Politics: A new beginning

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Totally agree, and only add that having all three branches in the hands of the spending liberals right now sucks. (In my mind, this would be a desirable outcome if the people involved were acting true to their professed ideologies.)

Now, just wait until 2005 when there's not even the sea anchor of a filibuster available. This could be grim.

so as not to confuse, I think it is only fair that you call them "spending conservatives" or "spendy conservatives" or "spendy 'conservatives'" or something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
so as not to confuse, I think it is only fair that you call them "spending conservatives" or "spendy conservatives" or "spendy 'conservatives'" or something.

I think bilmore's point is that there is nothing conservative about their legislative behavior.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Bilmore
Totally agree, and only add that having all three branches in the hands of the spending liberals right now sucks.

I agree with your characterization of the current GOP leadership as "spending liberals", even though that's a funny way to use the word. However, looking back at the spending "discipline" exerted during the Reagan and Bush I years, I'd have a hard time agreeing with you that this is just a "right now" problem.

Frankly, I believe members of the GOP who value fiscal restraint are lying to themselves by supporting the ongoing use of our national Mastercard while the government blithely cuts taxes. But perhaps it's worth a few fibs to keep one's party in power.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I agree with your characterization of the current GOP leadership as "spending liberals", even though that's a funny way to use the word. However, looking back at the spending "discipline" exerted during the Reagan and Bush I years, I'd have a hard time agreeing with you that this is just a "right now" problem.

Frankly, I believe members of the GOP who value fiscal restraint are lying to themselves by supporting the ongoing use of our national Mastercard while the government blithely cuts taxes. But perhaps it's worth a few fibs to keep one's party in power.

At one time (pre 2000) I actually believed that the GOP stood for fiscal responsibility. Obviously I was green. Now I'm convinced that both parties are comprised primarily of the proverbial drunken sailors. My only solace now is that the money gets spent more in line with my views, but this is really disgusting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Now I'm convinced that both parties are comprised primarily of the proverbial drunken sailors.

I'm not sure where this equivalency comes from. Clinton decided early in his first term that he wanted to win over Wall Street, and had to balance the budget to do it. It's easy to attribute the surpluses on his watch to the booming economy, but he could have proposed big spending initiatives to devote this money, and by and large did not.

edited to add:

Take a look at this -- it's like a dispatch from another planet.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think bilmore's point is that there is nothing conservative about their legislative behavior.

Holy cow! I never would have figured that out! Luckily I cleverly inserted the "to avoid confusion" part. Didn't realize it was going to save my ass.

So we have the frugal liberals and the spendy conservatives. Of course we also have frugal conservatives and spendy liberals. Using the word "liberal" in connection with everything bad is, to me, misleading, given the common usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" to mean "Democrat" and "Republican," respectively.

Here are some synonyms for liberal that might be used to avoid confusion if "spendy conservative" is not acceptable:

bounteous, bountiful, free, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded, unsparing

And some related words that may be appropriate:

exuberant, lavish, prodigal, profuse

m-w.com is my friend.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
m-w.com is my friend.

If you like that, you'll heart this.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you like that, you'll heart this.

I probably would heart it, or even love it, but my computer has issues with Java and the box where you put in the word doesn't show up. I'll try it at work.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So we have the frugal liberals and the spendy conservatives. Of course we also have frugal conservatives and spendy liberals. Using the word "liberal" in connection with everything bad is, to me, misleading, given the common usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" to mean "Democrat" and "Republican," respectively.

Bilmore can be forgiven because the Old New Politics Board went kaput, but I previously took him to task for using "fiscal liberal" to apply to anyone who spent more than they had, because I didn't consider it a useful term. As I recall, he agreed at the time that it was an inelegant phrase, but I can't prove it, so he's free to disagree with me now.

I propose "deficit hawk" and "deficit dove." It appears that the deficit doves of both parties are currently ruling the roost.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I propose "deficit hawk" and "deficit dove." It appears that the deficit doves of both parties are currently ruling the roost.

Use of those terms would a welcome step toward returning the existence of deficits to the national political discourse. The deficit doves have everyone convinced, apparently, that if you don't talk about them, deficits just go away.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm not sure where this equivalency comes from. Clinton decided early in his first term that he wanted to win over Wall Street, and had to balance the budget to do it. ]

Didn't the Republican Congress force the balanced budgets, and Clinton jumped on board once he realized he had no choice. He had as much to do with the drive to balance the budget as he had to do with welfare reform. That is, he was against it, but realized it would be politically damaging to veto it, so his co-opted it as his own.
Please don't sing his praises over this; that's silly.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Didn't the Republican Congress force the balanced budgets, and Clinton jumped on board once he realized he had no choice. He had as much to do with the drive to balance the budget as he had to do with welfare reform. That is, he was against it, but realized it would be politically damaging to veto it, so his co-opted it as his own.
Please don't sing his praises over this; that's silly.

