Who's to blame for governhment overspending?

[werepossum]

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.

Can't get yourself out of a hole with continued digging; whether with one nuclear-powered Congressional steam shovel or with many little garden spades, digging just makes more hole.

 

[Thump553]

The root of the problem is this:
1) Typical GOP lawmaker or President: never met a war they didn't like. Result-huge "defense" spending and overruns.

2) Typical Democratic lawmaker or President: innate desire to solve society's problems through new social programs. Result: increased spending on social side.

3) Both parties: The way to address the budget deficit is simple-cut the spending that the OTHER party wants.

Given the basic gridlock in Washington, coupled with the poisonous partisanship atmosphere (driven to stratospheric heights first by Gingrich, then by Rove et al, and only gotten worse with time) its pretty easy to see both why we continue to have increasing budget deficits and also we we haven't seen-and won't see-any honest efforts to resolve the deficit problem in the foreseeable future regardless of which party is in power.

Those are the facts.

 

[nonlnear]

Who's to blame? The sixteenth and seventeenth amendments.

 

[werepossum]

Who's to blame? The sixteenth and seventeenth amendments.

Agree completely.

 

[Craig234]

The only difference between a democrat and a republican is the campaign promises they make to get elected.

Wrong.

Both parties are to blame for the current deficit.

True, but not equally.

 

[TheBDB]

Q: Who's to blame for government overspending?

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

Isn't knowing what or who caused it kinda important in figuring out what or who will fix it?

 

[Craig234]

The root of the problem is this:
1) Typical GOP lawmaker or President: never met a war they didn't like. Result-huge "defense" spending and overruns.

2) Typical Democratic lawmaker or President: innate desire to solve society's problems through new social programs. Result: increased spending on social side.

3) Both parties: The way to address the budget deficit is simple-cut the spending that the OTHER party wants.

Given the basic gridlock in Washington, coupled with the poisonous partisanship atmosphere (driven to stratospheric heights first by Gingrich, then by Rove et al, and only gotten worse with time) its pretty easy to see both why we continue to have increasing budget deficits and also we we haven't seen-and won't see-any honest efforts to resolve the deficit problem in the foreseeable future regardless of which party is in power.

Those are the facts.

That's just not right, though.

Let's look at the last five Democratic Presidents, for example, and test your theory.

Barack Obama inherited the 'Great Recession', the worst economic crash of the last several decades, and has short-term stimulus needed to avoid worse problems.

He has said he wants to attack the deficit as soon as possible.

Before him, Clinton came into office after 12 years of huge deficits new to the country from the Reagan-Bush years - and cut the deficit annually until it was a surplus.

Before that, no President outside major war had deficits like Reagan/Bushes. Carter had the most of his programs pass of any president after LBJ - and small deficits.

This was in a time of economic crisis as well.

Before him was LBJ - the 'Great Society', Vietnam (that Republicans wanted), the moon landing (that was up to 5% of the national budget) - and modest deficits.

Before him was JFK - a belief in the government doing a lot of new things, new agencies, Keynesian stimulus - and modest deficits.

You're just wrong to say Democrats are for big deficits, because they're for our society addressing needs and things people want.

They're also the party who has had or returned to small deficits throughout history, outside of major war (they pay for theirs) or Obama's stimulus in the Great Recession.

They're the party of Paygo - requiring new spending to not increase the deficit by being paid for with taxes or spending cuts - and other financial responsibility measures.

Are you falling for propaganda, the myth of Democrats and big deficits?

 

[nonlnear]

Isn't knowing what or who caused it kinda important in figuring out what or who will fix it?

Actually knowing the cause only leads one to conclude that nobody will ever fix it:

Who's to blame? The sixteenth and seventeenth amendments.

 

[Mursilis]

That's just not right, though.

Let's look at the last five Democratic Presidents, for example, and test your theory.

So there's no Congress in your world? Hack.

Barack Obama inherited the 'Great Recession', the worst economic crash of the last several decades, and has short-term stimulus needed to avoid worse problems.

He has said he wants to attack the deficit as soon as possible.

But he won't. Talk isn't just cheap, it's free. And worthless.

They're the party of Paygo - requiring new spending to not increase the deficit by being paid for with taxes or spending cuts - and other financial responsibility measures.

So the stimulus was paid for? Obamacare? Checks for seniors? Etc.?

 

[Thump553]

Craig234, you misinterpreted my post. I'd didn't say Democrats want big deficits. I basically said Democrats have their spending priorities, the GOP has different ones, and both parties' solution to the balancing the budget is to cut spending on the other party's priorties, and (permanent) gridlock bars a leadership from either party from solving the problem.

That isn't to say leadership doesn't make a difference-just take a look at the different results Clinton and GWB produced.

Oh and repealing the 16th Amendment (income tax) is a teabagger fantasy only, unless you want huge sales taxes, GAT, huge tariffs and excise taxes. Repealing the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators-they used to be selected by state politicians) is perhaps the single most ridiculous and undemocratic idea I've ever heard, bar none. Let's take the power away from the people and give it back to politicians, that's a great solution to budgetary problems. Why not just go back to having a king and royal appointments?

