Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If you want to give credit to someone other than the Clinton Administration, the real second and equal partner was the US economy, and next in line for credit is the fed. Newt and the other children are somewhere further down on the list.

I thought all credit was due to Al Gore.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

While this is generally true, you quickly forget that Clinton did not balance the budget and run surpluses alone. He had a GOP congress that, at least in the first few years after 1994, was committed to the items in the Contract for America.

Clinton's first budget passed by a single vote in the House and by Al Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Not a single Republican voted for it. That budget cut spending and raised taxes, and -- true to form -- the Republicans cared more about the taxes than the budget.

For the rest of his term, at a time when the economy was growing vigorously Clinton and the GOP Congress held each other in check, preventing each other from squandering the increased revenues that were coming in on big spending or tax cuts. I think Clinton deserves more of the credit for that, because it's not like he was proposing big spending initiatives that were blocked. (Though you could say that was futile with the GOP Congress.) And you can see what the GOP did to wreck the budget when Clinton left office and they had a President inclined to go along with them.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I thought all credit was due to Al Gore.

Cf. Ty's response. There's as good a case for Al as Newt, but let's put them both about 10th or so on the list.

I realize this is not the way it's being written in the Texas School Books that Clubby gets his history from (all praise to Phyllis Shafly, great hero of the 20th Century), or reported on Fox (Obama, Osama, what's the diff?), where he gets his news, but some of us have to live in a reality-based world.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

For the 2946493534723th time: The Stimulus did bridge us for a period of time.

For the third time today, the federal stimulus merely offset cuts in state and local spending. Government spending was flat. So it was really more about preserving the status quo, in a macro sense.

Now it is all but exhausted, and there is nothing on the other side. To go out and do it again would require borrowing we cannot afford, borrowing which would destabilize the country.

Leave the bridge metaphor alone. It's really not helping anything

And this suggestion that we can't afford the borrowing is recockulous. Interest rates are really, really low. Historically low. The government can borrow really, really cheaply. This is because people don't have things they want to invest in -- instead, they want to put their money somewhere safe, and that means the federal government. Far from worrying that the government might be destabilized, investors are saying exactly the opposite -- that they are so worried about the safety of their money, they are willing to buy bonds from the government for almost no return, just to have their money parked somewhere safe.

You say do it again. I say, show me where it takes us. You agree with me that there is no transformative technology or bubble on the other side. I say, well then you're just saying "Spend another trillion to buy a couple more years of stability. That's not worth it."

I'm not for buying "stability." Things are depressingly stable now, and that's the trouble.

Your argument back? The same repetitive shit. "But we need aggregate demand!"

It's because we still do. That was the problem and it's still the problem. If you have a different macroeconomic explanation for the recession, I'm all ears, but you're not saying anything that wasn't equally true five or ten years ago. Five or ten years ago, we had expensive labor compared to the rest of the world and a service economy. We still do. But now we're in a huge recession, and then we weren't. We need to do something about the specific circumstances we find ourselves in.

Carve around what I'm saying all day long (which you will), the fact is, stimulus is a temporary fix. Yours and every other Keynesian's argument only makes sense when there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There isn't. There's nothing. There's a big fucking void, and everybody holding their breath because they all see the same absence of anything picking up the slack you describe.

As Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead. It's a temporary fix to a problem that needs a temporary fix. A lot of people are out of work. They aren't producing anything. That's a big problem. We need economic activity, and if the private sector isn't supplying it then we need the public sector to supply it.

If the federal government hires people to fix a bridge in Philadelphia, those people are earning money and spending it, just as they would be if they were being paid by a private company to build a bridge on private land. They spend their earnings on food and housing and consumer goods, and for the businesses that make those sales, those receipts are real money that they can turn around and spend.

In time, we generally want private companies to be hiring those people instead of the government, because we think private companies will allocate resources more efficiently. If the economy is at full employment, government hiring drives up the costs of private hiring by making labor more expensive, and so resources are allocated less efficiently. But these aren't normal times. We have lots of people who want to be working, and who can't find jobs. There just isn't enough demand in the private sector.

Your answer, apparently, is that those workers need to experience pain and destruction of unemployment so that somehow, magically, they (and the Underpants Gnome) will create a pot of gold. Honest to God, I can't understand how you think that will happen. These people want to work now, and theren't jobs for them because no one is hiring. As they continue not to work, society loses. If this goes on for a few years, they become less employable, and society loses more. The loss to society from all of this unemployment is massive and real, and you just don't have any suggestion about what to do about it.

I hate to mix metaphors, but if I told you to run the first leg of a relay race where there'd be nobody waiting to grab the baton, would you do it? No.

Your relay race is misguided because it posits that the only thing that matters is where you come out at the end. If you don't start running now, without worrying about the end of that leg, you're going to be standing in the same exact place in a few minutes, and you'll be that much farther behind -- *always* farther behind, because of the lost opportunity for progress. So maybe we can't sprint and we have to walk instead -- we're still better off moving forward, instead of sitting on our ass and convincing ourselves that we're better off going nowhere because we can't be sprinting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There were two major legislative achievements that got us that balanced budget. The deficit reduction act of 1993 was the first, and the Rs opposed it - a total lock step vote against it by all Rs. Thanks for that!

