Who's to blame for governhment overspending?

[nyker96]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20spend.html?hp

The parties share blame for the current fiscal situation, but federal budget statistics show that Republican policies over the last decade, and the cost of the two wars, added far more to the deficit than initiatives approved by the Democratic Congress since 2006, giving voters reason to be skeptical of campaign promises.

Calculations by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other independent fiscal experts show that the $1.1 trillion cost over the next 10 years of the Medicare prescription drug program, which the Republican-controlled Congress adopted in 2003, by itself would add more to the deficit than the combined costs of the bailout, the stimulus and the health care law.

 

[glenn1]

Q: Who's to blame for government overspending?

A: Who fvcking cares? I care less about who to blame than who will fix it.

 

[Fenixgoon]

congress. all of it.

 

[cubby1223]

What a failure of logic cited there...

Republicans who spent but kept taxes low
-versus-
Democrats who spent and tax everything in sight

Why look at the "deficit" for partisan spin, why can't I just look at the raw "spending" and say Stop!!!???

 

[MotF Bane]

Q: Who's to blame for government overspending?

A: Who fvcking cares? I care less about who to blame than who will fix it.

This.

 

[cubby1223]

Is the article suggesting that Republicans placed into power are planning to start another two brand new wars? Otherwise what does that have to do with the current situation?

 

[werepossum]

On a side note - can anyone truly say "non-partisan Congressional Budget Office" with a straight face? 'Cause such a person would make an excellent con man. The CBO is full of big government types who overestimate and underestimate as required to increase the size and scope of government, period, as witnessed by the recent Obamacare debacle. (Or as those Democrats running for re-election now call it, a bunch of stuff that happened while I was out protecting the American way and which I now oppose even though some lying piece of paper says I voted for it.)

 

[drebo]

Let's simplify it: liberals caused the current deficit and debt problems. Whichever party they were aligned with is completely and totally irrelevant. The bottom line is that liberal fiscal policies are to blame.

Corporatism and cronyism didn't make it any better, but those exist on both sides of the partisan aisle. Back-room deals are made by both sides and are just as destructive.

But, the main cause of where we are is fiscal liberalism. That is what needs to be brought in to check.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is obviously not a question to ask of the brain dead.

 

[theeedude]

Government is underspending.

 

[nobodyknows]

This is obviously not a question to ask of the brain dead.

+1

 

[her209]

Let's simplify it: liberals caused the current deficit and debt problems. Whichever party they were aligned with is completely and totally irrelevant. The bottom line is that liberal fiscal policies are to blame.

Corporatism and cronyism didn't make it any better, but those exist on both sides of the partisan aisle. Back-room deals are made by both sides and are just as destructive.

But, the main cause of where we are is fiscal liberalism. That is what needs to be brought in to check.

Can't escape blame where blame is due by washing your hands and saying, "Well, they're not true conservatives." After all, who voted these neoconservatives into office?

 

[mcmilljb]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/assholes/pavelmalik/lulz/assholes-donkey-ass-hole-asshole-de.jpg

 

[Craig234]

Let's simplify it: liberals caused the current deficit and debt problems.

95% of the attacks I see here on liberals are wrong or lies. I can't remember the other 5%.

You are confused about 'liberalism' and 'fiscal liberalism'.

For example, you are equating excessive war (on borrowed money, not paid for with taxes), massive campaign donor rewards (medicare part D with non-negotiable drug prices), tax cuts for the rich of trillions in a time of deficits, and wall street underregulation all as 'liberal', while 'liberal', the progressive caucus, oppose at least the worst parts of these programs.

 

[Double Trouble]

Fiscal liberalism is the problem, and the republicans and democrats both love it. They quibble about social conservatism vs social liberalism issues, but they both agree on fiscal recklessness. One group wants to spend into oblivion without raising taxes, the other wants to spend into oblivion while raising taxes. Same problem.

The cost of wars is a stupid logical fallacy mentioned all too often when discussing debts. Wars are not a choice or a bill enacted by congress. It's (supposedly) not a choice and something the country has to do. If the idiots in DC commit the country to unneeded wars that's a problem (and last time I checked just about everyone from both parties voted to authorize the wars), but it has nothing to do with fiscal policy and deficit creation. It's not like when you decide if you need to go to war you say "hmmm, how does this work with the budget for next year?".