As for paygo and the GOP, they thought it was a great idea when Clinton was President, but dropped it nearly immediately upon regaining the White House-in addition to evading Paygo by such smoke and mirror tricks as having the entire Iraq War off-budget. Fool me once, etc.

 

[Anarchist420]

I blame the neocons/liberals. That includes the people who voted for them. And I blame Alexander Hamilton for making such a shitty Constitution.

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually knowing the cause only leads one to conclude that nobody will ever fix it:

This is a good reason to conclude then that only the Democrats can save us since their focus is to make big government spending work.

The liberals said some oh say 4000 years ago you save up in surplus years for lean ones when you spend from the Pharaoh's treasury.

 

[Budmantom]

Q: Who's to blame for government overspending?

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

Well we know who won't fix it.....

The dimocratic party is too busy saving and creating jobs.

 

[MotF Bane]

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.

That is not liberalism.

 

[MotF Bane]

Government is underspending.

Incorrect as usual.

 

[MotF Bane]

Wrong.

No, you are wrong.

True, but not equally.

That is irrelevant. The point is that both are at fault. All stop right there. Picking which party you would rather blame more is not helpful or productive.

 

[MotF Bane]

So the stimulus was paid for? Obamacare? Checks for seniors? Etc.?

Hahaha, the PayGo myth. The latest Democrat buzzword to try to cover their complete lack of financial responsibility.

 

[drebo]

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?

Certainly not me.

 

[TheBlank84]

I find it truly mistifying that everyone still believes that there really has to be one side to everything rather than two different approaches to the same question. Our country was founded through compromise and a collection of differring ideas coming together to create something for everyone.

Most of what I've seen in the political landscape (including discussion) is "my side vs yours" and scapegoating. I await the day where more people realize that failing to find a complete solution from all the pieces of the puzzle is just as bad as failing in general. I grow tired of not being able to engage in a political discussion with friends and family simply because if I don't agree with them 100%, I'm obviously part of the "problem".

Finding routes of blame for the purpose of denigrating and diminishing the value of the other side's ideas only adds to the problem. Learn the lessons and adapt as a whole.

 

[crownjules]

I find it truly mistifying that everyone still believes that there really has to be one side to everything rather than two different approaches to the same question. Our country was founded through compromise and a collection of differring ideas coming together to create something for everyone.

It's because compromising is giving up power and that's what our political system focuses on these days. It's less about serving the public and more about increasing your party's power/influence and all the benefits you reap from it.

 

[Craig234]

Craig234, you misinterpreted my post. I'd didn't say Democrats want big deficits. I basically said Democrats have their spending priorities, the GOP has different ones, and both parties' solution to the balancing the budget is to cut spending on the other party's priorties, and (permanent) gridlock bars a leadership from either party from solving the problem.

That isn't to say leadership doesn't make a difference-just take a look at the different results Clinton and GWB produced.

Oh and repealing the 16th Amendment (income tax) is a teabagger fantasy only, unless you want huge sales taxes, GAT, huge tariffs and excise taxes. Repealing the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators-they used to be selected by state politicians) is perhaps the single most ridiculous and undemocratic idea I've ever heard, bar none. Let's take the power away from the people and give it back to politicians, that's a great solution to budgetary problems. Why not just go back to having a king and royal appointments?

As for paygo and the GOP, they thought it was a great idea when Clinton was President, but dropped it nearly immediately upon regaining the White House-in addition to evading Paygo by such smoke and mirror tricks as having the entire Iraq War off-budget. Fool me once, etc.

I agree a lot with this post. The one thing I took issue with in the last one and this one is the statement 'neither party can [balance the budget] because they have an agenda'.

What have Democratic Presidents done with the deficit the last century outside a couple exceptions of WWII and the Great Recession?

They've had things they want to spend on, and they've had small deficits. Looking at the last 30 years, Republicans (20 years) have had 100% rate of big deficits.

I don't see any reason to say that, with the economy out of crisis and no world war on the horizon, Democrats can't, with a supermajority, balance the budget.

Seems to me they are the most likely to, and with better choices for spending cuts.

That isn't to say there aren't any issues - there are plenty of corporatist Democrats, and voters still seem to reward more deficit spending over balancing the budget.

 

[TheBlank84]

It also becomes a question of what sacrifices do you make to balance the budget. Is balancing the budget all that matters, and at what cost? When viewed with only one goal in mind, everything else just falls apart.

Our system is bigger than any one issue to hyperfocus upon. Anyone doing so blinds themselves to possible consequences and unintended problems that need to be solved later.

Balancing the budget and dealing with the deficit right now is only a fix for the short term if the problems that lead to it are still allowed to exist. Fixing the foundation and plugging the holes becomes equally important.

 

[TheBlank84]

It's because compromising is giving up power and that's what our political system focuses on these days. It's less about serving the public and more about increasing your party's power/influence and all the benefits you reap from it.

Yes, certainly this when it comes to the power hungry politicians who are in government right now. But what about the public who continues to follow this mindset even though they have no power whatsoever in the grand scheme of things.

If the populace keeps behaving the same way our representatives do, who is left to keep the politicians in check? Who is left to call for reason?

 

[HomerJS]

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.

Cost of Iraq war 740 billion. Damned liberals!!

 

[theeedude]

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.

I am also underspending. But I am not the government. We need government to keep spending when consumers pull back.