The second was indeed bipartisan in a way of speaking, which was the federal government shutdown and the Republican'ts ultimate cave on a budget. I'm not sure how much credit to give them for whining like spoiled children but showing the sense to let the adult clean up afterwards, especially when he had to give them a good spanking first.

Yes, they get some credit for the tantrums, but I don't think Newt and the other brats were quite equal partners in that episode.

If you want to give credit to someone other than the Clinton Administration, the real second and equal partner was the US economy, and next in line for credit is the fed. Newt and the other children are somewhere further down on the list.

Maybe a better way to put it is that the Democrats and Republicans in those years held each other in check, preventing the other from doing anything with the surpluses generated by the strong economy.

Unfortunately, then the Republicans came to power and blew it all on the budgetary equivalents of hookers and blow.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Caption?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe a better way to put it is that the Democrats and Republicans in those years held each other in check, preventing the other from doing anything with the surpluses generated by the strong economy.

Unfortunately, then the Republicans came to power and blew it all on the budgetary equivalents of hookers and blow.

or another way for you to be truthful is to admit you weren't even paying bills in those days as you were early 20s and daddy was covering shit- or are you telling me you were as into politics in your early 20s as you are now, because I cannot bare to see you that much more pathetic-

I'm in Little Rock fairly often. I've been to the Clinton center- it paints a picture of one big fucking hero, but the truth is different-

the only thing clinton was great at was realizing when he was fucked. he wanted to do a major HC boondoggle but it didn't happen etc.and he rebounded.

then when Newt came in, he had his feet held to the fire and had to balance budgets and cut welfare etc. anyone listening back then knows he wasn't happy about it, until he had to do it, then it became his idea.

other than not shooting in monica's mouth clinton was smart about surviving- that's it as to credit for the man.

and if you or GGG have any questions, get your dads to sign up, because I ain't even considering talking to you two about it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Taibbi on the Tea Partiers:



Rolling Stone

you shouldn't read Rolling Stone about music anymore, but surely not real politics-

the reason you can tell the tea party guys are racists is they are insanely anti-obama w/o regard to how he fits relative to other- wait for it Ty- DEMS- Obama is not as crazy as many dems who have held office yet he generates more hatred- plus you can tell the tea party guys are racists cuz lots of them are caring pickaninny-obama signs which is really a good tip off.

the fact that someone with a nat'l audience asks why they didn't protest bush increases is absurd. bush's increase were directed to "benefit" the country as a whole.

of course you can question (or could before obama admitted victory) whether the iraq war benefitted us at all, but to the extent one saw benefit it was for the country. similarly making our military no longer second rate after the clinton malise arguably benefitted us all.

c.f. the HC bill. the tea party people, some of who might be struggling to make ends meet, look at that as taking money from them to give to people who don't work.

I realize you don't get the distinction- earlier today you mention that obama passed a "tax cut", some people might say "he gave more gov money to people who don't pay taxes to begin with."

that is the disconnection that you have. it seems to be the same disconnect your national party has. it's why you guys stand to loss your asses next month.

but at long last, can we not agree that quoting rolling stone is a foul?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

c.f. the HC bill. the tea party people, some of who might be struggling to make ends meet, look at that as taking money from them to give to people who don't work.

Using your standard--which I will agree is legit--explain why they didn't throw a massive fit about Medicare Part D? It is actively, currently taking money from all of us to give to people who don't work.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Using your standard--which I will agree is legit--explain why they didn't throw a massive fit about Medicare Part D? It is actively, currently taking money from all of us to give to people who don't work.

when I hear medi-anything I think we are simply correcting that which exists. the tea partiers aren't protesting food stamps- that which exists we can all live with.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

or another way for you to be truthful is to admit you weren't even paying bills in those days as you were early 20s and daddy was covering shit- or are you telling me you were as into politics in your early 20s as you are now, because I cannot bare to see you that much more pathetic-

I'm in Little Rock fairly often. I've been to the Clinton center- it paints a picture of one big fucking hero, but the truth is different-

the only thing clinton was great at was realizing when he was fucked. he wanted to do a major HC boondoggle but it didn't happen etc.and he rebounded.

then when Newt came in, he had his feet held to the fire and had to balance budgets and cut welfare etc. anyone listening back then knows he wasn't happy about it, until he had to do it, then it became his idea.

other than not shooting in monica's mouth clinton was smart about surviving- that's it as to credit for the man.

and if you or GGG have any questions, get your dads to sign up, because I ain't even considering talking to you two about it.

Surely you remember all of this, gramps.

Bill Clinton, unlike most other recent presidents, demonstrated that he would immerse himself in the details of the budget. Despite the fact that it was not an issue that he emphasized while running for the presidency in 1992, Clinton demonstrated willingness early in his presidency to reduce the deficit. It was widely held that if Clinton was to get a handle on the deficit as he promised, he must do so in the first year of his presidency, when his political capital was at its peak (Hager and Cloud, 1993a).

