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

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Why take out entitlements.? To be fisccally responsible McCain would have to address entitlement growthl. At least try to curb their growth. Wihout doing so would not be fiscally responsible.

Because I am trying to test the limits of your position. The point is that there are parts of the budget that are going to go up in nominal terms each year (entitlements, interest expense, and basically the cost of everything that is paid for in the discretionary budget). To me, the fact that this happens does not mean that a given congress/president increased spending.

You have been arguing that it does (at least wrt to Clinton in 1993). I was trying to figure out if your rule applied only to entitlements or if it also applied to increases that are unquestionably outside of anyone's control (which is why I picked debt service).

ETA: Actually, this leads me to wonder about the numbers you posted. Frankly, I did not look close enough to see if they were in inflation-adjusted terms or nominal terms.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Didn't you just get done arguing how Clinton increased taxes as a means to balance the budget?

The amount of the deficit was reduced by the increased taxes in 93, and the amount it was reduced because of government growth is not even comparable.

I think after the 93 budget act was passed Clinton said that this action would lead to cutting the deficit in half in five to ten years. But the budget balanced in five years because of phenominal growth.

Growth is a huge factor. There have been times in the recent administration where Bush has increased discretionary spending across the board, increased entitlements, and even with the existing tax cuts, the deficit has dropped from the previous year because of economic growth. Any advancement the Bush administration has had in reducing the deficits relative to a prior years has been purely the result of economic growth. It had nothing to do with anything the administratin did. They just got lucky like Clinton did (unless you think the growth was caused by the tax cuts. But that is something even the most sophisticated economists could not even come close to agreeing on).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Because I am trying to test the limits of your position. The point is that there are parts of the budget that are going to go up in nominal terms each year (entitlements, interest expense, and basically the cost of everything that is paid for in the discretionary budget). To me, the fact that this happens does not mean that a given congress/president increased spending.

You have been arguing that it does (at least wrt to Clinton in 1993). I was trying to figure out if your rule applied only to entitlements or if it also applied to increases that are unquestionably outside of anyone's control (which is why I picked debt service).

ETA: Actually, this leads me to wonder about the numbers you posted. Frankly, I did not look close enough to see if they were in inflation-adjusted terms or nominal terms.

Entitlements are with in Congresse's and the White House's control. They created them, they can adjust them or cut them. Do whatever they want. And that was something Gringrich tried to do. Since they have the power to undo them or change them in any way they like, they should be held accountable for them when it comes to judging their fiscal prudence.

Do you really think that is unreasonable?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Divided government can also lead to the problems you identified in the 1980s.

Indeed. Although I think both parties have changed since then, and are now ideologically more cohesive than they once were.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why, because it's critically important to understanding how Clinton balanced the budget?

I know we've had the argument before, or something related to it, but a large part (albeit not the sole reason) for the surplus under Clinton was significantly increased revenue.

Not in '93-'94, which is the era we've been discussing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am saying that in 93 congress was not willing to cut the budget. They will willing to cut some disrectionary spending, however, they raised some discretionary spending (which alomst evened out with the cuts) and did not touch entitlements with the net result of an increases in government spending.

Cite please for the part about discretionary spending. It is contradicted by what I have linked to and it is unsupported by what you have linked to.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Entitlements are with in Congresse's and the White House's control. They created them, they can adjust them or cut them. Do whatever they want. And that was something Gringrich tried to do. Since they have the power to undo them or change them in any way they like, they should be held accountable for them when it comes to judging their fiscal prudence.

Do you really think that is unreasonable?

Not really. But I would suggest that they are not easy to change, and I wouldn't dismiss cuts in discretionary spending (and pay as you go) as meaningless or "fiscally irresponsible."

ETA: If you had in the first instance said, "I don't think Clinton was as fiscally responsible as he could have been because he did not do enough to curb the growth of entitlements" instead of "Clinton increased taxes and increased spending" we probably could have saved ourselve quite a few posts. But then again, what is the fun in that?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Indeed. Although I think both parties have changed since then, and are now ideologically more cohesive than they once were.

