Say Anything Blog

...if you’re electing Democrats to control government spending....
By Rob on May 16, 2008 at 10:38 am

Surely you and P.J. O’Rourke, do not suggest that the Republicans did, and or can do any better, do you?
If yes, than that is a cruel joke played on the backs of the citizen taxpayers.

I’d marry Angelina Jolie for other reasons although my wife would hate it. 

Maybe I could do that Polygamy thingy.

the AVATAR
Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

Clinton Surplus to Bush Deficits.
Bush expansion of gov’t and expansion of national debt.

Angelina Jolie---Libby Dole

Woof,

How do you equate private contractors with gov’t bureaucracy?

An increase in spending does not a bureaucracy make.

The size of government is not measured by the money it confiscates or spends but by the size of the bureaucracy and the reach of its authority.  It may be that more money is necessary to increase the size of gov’t, but is not true that more bureaucracy is necessary for gov’t to spend more money.

Hey it is kind of like trusting a Republicans to do the right thing, not the illegal thing!

HG, contractors are “temporary” government employees.
If they (government) have to hire more people, including contractors to do the peoples buisiness, it is a roundabout (slick) way of increasing the size of the government. This way you are able to say that the size of the bureaucracy has not increased, yet the truth is very different.

Surely you and P.J. O’Rourke, do not suggest that the Republicans did, and or can do any better, do you?
If yes, than that is a cruel joke played on the backs of the citizen taxpayers.

The entire decrease in growth during the Clinton years was due to the Republican congress. Then Bush took power and cut taxes in addition. HOORAY!

Even in their most spendfree days, the Republicans cannot match up to teh Democrats.

HG, contractors are “temporary” government employees.
If they (government) have to hire more people, including contractors to do the peoples buisiness, it is a roundabout (slick) way of increasing the size of the government.

One example of this is that MODOT has started hiring private construction companies to do road repairs. If anything this limits the scope of government, as it has private groups do what the government would normally do. and while the price tag of MODOT has went up, the per project tag and timeline has gone down. This no more increases beaurocracy than if you call a plumber to fix your sink.

The entire decrease in growth during the Clinton years was due to the Republican congress.

Kenny,

Really?  And here I thought AlGore did that in his spare time in between discovering Love Canal, fighting forest fires in West Texas, and raising illegal campaign contributions from poverty-stricken Buddhist monks.  My bad!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Kenny. He cut taxes,and increased borrowing. How ist it beneficial to saddle future generations with such a debt? Are you going to spend like there is no tommorow, and leave the bills to your children?
Because that is what is happening with our government right now.

Are you going to spend like there is no tommorow, and leave the bills to your children?
Because that is what is happening with our government right now.

That’d seem more convincing if the other side didn’t want to do it more. It would seem even a LITTLE convincing if the bills that Bush signed that call for such massive spending weren’t written by liberals (NCLB, Medicare Prescription Drug Law, et al). And it wouldn’t sound like complete jackassery if tax receipts hadn’t shot through the roof...so lower taxation is clearly not the problem, and has indeed been part of the solution.

The defecit has been shrinking like crazy, btw, DESPITE increased spending.

Or the shorter version: You’re dead wrong on everything.

The defecit has been shrinking like crazy, btw, DESPITE increased spending.
Kenny on May 16, 2008 at 05:13 pm

Get out of town!!! When was the last time you checked the the national debt numbers?
Come back and talk to me when you have done so.

It would seem even a LITTLE convincing if the bills that Bush signed that call for such massive spending weren’t written by liberals (NCLB, Medicare Prescription Drug Law, et al).
Kenny on May 16, 2008 at 05:13 pm

Kenny now you are talking out of your ass. Here is the history of the Medicare Prescription Drug Law:

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In the early morning of June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeas, 218 nays.

Three Republican representatives then changed their votes. One opponent of the bill, Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (R-OK-5), changed his vote to “present” upon being told that C.W. Bill Young (R-FL-10), who was absent due to a death in the family, would have voted “aye” if he had been present. Next, Republicans Butch Otter (ID-1) and Jo Ann Emerson (MO-8) switched their vote to “aye” under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.

