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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sounds like utopian social engineering to me.

More like an electric fence.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Pretty ballsy of HRC to circulate this:


being the master of Arab suck ups:

Ballsy indeed -- wonder how it will play. At least Drudge had the decency to do this:

• EDITOR'S NOTE: Other leaders have worn local costumes:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Bob

He looks like a bobblehead Jesus.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...8/pdf/hist.pdf

Page 59

Discretionary Speeding:

1991: 663.0
1992: 643.2
1993: 632.7
1994: 621.6
1995: 609.2

So Bush's 91 budget decreased discretionary spending
Bush's 92 Budget decreased discretionary spending
Budget 93 enacted while Bush 1 was president decreased spending
And the 93 budget act decreased discretionary spending in 94. The biggest drop in discretionary spending was from 1991-1992 when Bush 1. was President.

Neither Bush 1 nor Clinton (with a Dem Congress) tried to touch non-decretory spending.

So the only thing different about the 93 budget act, from previous years, was that it increased taxes.

Ty and friends are trying to make the 93 budget act sound as if it was some incredible act of fiscal courage. When in reality, the only thing it did different from previous years was raise taxes more than the increase in spending.

They are also trying to infer that it is unfair to include non-discretionary spending in the budget because you can't touch that part of the budget. This is also not true. In fact Gingrich and the Republican Congress tried to curb the growth of non-discretionary spending (which shows Congress can do something about it) but Clinton vetoed the bills and then chastised the Republicans for trying to "cut" Medicare and other entitlements while they were really just trying to curb the growth.

Fine, by your own (rather twisted) standards, there hasn't been a fiscally responsible adminstration/Congress since the last time total federal outlays went down from one year to the next. In 1965. Boy, that LBJ was one hell of a fiscal conservative. As was Truman in '46-'48. (pages 50 and 52 )


http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...8/pdf/hist.pdf

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
Fine, by your own (rather twisted) standards, there hasn't been a fiscally responsible adminstration/Congress since the last time total federal outlays went down from one year to the next. In 1965. Boy, that LBJ was one hell of a fiscal conservative. As was Truman in '46-'48. (pages 50 and 52 )


http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...8/pdf/hist.pdf

Why are those twisted standards? If you had an adjustable rate mortgage a couple years ago and it was reset to a higher rate and kept climbing, wouldn't it only be responsible to try to refi the thing and stop that climb? If the exec branch can do anything to slow the growth of entitlement spending and doesn't, it's not twisted to suggest it has been irresponsible.

And one could go as far as to suggest that Clinton used the fact that he was cutting discretionary spending, though it had no real impact on outlays, as a basis to raise taxes in 1993 without facing a backlash from conservatives for being a classic tax and spender. We'd have to look back at what he cut and how all the deals were brokered with legislators with an interest in the programs/pork cut to see the truth, if any, in that.

But "twisted" doen't fit here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob

"So, heh heh, I guess we're havin' some rilly big lobsters?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why are those twisted standards? If you had an adjustable rate mortgage a couple years ago and it was reset to a higher rate and kept climbing, wouldn't it only be responsible to try to refi the thing and stop that climb? If the exec branch can do anything to slow the growth of entitlement spending and doesn't, it's not twisted to suggest it has been irresponsible.

And one could go as far as to suggest that Clinton used the fact that he was cutting discretionary spending, though it had no real impact on outlays, as a basis to raise taxes in 1993 without facing a backlash from conservatives for being a classic tax and spender. We'd have to look back at what he cut and how all the deals were brokered with legislators with an interest in the programs/pork cut to see the truth, if any, in that.

But "twisted" doen't fit here.

Entitlement spending is going to grow every year because the population is growing. Whatever Spanky's point is, it doesn't seem to be relevant to the conversation we were having before he entered into it.

The real problem is when entitlements grow disproportionately. And here, the real problem is rising health care costs. Which, you may recall, Clinton tried to address. The GOP opposed him all the way, moving the goal posts out of a desire to make sure he didn't win a political victory. Of course, the GOP has done nothing over the last seven years to address rising health care costs, but for making the problem worse with the drug benefit.

