• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Democrats to lift US debt ceiling by $1.8 TRILLION

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Robor deflecting? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

So you're saying that at best, Democrats are the same as Bush and the Republicans.

Hope! Change!
Nope - just pointing out hypocrisy of the OP (as usual). If you read through the thread you'll see I never claimed the Dems were fiscal conservatives and didn't share the blame (especially recently). I'll refer to Wolfee's post a few above this. They explained it a lot better than I ever could. :)
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
I know it...I've been trying to argue against this insanity for pages now. I guess you just can't reason with illogical people.
If your argument isn't being accepted maybe it's you who is illogical? :hmm:

Watch, I can predict the future...in a few years, as we get further and further away from Bush's Republican Congress and Bush as president, and when our massive deficits further explode to astronomical proportions, it will be BushCare!, Bush's Cap and Tax!, Bush's Third Stimulus! and Bush's Afghanistan Surge!
LOL, I think your crystal ball came from a bowling alley. :D
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
This is an argument I can respect. You actually provide an analysis. Thanks!

So, the tax cuts were a Republican thing (no argument here), but the Medicare entitlement was a bipartisan (meaning R and D) thing, and the wars kept getting funded by Congress, even when the Dems took control of both houses in 2006. Two out of three, the Democrats were equal "conspirators" with the Republicans, yet it's all the Republican's fault?

:hmm:

What about 2009? We knew we were in a recession by that point (the Dems and the media told us every day for a year now), so the smaller revenues weren't a surprise. Bush was out of office, the Republicans were three years removed from controlling Congress. What about the stimulus? Is that Bush and the Republicans' fault too? Will the second stimulus, government health care and cap and trade somehow be Bush and the Republicans' fault as well? Surely, with the Dems assailing the Republicans daily about how "irresponsible" they've been under Bush, and with the recession already being a well known fact, the Dems should have righted this ship they've so long screamed was so off course, right?

Then why hasn't it happened? Is that all the Republicans' fault as well? How many years is this silly blame game going to continue? 2010? 2012? It's ridiculous. Did Bush whine in every major speech about the mild recession he inherited from Clinton in 2001?
All of these are fair points. I will reiterate a point I made above, which is that neither party is fiscally responsible. I think that is abundantly clear and beyond dispute. The major differences I can see, however, are twofold.

First, the dems tend not to campaign as the party of fiscal responsibility. They will say it is important in their campaign speeches, but repubs make it a signature issue in their platform and rhetoric. But ask them about their plans for fiscal responsibility, and you get no substance. They attack "earmarks" and "pork barrel spending" in their rhetoric but these are a tiny portion of the budget. This is a hollow, symbolic campaign issue, something they can claim to oppose when they run for elections. Yet even if they oppose it while in office (which some do and some do not), it doesn't amount to anything. At the same time, they always want to cut taxes, and they will never raise them to pay for spending they propose, whether it be for wars or for new entitlements like Medicare part D. While the moderate or "new left" dems are basically complicit with the repubs on all this, they at least do not claim that fiscal responsibility is their top priority while pursuing these fiscally disastrous policies.

Second, the dems will tend to support stimulus spending during a recession to prime the pump, while repubs oppose it. But repubs support economic stimulus just as much as dems do. They just support doing it by way of cutting taxes rather than by way of spending. If memory serves, this stimulus bill was about 60% tax cuts and 40% spending. This is why some repubs voted for it. Yet if it had been 100% tax cuts, but the same overall size, it's a good bet the repubs would have voted for it in force. And yet it still would have had the same negative fiscal impact. So the difference here over stimulus spending it not at its core an ideological battle over the premise of stimulus, but rather one over how to implement it, with repubs wanting all tax cuts, progressives wanting all spending, and moderates wanting a mixture. Now we can debate whether tax cuts or spending are more effective in creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Both will stimulate the economy to some degree, and it may be that either are both are worth the price in the short term increase in the deficit they create, or it may be that neither are worth it. But both will enlarge the deficit and therefore neither party can claim "fiscal responsibility." The only people who can claim that are those who opposed any form of stimulus, be it spending or tax cuts, which is basically no one in Congress.

Finally, with respect to healtcare, I will say this. The bills floating around Congress are paid for by additional taxes, unlike the wars or Medicare part D. Again, we can debate whether the goals being pursued are worth the tax increases, but at least there is a notion of fiscal resonsibility here. And the repubs are being fiscally responsible, in this case, by opposing the entire thing. The premise here is right, with every form of new spending, you need to either support it, but only if it is paid for on the revenue side, or else oppose it. This needs to be the continued philosophy of government.

- wolf
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
woolfe, another excellent post. :) I can respect your opinion, even though I may not agree with all of it, but I do have one minor quibble with something you said.