On June 26, the Senate passed its version of the bill, 76-21. The bills were unified in conference, and on November 21, the bill came back to the House for approval. Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, an influential Republican working as Chairman of the limited government group FreedomWorks, wrote an op-ed the day of the vote in the Wall Street Journal opposing the bill.[11]

The bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. After 45 minutes, the bill was losing, 219-215, with David Wu (D-OR-1) not voting. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay sought to convince some of dissenting Republicans to switch their votes, as they had in June. Istook, who had always been a wavering vote, consented quickly, producing a 218-216 tally. In a highly unusual move, the House leadership held the vote open for hours as they sought two more votes. Then-Representative Nick Smith (U.S. politician) (R-MI) claimed he was offered campaign funds for his son, who was running to replace him, in return for a change in his vote from “nay” to “yea,” but later recanted.[12]

About 5:50 a.m., convinced Otter and Trent Franks (AZ-2) to switch their votes. With passage assured, Wu voted yea as well, and Democrats Calvin M. Dooley (CA-20), Jim Marshall (GA-3) and David Scott (GA-13) changed their votes to the affirmative. But Brad Miller (D-NC-13), and then, Republican John Culberson (TX-7), reversed their votes from “yea” to “nay”. The bill passed 220-215.

The Democrats cried foul, and Bill Thomas, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means committee, challenged the result in an empty gesture to satisfy the minority. He subsequently voted to table his own challenge; the tally to table was 210 ayes, 193 noes.

The Senate’s consideration of the conference report was somewhat less heated, as cloture on it was invoked by a vote of 70-29.[13] However, a budget point of order raised by Tom Daschle, and voted on. As 60 votes were necessary to override it, the challenge was actually considered to have a credible chance of passing.

For several minutes, the vote total was stuck at 58-39, until Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) voted in quick succession in favour to pass the vote 61-39.[14] The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8.

Ps: I don’t blame you for wanting to dissown D. Hastert.

(Cut and paste works wonders. Thanks to wikipedia for the info)

Seems Kenny is still checking the national debt numbers.

That’d seem more convincing if the other side didn’t want to do it more.

Obama will institute pay-go rules.

Obama will institute pay-go rules.

We’ve heard that before, haven’t we. I love the faux indignation from the left on the deficit and spending. Every time W and Congress spent more than they should have, there were the dems scaremongering and saying it wasn’t enough: poor people would starve to death, or cannibalize their children, that the numbers of legion will become homeless, union members would have to get jobs that paid them commensurate to their job skills, blah, blah, blah. And as many times as we’ve talked about all that spending, I’ve yet to hear one leftist say that just maybe we would have to cut back a little. Leads you to their default position that spending like you had to earn it is not an option for them, and the only way to go is to raise taxes. They’ll cry about some nebulous loss of rights and freedom under the Patriot Act, but they sure don’t see the same in the government insisting on taking more of your money, labor, and time.

""That’s the problem with you lefties, you’re not willing to get your hands dirty. I’d suggest you roll up your sleeves.”

-Jack Bauer

For most people who actually have some knowledge about finance and debt, the actual amount of debt is not nearly so important an issue as is the ability to service that debt.  Whether its a $500,000 mortgage on a home, or financing for a $50 million shopping center, the central question is the borrower’s ability to service that debt.  Cash flow, capitalization ratios, debt-to-income ratios all are means of evaluating whether the debt can be serviced and the payments made from the revenue or income available.

One more reason why supply-side policies that foster continued economic growth are so vital.

I am not endorsing out of control federal spending, by either party.  And certainly neither one has a recent history spending restraint.  But those who cry wolf over the debt have a convenient way of ignoring how quickly the federal deficit has been brought down because of the increased revenues brought in because of the economic stimulus of the Bush tax cuts.

Raising taxes, particularly as the economy is slowing, is a really dumb idea.  So is focusing on the debt without taking into consideration our increasing ability to service that debt.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The Bush administration sent its final budget request to Congress last week, projecting that the deficit for all of 2008 will total $410 billion, very close to the all-time high in dollar terms of $413 billion in 2004.

For 2007, the budget deficit totaled $162 billion, a five-year low. However, the slowing economy is expected to stunt the growth of tax revenues while the $168 billion economic stimulus plan passed by Congress last week will swell the deficit.
Goldman Sachs economists said last week that they had boosted their deficit forecast for this year to $425 billion and to $440 billion in 2009, reflecting the stimulus package.

CBS Goldman Sachs

Get out of town!!! When was the last time you checked the the national debt numbers?
Come back and talk to me when you have done so.

It’s called having a life. But you know, pat yourself on the back for posting 3 times in under an hour and assuming that I haven’t responded because I’m checking.

The deficit and the debt are not the same thing. Pointing out that the debt is increasing means nothing as to whether or not the deficit is shrinking. That you tried a look over there method isn’t surprising. The debt would continue to increase even if there was no deficit, because of interest. Pointing to the debt increasing doesn’t negate my point and we both know it.

Medicaid

My bad. I DID make a mistake here. The Dems didn’t sponsor the original legislation (though they voted overwhelmingly to approve it). They sponsored the amendments and the similar “Make health care affordable bill” (S 812).

