Delay = RINO
 

That oil embargo was Bill Clinton's fault. Something to do with his work for the Soviets while he was studying ("studying") in England.

Delay = RINO
 

I thought we didn't have to separate Clinton/Carter ? I mean besides distinguishing where all they lusted.

Delay = RINO
 

We had slight surpluses in 1960 and 1969. Every other year was deficits. We did not get sustained surpluses until the Repubicans took over. There were plenty of times of growth when the Dems controlled congress and we did not pull out of our deficists.

And if you are going to blame Vietnam, funny that we are in war on terror right now.

Delay = RINO
 

I blame it on gerrymandering. Unless someone retires from their seat - what is the average percentage of incumbant re-election? Something like 95%

Congressmen from both sides of the aisle can spend like drunken sailors because there is never any reprisal on election day.

For RT.
 

Has long has this NBC "Live at Five" talk show talking-schmoe Jack Cafferty been on CNN?

Somehow I missed this.

For RT.
 

Delay should be expelled for the comment "everything in the budget is essential". That is the most unRepublican comment of all time. It is time to get rid of him.

Delay = RINO
 

And Bush doesn't have to veto anything for the same reason.

(whatever happened to the line-item veto?)

I'm not sure your reason is quite right, because it "proves too much". One could explain any bad law by the same rationale. With spending, if it's pork, that will get them more votes not less. If it's not pork, they can blame the wasteful spending on 534 other people, not themselves.

Delay = RINO
 

Please look at the chart again. I would generally view a balanced budget as a budget where expenditures and receipts are within 0.5% of GDP of each, and a surplus as there being more than 0.5% more in receipts over expenditures and a deficient as there being more than 0.5% more in expenditures over receipts. In the 50s and 60s, despite a Democratic dominated house, there is not much to complain about on the balanced budget side. You can complain some about growth in government if you are so inclined, but there is not deficit spending to cause that growth.

If you have to find a change that might cause something, the election of Nixon seems to precipitate the first significant and consistent budget deficits. As noted, I would blame this mostly on the Vietnam War.

There is plenty to complain about in terms of deficits in the late 1970s and through the 1980s. But ultimately taming that deficit was, I expect, the combination of a steadily improving economy during the 1990s and a governmental policy of legislating to reduce the deficit, the most significant component of which was the 1993 deficit reduction legislation. I do not believe there are many politicians or political parties ready to devote themselves to deficit reduction, which, even though good public policy, generally has no natural constituency.

Delay = RINO
 

We are trying right now to pass redistricting in California. Iowa has had redistricting reform and I think the statistic was that three out of five of its congressional seats were competitive. In California, where we don't have redistricting reform, we only had one competitive seat out of 52.

both Nancy Pelosi and Tom Delay are against the California Redistricting reform so you know it is a good idea.

Delay = RINO
 

I would point out that most economists would define a balanced budget to include very slight deficits and surpluses, and that a 0.3% deficit or a .5% deficit (which is what you are labeling a "deficit" in the 1960s) is a very different thing than a 3.5% deficit (last years).

While we are noting that military expenses do go up when at war, I would also not that there was certainly a "peace dividend" in the 1990s that contributed to deficit reduction. Forgive me if I am venturing into Captain Obvious territory again!

Delay = RINO
 

Dems keep referring to this act was so significant. During this year we increased spending but increased taxes even more. After the Republican took control we were able to get rid of the rest of the deficits by not raising taxes (and even cutting some). After the 1993 budget act long term interest rates stayed high (I think they even increased). It was only after a Repub congress did long term interest rates come down and growth really picked up thereby balancing the budget.

Delay = RINO
 

I am not an economist, but isn't the Federal Reserve's policy to let interest rates float up when the economy is good and to bring them down when the economy requires stimulus?

I sense that everyone is looking for a formula that says their party does the right thing and the other party the wrong thing. I do not think that is the case; I would challenge anyone to try to defend economic policies at any level during the Ford and Carter administrations. Both administrations seemed to have little control over the economy and little ability to do much right, and congress was no better, on either side of the aisle.

Delay = RINO
 

In a growing economy you should consistently reduce the deficit without raising taxes. Since 1960, as far as I can see on that chart, the only congress that was able to pull this off was the Repub congress of the late 1990s. Every other congress has not been able to sustain significant and continuous deficit reduction during times of growth (especially without raising taxes).