If you believe David Stockman (in the Triumph of Politics), which I do, the problem in the 80s was that Reagan pushed through the tax cuts, pushed through the Defense increases, and when it came time to make the cuts necessary to make up for this stuff he balked. He didn't make the effort and really didn't really want to make the cuts that were necessary. And the growth created by the tax cuts was not nearly strong enough to make up for the massive defense increases and tax cuts. So Stockman told Reagan that in order to balance the budget he would have to make deep cuts in the budget, reduce the amount of defense spending or raise taxes. In the alternative, he ws going to have to tell the American public that deficits were going to be a fact of life for a while. And for speaking the truth he got pushed out.

At least that is what I think what happened.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Cite please for the part about discretionary spending. It is contradicted by what I have linked to and it is unsupported by what you have linked to.

Actually I think it was somewhat supported by what you linked to:

Republicans and conservative Democrats were upset that the ratio of cuts to taxes was much less than the 2-to-1 ratio that Panetta had advocated during his confirmation hearings. Though the deficit-reduction plan made notable spending cuts, its heavy reliance on tax increases displays the difficulties the Clinton economic team had coming up with acceptable spending cuts.

But what I cited ironically enough does contradict what I said. Any my cite being a primary source, I believe is the stronter cite.

So I stand corrected.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually I think it was somewhat supported by what you linked to:

Republicans and conservative Democrats were upset that the ratio of cuts to taxes was much less than the 2-to-1 ratio that Panetta had advocated during his confirmation hearings. Though the deficit-reduction plan made notable spending cuts, its heavy reliance on tax increases displays the difficulties the Clinton economic team had coming up with acceptable spending cuts.

But what I cited ironically enough does contradict what I said. Any my cite being a primary source, I believe is the stronter cite.

So I stand corrected.

No, because your cite wasn't specific to discretionary spending, but was more generally about outlays. And my source says the Dems cut discretionary spending (which is what happened).

[bling trade]

Standup routine by Pat Condell re Europe's slow appeasement of Islam.

youtube link

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not in '93-'94, which is the era we've been discussing.

Why? Because the deficit was still pretty significant then. There was a surplus only in 98-01, and it was small in the first and last years.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Surely you see the wiggle wrong in Hils': " to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war"

After all this, you think she is painting herself into a corner with absolutes?

you don't need wiggle room if you're willing to just lie.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
First off, you're just being Hank here. Ordinarily, I wouldn't indulge you. However, I think I actually fall into a category you have labeled as impossible to believe.

I would vote for either Obama or Clinton if they were to say:

"Iraq was wrong. We don't need 170,000 troops there to maintain some modicum of civil order. I'm ordering 70,000 troops to be brought home over the next 36 months.

"However, I believe the wholesale slaughter of innocents in Darfur is a crime against humanity that can no longer be ignored. Over the next 6 months, we will be dispatching 25,000 troops to act as guardians and protectors for the people in refugee camps in Darfur."

I also find the two statements to be entirely consistent, unless you can prove to me that what both Obama and Clinton have said is that "the exact same soldiers who are presently in Iraq will be deeployed elsewhere." Otherwise, I believe you are what we tax lawyers call "full of shit."

yes I'm being Hank, which means I'm sticking you guys with a point you can't reconcile. and you're being Taxwonk, becasue my whole point is they are saying I'll bring them home, but not I need to send them somewhere else. Sorry NB/RT vague platitudes about Afghan/Pakistan are not the same thing as " I ain't bring troops home. I am sending them somewhere else."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
This was the talk that I got. I don't think anyone in that basketball stadium thought that Afghanistan isn't going to get more attention, especially given this part:

can you underline the point where he says he is sending troops into afghanistan in 2009?