And on Clinton, if your point is that by not spending, Clinton avoided being called a tax and spender, then you are correct, and the reason for this is that he wasn't, because he cut discretionary spending.

In addition to trying to reform health care, Clinton also presided over welfare reform, so faulting him for doing nothing about entitlements is a little odd.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Clinton also presided over welfare reform, so faulting him for doing nothing about entitlements is a little odd.

when someone is dragged to the electric chair, would you say the condemmed man "presided over" the execution?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why are those twisted standards? If you had an adjustable rate mortgage a couple years ago and it was reset to a higher rate and kept climbing, wouldn't it only be responsible to try to refi the thing and stop that climb?

This is a decent analogy, but the optimal word is try. There may be factors that are outside your control (such as the credit environment) that might prevent you from being able to do so. Add in that we are talking about politics and not your personal budget, the list of things outside your control gets a lot longer.

And one could go as far as to suggest that Clinton used the fact that he was cutting discretionary spending, though it had no real impact on outlays

This is like saying giving up your $5 a day on Starbuck has no impact on your finances if your mortage adjusts upward at the equivalent of $10 a day. It doesn't solve the problem, but it is a move in the right direction.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Entitlement spending is going to grow every year because the population is growing. Whatever Spanky's point is, it doesn't seem to be relevant to the conversation we were having before he entered into it.

The real problem is when entitlements grow disproportionately. And here, the real problem is rising health care costs. Which, you may recall, Clinton tried to address. The GOP opposed him all the way, moving the goal posts out of a desire to make sure he didn't win a political victory. Of course, the GOP has done nothing over the last seven years to address rising health care costs, but for making the problem worse with the drug benefit.

And on Clinton, if your point is that by not spending, Clinton avoided being called a tax and spender, then you are correct, and the reason for this is that he wasn't, because he cut discretionary spending.

In addition to trying to reform health care, Clinton also presided over welfare reform, so faulting him for doing nothing about entitlements is a little odd.

I'm not faulting Clinton. As you probably know, I would vote for him all over again. He was as good a moderate as we're likely to get. I was merely explaining to Adder that "twisted" does not describe the argument Spanky was making. A conservative could argue the way he did and though I wouldn't necessarily agree with his characterization (or Adder's) of what Clinton did, I wouldn't call either "twisted."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
This is a decent analogy, but the optimal word is try. There may be factors that are outside your control (such as the credit environment) that might prevent you from being able to do so. Add in that we are talking about politics and not your personal budget, the list of things outside your control gets a lot longer.

This is like saying giving up your $5 a day on Starbuck has no impact on your finances if your mortage adjusts upward at the equivalent of $10 a day. It doesn't solve the problem, but it is a move in the right direction.

Agreed. That's why, if he was barred by law or political reality from cutting SS or Medicare costs, I can't fault Clinton. And I would never say he "raised" spending in any regard. He didn't do that. It raised itself, and though that seems a silly distinction, it's not.

True on the second point. Saying outlays increased under Clinton without citing his efforts to cut discretionary outlays doesn't seem to give the full picture. However, I see how people could make the argument without noting that caveat.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when someone is dragged to the electric chair, would you say the condemmed man "presided over" the execution?

Is it up on a dais?

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Congress spends a certain amount of money every yeare and it HAS TOTAL CONTROL OVER WHAT THE BUDGET IS. Discretionary or not.

Just wanted to quote this again so we could all see it. Caps and all.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when someone is dragged to the electric chair, would you say the condemmed man "presided over" the execution?

If you were to try to express yourself in simple, declarative sentences, you might make more sense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm not faulting Clinton. As you probably know, I would vote for him all over again. He was as good a moderate as we're likely to get. I was merely explaining to Adder that "twisted" does not describe the argument Spanky was making. A conservative could argue the way he did and though I wouldn't necessarily agree with his characterization (or Adder's) of what Clinton did, I wouldn't call either "twisted."

I understood Adder to be saying that it's twisted to argue that Clinton was not financially responsible because he failed to do what no other President has done for several decades.