Yes, let's all conclude that President Clinton was secretly against the federal government having a balanced budget, and that his public stance favoring fiscal restraint was a mere facade for the stereotypic pathological desire to spend in excess of revenue, which of course he had to hide from the electorate in 1992, him being a knee-jerk liar and all. Let's also conclude that the Republican majority heroically rammed a balanced budget down Clinton's throat, but concluded in 2001 that, while it should have credit for all balanced budgets between 1993 and 2000, this was now considered a Very Bad Idea by some Very Smart Economists, and the perspective of time allowed us to see that it's Very Wise to spend more than one has, because one's children will be richer and will have nothing better to do with the public fisc than service debt incurred in 2004.

Because that is the most plausible way to reconcile then and now.

Having login problems? I thought you reserved dumb partisan statements for your other socks.

Edited to add: I just realized you were "having me on," as the British say. Clinton being unwilling to do something that polling showed was overwhelmingly popular, and would get him reelected with the margin that he ultimately experienced in 1996?Clinton's will was indistinguishable from whatever the most advanced polling technology showed was a foregone conclusion.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Didn't the Republican Congress force the balanced budgets, and Clinton jumped on board once he realized he had no choice. He had as much to do with the drive to balance the budget as he had to do with welfare reform. That is, he was against it, but realized it would be politically damaging to veto it, so his co-opted it as his own.
Please don't sing his praises over this; that's silly.

I remember some of those people calling the Contract With America the Contract On America. Kinda funny to see their descendant arguing how great parts of it were. Sit back and laugh with me. Unless I'm remembering the Contract wrongly as including something about a balanced budget or less spending or fewer federal departments.

FWIW, I will certainly join the chorus of leftists, Rightists, democrats and Republicans and Libertarians here in calling our fiscal state a complete and utter folly. And if there is one easy place to start which I think many of us can agree with, I'd be happy to point to corporate welfare and subsidies (including farming) as a root cause.

Re: our fiscal state, it was funny to see Illinois democrats in today's paper being quoted saying how important it was to keep Hastert's district republican, given how much he can and does help the state.

Cringey

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yes, let's all conclude that President Clinton was secretly against the federal government having a balanced budget, and that his public stance favoring fiscal restraint was a mere facade for the stereotypic pathological desire to spend in excess of revenue, which of course he had to hide from the electorate in 1992, him being a knee-jerk liar and all. Let's also conclude that the Republican majority heroically rammed a balanced budget down Clinton's throat,

Your confusing political slogans with hard political choices; to illustrate. Clinton would favor becoming slimmer, sure. He was not, however, willing to skip the occasional Egg McMuffin.

What happened in the early Clinton 1 term is that the Republicans drove the balanced concept. Clinton was forced to sign on, and choices he otherwise would not have made were made. So while he might have said he "favored" balanced budgets, they would not have happened without Newt's guys.

but concluded in 2001 that, while it should have credit for all balanced budgets between 1993 and 2000, this was now considered a Very Bad Idea by some Very Smart Economists, and the perspective of time allowed us to see that it's Very Wise to spend more than one has, because one's children will be richer and will have nothing better to do with the public fisc than service debt incurred in 2004.

Because that is the most plausible way to reconcile then and now.

some of what drove the Republicans in early Clinton times was a desire to fuck with Billy, sure, but I think there was a legitimate desire to not allow the wild Dem's to spend. What's going on now is there is no one calling bullshit on the Republicans. We need the Dems to take back the Senate. this is why some of us keep trying to teach you how to see the world; we're hopeful you'll convey some strategies in your party meetings and you'll win a few seats back.

Having login problems? I thought you reserved dumb partisan statements for your other socks.

You know, it wasn't until I'd read this three times that I realized it was a compliment. On Fashion, I'm supposed to be the dumb sock, now here I'm the smart one. All y'all are wrong. I don't post as anyone else here. This whole sock thing confounds me, and I'm going to take a more aggressive approach when accused from now on. I will start a sock rumor back.....
Hey, everyone, you know its Atticus psoting as F. Supplestein on infirm, don't you?

Edited to add: I just realized you were "having me on," as the British say. Clinton being unwilling to do something that polling showed was overwhelmingly popular, and would get him reelected with the margin that he ultimately experienced in 1996?Clinton's will was indistinguishable from whatever the most advanced polling technology showed was a foregone conclusion.

see answer to your first part, oh and I Shit bigger'n you.

contidential to AG: you were really cranky yesterday, gosh.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's as if Bush looked around and decided that the Dems weren't offering any real viable fight for thr 2004 vote, and, being a sportsman and all, decided to even the game up.

This truly sucks. We might as well have a Dem Prez.

From a fiscal point of view, perhaps -- though that comforts me not, for I do not agree with the spending programs and priorities.

On the whole, though, Bilmore, take heart -- Bush is very different from what most Dem. Presidents would be -- witness for example the continual efforts to loosen environmental restrictions and workplace rules on businesses, and the steady stream of conservative judicial nominees who have been approved.

S_A_M