If memory serves, this stimulus bill was about 60% tax cuts and 40% spending. This is why some repubs voted for it.
Let's be honest here...the only Republicans who voted for the stimulus were Arlen Spector (now a Democrat who turned coat when the polls showed he would get shellacked in the PA Republican primary and he even admitted as much) and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, two RINOs from Maine. :p

Even McCain and Grahamnesty opposed it. None of the House Republicans voted in favor of the stimulus bill.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
(snipped for emphasis on the finish)

Finally, with respect to healtcare, I will say this. The bills floating around Congress are paid for by additional taxes, unlike the wars or Medicare part D. Again, we can debate whether the goals being pursued are worth the tax increases, but at least there is a notion of fiscal resonsibility here. And the repubs are being fiscally responsible, in this case, by opposing the entire thing. The premise here is right, with every form of new spending, you need to either support it, but only if it is paid for on the revenue side, or else oppose it. This needs to be the continued philosophy of government.

- wolf
Dude, you should run for office! (just don't get corrupted) :D
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
woolfe, another excellent post. :) I can respect your opinion, even though I may not agree with all of it, but I do have one minor quibble with something you said.



Let's be honest here...the only Republicans who voted for the stimulus were Arlen Spector (now a Democrat who turned coat when the polls showed he would get shellacked in the PA Republican primary and he even admitted as much) and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, two RINOs from Maine. :p

Even McCain and Grahamnesty opposed it. None of the House Republicans voted in favor of the stimulus bill.
I did a quick check and your facts are correct. Yet I still maintain that had the entire bill been tax cuts, of the exact same size as this actual bill, the repubs would have voted for it in force, fiscal consequences be damned.

- wolf
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Those of you saying both parties are the same are hacks. Bill Clinton's admin actually paid down some of our debt. The Republican administrations have just racked up the debt. A major factor in Clinton's success was the tax hike on the rich, which not one Republican in the House voted for, which they all said would wreck the economy.

Yes, Democrats believe in tax and spend, and Republicans believe in borrow and spend.
Which do you think is a more responsible and sustainable policy?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Who has had the majority in congress for the past three years? Let's see if marincounty, hack extraordinaire, can answer that one.
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,318
0
0
Those of you saying both parties are the same are hacks. Bill Clinton's admin actually paid down some of our debt. The Republican administrations have just racked up the debt. A major factor in Clinton's success was the tax hike on the rich, which not one Republican in the House voted for, which they all said would wreck the economy.

Yes, Democrats believe in tax and spend, and Republicans believe in borrow and spend.
Which do you think is a more responsible and sustainable policy?

Neither - why do we have to keep coming up with new stuff to spend money on?

Aah the Clinton years, you got NAFTA and Omnibus along with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Family Medical Leave Act and the Defense of Marrige Act along with the Brady Bill and some impressive work with the budget and defecit, right?

Let's not forget that much of the artificial economic growth and later crash that the next TWO presidents (Bush and Obama) have to deal with were borne of seeds sewn in the Clinton years. Clinton repealled Glass Steagall which paved the way for the subprime lending mess while also ammending the "Fairness in Housing" act that flooded the market with even more non credit worthy buyers. Prior to 1998 there was no subprime lending trade... You want to know who gave Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and AIG the ability to dig themselves the hole that you got to bail them out of look directly at William Jefferson Clinton.

http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2007/11/bill-clintons-role-in-mortgage-crisis.html

I'll take some blame, however, since the first ballot I cast in a presidential election was for Bill Clinton. Oh how the world can change a man. :)
 
Last edited:

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Those of you saying both parties are the same are hacks. Bill Clinton's admin actually paid down some of our debt.
There are few clearer indicators of an intellectually-dishonest partisan hack than this tired claim - we have here the refusal both to acknowledge the role the GOP-controlled Congress played in the ever-so-brief surplus years, and to acknowledge that the whole surplus was mostly the result of a speculative bubble anyway for which neither party deserves much credit.

Yes, Democrats believe in tax and spend, and Republicans believe in borrow and spend.
Which do you think is a more responsible and sustainable policy?
So where are my tax increases? I'm paying about the same as I paid under Bush, and the Dems, who control both the White House and both houses of Congress, are just borrowing to pay for the spending. I've said before and I'll say it again: taxes will NOT go up by any substantial amounts under Obama, and he and Congress will just do what both parties have long done to pay for their bribes to voters - float more debt.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
My guess is he didn't vote because he was busy campaigning.
You would be wrong. He voted for Tarp so its kind of hard to completely blame the cost of it on Bush who, in fairness, signed it into law. Its all apart of the same bullshit deflection that both parties play.

