Hey, here is one way to get more voter support

[Jester]

So far in our history, every time we've swung to the left we end up in a war.

Turns out, the US just gets into a lot of wars. Which means that almost everything is correlated with the US getting into a new war - rightward swings, leftward swings, new years' parties, corporate mergers, hit singles, you name it.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So far in our history, every time we've swung to the left we end up in a war.

Turns out, the US just gets into a lot of wars. Which means that almost everything is correlated with the US getting into a new war - rightward swings, leftward swings, new years' parties, corporate mergers, hit singles, you name it.

To be fair, in the 20th century, the Republicans were mostly a very small party until 1968.

[Jester]

To be fair, in the 20th century, the Republicans were mostly a very small party until 1968.

How do you figure?

During the that period (1900-68) Republicans controlled the White house from 1900-1912, 1921-32, and 1953-60. Of the 100 years of the 20th century, the Republicans controlled the White House for 52 of them - a majority.

There is a drought in the Senate from the 1930s until the 1980, but no worse than the drought the Democrats endured in the 50 years before that. There has been no point since the civil war in which the Republicans have been less than the 2nd largest party.

-Jester

[Quark]

Mmmm. It's another false choice. In the first few months of Obama's term they added a trillion to the budget

They stopped lying about the budget, by saying the already active wars didn't really count.

[kandrathe]

They stopped lying about the budget, by saying the already active wars didn't really count.

The war budget stuff is just accounting tricks -- they pretend we won't be their long so it's a temporary change... Meanwhile, how long have we been funding a war in Afghanistan? It's not the only shenanigans with budget smoke and mirrors though... But, if you step back, we have about 2 trillion of revenue, and over 3 trillion in expenses. A chunk of that is war costs, a chunk of it is runaway spending programs that "are the third rail" to politicians, and a big chunk is the increase in government spending from GWB to the present day.

But, simply put; It is far easier for politicians to raise taxes than to risk the wrath of constituents by ending or trimming back any government program to control spending. As of 2009, the US was taxed overall at about 35% of GDP. Not nearly the 50% of Sweden. I read the Republican stance as that 35% is enough, and we should cut spending. The could tax the rich at 100% and you wouldn't raise enough, so, that too is a deception. You'd need to reach well into the middle class to get enough on taxation alone.

I believe that the reality is that in order to bring the budget into control (and still honor their commitments to pensioners) they will need to both trim costs, and increase revenues until the growth in the economy can again sustain either more services, or lower taxes. But, both sides have their stake in the ground attempting to force the other side to balk.

[LavCat]

They could get rid of libraries.

[kandrathe]

They could get rid of libraries.

[only joking!]

Where would the indigents surf their porn?

[/joke]

[LavCat]

They could get rid of libraries.

[only joking!]

Where would the indigents surf their porn?

[/joke]

Good point. (Not joking.)

[Lissa]

He tried to bridge the gaps, but the Republicans refused to deal. The Republicans had the perfect chance to call his bluff last year when he put SS up on the table if they would raise taxes and they refused deciding to stick to what Grover Norquist told them then call the bluff.

Mmmm. It's another false choice. In the first few months of Obama's term they added a trillion to the budget and when it became clear the nation is heading for a deficit train wreck then they offered a token cut in spending over ten years in exchange for raising the rates 10% for households earning over $209k/yr. It doesn't take an economic genius to figure out that raising taxes in the face of a recession is bone headed. Almost as bone headed as imposing overly strict austerity measures. The correct thing to do is to modestly cut unproductive spending and overhaul the tax code to make it fairer -- including closing the gap between average income (~22-25%) and average capital gains (~12.5%). They need to remove the cap on SSI at $109k, and then if possible lower the rates for everyone and raise the retirement age for anyone <40 to 68.

If Obama keeps pulling moves like this, you're going to see the House, Senate, and Presidency end up Democrat between all the self inflicted holes shot into the Republican's collective foot.

That is fine. Let's see them attempt to fix the mess we are in. So far in our history, every time we've swung to the left we end up in a war.

The reason we have the debt issue we have right now is Republicans cut revenue (taxes) while increasing spending. Let's realize that the reason the debt tripled is because of the train wreck started by cutting taxes while increasing spending.

