"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think that's the crux of it. The discussion we were having before Spanky chimed in had to do with whether Clinton and the Democratic Congress in ''93-'94 were profligate. Slave's opinion to the contrary, they weren't. They balanced the budget by raising taxes and cutting spending. The spending here is discretionary spending.


Entitlements make up the larger portion of the federal budget, and they are structured so that they are off-budget -- Social Security payments (e.g.) continue each year with Congress taking action. Year on year, entitlements will always rise because the population is growing, whether or not they grow in relative terms (e.g., because the proportion of elderly is growing).

To the extent that Spanky is responding to what the rest of us were saying about Clinton and the Democrats by pointing to outlays, he is comparing apples and oranges, and is talking about something different.

Just because Congress calls it discretionary and non-disrectionary does not mean Congress does not have the power to cut it. Congress could cut both discretionary and non discretionary spending any time if feels like. This is not apples and orages. It is very simple. Congress spends a certain amount of money every yeare and it HAS TOTAL CONTROL OVER WHAT THE BUDGET IS. Discretionary or not.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Spanky appears to be fundementally confused about the relation of entitlement spending to the budget. I say this because he thinks Gingrich shut the government down in 1995 over entitlements, but the shutdown was over discretionary spending -- the failure to pass a federal budget.

Congress passed a budget that both cut discretionary spending and reduced the increase of so called "non discretionary spending".

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Republicans made noises in those years about cutting entitlements, but there was never any real prospect that they could do this -- it was more about making political noise than anything else.

You can't go four words without a misstatement of fact. The Republican Congress never "made noise" about cutting entitlement spending. Clinton made noices about cuts in entitlement spending because he accused the Republicans of trying to cut entitlements, while infact they were simply trying to reduce the growth of entitlements. And Congress actually passed billls that did exactly that. Cliinton refused to sign them.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When they had a Republican President again, the GOP Congress increased entitlements (the drug benefit) rather than decreasing them, and when President Bush looked seriously at going after Social Security, Republicans in Congress saw political doom and ran away from him as fast as they could.

That paragraph was actually accurate. The first accurate paragraph you have had in page six posts.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Lord, Spanky, I don't know. I hope you can at least see that a fewl of your listed "facts" have subjective value judgments buried in them.

Please point out the parts of my statement of facts that were subjective as opposed to objective.

Here they are again:

1) Congress and Clinton raised spending and taxes in the 93 budget. (The only way they could have cut Federal Spending was if they touched the entitlements which they refused to do, so they never reduced spending). The way they moved towards a balanced budget was by raising taxes more than they raised spending. They made some cuts but also added to the budget so they actually increased federal spending from the previous fiscal years.

2) When Gingrich and the Republicans were elected they tried to slow the growth of entitlements.

3) Gingrich and the Republican Congress passed bills that reduced the growth of entitlements and Clinton Shut down the government by refusing to sign a bill that curbed the growth of entitlements as much as the Republican wanted it to.

4) Clinton used his veto power to force the Republican Congress to raise spending.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where did you get your education? Do you know the difference between a primary souce and secondary source? and the differece from fact and opinion? You cited an article that said "Democrats cut Spending" and I cited an actually primary source the showed federal outlays during those fiscal years. Are you trying to say that your article that says "Democrats cut spending" without actually citing any numbers trumps or is any way equivalent to my cite that shows actual government expenditures from an official govenrment document? Has everyone on this board completely lost all sense of reality?

Didn't respond to it? I cited an actual primary soucre that showed your article to be FLAT OUT WRONG. Another pice of evidence?????? I pointed to a primary souce. Your "piece of evidence" was about as valuable as a fart in the wind. My post showed that your cite was about as reliable as all the blogs you always cite.

I state facts, you state they are wrong by citing to opinions that have no evidence to back them up, and you claim I am being stubborn? What Planet do you guys live on?

Is it possible you were talking about total outlays and they were talking about everything but Medicare and SS? I only read a page of the debate.

ETA: STP

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Are you arguing about whether Clinton raised both taxes and spending in 1993? If that's the argument, I think (and I apologize if this is a serious STP issue) Spanky is saying that because the Dems raised taxes and did nothing to stanch the growth of entitlements, which necessarily raise spending, since they go up year to year, the Dems both raised taxes and spending that year. Stated otherwise, unless coupled with a temporary cap on the growth of entitlements, every tax increase would always also accompany a spending increase.

Is it possible you guys are arguing about whether not doing anything to stem the growth of entitlements is raising spending? This isn't a loaded question. I'm really just curious.

In order to actually "cut" federal spending you have to both cut disretionary spending and at least curb the growth of entitlemts. Ty cliams that Clinton and the Dem congress actually cut spending in the 93 budget plan which is actually wrong. They did not. The made some cuts in discretionary spending, they made spending increases in disrectionary spending (so disrectionary spending was not cut that much) and they did nothing about the growth of entitlements. Hence spending went up, and they raised taxes to cover the growth in spending. Not complicated. To say that the Dems in the 93 act, cut federal spending is wrong.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Is it possible you were talking about total outlays and they were talking about everything but Medicare and SS? I only read a page of the debate.