If the economy continues to grow this decade, and we continue to decrease the deficits, that will be twice for the Republican congress.

Delay = RINO
 

The Feds do not control long term interest rates. The long term interest rates reflect the markets confidence in the government to have fiscal discipline. After the 93 deficit act i believe that the long term interest rates spiked showing that the markets had no confidence in the Dems. Once the Repubs took congress, long term interest rates came down showing the markets had decided that the adults were in charge.

When the Dems were in control of congress the talk was about reducing the deficit in half in the next eight years. When the Repubs took over there was no question that the budget was going to be balanced. It was just a question of how long Clinton could prolong the deficits by fighting the Republican discipline.

The government was shut down because Clinton thought that the deficit was being reduced too much.

Delay = RINO
 

Carter, much to his credit, vetoed many appropriation bills but was overriden by congress (he tried to veto some Dams). Same thing happend to Ford. After Watergate, the Dems were so powerful that Ford had no influence on the budget. Watergate diminished the power of the presidency, so when Carter came in, even though he wanted some fiscal discipline he could not work with the Dems in Congress.

Roberts
 

13-5

Gee, Biden, Kennedy, Feinstein, Durbin, and Schumer voted against.

Seeing that these 5 would have voted "nay" even if Bush had nominated Larry Tribe, this vote total is encouraging.

Delay = RINO
 

Sometimes when i read these long arguments I start thinking I'm way too lacking in substance and knowledge to post here. then I remember Penske started the PB and I realize I am far closer to original intent than most who post here today.

On Infirm I'd say 60% of the posts were funny or at least intended to be. We'd catch a tax thread every few months but that was it.

Delay = RINO
 

Bottom line, you were and are wrong, so be a man and take responsibility. Your absolutist claims don't hold up.

ETA -- Plus, the link shows both that there were also surpluses in 1956 and 1957, and that the deficits for the other years in the 1950s and 1960s were (with _very_ few exceptions) less than 1% of GDP. This level of fiscal restraint under those Democratic Congresses would make fiscal conservatives cream their pants, by comparison to what your party is doing today.

S_A_M

P.S. Your minimization of the role of the Presidency in the budget process is striking. Did you invent that approach to deal with he cognitive dissonance caused by the truly enormous deficits of that conservative hero - RR? ETA - (A true radical, actually.)

Sure, Congress passes the budget, but the President has to sign it before it becomes law.

Moreover, the President each year sends down a proposed budget resolution which serves as the starting point and frames the debate. I would have thought that an experienced political hand like yourself would be aware of the basic procedure.

Delay = RINO
 

I am sorry, but I am just not sure what you are saying here. Of course, in a growing economy receipts will increase while tax rates remain stable, and presumably some expenditures will also go down because more people will be employed. But other expenditures, such as wages, may increase. So I'm not sure what you mean by "you should reduce deficits without raising taxes". Are you saying that the deficits should be reduced because of increase receipts? Or are you saying that the right policy is to reduce the deficit, but only as long as that doesn't entail raising taxes.

The chart, of course, has nothing to do with tax rates, but only receipts and expenditures. Receipts depend on the amount of activity as well as the tax rate.

I also don't understand your last paragraph, where you say we would "continue" to decrease the deficits. I thought deficits were on the increase right now?

Delay = RINO
 

Clinton actually put it a bit differently, but I'm sure he would appreciate your recharacterizing it for him as a refusal to save money.

Delay = RINO
 

Right on! I miss Plated's socks. [sniff] (npi)

Delay = RINO
 

I am sure that Clinton had nothing to do with any of those things, and certainly the Repub Congress would have raised taxes enough to generate the revenue that was needed to balance the budget.

Whoa! A flock of pigs just flew past my window!

Delay = RINO
 

And the deficit under the Carter presidency, with a Dem Congress -- something that Reagan the candidate railed against -- looks like a paragon of fiscal prudence compared to what we've seen under any Repub administration since.

Delay = RINO
 

Ok, sport, but you are compeltely shifting your argument.

