Fall US Elections

[RandFan]

1995-2000.

Does Clinton get credit or is a president only to blame for deficits? Republicans had control of the House, the Senate and the presidency for 6 years, how did that work out?

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

 

[Beerina]

Does Clinton get credit or is a president only to blame for deficits? Republicans had control of the House, the Senate and the presidency for 6 years, how did that work out?

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

The best results seem to be Republican control of both houses, with a neutered Democrat for president. With a Republican for president as well, they go nuts in their own stupid ways.

 

[Minoosh]

I think that with the GOP winning both houses, factions will form and party discipline will falter. Some Republicans will be emboldened to propose bills that will not play well with large sections of the electorate.

I'm interested to see what the newbies will do. "Take back America"? I think they may get enough rope to alienate a lot of people. Possibly even some in the same party. Internal strife could lead to the emergence of a moderate Republican bloc.

 

[Kaosium]

Does Clinton get credit or is a president only to blame for deficits?

Congress spends the money. Presidents have an effect but to control spending you must control Congress. If you recall, Clinton refused to sign the budget bills circa 95-96 because they didn't spend enough money or didn't 'cut' (reduce rate of growth in reality) in the 'right' way. There were shutdowns and everything! However he does deserve some credit because after that he didn't fight it as hard and some of that was just grandstanding to placate his base. He did run on and promise to reduce the deficit, he just wanted to do that more by increasing taxes rather than reducing the rate of growth in federal spending as much as Republicans wanted. That '93 tax increase he led the charge on (IIRC Gore's VP vote was needed to get it through the Senate) cost him the Dem Congress and gave him the Republicans who eventually balanced the goddamn budget.

Republicans had control of the House, the Senate and the presidency for 6 years, how did that work out?

From looking at your chart about 500 billion dollars per year less deficit than the Obama years so far where he's held the Senate the entire time and the House the first two years.

But then again he didn't spend the money, the Dem Congress did. They even withheld the FY09 spending bills until Obama got into office so they could get more spending after a veto threat earlier in '08 by Dubya. Mind you Obama was a part of that Congress so he's hardly blameless regarding '09 spending but I do believe I recall even he recoiled from some of the extra spending that ended up in those '09 appropriation bills, though he did sign them.

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

There's nothing wrong with your chart, but I suspect for this discussion a historical record of outlays in either nominal or real (inflation adjusted) dollars is best because that's how it's budgeted and takes into account just spending as going by percentages of GDP or deficits confounds the data with growth or revenues which can be confusing or even misleading sometimes. The very best of times generally means government spending as a percent of GDP goes down (because the economy is growing at a faster clip) and deficits are also dependent on revenues which are effected both by the economy and tax polices which can also effect economic growth.

 

[RandFan]

From looking at your chart about 500 billion dollars per year less deficit than the Obama years so far where he's held the Senate the entire time and the House the first two yearsh.

Hang on, Are you saying that bailing out the banks had nothing to do with the deficit or that it was all the fault of Democrats? I think you should look a little closer at that chart and consider when the deficit went south and why.

 

[Brainster]

Does Clinton get credit or is a president only to blame for deficits? Republicans had control of the House, the Senate and the presidency for 6 years, how did that work out?

Are we back on this again? I thought it only counted when either party had a filibuster-proof majority? And, no the Republicans did not have control of the Senate for the entire six years from 2001-2007. Look up "Jim Jeffords".

 

[Kaosium]

Hang on, Are you saying that bailing out the banks had nothing to do with the deficit or that it was all the fault of Democrats? I think you should look a little closer at that chart and consider when the deficit went south and why.

No, I'm not, I was just telling you what your chart suggests.

I did also suggest a better way of measuring 'holding down spending' as well.

Actually I'm not sure just how the bail-out went down. Some of that was just loans that were paid back, and as I understand it the numbers bandied about circa 2008 were overly inflated for that reason. How did they account for it, have the outlays counted in '08 or '09 and then any paybacks just added to revenues when they came in? How much did it end up costing net? I really wasn't paying much attention and didn't put any time into trying to figure that one out a couple years ago when I started looking into it again.

 

[RandFan]

Are we back on this again? I thought it only counted when either party had a filibuster-proof majority? And, no the Republicans did not have control of the Senate for the entire six years from 2001-2007. Look up "Jim Jeffords".

Wait a minute, there seems to be a lack of consistency here. Jim Jeffords is a single legislator. How does that take away from "strong" Republican majorities? Or does that only apply when the Democrats are in control?

 

[RandFan]

No, I'm not, I was just telling you what your chart suggests.

I did also suggest a better way of measuring 'holding down spending' as well.

