earns in any single year- to me, that's an open debate. While the standard conservative position that we shouldn't spend more than we earn makes intuitive sense, the progressive (Keynesian?) position that we can and should spend more than we earn has a lot of historical backup. The question I always have for the Keynesians is what is the limit? As Rich sarcastically put earlier, why not simply spend limitless amounts? Currently the debt is 17 trillion. Progressives tell us this is no big deal because they look at it as a percentage of our overall GDP. That's a fair enough argument, except that it presumes that there is a point where it IS a big deal. What would that point be? 35 trillion? 100 trillion? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question on my part; I honestly don't know how progressives would answer that question.

tim, the answer to almost all of these question is "it depends". It times of economic prosperity, reducing deficits and debt may take priority. In times of economic distress, reducing unemployment should take priority.

The term "fiscal conservative" is so bastardized these days it's worthless. Common usage almost implies that the person who isn't a fiscal conservative is irresponsible. The reality is that every liberal I know hates waste and does not believe in throwing money away when there are plenty of worthwhile programs that are systemically underfunded.

I agree with you about the term "fiscal conservative", which is why I was careful to define what it meant to ME, as opposed to what it might mean to somebody else.

I have heard your argument before- it's made several times by progressives. But my problem with it is that history shows that whenever we have economic prosperity, neither political party seems particularly interested in reducing deficits and/or debt. The Democrats predictably suggest that this is the time for some sort of new spending program since we can now afford it. The Republicans predictably call for a tax cut since the hard working public deserves to get some of their money back. It's actually pretty difficult to come up with ANY examples where either side really attempted to cut spending.

They did a pretty good job of reducing the deficit during the less really strong economy, the late 90s.

They did, but it was mostly by growing the economy, not by cutting spending. That would seem to contradict what Dr. J is arguing

Right, spending wasn't cut. But nor were people uninterested in reducing the deficit like you claim in the bold. Reducing debt by helping the economy grow more strongly is the best way.

Trying to reduce it in an economy where the private sectors are deleveraging is often self-defeating. Creating political controversy that questions the will to pay that debt or inspires greater uncertainty to go about that is just stupid.

 

[Mark Davis]

Just heard some GOP congressman on CNN say he's going to vote no. Have a feeling many of his cohorts will be doing the same. Far from over.

The votes are already there. A majority of Republicans may not vote for it but I think the Democrats are going to supply almost 100% of their caucus. It won't take too many Republican votes.

I'm sure the D's will vote for it. Not certain how many R's will. This one was a long time Rep, not one of the new tea party types. I'd think several would be sensible about it but I'm not holding my breath.

I think there were somewhere around 18 already on record of saying they'd vote for a clean CR. This is prior to Boehner, McCarthy, and Cantor saying they'd support it. That alone is enough.

 

[3C's]

Just heard some GOP congressman on CNN say he's going to vote no. Have a feeling many of his cohorts will be doing the same. Far from over.

The votes are already there. A majority of Republicans may not vote for it but I think the Democrats are going to supply almost 100% of their caucus. It won't take too many Republican votes.

I'm sure the D's will vote for it. Not certain how many R's will. This one was a long time Rep, not one of the new tea party types. I'd think several would be sensible about it but I'm not holding my breath.

I think there were somewhere around 18 already on record of saying they'd vote for a clean CR. This is prior to Boehner, McCarthy, and Cantor saying they'd support it. That alone is enough.

I'd venture to guess that the TP has been busy getting angry calls sent their way in an effort to get them to change their mind. Just take a look at the FB page for Boehner posted earlier.

 

[Mark Davis]

Just heard some GOP congressman on CNN say he's going to vote no. Have a feeling many of his cohorts will be doing the same. Far from over.

The votes are already there. A majority of Republicans may not vote for it but I think the Democrats are going to supply almost 100% of their caucus. It won't take too many Republican votes.

I'm sure the D's will vote for it. Not certain how many R's will. This one was a long time Rep, not one of the new tea party types. I'd think several would be sensible about it but I'm not holding my breath.