In the Senate, the final votes against it were 15...8 Democrats and 7 Republicans. The House version, which drew more partisan responses, was much more right wing. The Senate version was much more liberal.

My mistake is still there, but understandable. And it hardly negates my point. If anything, the fact that the Republican bill got more partisan attacks underlines my point.

WOOF - Clinton Surplus

What did Clinton do?

to Bush Deficits.

Bush is responsible for the 70+ percent of the federal expenditure on programs that were designed and built before he was President? No shit! That’s amazing.

ellinas - Are you going to spend like there is no tommorow, and leave the bills to your children?

Kenny’s not a socialist.

Direct your ire elsewhere.

In fact the filthy lying corrupt gop leadership threatened the Medicare actuary with termination if he actually told the truth to congress about the true cost of the Big Pharma authored law. Once again providing evidence of bushco fixing the facts around the policy.

In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, Foster for the first time discussed publicly how Thomas Scully, the former director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), threatened to fire him if he responded to requests by members of Congress seeking cost estimates of the Medicare bill that Congress passed last year.

The Congressional Budget Office had estimated the new law would cost $395 billion, while Foster’s tally was $534 billion. Many conservatives resisted the bill, and others were only convinced to support it by promises that it would not top $400 billion.

House Ways and Means ranking member Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said if Foster’s estimate had been made public, the bill would have died. “You would not have had the votes to pass this if the cost of the bill was known,” he said. As the bill was being crafted, Foster said his estimated price tag fluctuated but remained between $500 billion and $600 billion.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

The deficit and the debt are not the same thing. Pointing out that the debt is increasing means nothing as to whether or not the deficit is shrinking.
Kenny on May 17, 2008 at 02:48 am

The debt is a direct result of the deficit, and you know it.

The debt would continue to increase even if there was no deficit, because of interest. Pointing to the debt increasing doesn’t negate my point and we both know it.
Kenny on May 17, 2008 at 02:48 am

Not true dear Kenny. Not true. The debt is increasing because if interest and borrowing. I you look at the numbers you will surely be distressed.

ellinas - Are you going to spend like there is no tommorow, and leave the bills to your children?

Kenny’s not a socialist.
Direct your ire elsewhere.
likwidshoe on May 17, 2008 at 03:18 am

Never thought he was. No ire here. Sorry bud. Tou failed your psychology exam. My question is valid because that is exactly what is happening right now.
To say otherwise is at best disingenious.

I do not like tax and spend. But borrow and spend I despise. Can’t live on credit forever. The whole shebang is going to collapse like the housing market.
And when the bills are due, the much envied around the world American standard of living will be no more.

The debt is a direct result of the deficit, and you know it.

It is still dishonest, to say the least, to claim that the deficit is not shrinking because the debt is growing. Or perhaps you really are that economically illiterate?

Not true dear Kenny. Not true. The debt is increasing because if interest and borrowing. I you look at the numbers you will surely be distressed.

You just made my point AGAIN. Thank you. Even if the deficit was eliminated, the debt would continue to expand. It is called interest. The deficit is indeed a result of borrowing. As long as there is ANY deficit, shrinking or not, the debt will continue to rise beyond interest.

The Clinton “surplus” was a forecast. It never happened.

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/FY98CBOR.JT.htm
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

And much of the credit he gets for reducing the deficit was misplaced. And indeed, their pet projects FAILING added to the deficit reduction:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/FYI92.cfm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v48/ai_18614099

Deficit spending, while unfortunate, is a simple fact of politics. We haven’t had a government that didn’t have a deficit in any of our lifetimes. The debt has continued to increase every year.

So, why the hysterics? None of this mattered when Clinton was President.

As I said (and you never even tried to refute) we have record high tax receipts. As I also pointed out, the deficit is getting smaller (and you ignored this, pointing to the debt....since you seem to have enough economic knowledge of interest and the like...I must attribute this to dishonesty).

Moreover, your proposed solution makes even less sense...to turn over government to people who will tax more (decreasing revenues), and spend more. So our choices are not tax and spend or borrow and spend as you claim, but borrow and spend or tax and borrow and spend.

Dishonest all around. Such a good lil democrat.

HG, contractors are “temporary” government employees.

E, you’re an idiot.  You don’t know the difference between bureaucracy and spending.  It is no wonder our nation is in the state it is in.  I suppose you think a reduction in the rate of growth is a cut as well?  Maybe you think tax cuts have to be payed for even though they increase revenues?  And of course, last but not least, if we would just talk to our enemies, they’ll come around, right?