Federal Budget Deficit Swells, amid record revenues

cawacko said:
Jackass, I'm not playing gotcha games. I asked you a question based on what you said. Bush has been the worst fiscally. He is off the charts bad. And the Republicans in Congress completely loss track off why they were voted in in 1994 and were just as bad if not worst than Bush. They deservedly lost Congress in '06. This idea that they could keep a long time majority by spending all this money was the worst strategy imaginable. I am glad they lost because if they won't act fiscally responsible I don't want them in power.

My guess is Bush (pure speculation and speaking out my ass here) either told or made some deal with Congress that you fund my war and I'll pass all your spending bills.

The sad part with Bush is that it took to waning day of his administration to veto and threaten veto on some spending bills. He should have been doing that from day one. He finally started acting like a somewhat fiscally conservative Republican. Way too little way too late.

It almost speaks to the need to have divided government. Republicans in Congress fought Clinton (for the most part) every step of the way on spending and the nation as a whole benefited. When Bush and the Democrats battle now over spending the country should (hopefully) benefit as well.
Click to expand...


the biggest thing we can do NOW, to stop the bleeding, is to end the Republican War in Iraq. I don't think you realize how much money is being spent there. And how much future expense is being piled up, since we're fighting Bush and McCain's war on borrowed chinese money.

there's no doubt, too many dems have been cowardly to address this, But, to me, this is pretty much the biggest reason to elect Obama. He might be full of shit, but he seems like the most realistic option to drawing this war to a close.

And besides the $$$ aspect, I'm shocked and appalled at how many people my tax dollars have killed.
 
Clinton came out all the better for the budget fights with the Congress. He veto'd their budgets, there was a government shutdown that Gingrich picked up the blame for. Clinton demanded the medicare reductions be removed from the welfare bill and ultimately the republicans capitulated, and they gave in on minimum wage and an expanded health care bill.
 
Dungheap said:
Freak - How can you give them a pass on 2001-2002? Tax cuts are akin to spending increases from a revenue perspective. How can you justify, from a deficit/revenue perspective, tax cuts during a period of economic decline (which would already involve decreasing revenues)?
Click to expand...

you are trying to help give the economy some economic stimulus. Investors and businesses invest based on cost and returns and taxes play a role in that. The government can encourage more economic activity by lower tax burdens.
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
Freak - How can you give them a pass on 2001-2002? Tax cuts are akin to spending increases from a revenue perspective. How can you justify, from a deficit/revenue perspective, tax cuts during a period of economic decline (which would already involve decreasing revenues)?
Click to expand...

Because....

during a recession there are several things that can be done to stimulate the economy in the short term.... decrease Fed Funds rate, decrease taxes, increase the money supply are all short term solutions. They did all of these things and it swung us out of the hole. Deficit spending during a recession is acceptable to me.

The problem came in the later years under Bush.... when they continued pumping money into the economy (deflating the dollar), the Fed left short term rates low for too long (leading to the free for all we saw in the mortgage industry and over inflating home values) and they did not cut spending to offset the tax deductions (which leads to more deficit spending during economic growth periods)
 
Socrtease said:
Clinton came out all the better for the budget fights with the Congress. He veto'd their budgets, there was a government shutdown that Gingrich picked up the blame for. Clinton demanded the medicare reductions be removed from the welfare bill and ultimately the republicans capitulated, and they gave in on minimum wage and an expanded health care bill.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming they were great (or even really good). Yeah, those were the days of the ads with Republicans pushing old people off the cliffs. I'm saying they at least battled (albeit weakly at many times as you pointed out).
 
Superfreak said:
Because....

during a recession there are several things that can be done to stimulate the economy in the short term.... decrease Fed Funds rate, decrease taxes, increase the money supply are all short term solutions. They did all of these things and it swung us out of the hole. Deficit spending during a recession is acceptable to me.

The problem came in the later years under Bush.... when they continued pumping money into the economy (deflating the dollar), the Fed left short term rates low for too long (leading to the free for all we saw in the mortgage industry and over inflating home values) and they did not cut spending to offset the tax deductions (which leads to more deficit spending during economic growth periods)
Click to expand...


I understand that tax cuts can have some beneficial effect on the economy (however slight) that's why I prefaced the question with "from a deficit/revenue perspective." I understand your point that sometimes tax cuts are justified and that deficit spending is sometimes acceptable.