I think there were somewhere around 18 already on record of saying they'd vote for a clean CR. This is prior to Boehner, McCarthy, and Cantor saying they'd support it. That alone is enough.

I'd venture to guess that the TP has been busy getting angry calls sent their way in an effort to get them to change their mind. Just take a look at the FB page for Boehner posted earlier.

Oh I know. I've already seen the posts on all of my congressmen's pages. None of these original guys were tea-partiers though. These were guys like Peter King from NY and Charlie Dent from PA. Those guys aren't flipping.

 

[timschochet]

Just heard some GOP congressman on CNN say he's going to vote no. Have a feeling many of his cohorts will be doing the same. Far from over.

The votes are already there. A majority of Republicans may not vote for it but I think the Democrats are going to supply almost 100% of their caucus. It won't take too many Republican votes.

I'm sure the D's will vote for it. Not certain how many R's will. This one was a long time Rep, not one of the new tea party types. I'd think several would be sensible about it but I'm not holding my breath.

I think there were somewhere around 18 already on record of saying they'd vote for a clean CR. This is prior to Boehner, McCarthy, and Cantor saying they'd support it. That alone is enough.

Much like TARP and the stimulus package, the Republicans who are voting against this do so knowing it will pass- they've been given political cover by Boehner to oppose.

 

[RCon]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

 

[DrJ]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Kentucky wins $3 billion earmark.

Establishment republicans win again.

 

[timschochet]

There is a lot of confusion about the information that JoJo provided earlier. Politico reports that the disapproval of the debt ceiling clause (which would allow Obama to veto) is only for THIS time, for the purpose of extending the debt limit to Feb. 7. National Journal, which JoJo linked, reports that the veto power will be for Feb. 7, but does not explain whether this is a repeating thing, nor does it explain how long the debt ceiling would be extended past Feb. 7 in such an event. I tried to read the actual bill (posted on Politico) but it's 35 pages and so convoluted in legalese (even for me, and I read commercial leases every day) that I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. So who knows?

That being said, I have a strong feeling this is the last debt ceiling crisis we're going to see in a long while. I believe that any attempt by the Tea Party to either pull this crap again or threaten to shut down the government will be immediately shot down by the GOP leadership- they would prefer to make the 2014 elections a referendum on the success of Obamacare and spending, rather than on all these manufactured crisis. That's why the lengths of the extensions are pretty irrelevant, IMO.

 

[Dr Oadi]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

 

[timschochet]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

 

[Riversco]

So what did they compromise on to get an agreement?

 

[DrJ]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

 

[Dr Oadi]

So what did they compromise on to get an agreement?

Kentucky got 2 more billion $ for a dam.

 

[humpback]

Just heard some GOP congressman on CNN say he's going to vote no. Have a feeling many of his cohorts will be doing the same. Far from over.

The votes are already there. A majority of Republicans may not vote for it but I think the Democrats are going to supply almost 100% of their caucus. It won't take too many Republican votes.

I'm sure the D's will vote for it. Not certain how many R's will. This one was a long time Rep, not one of the new tea party types. I'd think several would be sensible about it but I'm not holding my breath.

I think there were somewhere around 18 already on record of saying they'd vote for a clean CR. This is prior to Boehner, McCarthy, and Cantor saying they'd support it. That alone is enough.

I'd venture to guess that the TP has been busy getting angry calls sent their way in an effort to get them to change their mind. Just take a look at the FB page for Boehner posted earlier.

Doesn't matter if they're the minority.

Already more than enough GOP votes to pass.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Curious at why you think I'm not Independent?

Well...

I just picture a cartoon out there somewhere with the skyline of Washington burning and nothing but rubble while two Democrats high five each other and say, "Yay! We won!"

Someone who can draw, get on it!

It is possible to make fun of one side, and not be affiliated with the other. I'm sure that comes as a big surprise to alot of partisan hacks out there. But there are millions of people who laugh at both sides and can clearly see how inept they both are at just about everything.

Very true.

I am Anti-KooK, not Pro-Democrat.

yet somehow every time you post you post extreme left rhetoric and talking points. But you're not pro-Democrat at all. Sure.