Actually I'm not sure just how the bail-out went down. Some of that was just loans that were paid back, and as I understand it the numbers bandied about circa 2008 were overly inflated for that reason. How did they account for it, have the outlays counted in '08 or '09 and then any paybacks just added to revenues when they came in? How much did it end up costing net? I really wasn't paying much attention and didn't put any time into trying to figure that one out a couple years ago when I started looking into it again.

I'm sorry but this does not seem responsive. Why did the deficit balloon in 2009?

 

[Kaosium]

I'm sorry but this does not seem responsive. Why did the deficit balloon in 2009?

Revenues decreased somewhere over 400 billion and outlays increased by over a half a trillion dollars compared to 2008.

 

[RandFan]

... I was just telling you what your chart suggests.

I'm not sure what it suggests or what you are telling me what my chart suggests. That correlation implies causation?

 

[RandFan]

Revenues decreased somewhere over 400 billion and outlays increased by over a half a trillion dollars compared to 2008.

That's the effect. I want to know the cause.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm not sure what it suggests or what you are telling me what my chart suggests. That correlation implies causation?

No, that deficit numbers can be misleading sometimes and Bush's six years are certainly more impressive in that regard than Obama's.

 

[RandFan]

No, that deficit numbers can be misleading sometimes and Bush's six years are certainly more impressive in that regard than Obama's.

This tells me nothing and is counter to the real world facts. When did the deficit turn south exactly and why?

 

[Kaosium]

That's the effect. I want to know the cause.

That gets complicated! Very simply, revenues crashed because the economy did, a lot of digital dollars disappeared and (mainly) the high incomes got eviscerated and didn't pay nearly as much in taxes that year. Then we spent a lot more money hoping it would help, which is why outlays ballooned.

At any rate I'd have to look into just how that bail-out was accounted for, which is why I asked if you happened to know.

 

[RandFan]

That gets complicated! Very simply, revenues crashed because the economy did, a lot of digital dollars disappeared and (mainly) the high incomes got eviscerated and didn't pay nearly as much in taxes that year. Then we spent a lot more money hoping it would help, which is why outlays ballooned.

Who started the bail out and why was thre a need for a bailout These events did not happen in a vacuum.

A

t any rate I'd have to look into just how that bail-out was accounted for, which is why I asked if you happened to know.

Which is crucially important to the discussion.

 

[Kaosium]

This tells me nothing and is counter to the real world facts.

Look at your facts again, because we're not talking about what I think we're talking about. Bush's (and mainly a GOP congress) deficit numbers those six years are certainly better than Obama's (and more a Dem congress) deficit numbers the last six years.

When did the deficit turn south exactly and why?

2009, and that gets complicated.

 

[Kaosium]

Who started the bail out and why was there a need for a bailout These events did not happen in a vacuum.

How much was the bailout in outlays (net) though? How was it accounted for? Did much of it go on FY08 and FY09 outlays and paybacks to revenues in future years? That's vaguely what I recall hearing, and makes sense, but I'm not sure just what the final figures were. Do you know?

Which is crucially important to the discussion.

Is it? By that I mean just the bailout, not the economic conditions that caused it.

 

[Brainster]

Wait a minute, there seems to be a lack of consistency here. Jim Jeffords is a single legislator. How does that take away from "strong" Republican majorities? Or does that only apply when the Democrats are in control?

The Republicans did not have a strong majority in the Senate in 2001; in fact they had a majority only because of Cheney's tie-breaking vote. When Jeffords defected in June 2001 they didn't have a majority at all; they were down 49-51. Hence your claim:

Republicans had control of the House, the Senate and the presidency for 6 years...

Is erroneous.

 

[RandFan]

Look at your facts again, because we're not talking about what I think we're talking about. Bush's (and mainly a GOP congress) deficit numbers those six years are certainly better than Obama's (and more a Dem congress) deficit numbers the last six years.

This thread of a discussion we are having is because I stated that Obama should get credit for the good things that have happened under his watch. The 2009 deficit was Obama's first year in office. What did he do (or the Democrat Congress do) that warrants putting the blame on them for that $1559.6 Billion in deficits.

You seem to be saying that the deficits are because of Democrat spending. You have not at all addressed the banking collapse and the bail out of the banks.

2009, and that gets complicated.

This is not responsive. What caused the deficits? We were waging two wars and spending much of the money off the books. Obama stopped that. Let's address the causes and not simply look for a superficial correlation. Correlation does not imply causation. Right? To justify make that connection you need to explain what happened other than to say the Dems controlled congress.

The Republicans did not have a strong majority in the Senate in 2001; in fact they had a majority only because of Cheney's tie-breaking vote. When Jeffords defected in June 2001 they didn't have a majority at all; they were down 49-51. Hence your claim:

I'm happy to concede that the GOP did not have full control for 8 years. Forget the 6. How many years did the GOP have control?

Party divisions of United States Congresses