Having said that though, if that's the case wouldn't it make sense to have it be a one-year tax cut rather than a permanent or ten-year tax cut? The problem came at the time the tax cuts were enacted because they were not designed to be short-term economic generators. They were long-term with no long-term accompanying spending cuts or proposed spending cuts.
 
cawacko said:
so we hit a recession and a terrorist attack and you just sit on your ass?
Click to expand...

Yes actually I did. I did not run around crying that the world was ending because of either thing.
Strange how that now Republicans talk about the recession that they argued so strongly that was not really a recession at the time.
this is funny but predictable.
 
uscitizen said:
Yes actually I did. I did not run around crying that the world was ending because of either thing.
Strange how that now Republicans talk about the recession that they argued so strongly that was not really a recession at the time.
this is funny but predictable.
Click to expand...

No. I said if you were leader, if you were President. Not what you did personally.

Nice little partisan history memory. Not even worth a response.
 
cawacko said:
No. I said if you were leader, if you were President. Not what you did personally.

Nice little partisan history memory. Not even worth a response.
Click to expand...

History? It was like 4 weeks ago when you idiots were still arguing that the current economy was not in recession and now its basically common knowledge.

By the way: First time in the history of civilization for taxes to be CUT in a time of war. Just wanted you to mull on that a little.
 
ib1yysguy said:
History? It was like 4 weeks ago when you idiots were still arguing that the current economy was not in recession and now its basically common knowledge.

By the way: First time in the history of civilization for taxes to be CUT in a time of war. Just wanted you to mull on that a little.
Click to expand...

dude, we were talking about 2001.
 
Last edited:
Yeah 2001 remember the recession the republicans all talk about now that they denied was happening at the time.
 
Dungheap said:
I understand that tax cuts can have some beneficial effect on the economy (however slight) that's why I prefaced the question with "from a deficit/revenue perspective." I understand your point that sometimes tax cuts are justified and that deficit spending is sometimes acceptable.

Having said that though, if that's the case wouldn't it make sense to have it be a one-year tax cut rather than a permanent or ten-year tax cut? The problem came at the time the tax cuts were enacted because they were not designed to be short-term economic generators. They were long-term with no long-term accompanying spending cuts or proposed spending cuts.
Click to expand...

Good question. But it would depend. A couple of reasons you don't do it one year at a time....

1) They are friggin politicians... too often they get into partisan bullshit and thus drag shit out that should be a quick decision.... you make it ten years in case the recession turns especially nasty it puts the fix on the books. They could at any time (to the best of my knowledge) have recinded the cuts.

2) They could have implemented the 10 year cut due to anticipation of cutting spending after the recession..... to be clear... because we all know Gumby will try to spin my words.... this is obviously NOT what occured and given their spending spree most likely NOT what they intended to do.

As for the spending cut portion at the end of your comment.... you don't enact spending cuts during a recession... it tends to exacerbate the problem. No question that they SHOULD have enacted spending cuts in 2003/04, but they were chicken shits who knew that if they started cutting spending prior to the 2004 elections they would get hammered. To be clear for Gumby....NO this is not an acceptable excuse...
 
uscitizen said:
Yes actually I did. I did not run around crying that the world was ending because of either thing.
Strange how that now Republicans talk about the recession that they argued so strongly that was not really a recession at the time.this is funny but predictable.
Click to expand...

WHAT?

Who argued that we weren't in a recession in early 2001? I don't recall that at all.
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah 2001 remember the recession the republicans all talk about now that they denied was happening at the time.
Click to expand...

You do realize that this makes little sense, don't you?

The recession began in 2000.... it would have been beneficial for them to be telling people that a recession was occuring....

Do you have any examples of this denial?
 
Superfreak said:
WHAT?

Who argued that we weren't in a recession in early 2001? I don't recall that at all.
Click to expand...

I sure do on the old board, politics.com when referring back to it later.
I think on FP.com as well.
Ohh that was technically not a recession, etc...
And the bush supporters at work, etc...
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
I sure do on the old board, politics.com when referring back to it later.
I think on FP.com as well.
Ohh that was technically not a recession, etc...
And the bush supporters at work, etc...
Click to expand...

Are you talking about message board posters or Republican leaders?

Quite the difference.... yet again... why would Reps deny that a recession occured in 2000-2001? It began when Clinton was in office..... clarification for Gumby... NO it was not the fault of Clinton or any other politician that we entered a recession then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top