[RiotInferno]

First off, I'm not really a 'sky is falling' or tin-foil hat type of guy. That being said:
Right now, the politics in the US is pretty bad. The two parties only really consist of "do whatever is opposite of my opponents." That, coupled with the rhetoric that both voter bases tend to buy into, has left us in a state of political civil-war (Example #1: Wisconsin).

Seeing a good idea by one party is immediately shot down by the other party, means that we will never get anything done. This has also led to an immense power-grab by the Executive branch over the last 10+ years. Bush and Obama ran of immensely different platforms, and visions for America, but their administrations as POTUS really haven't been that different.

Budget deals are always going to be hard, but I'm suprised that no one is talking about the recent developments:
In April, Pakistan voted and told the US, "No more drone strikes in Pakistan".
A couple weeks ago, we *suprise* killed a terrorist in Pakistan, using a Drone strike. Pakistan no longer wants us to send supplies through their territories, so it now costs an extra $100M / month to send supplies to Afghanistan.

I wish we had a slightly more functional Congress, that would at least try to agree on something.

[kandrathe]

The reason we have the debt issue we have right now is Republicans cut revenue (taxes) while increasing spending. Let's realize that the reason the debt tripled is because of the train wreck started by cutting taxes while increasing spending.

Ah, yes, finger pointing is constructive too.

Visual aid. Congress makes the budget and the President gets to sign it. You need to look at the affiliations of the House, Senate and President. GWB had a hand on it -- he did sign it. He didn't craft it. But, yes, his addition of Medicare part D, failure to address medicare costs and the two wars did balloon spending during his tenure.

[Lissa]

The reason we have the debt issue we have right now is Republicans cut revenue (taxes) while increasing spending. Let's realize that the reason the debt tripled is because of the train wreck started by cutting taxes while increasing spending.

Ah, yes, finger pointing is constructive too.

Visual aid. Congress makes the budget and the President gets to sign it. You need to look at the affiliations of the House, Senate and President. GWB had a hand on it -- he did sign it. He didn't craft it. But, yes, his addition of Medicare part D, failure to address medicare costs and the two wars did balloon spending during his tenure.

Which is why the taxes cuts should have been repealed. If you have too much money going out, you have to increase revenue, otherwise you go into debt and end up bankrupt. As much as the Norquistians...er...Republicans want to argue otherwise, cutting is not the only way to get yourself out of debt, you need a balance between spending cuts and incoming revenue.

The other problem with your visual aid as well is that it doesn't show that the budget was created in the prior year. So a budget for Actual year 2008 was created in Actual year 2006 (since most of actual year 2008 is fiscal year 2008 which started in October of actual year 2007).

[kandrathe]

Which is why the taxes cuts should have been repealed. If you have too much money going out, you have to increase revenue, otherwise you go into debt and end up bankrupt. As much as the Norquistians...er...Republicans want to argue otherwise, cutting is not the only way to get yourself out of debt, you need a balance between spending cuts and incoming revenue.

The other problem with your visual aid as well is that it doesn't show that the budget was created in the prior year. So a budget for Actual year 2008 was created in Actual year 2006 (since most of actual year 2008 is fiscal year 2008 which started in October of actual year 2007).

Or, you can cut spending. Or, you can both cut spending (on unproductive things) and once you are out of recession, adjust taxation policy to positively affect revenues (fewer loopholes, simplify rates, make it fairer, etc).

But.. but... Obama doubled down on the "Bush tax cuts"... a major part of the Obama stimulus was not only extending the "Bush tax cuts", but significantly adding to them. So, just as the "1000 points of light" kinder gentler Republicans dance around backing spending programs (that may or may not make sense), the democrats dance around cutting taxes.

The budget gets mostly created, firmed up, and signed before Christmas. Committee work begins in the fall. I'm not sure what you are basing your idea of "The year before" on, other than it was maybe the month before which happened to be December of the prior year. The graph really shows that the largest correlation to increasing spending (since 1980) is having a Democratic house of representatives.

And, to further complicate the issue, taxation, shifts in spending are often deferred into the future, so while a bill may become law next year, the expenses or tax revenues may be temporally shifted.

And... a final sticky for the wicket would be that the majority of spending is non-discretionary -- so while Bush is responsible for adding to Medicare, starting two expensive wars and for cutting taxes (in the recession) and not reinstating them when the recession was over, he is not responsible for the fact that boomers began reaching age 65 in growing hordes.

