A gentleman with a grasp of the problem.

[Jeff Young]

we have higher tax revenues now than we did then.

In fairness they also had three guys (among others) named Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Michael Dell creating a trillion dollar industry that created thousands of jobs, poured tax money into the treasury and created massive wealth for millions. Timing was perfect for the YTK panic and massive corporate technology spending.
Unfortunately, we seem to have gotten addicted to that level of tax revenue stream and keep spending like we still have it.

 

[Jeff Young]

No. Silly statement.

The balanced budget in 2000 was due to tax increases in 94, spending cuts in 94-96, a stable world political situation, stable oil prices, and a growing US economy. The first three items above were due to Democrats and Republicans working together to make necessary, rational decisions.

The balanced budget in 2000 was due to a republican house and senate, Clinton was a lame duck, just like GWB 2007-2009 with a democrat house and senate.

 

[Jim Craik]

It's not that complicated. This last round of foolishness was the fault of some very simple minded folk in Congress who refused to raise taxes at all costs, even when their party leadership had a deal worked out with the President that would have resulted in spending cuts and tax increases sufficient to keep our AAA rating.

So it goes.

Cost us a trillion dollars in value on the stock market.

Jeff you got that right!

 

[domtoni]

The S and P started telling people in February that they were planning a downgrade. Had the budget outlined in my posts above followed more of the W. line (before 2007), we would still have a AAA rating. As I have told friends who sit on your side of the aisle, BHO's biggest mistake was not first focusing on jobs (and the stimulus didn't work, a friend says the stimulus was 1/2 the size it should have been, but I can't see how it would have worked). The only way to get jobs going is to build confidence with business and start hiring. And to quote a small businessman from Chicago, "we are just going to sit our hands and wait for this administration to go."

As you can see, entitlements are growing. You can't cut SS, medicare, salaries of the soldiers, and foreign debt (did you notice just how fast that is growing?)

I'd bet you could get those on the right side of the aisle on your side if you cut entitlement spending by 30%, raised taxes on the "greedy" rich by 10%, and got those in the lower 50% upping their tax rate from a total of 3% to 10%. Would that be unreasonable?

 

[Pat]

It's not that complicated. This last round of foolishness was the fault of some very simple minded folk in Congress who refused to raise taxes at all costs, even when their party leadership had a deal worked out with the President that would have resulted in spending cuts and tax increases sufficient to keep our AAA rating.

So it goes.

Cost us a trillion dollars in value on the stock market.

So I guess it's a shame the Democrats refused to not only pass a budget but raise the debt ceiling in December when they still had control. Here’s Harry Reid on December 8, 2010 who said that he would like to push off raising the debt ceiling until next year — when Republicans control the House, but that he has not discussed the matter yet with his caucus.

“Let the Republicans have some buy-in on the debt. They’re going to have a majority in the House,” said Reid. “I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president.”

Had they given the President a clan bill as he orginally requested, we'd be still downgraded with no prospect of budget cuts...

It's Boener's fault, it's Glenn Beck's fault, it's Michelle Bauchmann's fault, it's the Conservative Christian's fault, it's Rush Limbaugh's fault, it's Fox News fault...

 

[Jim Craik]

Domtoni,

What have you been smoking?

All the Republicans have sigened the tea party "never raise taxes" pledge. Any tax increase is off the table.

Obama was willing to make much larger cuts if the Republicans would incrace taxes, but there is no chance! The stupid party strikes again!

*******************

So I guess it's a shame the Democrats refused to not only pass a budget but raise the debt ceiling in December when they still had control.

Posted by Veek

Veek, your memory is failing. The Democrats tried and tried to pass a budget, but the Republicans blocked every bill with their filibusters.

You must have just forgot about that!

 

[Jeff Young]

You apparently arent' paying much attention. The Boehner-Obama "deal" was roughly a 3% increase on all tax brackets, coupled with $4 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in additional revenue.

In other words, a HIGHER cut to new taxes ratio than what you propose below.