S_A_M

Delay = RINO
 

We've had this discussion recently. You're wrong. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...a/m/tcm30y.txt

The 30 year rate in November 1992 was 7.61%. In January 1993 it was 7.34%, and it dropped to 6.81% by June 1993 and to 6.25% by December 1993.

eta There was a spike in interest rates in 1994 that economists generally (I think) attribute to worldwide economic factors. One could, I suppose, blame it on Clinton, but that doesn't change the fact that the bond traders liked his deficit reduction plan -- which passed by one vote in 1993.

Here are the numbers.
 

It was 7.53 when Clinton got elected. It climbed to 8.8 in November 1994. The Republicans got elected in November 1994 and since the Republican Congress took control it has declined steadily to 5.4. In fact it really started to climb right after the 93 deficit reduction act was passed. Clearly the markets did not have much confidence in the accomplishements of that act. The market is not big on tax increases to solve the deficit problem.

I also seems like the deficit spending of the recent Congress has not caused a spike in the interest rates. It seems the markets understand this was what was needed to get the economy rolling again.


11/1992 7.61 Clinton Elected.
12/1992 7.44
01/1993 7.34
02/1993 7.09
03/1993 6.82
04/1993 6.85
05/1993 6.92
06/1993 6.81
07/1993 6.63
08/1993 6.32
09/1993 6.00
10/1993 5.94 Deficit Reduction act passed
11/1993 6.21
12/1993 6.25
01/1994 6.29 Deficit Reduction act kicks in.
02/1994 6.49
03/1994 6.91
04/1994 7.27
05/1994 7.41
06/1994 7.40
07/1994 7.58
08/1994 7.49
09/1994 7.71
10/1994 7.94
11/1994 8.08 Repubican's elected to Congress.
12/1994 7.87
01/1995 7.85 Republicans take control of Congress
02/1995 7.61
03/1995 7.45
04/1995 7.36
05/1995 6.95
06/1995 6.57
07/1995 6.72
08/1995 6.86
09/1995 6.55
10/1995 6.37
11/1995 6.26
12/1995 6.06
01/1996 6.05
02/1996 6.24
03/1996 6.60
04/1996 6.79
05/1996 6.93
06/1996 7.06
07/1996 7.03
08/1996 6.84
09/1996 7.03
10/1996 6.81
11/1996 6.48
12/1996 6.55
01/1997 6.83
02/1997 6.69
03/1997 6.93
04/1997 7.09
05/1997 6.94
06/1997 6.77
07/1997 6.51
08/1997 6.58
09/1997 6.50
10/1997 6.33
11/1997 6.11
12/1997 5.99
01/1998 5.81
02/1998 5.89
03/1998 5.95
04/1998 5.92
05/1998 5.93
06/1998 5.70
07/1998 5.68
08/1998 5.54
09/1998 5.20
10/1998 5.01
11/1998 5.25
12/1998 5.06
01/1999 5.16
02/1999 5.37
03/1999 5.58
04/1999 5.55
05/1999 5.81
06/1999 6.04
07/1999 5.98
08/1999 6.07
09/1999 6.07
10/1999 6.26
11/1999 6.15
12/1999 6.35
01/2000 6.63
02/2000 6.23
03/2000 6.05
04/2000 5.85
05/2000 6.15
06/2000 5.93
07/2000 5.85
08/2000 5.72
09/2000 5.83
10/2000 5.80
11/2000 5.78 Bush elected
12/2000 5.49
01/2001 5.54
02/2001 5.45
03/2001 5.34
04/2001 5.65
05/2001 5.78
06/2001 5.67
07/2001 5.61
08/2001 5.48
09/2001 5.48
10/2001 5.32
11/2001 5.12
12/2001 5.48
01/2002 5.45
02/2002 5.40

I'm not going to question how markets respond or what high or low long term rates mean, because it's simply not my area. But let me ask, I see a lot of numbers in the 5s, 6s, and 7s, with a few in the 8s. I look historically at numbers that were up in the teens in the 80s.

I know some of us may make our living off a spread of a lot less than a point, but for the overall economy, aren't all of these numbers reasonably healthy, especially compared to the 70s and 80s?

My only point here is to say that whether there is a Democratic or Republican Congress or President, we've all got to say that the period from 1990 through today looks a lot better than the period from 1970 to 1990.

