Rich will have a hard time applying either Baxter model to this one.
Remember folks, "things will be better now that the responsible party is in charge".
What a joke!!!!
Democrats Assail Obama's Hit List - washingtonpost.com
A vigorous political blog, not for the fainthearted.
8 comments:
The adults are back in charge. Conservative columnist David Brooks notes that intellectual heavyweights are running the show in all of the key positions. He noted this as a difference relative to the GWB era.
Yes, Mark, he is a conservative even if he says (accurate) things you disagree with.
Oh BS! It takes one to know one and David Brooks is not one.
Rich you always crack me up with your statements like these. Half of 1% of the total budget. That is what these cuts amount to. It is like spitting in the ocean.
This administration is spending money like it grows on trees. There will come a day of reckoning and it will not be a pretty sight. Then we can all listen to you tell us about all the "intellectual heavyweights". I guess you are including Joe Biden in that statement as well.
Come on Richie!
How is the "responsible" party going to balance the budget and grow the economy when they cannot even accept miniscule spending cuts?
How???
The ONLY way is with massive taxes. Which WILL NOT grow the economy!
You keep conveniently forgetting the Republican takeover in 94 (funny how that keeps slipping your mind).
I have a JOKE!
I'm not done!
You keep talking about supply side tax cuts, and how they ruined the economy. They were at least (and this remains a point of contention) revenue neutral.
They were to be accompanied with spending cuts which never happened because your party blocked any significant reform.
Just like they are doing now!!! Bush already planned most of the cuts the "O" just proposed but they were voted down by congress.
Tax cuts and spending cuts...the Conservative Manifesto.
Tax increases and huge, amazing, bankrupting spending increases, the Liberal Democratic way. With huge, amazing, bankrupting tax increases to follow or...bankruptcy.
Really, you are done and you just don't know it.
Tax cuts were NOT revenue neutral. No one suggests they were - not even Arthur Laffer. It took Bush FIVE years to catch up to Clinton in revenues. He brought the take to 16% - lowest since Eisenhower - vs Clinton's 20%. Bush's fiscal program was a complete and unmitigated disaster. You cannot overcome your problems until you admit you have them, Doc.
Only an idiot would have wanted to change what Clinton had done. Thanks to the Keynesian Democrats we had growing surpluses. The GOP pissed them away practically overnight. And for what? What do we have to show for Bushes doubling of our national debt?
How could Dems block Bush spending cuts? That is an out and out lie. They could cut spending all they wanted in reconciliation process - the same way they cut taxes. (the same way BHO will install universal medical coverage)
Republicans should learn to balance the budget - something they have not materially done since Eisenhower (my fav GOP) - before they ever again cut another tax.
(Yes, I know NIxon had tiny surplus in '69 but it was Johnson's budget)
Rich, you must have not been paying any attention during the Bush Presidency. Do you not remember all of the filibustering and obstruction by the Democrats in Congress? They never had the numbers that we have now.
You keep making comparisons to the Clinton years in your analysis and this is a waste of time. You cannot compare the Economy then to the one know in any way. We have train wreck spending going on. More spending in 100 days then all of the previous administrations combined.
16% of GDP?
Apples to Oranges
What is so magical about 20%?
Thanks for the question, Doc. Read up, Mark.
With a tax structure that generated 20% of GDP, we were able to bring the budget into balance and then surplus.
By reducing taxes and creating a structure that only collected 16% (and then 18%) we found ourselves in structural deficit, just as we had under Reagan and GHW Bush.
In a large, mature economy, each fraction of a point carries huge consequences. The reason supply side economics does not work is simple. If you reduce your structure from 20% pf GDP to 16%, you need to INCREMENTALLY grow the economy 20% in one year just to break even. Unfortunately, you will not incrementally grow it even 5% over five years. Then, you end up taking a surplus from your predecessor and handing your successor a $1.3 TRILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL DEFICIT.
The suggestion that Republican efforts to cut spending were thwarted by filibustering Democrats is an out and out lie or profoundly ignorant. I know it's not the latter.
It was the GOP that cast aside Pay/Go. It was the Republicans that cut taxes through reconciliation. They could have cut any/all spending they wanted through reconciliation in any of their six years they held monopoly power.
You are right - this economy is far different from the Clinton economy. This is the Bush economy. You and yours brought us to this terrible place fiscally and economically. Your side should try to own it like men, difficult as that may be.
When your side has actually balanced a budget, then you can talk about tax cuts. First, you have to earn it.
Post a Comment