Thread: The deficit is down!!!

Originally Posted by DOR

Thanks for supporting my " kill the myth" campaign.

It's just a fact. The difference between the parties is the lie that the Republican party has some history of fiscal sanity. Paul ryan the suppossed deficit hawk voted for the largest unfunded entitlement in our history and voted against the debt commison. If that's the record of the "star" how does that make him fiscally conservative?

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

The idea either party isnt responsible is false. Responsibility is shared and the continued unwillingness to face up to the problem with both parties torpedoing the debt commison is still the truth of the matter. Republicans going after programs they never supporte4d which wont really have a lasting effect on the deficit is not an example of a profile in courage.

No one said parties aren't responsible. The question is, which party. Simply listing expenditures for a period when a party is in control of Congress isn't proof of culpability IN EACH PERIOD.

As for current proposed spending cuts, the eventual goal is best reached by gradual cutting. You can't get there all at once.

As for shunting aside the deficit commission's recommendations, I agree both parties seem to be keeping their distance from them. There's a third rail in them and that means the parties will be jockeying to avoid going it alone. I think the commission's recommendations eventually will get the attention they deserve. It's not like there are any other lifeboats out there.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

It's just a fact. The difference between the parties is the lie that the Republican party has some history of fiscal sanity. Paul ryan the suppossed deficit hawk voted for the largest unfunded entitlement in our history and voted against the debt commison. If that's the record of the "star" how does that make him fiscally conservative?

RR:

You talk like parties are monolithic. They are divided within themselves with the majority characterizing the whole. The GOP has its share of liberals, moderates and ultras. But historically, the GOP has manhandled entitlements more roughly than the Democrats at both the national and state level. Given that entitlements tend to swell with time, it seems to me that makes the GOP more fiscally conservative than the Democrats. Remember the comparison is relative; it's not an absolute term.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

RR:

You talk like parties are monolithic. They are divided within themselves with the majority characterizing the whole. The GOP has its share of liberals, moderates and ultras. But historically, the GOP has manhandled entitlements more roughly than the Democrats at both the national and state level. Given that entitlements tend to swell with time, it seems to me that makes the GOP more fiscally conservative than the Democrats. Remember the comparison is relative; it's not an absolute term.

You say the GOP has manhandled entitlements. When? I know they manhandle revenue and talk a good game but they gave us the largest unfunded entitlement in history and have done nothing to cut ss or medicare and undid the farm subsidy portion of the welfare reform package passed in 96. If you cut spending by 5 cents and revenue by 10 you arent helping the deficit

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

...I know they manhandle revenue and talk a good game but they gave us the largest unfunded entitlement in history and

Do you really believe that Rosie?

Look at the pattern, folks.
Truman had a surplus; Eisenhower blew it.
Kennedy-Johnson had a smaller deficit than Nixon-Ford.
Reagan-Bush doubled Carter's deficit.
Clinton brought it under control, but Dubious blew it once again.

This isn't a coincidence.

Gee, Thank the lord we have The Obama to bring it all back under contrrol.

/sarcasm

Well, highsea, there was nothing being done to save the global financial system -- and that's how serious it was -- under Dubious & Co for most of 2007-08, so maybe this administration does deserve ALL the credit for us still being here.

DOR,
Thanks, you've proven to be a rich case study for my continued behavioral economics research. As a question to the "pattern" you see, what is the statistical significance of a pattern that is made up of 3 observations?

Dor:

I am prepared to accept your contention. Why not? The truth is the truth.

But because it is tinged with a negative connotation casting the GOP in a bad light, you're now in a position where you have to prove a couple of things:

1) the Republican presidents in question were the sole cause of the deficit increases

2) that nothing was done by preceding Democratic presidents that would have compelled their GOP successor to act as they did

3) that the result of the deficits were detrimental to the nation.

Why are these important to your contention?

Well, the difference in the Eisenhower years over the Truman years included increased spending on WWII veterans benefits, the Interstate Highway system, and increased military spending as the Cold War heated up.

Moving on to Reagan. He followed Carter who intended or not allowed continued degradation the US military power (began under Ford in the bitter aftermath of Vietnam). Reagan restored that power at great cost. That led to the end of the Cold War. He came into office when interest rates were soaring. He cut taxes and the economy improved.

Bush 2 came into office behind Clinton who left him a surplus. What about that surplus? He cut current defense spending, among other things, but did not cut and could not have cut the "other defense budget". That is, the authorized, but unappropriated cost of on-going DoD weapons programs, base closures and the like. Clinton handed Bush 2 a "rubber band" surplus. It was bound to snap back to a deficit unless taxes were raised, which we know didn't happen; they were cut.

So, you have a lot of analysis to go if you are going to stick by your contention that those deficits were bad for the country or that GOP presidents are bigger spenders than Democrat president.

Now, don't come back at me with a bunch of examples of GOP excesses and Democrat triumphs of fiscal responsibility. There are plenty of negatives and positives to go around.

My point is that you have to back up your contention with more than sums.

New administrations don't start from scratch with an empty slate.

Originally Posted by Shek

DOR,
Thanks, you've proven to be a rich case study for my continued behavioral economics research. As a question to the "pattern" you see, what is the statistical significance of a pattern that is made up of 3 observations?

I guess we're never going to agree.
I see 60 years worth of data, not "3 observations."

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Dor:

I am prepared to accept your contention. Why not? The truth is the truth.

But because it is tinged with a negative connotation casting the GOP in a bad light, you're now in a position where you have to prove a couple of things:

1) the Republican presidents in question were the sole cause of the deficit increases

2) that nothing was done by preceding Democratic presidents that would have compelled their GOP successor to act as they did

3) that the result of the deficits were detrimental to the nation.

Why are these important to your contention?

My intention was to debunk the myth that Democrats are less fiscally responsible than GOPers.
All else flows from there.

Originally Posted by DOR

Look at the pattern, folks.
Truman had a surplus; Eisenhower blew it.
Kennedy-Johnson had a smaller deficit than Nixon-Ford.
Reagan-Bush doubled Carter's deficit.
Clinton brought it under control, but Dubious blew it once again.
This isn't a coincidence.

Sorry, should have stated 4 observations, not 3. You have four pairings in your confirmation bias example.

Originally Posted by DOR

My intention was to debunk the myth that Democrats are less fiscally responsible than GOPers.

You've moved the goalposts in the past couple of pages. You started out trying to demonstrate that Democrats weren't "tax and spend." In either case, you've demonstrated statistical malpractice.