Politics: A new beginning

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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.

Bilmore -- "spending conservatives" don't get re-elected anymore. The people want their goodies, and most Repubs. -- like most Dems. -- are really all about power.

Fiscal restraint will not be back in favor among the general populace until much later in this decade -- i.e. after the tax and spending policies of the Bush II Republican administration leads to the same sort of fiscal/budget crunch as we saw in the late 1980s after the two Reagan administrations. (Oh, bitter irony!) This time, however, we will be 20 years closer to the Social Security crisis without having done much to fix it.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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 suppose you also blame the deficits during the Reagan years on the mythical Spend-thrift Democratic Congress which -- so the conservative mythos goes -- consistently spent far more than the frugal sums set forth in the budgets provided by the Great Communicator? I seem to recall club setting forth this theory way back when.

It didn't happen that way, friend -- you can look it up yourself -- or refer to the handy reference guide to budgets and spending during the Reagan years provided by a dude from the Brookings Institute and included in Al Franken's new book.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

In short: No, you're wrong. No Republicans voted for his first budget.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
In short: No, you're wrong. No Republicans voted for his first budget.

his first budget would have been before the midterm (94) elections. the contract with america include the PROMISE of a balanced budget, so I assume his first budget was not balanced (tried to google this, but the force is weak in me).

ultimately how many republicans voted with him is somewhat irrelevant. Clearly the republicans were trying to screw him at every turn, but the fact remains it was the House Republicans and the Contract with America that forced him to deal with this political reality: balance the budget.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
his first budget would have been before the midterm (94) elections. the contract with america include the PROMISE of a balanced budget, so I assume his first budget was not balanced (tried to google this, but the force is weak in me).

ultimately how many republicans voted with him is somewhat irrelevant. Clearly the republicans were trying to screw him at every turn, but the fact remains it was the House Republicans and the Contract with America that forced him to deal with this political reality: balance the budget.

Oh, this is just complete horseshit. Work harder on Google until you find a story, or just go back and read the link to the Christian Science Monitor that I posted yesterday. Clinton and the Democrats passed a balanced budget, over GOP opposition, before the Gingrich Revolution. It passed by one vote in the House, and cost a Dem freshman Rep. from Pennsylvania her seat, as I recall. The item in the Contract with America was a cheap ploy -- watch what we say, not what we do. Between Reagan and the two Bushes, you have massive deficit spending, checked only by a brief period in which Bush I exercised some restraint and thereby lost the right wing of his party. Anyone looking at the last 25 years could only conclude that the GOP is the party of financial recklessness, and that it takes a Democrat in the White House to restore fiscal sanity. But conservatives see all of this through this mythic miasma -- tax-and-spend Democrats! shrink government! This is what you're doing when you "assume" the reverse of history.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank
ultimately how many republicans voted with him is somewhat irrelevant. Clearly the republicans were trying to screw him at every turn, but the fact remains it was the House Republicans and the Contract with America that forced him to deal with this political reality: balance the budget.

I like this one. Clinton's first budget reduced the large (for that time) budget deficits inherited from Bush I and somehow the GOP "forced" him to do so by not voting for it.

This is what fascinates me about this issue. Republicans apparently can tell themselves that they support fiscal restraint, and can remember a time when their party actually did support an ideology of fiscal restraint, and somehow that allows them to look past the fiscal irresponsibility of their representatives in Congress and the White House.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Republicans ... can remember a time when their party actually did support an ideology of fiscal restraint,

Only if they were born before 1975 or so.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I like this one. Clinton's first budget reduced the large (for that time) budget deficits inherited from Bush I and somehow the GOP "forced" him to do so by not voting for it.

This is what fascinates me about this issue. Republicans apparently can tell themselves that they support fiscal restraint, and can remember a time when their party actually did support an ideology of fiscal restraint, and somehow that allows them to look past the fiscal irresponsibility of their representatives in Congress and the White House.

No doubt about it, if a Democrat would stand up and explain how he would tax and spend less, I'd listen with interest. Partly because I know there are ways to do it.

And not to paint you together with Ty, but I just went back and read the link (as an aside, I don't press hidden links... anyone else have this phobia). Even his article notes that Clinton's '93 budget was a deficit reducer of the magnitude as Bush I's deficit reduction. It also notes that no Republicans voted for the '93 package, and I would like to see how they explained it at the time. I don't remember how people explained things.