Here are the numnbers.
 

Shockingly, there are other factors influencing interest rates besides the size of the US deficit. Like the money supply which, also shockingly, is somewhat higher now than it was in 1993.

Put differently, Bush has China to thank for keeping the US afloat, and Bush has left us a bit more vulnerable to the Chinese government than I, for one, feel comfortably with.


And while I would never, ever question the wisdom of the market with you --- after all, this is the same market that determined that companies like Webvan and Red Gorilla were worth umpteen billion dollars --- I would suggest that anyone who bet against the deficit reduction act lost.

Or, is it your position that the surplus would have been exactly the same size if government revenues had not increased? (Wait, let me guess -- the Clinton tax increases stifled enterpreneurs and prevented the US from seeing any economic growth in the 1990s -- right?)

Delay = RINO
 

Gingrich would have balanced the budget while cutting taxes. The only thing that stopped him from cutting more taxes and spending was Clinton.

Delay = RINO
 

That's because his argument is absurd. You cannot judge the health of a balance sheet by looking only at one half. In traditional Repub fashion, that's what Spanky does.

The Repub cuts -- yes, the Repub congress made cuts under Clinton (we won't get into the reasons -- but let's just say they were motivated by a lot more than fiscal prudence) -- were nowhere near enough to create a balanced budget, let alone a surplus, had taxes not been raised.

Spanky is in deep denial here. Bush tax cuts are working! The recession was short and shallow! But it was long and deep enough to cause a few trillion of debt! The deficit will be eliminated in, um, well, another 8-12 years of unprecedented growth! The tax cuts and spending increases have nothing to do with it!

And everything in Iraq is going swimmingly! Just as we planned!

Delay = RINO
 

Yes, I'm sure. Once he got to the front of the plane, he would have done that important work.

Here are the numnbers.
 

With bond markets it call comes back to fiscal discipline. Greespan will cut the interest rates when he thinks the economy is handled well. The long term interest rates will come down if they think the deficit will stay under control. A runaway buget deficit in a growing economy leads to inflation. The only way to get the inflaction under control is raise interest rates.

People invest in US bonds because they are considered the most stable and dependable in the world. The fact that people buy them shows their confidence in them.


Now you are confusing the stock market with the bond market. Clinton raised spending higher than the growth rate in a growing economy and raised taxes. This leads to inflation. That is what freaked the markets out. If the Repubs had not been elected in 94 we were headed for trouble and the markets knew it. Raising spending faster than the growth of the economy and raising taxes to cover it in a growing economy is a sure fire formula for infation.

If Gingrich had gotten his way the surpluses would have been bigger and we would have cut taxes much more than they were raised by Clinton. Unfortunately Clinton would rather shut down the government than let that happen.

The Bond markets understand that Congress is in charge of budgets. Once the Repubs took control of congress the rates dropped from 8 to 5. There really is no mystery.

Delay = RINO
 

Gingrish actuall passed such a budget. It existed and would have gone into effect except Clinton vetoed it.

Delay = RINO
 

Again you focusing on the White House and not Congress. I can understand why uneducated people do this - why you?

Delay = RINO
 

I have not shifted my argument at all. I have been saying all along that Congress should reduce deficits in a growing economy and increase deficits in a slowing economy. The Democrats, when they control congress, don't seem to be able to reduce deficits and create surpluses in a growing economy.

The economy is now growing and the deficit is getting smaller. The economy was growing in the 1990s and the Republican congress balanced the budget.

Delay = RINO
 

Should we then be calling tax cuts since 2000 the DeLay/Frist cuts, instead of giving lavish credit to Bush?

Why do you assume that any mention of Presidential influence on the budgeting process = a complete misunderstanding of constitutional law?

Delay = RINO
 

Come, come now.

I really do feel like Captain Obvious if I have to point out that the legislative process includes two branches of government. Do you give Reagan no credit for the 1986 Tax Bill?

Delay = RINO
 

I remain curious on this point. How is the deficit getting smaller today? I just don't understand where this comes from?

Delay = RINO
 

"good" budget bills are credited to whatever R is handy, even if the R is in the minority party. In that case, it was the pressure of the minority Rs that caused the bill to be as good as it was.