In a joint session of Congress on February 17, 1993, President Clinton unveiled his budget proposal that included deep spending cuts, but which relied overwhelmingly on tax increases to bring the deficit downward. At the same time, Clinton proposed to quickly boost short-term job creation by pumping billions of dollars into new spending programs. Clinton's deficit-cutting plan was the largest in history, proposing to save nearly $500 billion over four years. Of that amount, roughly two-thirds would go to reduce the deficit, while another third would be used to pay for increased job creation and long-term investment spending, making net deficit reduction at the end of the four years of the plan about $325 billion (Hager, 1993).

The deficit-reduction package proposed a cut of $493 billion over four years, $247 of it coming from spending cuts and $246 billion from tax increases, almost exactly a 1-to-1 ratio. The ratio of tax increases to spending cuts quickly emerged as the major conflict point in congressional reaction to the plan. 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.

Clinton's call for a tax increase was a direct repudiation of the economic philosophies of his two Republican predecessors. By aiming the taxes primarily at corporations and the well-off, Clinton was suggesting that the programs of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, which were designed to stimulate economic growth through tax cuts, came at the price of high deficits. Clinton believed that he could convince the American public--and a majority in Congress--that the economic expansion of the 1980s held negative consequences in the long run. Clinton proposed to raise most of the new revenue with an array of higher taxes on upper-income Americans and corporations, including $126.3 billion over six years mainly through a new top income tax bracket of 36 percent and a surtax on income over $250,000. Overall, more than half of the new taxes were projected to fall on families making more than $200,000 a year (Cloud, 1993). Table 1 shows the distribution of tax burden by income group.

President Clinton's proposed budget faced its biggest obstacle in Congress with the vote on the budget reconciliation bill. The budget resolution only locked in the broad deficit-reduction numbers, but left virtually all of the specifics to the reconciliation process. The reconciliation bill was designed to reconcile tax and spending policy with deficit-reduction goals outlined in the budget resolution. The measure was the heart of Clinton's plan to reshape the nation's economic policy.

In the end, Clinton's economic plan emerged victorious, though just barely. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was approved in August 1993 without a single vote to spare in either chamber: it passed 218-217 in the House and 51-50 in the Senate (with Vice-President Al Gore making the tie-breaking vote). The measure passed without any Republican votes, the first time in postwar congressional history and possibly the first time ever that the majority party has passed major legislation with absolutely no support from the opposition (Hager and Cloud, 1993b).

Patrick Fisher, "The success of the 1993 budget reconciliation bill at reducing the federal budget deficit," The Review of Policy Research (December 2002).

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

when I hear medi-anything I think we are simply correcting that which exists. the tea partiers aren't protesting food stamps- that which exists we can all live with.

The tea partiers you personally know, maybe. There certainly are tea partiers making hay about food stamps and similar programs.

Not to mention that food stamps are a rounding error on Part D.

And, of course, that most of the "keep the government out of my Medicare" idiots are at least sympathetic to the TP, and clearly have the time and inclination to show up to hold a sign incorrectly linking the Irish to Obama's socialist agenda.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Are we better off trading govt workers for private sector workers?

Sure, but that isn't how it works. Laid of government workers mean less demand which means businesses either don't add or cut workers. The question right now is which is more harmful, further depleting demand or a slightly higher tax bill for small businesses? My guess is that the latter does less harm to the jobs picture, but neither is desirable.

I think we all agree the answer there is yes. One is a cost.
The other grows the economy

Bullshit. They are both costs, and they both grow the economy. The distinction that you try to draw here is only your own preference (which is not to say that there are no distinctions).

The question is, If we let govt workers go, would the decrease in spending there flood into creation of private sector jobs?

Only in GOP fantasy land. How would this even possibly work? Are you assuming that we would cut enough government jobs to make significant tax cuts possible? There is zero chance of that.

On your last point, the GOP, I think, is looking a couple steps ahead.

You are clearly joking.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Ah. Is it less than 15 years for Travelers' Checks in any state? Genuinely curious.

I'm genuinely curious who the fuck has bought travelers checks in the last fifteen year.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There were two major legislative achievements that got us that balanced budget. The deficit reduction act of 1993 was the first, and the Rs opposed it - a total lock step vote against it by all Rs. Thanks for that!

The second was indeed bipartisan in a way of speaking, which was the federal government shutdown and the Republican'ts ultimate cave on a budget. I'm not sure how much credit to give them for whining like spoiled children but showing the sense to let the adult clean up afterwards, especially when he had to give them a good spanking first.

Yes, they get some credit for the tantrums, but I don't think Newt and the other brats were quite equal partners in that episode.

If you want to give credit to someone other than the Clinton Administration, the real second and equal partner was the US economy, and next in line for credit is the fed. Newt and the other children are somewhere further down on the list.

Believe what you want to believe.
The real driver here was the dot.com boom. Makes life a lot easier when the revenues are up.