But, to my reading, the article certainly does not say or even imply that Clinton balanced the budget in '93. It indicates that he made moves to do so... some of which were tax increases that led to the '94 Republican takeover of congress. For example, the article notes this:

>>The balanced-budget pledge in the Republicans' "Contract with America" upped the ante on fiscal responsibility. Clinton responded with a similar pledge, which eventually led to the historic balanced-budget deal of May 1997. <<

To more directly address your point about heritage and memory though, I think the Right on this board could accurately be described as Sons of the forgotten Dead. And Cousin George ain't such a good caretaker. Unfortunately for you, we know who your daddy is, and your alternative ain't any better. (Your, as in the "left", just so you know I'm not leveling personal insults at ya).

But you don't need to tell us how embarrassed we should be about the budget right now. Every one of us is, as far as I can tell. What's the answer? In good faith, which Democrats can I support nationally besides Zell Miller and DiFi? Which Repubs should we focus on getting out of the Senate?

Don Quixote

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
This is what fascinates me about this issue. Republicans apparently can tell themselves that they support fiscal restraint, and can remember a time when their party actually did support an ideology of fiscal restraint, and somehow that allows them to look past the fiscal irresponsibility of their representatives in Congress and the White House.

Now, my (admittedly foggy) memory of the times was that, up until 1995 (when the Repubs got Congress), BC wasn't much of a proponent of a balanced budget (he said then that it wasn't a priority). His first three budgets (93, 94 and 95, I think) were disasters - over $200B deficits in each. It was only after the GOP had been putting increasingly effective pressure on BC to balance - think what you will of Newt's character, he made a big difference in fiscal policy - and took over Congress that BC finally saw the light (i.e. read some polls) and put in a balanced budget proposal. Even then, that budget left a $80B deficit in its last year.

Repubs wouldn't vote for his proposal, if I remember right, not because of the balancing, but because of the means to that balancing.

All that being said, Bush's new spending bender is ludicrous.


(Edited to add - I looked it up -

93 proposal - $228.5B
94 proposal - $206.2B
95 proposal - $276B)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Now, my (admittedly foggy) memory of the times was that, up until 1995 (when the Repubs got Congress), BC wasn't much of a proponent of a balanced budget (he said then that it wasn't a priority). His first three budgets (93, 94 and 95, I think) were disasters - over $200B deficits in each. It was only after the GOP had been putting increasingly effective pressure on BC to balance - think what you will of Newt's character, he made a big difference in fiscal policy - and took over Congress that BC finally saw the light (i.e. read some polls) and put in a balanced budget proposal. Even then, that budget left a $80B deficit in its last year.

Repubs wouldn't vote for his proposal, if I remember right, not because of the balancing, but because of the means to that balancing.

All that being said, Bush's new spending bender is ludicrous.

<i>
(Edited to add - I looked it up -

93 proposal - $228.5B
94 proposal - $206.2B
95 proposal - $276B)
</i>

Y'all are right, and I was wrong. But Clinton narrowed the gap those first years, and eventually balanced the budget. And the GOP forced the Dems to pay the political price to do this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Y'all are right, and I was wrong. But Clinton narrowed the gap those first years, and eventually balanced the budget. And the GOP forced the Dems to pay the political price to do this.

and I just spent all this time looking it up.........well this better at least count for credibility points next time....

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and I just spent all this time looking it up.........well this better at least count for credibility points next time....

You could have just looked at the CSM article I linked to but misread . . . .

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You could have just looked at the CSM article I linked to but misread . . . .

my firm didn't teach me to research efficiently, no profit there

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You could have just looked at the CSM article I linked to but misread . . . .

As an aside, does anyone have issues with the "hidden" links? Don't get me wrong, I know Ty ain't linking to porn or Al Franken excerpts or nuthin, but I have a habit of not hitting links that I don't recognize instantly. Is this Cross only mine to bear?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
As an aside, does anyone have issues with the "hidden" links? Don't get me wrong, I know Ty ain't linking to porn or Al Franken excerpts or nuthin, but I have a habit of not hitting links that I don't recognize instantly. Is this Cross only mine to bear?

A chance to wear my mod hat.

As a rule, you should warn people if you link to something that might be inappropriate -- e.g., blue pictures, sound, etc. A test to use is, if your boss walked into your office while you were reading the board, and he or she glanced over your shoulder to see the image, how would you feel about it? For reasons now lost amidst the sands of time, this warning is known hereabouts as a spree disclosure. If you think a post should have a spree disc. but it doesn't, PM me and I will add one.