Tea Zombies revolted on that.

The S and P started telling people in February that they were planning a downgrade. Had the budget outlined in my posts above followed more of the W. line (before 2007), we would still have a AAA rating. As I have told friends who sit on your side of the aisle, BHO's biggest mistake was not first focusing on jobs (and the stimulus didn't work, a friend says the stimulus was 1/2 the size it should have been, but I can't see how it would have worked). The only way to get jobs going is to build confidence with business and start hiring. And to quote a small businessman from Chicago, "we are just going to sit our hands and wait for this administration to go."

As you can see, entitlements are growing. You can't cut SS, medicare, salaries of the soldiers, and foreign debt (did you notice just how fast that is growing?)

I'd bet you could get those on the right side of the aisle on your side if you cut entitlement spending by 30%, raised taxes on the "greedy" rich by 10%, and got those in the lower 50% upping their tax rate from a total of 3% to 10%. Would that be unreasonable?

 

[domtoni]

As I said, I am not an idiolog, not a member of the Tea Party, and live in an area where these kinds of budget deals are done. Have you seen just how much the Democrats increased spending between 2007 and 2011?

 

[Jeff Young]

From your posts here I would consider you to be an ideologue. You seem to have fully bought into the cutting taxes solves all problems approach.

Spending ramped up in 2002, along with tax cuts. Both Democrats and Republicans were to blame, although it was a Republican administration driving fiscal policy (remember Dick Cheney's "deficits don't matter" quote?). Bush and the Democrats passed a huge increase in Medicare benefits, Bush pushed tax cuts through, and then we got involved in two very expensive decades long wars.

In 2008/2009, spending ramped up dramatically. It had to. Every serious economist who has looked at it agreed that additional spending was necessary in order to stimulate the economy. This was true in the EU, in China, and here, all of whom had stimulus packages of some sort. The problem here is that we were already at our credit limits due to the tax cuts and increased spending since 2002.

Both sides are to blame. We coupled tax cuts (traditional 'conservative' policy) with increased spending (which is traditional Democratica AND Repbulican policy, despite what those guys say) and it nearly killed us.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

No. Silly statement.

The balanced budget in 2000 was due to tax increases in 94, spending cuts in 94-96, a stable world political situation, stable oil prices, and a growing US economy. The first three items above were due to Democrats and Republicans working together to make necessary, rational decisions.

There was a republican congress and senate from 1995-2001, that was the last 6 years of Clintons lame duck presidency. If there was a huge deficit you would have blamed the republicans.
Democrats are on the left (of course)
104th 1995–1997 100 48 52 - - 435 204 230 1 Clinton
105th 1997–1999 100 45 52 - - 435 207 226 2 Clinton
106th 1999–2001 100 45 52 - - 435 211 223 1 Clinton

 

[Jeff Young]

Six years of lame duck? Uh, what?

In the 90s, Republicans and Democrats actually worked TOGETHER. Raised taxes TOGETHER. Cut spending TOGETHER. Balanced the budget TOGETHER.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm pointing to that time period as an example of what we should be doing now.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Six years of lame duck? Uh, what?

In the 90s, Republicans and Democrats actually worked TOGETHER. Raised taxes TOGETHER. Cut spending TOGETHER. Balanced the budget TOGETHER.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm pointing to that time period as an example of what we should be doing now.

I see, when everything is fine, it's because the democrats are working with the republicans and visa versa, and when there is a bad outcome it's the fault of the 1/3 of the government republicans. Doesn't have anything to do with the dem senate saying that they won't even look at or consider a bill and that it will be "dead on arrival". I really do have to brush up on how things are done in government.

This is how they "worked together"

105 Congress 1997-1999 D R
Balanced Budget vote Yes 50 218
No 152 8

 

[Pat]

You apparently arent' paying much attention.

Tea Zombies revolted on that.

There never was $4B spending cut "deal". The only "deal" was the one that was done.