Its like blaming the entirety of the economic mess on Bush when it is easily proven that both parties played key roles in fucking things up. On top of that, neither party tried to prevent it and to this very day nothing has been done to prevent it from happening again. At least they are talking about GS but the leverage limits have not been put back in place (would have prevented a good majority of the mess), as far as I know nothing has been done about the CDS market (which Geithner played a part in preventing regulation during the mess that might have prevented some of this mess), a crapton of bad paper is still on the banks books (at full value of course), and no one has even been indicted for fraud.

The blame game is nothing but a diversion and the vast majority of us are falling for it. In the meantime nothing is getting accomplished.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Those of you saying both parties are the same are hacks. Bill Clinton's admin actually paid down some of our debt. The Republican administrations have just racked up the debt. A major factor in Clinton's success was the tax hike on the rich, which not one Republican in the House voted for, which they all said would wreck the economy.

Yes, Democrats believe in tax and spend, and Republicans believe in borrow and spend.
Which do you think is a more responsible and sustainable policy?
More bullshit.

So, exactly how much less did we owe foreign countries on Clintons last day in office? While Clinton's spending wasn't in the same category as Obama's or Bush's he, with the help of Congress who controls the purse strings, still increased our external debt.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Clinton did better than any other president in many years by the time he left office but for the most part he was a big ole debt lover. Not on the same scale as republicans have been in the last few decades (they love debt the most, despite their supposed ideologies against this), but pretty bad nonetheless.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,359
25,096
136
More bullshit.

So, exactly how much less did we owe foreign countries on Clintons last day in office? While Clinton's spending wasn't in the same category as Obama's or Bush's he, with the help of Congress who controls the purse strings, still increased our external debt.
And decreased our debt to GDP ratio by nearly 9%... which is a vastly more important measure.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,680
9,843
136
The OP has been a member of AT since '01, did he ever post a thread complaining about Bush's runaway policies with the deficit, including all the times his admin had the debt ceiling lifted? Or was it just that OP could never find such an article on any of his wingnut sites to copy-and-paste here?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
The OP has been a member of AT since '01, did he ever post a thread complaining about Bush's runaway policies with the deficit, including all the times his admin had the debt ceiling lifted? Or was it just that OP could never find such an article on any of his wingnut sites to copy-and-paste here?
IIRC PJBLABBER became active during the election. I know several modern 'fiscal conservatives' who act the same way as PJBLABBER regarding Obama. They never once mentioned anything about our budgets or deficits when GWB was in office. Now they send me the same kind of copy/pasted crap with hair-on-fire enthusiasm and FUD. I'll say the same thing to PJBLABBER that I say to them - the timing of your 'enlightenment' is very convenient.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
IIRC PJBLABBER became active during the election. I know several modern 'fiscal conservatives' who act the same way as PJBLABBER regarding Obama. They never once mentioned anything about our budgets or deficits when GWB was in office. Now they send me the same kind of copy/pasted crap with hair-on-fire enthusiasm and FUD. I'll say the same thing to PJBLABBER that I say to them - the timing of your 'enlightenment' is very convenient.
Ask any conservative about what they disliked about Bush and "his spending" will be the overwhelming answer.

But his spending is nothing compared to what's going on in just 11 months of hell.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
And decreased our debt to GDP ratio by nearly 9%... which is a vastly more important measure.
Clinton increased the debt by over $1.5 trillion, mostly in his first term, but you are correct the GDP/Debt ratio which is the most important measure did decrease but that was due to an increase in GDP and not because he didn't borrow. Some would argue that we gave a lot of that "GDP" back when the internet bubble blew up but its really irrelevant to the discussion.

The point is, presidents don't carry all of the responsibility for the stuff we attribute to and blame them of and both parties fucked things up to get us to where we are today. The argument is absurd at this point because we can actually point to very specific things that allowed this to happen that were put in place by both Dem and Rep Congress/Senates and Dem and Rep presidents.

The blame game is a diversion and I believe you know that.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Do you whine and dissemble this much when the pugs are in power?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question. I know you'll be in lockstep with the repug fuhrers when at all possible.
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,318
0
0
Do you whine and dissemble this much when the pugs are in power?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question. I know you'll be in lockstep with the repug fuhrers when at all possible.
"You can't use reason to talk someone out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at." some smart guy

Have you considered applying the advice in your signature to any of your own posts perchance or just "do as I say, not as I do"?
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
"You can't use reason to talk someone out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at." some smart guy

Have you considered applying the advice in your signature to any of your own posts perchance or just "do as I say, not as I do"?
It's a frightening thought that some pugs have used reason to arrive at their prejudices. If you don't, that's fine. Just try to claim that you do.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY