From reader and frequent photographer Matt in Colorado:
I think this pretty much sums it all up. As my dad says, “Look at what 200 years of republicans compromising with democrats has gotten us. $15 Trillion in debt and nothing to show for it.”
That’s about right. Republicans extend a hand and become lunch for Democrats. High time the GOP developed teeth and balls.
I , for one, vote we start calling the Democratic Party the Autocratic Party.
Yes Biden, we want to unleash the free market and put the ball and chain on runaway debt. That’s the bifurcation, the contrast, the non-referendum I’m talking about.
As my dad says, “Look at what 200 years of republicans compromising with democrats has gotten us. $15 Trillion in debt and nothing to show for it.”
Couple of problems. The Republicans have only been around since 1854. And the Clinton Administration, along with a Republican Congress, not only balanced the budget, but left structural cash surpluses. So it is quite possible for the parties to balance the budget. However, in 2000, America chose a different path, a path that led to financial calamity.
Notably, you didn’t actually disagree. It is possible for the parties to balance the budget, and it happened not so long ago.
Cash surpluses would have cooled the economy (as opposed to tax cuts during the expansion), and left the U.S. in a much better financial position to address any financial crisis.
Avoid the financial crisis altogether by getting government out of the market place.
Cash surpluses in the hands of the taxpayers would serve the economy better than government ever will.
Again, you didn’t actually disagree. Good.
However, the source of the mortgage debacle was in the largely unregulated shadow markets, which rivaled the banking sector in size.
“The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the original source of the crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far lower.” — Alan Greenspan
As for cash surpluses, it’s a good idea to try and pay down debt, and save for a rainy day. At least, that’s the conservative view.
More lucid Greenspan: Except for these perverse pressures from government, none of this would have happened, and it wouldn’t have been so bad, except markets rationally responded to the distortions imposed by government.
[b]Ragspierre[/b]: [i]More lucid Greenspan: Except for these perverse pressures from government, none of this would have happened, and it wouldn’t have been so bad, except markets rationally responded to the distortions imposed by government.[/i]
Citation please. In any case, it was a demand-side bubble, based on the belief that the value of U.S. real estate would continue to climb, and even among investors who recognized the bubble, they could always sell to the greater fool. Typical. Tax cuts and lack of effective regulation aggravated the problem, of course.
[b]Ragspierre[/b]: [i]I’m not sure what you have me agreeing with: balanced budgets, surpluses? [/i]
You didn’t disagree that it is possible for the parties to pass a balanced budget. It occurred just recently in U.S. history, during the Clinton Administration. And you didn’t disagree that cash surpluses would have left the U.S. in a much stronger financial position to weather any financial crises.
Have you noticed you are arguing with yourself?
Everyone else has. Lots of red herrings and straw-men.
President Paracosm is not Bill Clinton. A much, much more radical and ideological Collectivist, yes?
And he could have had a balanced budget at any time if he wanted one during the period where the Collective was in total control of the process, true?
But we didn’t even get a budget at all.
I’m not sure what you have me agreeing with: balanced budgets, surpluses? You have agreed with me about the financial crisis orgination – Democrats messing with the economy.
Balanced budgets and surpluses all sound good in and of themselves. My concerns with any gov. budget: What are the debits are for and what is their value? The debits then must be offset by tax money to balance the budget therefore taking money out of the economy.
A surplus in the hands of the taxpayer is not the same as a government surplus. Government surplus means the money is not in the hands of the people who could do the most good with it.
Sorry for the wrong attribution above.
Sally Paradise: I’m not sure what you have me agreeing with: balanced budgets, surpluses?
Sally Paradise: A surplus in the hands of the taxpayer is not the same as a government surplus. Government surplus means the money is not in the hands of the people who could do the most good with it.
Sure the creditors appreciate the sentiment, but it doesn’t pay down the debt.
OK. How’s this? Two people who agree to balance a budget can likely proceed towards balancing a budget.
In any case there’s a surplus of unbalanced budgets (e.g., Stockton, CA) in the U.S.
What led to financial calamity is what got us the “Great” Depression
BIG GOVERNMENT. When power is concentrated in the central government, experience teaches us that it causes VAST market distortions, and manipulates the money supply in good times and bad.
Lately, under Obama’s fascist economics, BIG GOVERNMENT has simply been giving money away to his supporters, rather than leaving it in the market where it would have been used efficiently.
All that has to stop.
Now now, we can allow for a measure of theatrical hyperbole.
“This is your choice, America: an approach that Obama’s own debt commission co-chair calls ‘sensible, straightforward, honest and serious’ … or dog-on-the-roof jokes and an accusation of a return to slavery.”
Personally, I like it like that. Nice, bold, stark contrast, drawn in vivid hues.
I do NOT want to compromise with these people. I want them driven from office by the American voter.
the gop has been around for 200 years?
It just seems that way.
To Zachary – The 90s should have netted the US a multi multi trillion surplus.
However the basic economic platforms were broken even then. Does anyone remember the dotcom boom & the people giving up productive jobs to be day traders. I do.
The years when good solid companies could not compete with start ups shares & whose stocks were tied to the earthly rationale not celestial happenings?
When Russia under Yeltsin was almost expired & completely insolvent?
What did Clinton do with all that? Where did all the wealth go ?
The surplus was an illusion . After 2000 China rose & Putin took Russia to a surplus.
But the most startling thing I read yesterday is this warning from Slobodan Milosevic…’when they are in your own land & begin beheading people in the wars that will come -then ou will know what this was all about’.
BannedbytheGuardian: However the basic economic platforms were broken even then.
The Clinton Administration oversaw the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. Significant changes to the economy occurred as the U.S. entered the information age, and the U.S. saw real and sustained economic growth.
BannedbytheGuardian: The surplus was an illusion.
It’s not an illusion when you pay down the publicly held debt.
The Republican Party is descended from the American Whigs. From Wikipedia:
Patriots (also known as American Whigs, Revolutionaries, Congress-Men or Rebels) were the colonists of the British Thirteen United Colonies who violently rebelled against British control during the American Revolution and in July 1776 declared the United States of America an independent nation. Their rebellion was based on the political philosophy of republicanism, as expressed by pamphleteers, such as Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Paine.
So sorry I quoted “200 years.” I guess when dealing with a bunch of libs, rounding for simplicity is unacceptable. See the administration’s response to unemployment numbers…
The concept of ‘government surplus’ is essentially a hoax, nothing more than numbers on a sheet representing some future point in time. The minute there appears to be a ‘surplus’ in the ledgers, government spends it instead of making the proper assessment that ‘we must be taxing too much.’.
Henry Hawkins: The concept of ‘government surplus’ is essentially a hoax, nothing more than numbers on a sheet representing some future point in time.
Again, paying down the publicly held debt is fiscally significant.
It’s a game played on paper. Where does the nat’l deficit currently sit?
Plus, it is a game that is designed to cheat…to obscure reality rather than rationally convey it.
If the Federal accounting had to be done according to GAP, and there were penalties for fraud, there would be either…
1. a much more scary but honest picture of where we are and were; or,
2. a lotta people in jail.
Henry Hawkins: It’s a game played on paper. Where does the nat’l deficit currently sit?
It’s more than a game in that it can have a real impact of people’s lives.
Running a cash surplus is much preferable to the current situation, but that’s what happens when you spend all the money then break your economy. Your expenses go up, but your revenue goes down.
Zachriel still hasn’t disputed that we have nothing to show for $15Trillion in debt. The only time the Republicans haven’t kissed ass is when Gingrich took Clinton kicking and screaming to a balanced budget.
Reply quiksilverz24: The only time the Republicans haven’t kissed ass is when Gingrich took Clinton kicking and screaming to a balanced budget.
That returns us to the original point. It is quite possible for the two parties to balance the budget. We know this because the U.S. had structural cash surpluses just a few years ago.
Yes, a budget balanced on higher marginal tax rates and a booming dot com economy built on a bubble waiting to burst. Any look, it did burst at the end of the Clinton era.
Great post title!
Zachary is pre programmed.
It appears the Clinton Doctrine is about to be re launched. This was demonized by Obama in his 08 campaign – now 1 2 3….