Boehner wrote in a letter to his fellow Republicans, "In the end, we couldn't connect. Not because of different personalities, but because of different visions for our country,".

The House speaker said that "a deal was never reached, and was never really close."
"For these reasons, I have decided to end discussions with the White House and begin conversations with the leaders of the Senate in an effort to find a path forward".
- Reuters

Nancy Pelosi also committed that any benificiary entitlements were off the table...
Mr. Obama also threatened to veto any short term deal.
They all got what they wanted. Obama gets political coverage through the election, the Republicans pretend they did something, the Democrats protected entitlements. The winners are the economic pedophiles continuing to load debt on our children and grandchildren.

 

[Doug S.]

I see, when everything is fine, it's because the democrats are working with the republicans and visa versa, and when there is a bad outcome it's the fault of the 1/3 of the government republicans.

Al, I recognize sarcasm as well as the next person, but you are probably more correct than what you realize.

For our government to work right, both parties ought to/need to work together. When things fall apart is when either party decides to adopt a "thug" attitude and uses whatever power they have to force their will on the country....doesn't matter whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats, the Federalists or the....what was the other party way back then?...history was never my strong suit, but you get the idea. I suspect that the heavy-handed tactics we're now seeing by the Republicans and their renegade TEA party contingent are just as common now as they were back in the beginning of our country.

Jeff is right, though, as are you in your first sentence...things seem to work SO MUCH better when the two dominant parties cooperate, despite their idealogical differences. It's when that idealogy causes one of the parties (in this particular instance it was the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate) to adopt a bullying attitude that gridlock ensues.

If it weren't for the immediate need to raise the debt limit when the House bill was passed and signed by the POTUS, I think we'd still be hearing on a daily basis about the stalemate between the two parties, each refusing to budge an inch. Nothing much gets done that way.

Re: Clinton....he really did have a way of "reaching across the aisle" and getting the two parties to work together. Much of the success of his administration was based on that "power", so to speak....the power to get the two parties to abandon their idealogical hard-line stances and do what was best for the country.

Seems like so long ago and so far away, now, doesn't it?

So, I have to wonder what it is that made Clinton so successful and Obama so unsuccessful at this point in history. I know who I believe is to fault....the thugs who call themselves the TEA party. I firmly believe that the Republicans would have been more agreeable to compromise had the thugs in the TEA party not held them hostage with their threats. IMHO, the Republicans are probably just as "patriotic" in their beliefs as are the Democrats, the Dems just don't have a renegade ultra-radical component, so when it came time for one of the sides to cave in and give up what they thought was important, it was the Democrats. In the end, the Repubs got the spending cuts they wanted (albiet without doubt not to the magnitude that they proposed), the Dems did NOT get the entitlement protections they wanted. The Dems were the party that could compromise in this case, so they did, and the democratic (socialist???) POTUS signed the bill because it was important for the country.

Unfortunately, S&P saw through the thinly veiled claims of bipartisanism and realized that the current political gridlock is not going to diminish just because the debt ceiling was raised.

If we MUST blame someone (and it seems to me that we really MUST), then it's not the Democrats, or the Republicans...it is the thugs in the TEA party contingent of the Republican party.

So, IMHO, it's really just a small contingent of renegades who are the trouble, not really the majority of the Republican party, and I, for one, am optimistic enough that the country will recognize the harm those thugs have caused and "fix" the problem in the next elections.

You'll find it a surprise to hear that I hope the Dems don't regain a super-majority in both houses in the upcoming elections....that's just an invitation for them to do exactly as the TEA party did, force idealogy of a few (or, conversely, a single political party) down the throats of the entire population.

IMHO, the answer might well be exactly what we have right now, one arm of the legislature dominated by Republicans, the other dominated by Democrats....just throw the TEA partiers out so the Republicans aren't held hostage by their thug-like threats and tactics. It wouldn't matter which party is in the White House, the two parties would have to cooperate again, and maybe we'd be back on the road to recovery, instead of the road to ruin.