 

[Craig234]

Fiscal liberalism is the problem, and the republicans and democrats both love it. They quibble about social conservatism vs social liberalism issues, but they both agree on fiscal recklessness. One group wants to spend into oblivion without raising taxes, the other wants to spend into oblivion while raising taxes. Same problem.

The cost of wars is a stupid logical fallacy mentioned all too often when discussing debts. Wars are not a choice or a bill enacted by congress. It's (supposedly) not a choice and something the country has to do. If the idiots in DC commit the country to unneeded wars that's a problem (and last time I checked just about everyone from both parties voted to authorize the wars), but it has nothing to do with fiscal policy and deficit creation. It's not like when you decide if you need to go to war you say "hmmm, how does this work with the budget for next year?".

We should really find better words for this topic than 'liberal' and conservative'. They are loaded terms to begin with, and vague. Does it mean a lot of spending, or a lot of borrowing, and what about all the fiscal issues that aren't simply spending or borrowing, like regulation issues? Did FDR spend 'liberally' to win WWII, was that bad?

Are all wars that are 'choices' bad? How about 'police actions', how about 'mutual defense treaties', how about military bases in harms way, how about massive defense spending?

I'd say just talk about the issues - if we're spending on something we shouldn't, say that and why we shouldn't. If we have a bad fiscal policy, say that and why it's bad.

Otherwise, this is just a lot of vague statements IMO.

Having said that, I think you are a bit naive about our war policies and would benefit from reading some books on the topic, like those by Chalmers Johnson.

Our military policies are largely about economic benefit, not the threat from the evil empire that never really has existed against us outside WWII and England.

Don't make me drag out the General Smedley Butler quote about what he learned about our war policies being for the benefit of US corporations and economic interests.

 

[kranky]

I blame the voters, who dislike big government spending in general, but re-elect their own congressperson for bringing home the pork.

 

[Craig234]

I blame the voters, who dislike big government spending in general, but re-elect their own congressperson for bringing home the pork.

That's really a problem. When you tell everyone 'you're welcome to cut our spending - but only by cutting your share', who's going to? Not many.

But it's only one of many problems. Another is the way some 'bad' spending gets a lot more political support than 'good' spending, so spending cuts can be more harm than good.

And that comes back to our allowing our election system to be dominated by money, so that the few most wealthy have their interests come first.

And that, too, as you said, comes back to voters who vote for who spends the most money on ads - as well as our not reducing the role of money.

 

[PokerGuy]

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.

This rings more and more true every day. The politicians have figured out that they can effectively bribe the people with their own money, and we keep voting the same dopes into office every election.....

 

[Mursilis]

What a failure of logic cited there...

Republicans who spent but kept taxes low
-versus-
Democrats who spent and tax everything in sight

My taxes haven't really gone up - have yours? I'd respect Dems more if they actually stuck to the whole of their high taxes/high services model, but while they rush to deliver high services, they don't seem too quick to get around to the high taxes part of it, so of course we have record deficits. Not that I'm surprised, since the GOP does something similar - they preach a low taxes/low services model, but never get around to actually cutting services, so they also want to drive the country off a fiscal cliff.

But of course the true answer to the question of who causes gov't overspending is the person in the mirror. We choose to believe the liars, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Mursilis]

That's really a problem. When you tell everyone 'you're welcome to cut our spending - but only by cutting your share', who's going to? Not many.

But it's only one of many problems. Another is the way some 'bad' spending gets a lot more political support than 'good' spending, so spending cuts can be more harm than good.

And that comes back to our allowing our election system to be dominated by money, so that the few most wealthy have their interests come first.

And that, too, as you said, comes back to voters who vote for who spends the most money on ads - as well as our not reducing the role of money.

Limiting the amount of money in politics won't fix the stupidity problem.

 

[Cogman]

The only difference between a democrat and a republican is the campaign promises they make to get elected. Both parties are to blame for the current deficit.

 

[rudder]

Any person that was elected as a member of congress or elected as president is responsible. Party blame comes and goes. Bush spent like he had one of those money printing nintendos... the Republican congress in the mid 90's paid closer attention to their fiscally conservative roots... the democrats... well they always spend...

 

[Darwin333]

Government is underspending.

So are you, how many new credit cards have you applied for lately? If consumers would only spend more than they make like they have been doing for a while now the economy would surely recover.

 

[rudder]

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.

This rings more and more true every day. The politicians have figured out that they can effectively bribe the people with their own money, and we keep voting the same dopes into office every election.....

yep...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eniors-deprived-social-security-benefit-hike/