ETA: STP

No. They were talking about all entitlements. In any event, the Federal government spends a certain amount of money every year. The Dems did not cut it. They did reduce non discretionary spending by a little, but Bush I, and the Dem congress reduced disdrectionary spending even more in his last two years as president. The only thing the 93 budget action act changed, was the tax increase.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Please point out the parts of my statement of facts that were subjective as opposed to objective.

So the proposition Clinton raised taxes while cutting spending comes from the fact that he cut spending on everything but SS and Medicare at the same time he raised taxes. But, when the cost of SS and Medicare are factored in, because the increase in their costs outpaced his cuts in other areas, the net effect was increased taxes and increased spending.

If that's right, well then the issues here are whether SS and Medicare are programs the increasing cost of which Clinton could have avoided. If he could have averted the increased cost of those programs, but instead allowed them to increase, I don't think anyone can say he "raised spending and taxes," but I think you could say "spending and taxes were both increased in 1993 under Clinton." If he couldn't do anything to avoid the increased costs of Medicare and SS, I think the best way to describe what he did was to say "In 1993, Clinton decreased spending in aggregate in all non-SS and Medicare programs while raising taxes."

ETA: Again, STP.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So the proposition Clinton raised taxes while cutting spending comes from the fact that he cut spending on everything but SS and Medicare at the same time he raised taxes. But, when the cost of SS and Medicare are factored in, because the increase in their costs outpaced his cuts in other areas, the net effect was increased taxes and increased spending.

If that's right, well then the issues here are whether SS and Medicare are programs the increasing cost of which Clinton could have avoided. If he could have averted the increased cost of those programs, but instead allowed them to increase, I don't think anyone can say he "raised spending and taxes," but I think you could say "spending and taxes were both increased in 1993 under Clinton." If he couldn't do anything to avoid the increased costs of Medicare and SS, I think the best way to describe what he did was to say "In 1993, Clinton decreased spending in aggregate in all non-SS and Medicare programs while raising taxes."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...8/pdf/hist.pdf

Page 59

Discretionary Speeding:

1991: 663.0
1992: 643.2
1993: 632.7
1994: 621.6
1995: 609.2

So Bush's 91 budget decreased discretionary spending
Bush's 92 Budget decreased discretionary spending
Budget 93 enacted while Bush 1 was president decreased spending
And the 93 budget act decreased discretionary spending in 94. The biggest drop in discretionary spending was from 1991-1992 when Bush 1. was President.

Neither Bush 1 nor Clinton (with a Dem Congress) tried to touch non-decretory spending.

So the only thing different about the 93 budget act, from previous years, was that it increased taxes.

Ty and friends are trying to make the 93 budget act sound as if it was some incredible act of fiscal courage. When in reality, the only thing it did different from previous years was raise taxes more than the increase in spending.

They are also trying to infer that it is unfair to include non-discretionary spending in the budget because you can't touch that part of the budget. This is also not true. In fact Gingrich and the Republican Congress tried to curb the growth of non-discretionary spending (which shows Congress can do something about it) but Clinton vetoed the bills and then chastised the Republicans for trying to "cut" Medicare and other entitlements while they were really just trying to curb the growth.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Please point out the parts of my statement of facts that were subjective as opposed to objective.

Ok -- let's try these two on for size -- by comparison with a counterpart from the other side of the aisle:

Spanky's value-laden statement:

3) . . . . "Clinton Shut down the government by refusing to sign a bill that curbed the growth of entitlements as much as the Republican wanted it to."

Contrasting subjective, value-laden statement:

"Gingrich and the Republican Congress forced the governement to shut down by refusing to pass a budget bill that the President could sign."

Spanky's second value-laden statement:

"4) Clinton used his veto power to force the Republican Congress to raise spending."

Two contrasting subjective, value-laden statements:

"Congress has complete control over the budget and could cut spending any time they want to [sound familiar?]. Even so, the Republican Congress: (a) failed to convince the American poeple of the wisdom of their policy proposals; or (b) failed to compromise with the President on a budget that included responsible tax increases on the wealthiest Americans as well as meaningful entitlement reform."

I'm sure you can see the bias in the ones I wrote, not sure you can see the bias in yours.

Also --

"When Gingrich and the Republicans were elected they tried to slow the growth of entitlements."

There is truth to this, but this statement is too broad and sweeping to be a "fact." Your implication is that Clinton did not. Did not Clinton also have proposals during his tenure intended to curb the growth in entitlement spending (including, e.g. health-care reform). He should get credit for that too.

S_A_M
efs

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If he couldn't do anything to avoid the increased costs of Medicare and SS,

He and Congress could have. They could have curbed the growth (as the Repulicans tried later) or they could have actually cut these non-discretionary items, as Clinton later claimed the Republicans were trying to do.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ok -- let's try these two on for size -- by comparison with a counterpart from the other side of the aisle:

Spanky's value-laden statement:

3) . . . . "Clinton Shut down the government by refusing to sign a bill that curbed the growth of entitlements as much as the Republican wanted it to."

