Having The Same Argument, Again.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

All true, but there are two problems with what you say.

First, it doesn't counter Cletus' point, which was "We either need to cut spending or raise taxes." Clinton balanced the budget by, in large part, raising taxes and "cutting" spending (in the sense of cutting the overall increase, as well as making certain actual cuts).

Second, Clinton benefitted from a huge economic expansion (let's leave aside the argument about whether he helped bring that about). That's not enough to reduce the deficit -- I mean, Reagan had that advantage too, and he basically invented the culture of "we don't have to pay for government, we can grow it and bitch about it." (Having his cake, eating it, and savoring it too.) But, still. Obama may see some expansion, but I'm not holding my breath for another Clinton-era expansion.

I don't think the next six years are going to be like Clinton's - it is still amazing how quickly he worked down that debt, and that does have a lot to do with the economy.

But I think Obama can move us into the right position so that we can use the next expansion, whenever it occurs, the way Clinton used his. And I don't think we have to panic.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Hence deficit/debt, rather than one or the other. Wasn't one impetus for Clinton reducing the debt the threats of the bond vigilantes? And I don't recall S&P/Moody's issuing downgrade warnings on T-bonds back then.

And, as to the expiration of the 01/03 taxcuts, that would be "higher taxes", which I will believe fully upon 2011 ending without any re-authorization.

Are you not sympathetic to the view that the politicians will spend 12 cents of every additional dime in taxes, thus a need to cut (even if only thru reduction in growth) before adding to the revenue side?

Clinton did a good job of spending 8 cents of each additional dime in taxes - it can be done.

Yes, I think we'll see some higher taxes and some cuts, in each case at manageable levels.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Clinton did a good job of spending 8 cents of each additional dime in taxes - it can be done.

Yes, I think we'll see some higher taxes and some cuts, in each case at manageable levels.

Which, of course, is why Obama won't much mind the dems losing control of Congress. Divided government helps him in several ways.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Which, of course, is why Obama won't much mind the dems losing control of Congress. Divided government helps him in several ways.

Except if you think that tax hikes are needed (or maybe the expiration of the Bush cuts will cover it?)

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Except if you think that tax hikes are needed (or maybe the expiration of the Bush cuts will cover it?)

Full expiration of Bush cuts, plus spending rationalization (don't call it cuts), plus moderate growth, plus success spending-wise of HCR equals a much more comfortable situation. One that worked pretty well for WJC, and would have even w/o the out sized growth of the 90s.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Which, of course, is why Obama won't much mind the dems losing control of Congress. Divided government helps him in several ways.

Only if he gets most of his key agenda through first.

Also, Rs have become increasingly obstructionist - these guys make Newt's naysayers look positively easy to work with. Republicans no longer elect legislators; they prefer ideologues focused on stalling and blame. I don't think he wants to have to deal with that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't think the next six years are going to be like Clinton's - it is still amazing how quickly he worked down that debt, and that does have a lot to do with the economy.

But I think Obama can move us into the right position so that we can use the next expansion, whenever it occurs, the way Clinton used his. And I don't think we have to panic.

And then we can elect Republicans to piss the money away again.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And then we can elect Republicans to piss the money away again.

since obama realizes he can't leave Iraq and Afghanistan, or let the guys at gitmo go, there'll be less negligent mess for the next R to clean up.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

From I'm wondering is, where is Adder drunk-posting from?

Steve jobs has become my nemesis.

I was stone cold sober in middle of nowhere Iowa with lots of driving left to do and no motivation to fix the mess.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Full expiration of Bush cuts, plus spending rationalization (don't call it cuts), plus moderate growth, plus success spending-wise of HCR equals a much more comfortable situation. One that worked pretty well for WJC, and would have even w/o the out sized growth of the 90s.

You left out winding down two wars, although perhaps that is part of the rationalization.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Adder

Steve jobs has become my nemesis.

I was stone cold sober in middle of nowhere Iowa with lots of driving left to do and no motivation to fix the mess.

How many states do you have so far?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Rand Paul thinks the children of illegal immigrants shouldn't be citizens. Why does he hate the Constitution? In any event, I think it's time to stop calling him a libertarian. His views are a mockery of a sham of libertarianism.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Rand Paul thinks the children of illegal immigrants shouldn't be citizens. Why does he hate the Constitution? In any event, I think it's time to stop calling him a libertarian. His views are a mockery of a sham of libertarianism.

Were you one of the so called "experts"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

Were you one of the so called "experts"?

I doubt it, but am not sure what you're quoting.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I doubt it, but am not sure what you're quoting.

Hmmmm, thus evidencing that you don't even read the links that you post. What D talking points source is feeding you this blogcrap?