Just my humble opinion, all of this....

Cheers, Doug!!

 

[Doug S.]

They all got what they wanted. Obama gets political coverage through the election, the Republicans pretend they did something, the Democrats protected entitlements. The winners are the economic pedophiles continuing to load debt on our children and grandchildren.

Strange how differently we see things, no?

I don't think the dems got protection for their entitlement programs, other than having them NOT get gutted right now. I think we all realize that something has to be done about the entitlement programs, the issue seems to me to be just how deeply to gut them.

I, for one, find it reprehensible that we would allow an entire generation to contribute to a program that we promised would be there for them in their golden years (S/S and all of its components) and now that they are at the age where they should reasonably expect that those (FORCED, I might add) contributions should result in them receiving the benefits that were promised, we might just change our minds and reduce or even eliminate the benefits.

Where's the integrity in that?

....oh, yeah, I forgot for a second...we're talking about politics here, we all know politicians are "vote whores", they have absolutely NO integrity.

Cheers, Doug!!

 

[Jim Craik]

Jim why is it that almost every time you quote some type of historic numeric statistic, the current presidential administration is exempt from the equation? lets talk about THIS current presidents numbers for a change.....once again lets review where we are now...unemployment?

Posted by Craig

Posted by Craig

**********

OK Craig, lets talk about the current administration and unemployment.

Look carefully at this graph and tell us who is responsibe for the current unemployment mess and has Obama made it worse or has Obama made it better?

Craig, you insisted that I post data showing the Obama/Unemployment stats. I posted the several days ago, but you failed to comment.

I would like your comments.

 

[Jeff Young]

False.

The Speaker and the President were in talks to do a deal at $4 trillioin cuts, (not billion my friend), and $1 trillion in additional revenue. The "give" on the President's side was he would push the Democrats to accept some Medicare and SS cuts, on the Speaker's side it was the additional tax revenue.

Boehner's letter came after the Tea Zombie revolt.

Most stuff I've read from DC says pretty clearly that but for that, we would have had a much broader deal.

There never was $4B spending cut "deal". The only "deal" was the one that was done.

Boehner wrote in a letter to his fellow Republicans, "In the end, we couldn't connect. Not because of different personalities, but because of different visions for our country,".

The House speaker said that "a deal was never reached, and was never really close."
"For these reasons, I have decided to end discussions with the White House and begin conversations with the leaders of the Senate in an effort to find a path forward".
- Reuters

Nancy Pelosi also committed that any benificiary entitlements were off the table...
Mr. Obama also threatened to veto any short term deal.
They all got what they wanted. Obama gets political coverage through the election, the Republicans pretend they did something, the Democrats protected entitlements. The winners are the economic pedophiles continuing to load debt on our children and grandchildren.

 

[Jeff Young]

The House bill, which immediatley cut 1/3 out of the budget, required a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, and pushed the balanced budget amendment, was like passing a bill that would outlaw Russia. Pie in the sky.

You do have to brush up on basic econ, yes.

I see, when everything is fine, it's because the democrats are working with the republicans and visa versa, and when there is a bad outcome it's the fault of the 1/3 of the government republicans. Doesn't have anything to do with the dem senate saying that they won't even look at or consider a bill and that it will be "dead on arrival". I really do have to brush up on how things are done in government.

This is how they "worked together"

105 Congress 1997-1999 D R
Balanced Budget vote Yes 50 218
No 152 8

 

[craig]

Posted by Craig






Craig, you insisted that I post data showing the Obama/Unemployment stats. I posted the several days ago, but you failed to comment.

I would like your comments.

Thank goodness for Mcdonalds..

 

[Jim Craik]

Craig, you state over and over that Obama is responsible for the very high unemployment, then you insist this I show you statistics.

I show you the above chart that shows clearly that the high unemployment was under BushII and that Obama has clearly improved the situation.

Your only comment is: thank goodness for McDononalds?

Craig, you will have to do better than that!