Contrasting subjective, value-laden statement:

"Gingrich and the Republican Congress forced the governement to shut down by refusing to pass a budget bill that the President could sign."

I have no problem with your statement as long as you add, "and Clinton would only sign a budget that did not reduce the growth in entitlements".

Would you say that is innacurate?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Spanky's second value-laden statement:

"4) Clinton used his veto power to force the Republican Congress to raise spending."

Two contrasting subjective, value-laden statements:

"Congress has complete control over the budget and could cut spending any time they want to [sound familiar?].

This is not true. The president has to sign the budget, so they don't have total power" The Democrats had this power when they controlled the executive and Congress in 93, but this was not true for the Republicans because they did not control the executive.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man Even so, the Republican Congress: (a) failed to convince the American poeple of the wisdom of their policy proposals; or (b) failed to compromise with the President on a budget that included responsible tax increases on the wealthiest Americans as well as meaningful entitlement reform."

That still does not negate the fact that the Congress passed a budget that curbed the increase in entitlement growth. Which is something the Democrat Congress could have done in 93 if they really wanted to "cut" federal spending. They passed it but Clinton vetoed it.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

"When Gingrich and the Republicans were elected they tried to slow the growth of entitlements."



There is truth to this, but this statement is too broad and sweeping to be a "fact." Your implication is that Clinton did not. Did not Clinton also have proposals during his tenure intended to curb the growth in entitlement spending (including, e.g. health-care reform). He should get credit for that too.

There is no implication. That statement is a fact. In addition, after the Republican Congress was elected Clinton made no proposals on curbing growth in entitlements. He accused the Republicans of trying to "cut" entitlements, when they were actually trying to just curb them, and in the 96 campaign bragged about how he prevented most of such "cuts", the only "cuts" he accepted were purely to compromise, and he promised he would not allow anymore cuts in these entitlements (which really meant curbs in growth) if he was re-elected.

S_A_M
efs [/QUOTE]

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
He accused the Republicans of trying to "cut" entitlements, when they were actually trying to just curb them

Oh? So, Bob Dole bragging about being one of the only dozen or so senators to vote against Medicare when LBJ proposed it, and Newt Gingrich talking about cuts to make Medicare "wither and die on the vine" to a group of insurance executives, were nothing for fans of the program to worry about?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Put a cap on losses. You lose money three years in a row, you're out of the scheme. And you don't get a bailout for what you lost.

We tattoo that rule on the back of the hands of those who opt in ("3 STRIKES, OUT, W/NO REMEDY"), so they can't say no one told them that's how things worked when they made their decision.

The means test would offend a lot of people for good reason.

Sounds like utopian social engineering to me.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have no problem with your statement as long as you add, "and Clinton would only sign a budget that did not reduce the growth in entitlements".

Would you say that is innacurate?

I don't remember the exact parameters of the disagreement, but I won't argue with that.

Originally posted by Spanky
This is not true. The president has to sign the budget, so they don't have total power" The Democrats had this power when they controlled the executive and Congress in 93, but this was not true for the Republicans because they did not control the executive.

Probably the thing I've enjoyed most about the Bush administration is how much he disappointed many Reoublicans. After 8 years of Clinton, they were pretty insufferable.

Originally posted by Spanky
That still does not negate the fact that the Congress passed a budget that curbed the increase in entitlement growth. Which is something the Democrat Congress could have done in 93 if they really wanted to "cut" federal spending.

I really don't think they could have Spanky. The political will was not there nor were the American people. It took all of the skill and clout Clinton had to pass the budget he did. He could not also have done SS reform and/or medicare reform in 1993.

Originally posted by Spanky
[A]fter the Republican Congress was elected Clinton made no proposals on curbing growth in entitlements. He accused the Republicans of trying to "cut" entitlements, when they were actually trying to just curb them, and in the 96 campaign bragged about how he prevented most of such "cuts", the only "cuts" he accepted were purely to compromise, and he promised he would not allow anymore cuts in these entitlements (which really meant curbs in growth) if he was re-elected.

By that time, the investigations were going strong and both sides were spending more effort on political infighting than serious governance. You do realize that this talk of entitlement "cuts" by Clinton is just the flip side of how Republicans use the term tax "increases", right.

S_A_M
S_A_M

[Diane_Keaton]

Pretty ballsy of HRC to circulate this:


being the master of Arab suck ups:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ty and friends are trying to make the 93 budget act sound as if it was some incredible act of fiscal courage. When in reality, the only thing it did different from previous years was raise taxes more than the increase in spending.

It was an act of fiscal courage because they cut discretionary spending, something Republicans -- for all their talk -- have been unable to do. IIRC, the freshman Congresswoman from Pennsylvania who cast the swing vote in the House lost her seat for her efforts.

It is true that that President and Congress did not cut entitlements. So?