[Jester]

The graph really shows that the largest correlation to increasing spending (since 1980) is having a Democratic house of representatives.

No. The best correlation to increased spending is clearly, obviously, having a Republican president. Are we forgetting that correlation is not causation?

Also, you really need to stop truncating your time periods in this way. Very convenient that 1980 is your starting point, the moment after Democrats had just consistently presided over 25 years of the largest real debt reduction in US history - until a rather famous Republican president, backed by the Senate for the first time in ages, declared "morning in America."

-Jester

[RiotInferno]

Before this spirals into political Hell, I'd just like to point out that neither the Republicans or the Democrats actually care. The entire dog and pony show is made up of smoke and mirrors. Every 4 years, they do what they need to to try and stay in office. I'm pretty sure we could have one party running Washington for 25 years (choose one, it doesn't matter), and nothing productive would get done.

So before we get into the never-ending debate of Republicans need to raise taxes / Democrats need to cut spending / Dingos ate my baby (apologies to our Australian friends), try not to argue with each other on political ideology.

There are points to be made about everything in the political spectrum, I just hope we can discuss it with reason, not with our party blinders on.

[kandrathe]

The graph really shows that the largest correlation to increasing spending (since 1980) is having a Democratic house of representatives.

No. The best correlation to increased spending is clearly, obviously, having a Republican president. Are we forgetting that correlation is not causation?

I was going to suggest (for recent history) it was more a combination of a Democratic House (initiates spending bills) and a Republican executive (Commander in Chief) -- with the highest spending outcomes based on one side wanting increased social services, and the other higher levels of international militarism, where the compromise is that both sides get what they want for spending, however the smoke and mirrors on the revenue side never seem to work out correctly.

A Historical Perspective on Defense Budgets from the Center for American Progress (not the conservative camp).

Also, you really need to stop truncating your time periods in this way. Very convenient that 1980 is your starting point, the moment after Democrats had just consistently presided over 25 years of the largest real debt reduction in US history - until a rather famous Republican president, backed by the Senate for the first time in ages, declared "morning in America."

1980 is actually a pivotal year in the US socially and economically (both a political and business cycle endpoint). The 70's were a decade of transition, with oil price shocks and social upheavals from the late 60's rippling throughout various social systems. And... the period of Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon was monumentally different from that of Ronald Reagan or GHW Bush, or GW Bush. Historical context is well and good, but the economy of the early 1900's is mostly incomparable to today's world economy. Adding in the periods from 1930's to 1945, or 1945 to 1954 had unique issues due to the depression and WWII.

That leaves that period from 1954 to 1980, which other than the military spending spikes for Korea(1954 $421B ), and Vietnam (1968 $450B) -- the federal budget (and deficit) has reflected a mostly flat $300B military budget, with variations due to business cycles (impacting tax revenue). I think the other difference is that the Democrats and Republican parties have shifted vastly from what they were during the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon time period. After the 1968 Democratic convention, the party made significant changes to the way in which party delegates are allocated to states which significantly changed the center of power to the national party. This has heavily impacted their choice of a presidential nominee starting with Carter, and it also caused many southern Democrats to switch sides altering the Republican Party composition and direction. Couple those changes with the sluggish economy during Carter's term, and Reagan's personality, and we find an almost even divide in the party affiliation of the electorate (I'd call it almost a third Democrat, a third independent, and a third Republican).

Prior to Reagan, federal defense spending had been more tied to the military-industrial-congress complex, which had been then a more Democratic institution. The disturbing trend since Reagan is that now that portion of the electorate concerned with the power and expense of federal militarism is diminished. As a fiscal conservative (and minimalist government advocate), I find it ironic that one area of overlap I have with my most progressive radical friends is that we spend too much on our military. There is no party in the US that would embrace either my, nor their view.

The president can effectively lead to higher spending (as Reagan and GWB did), or lower spending (as Eisenhower did). They can also not lead, and go with the flow of Congress on spending, which is what I feel most of them do. So, ultimately I reject the direct linkage of presidents to spending, other than that the buck stopped with their veto, or lack of one. But, we've seen recently the politics of brinkmanship with budgets. It's not heading cats, it's like washing cats. Everyone gets hurt, angry, and the cat thought it was in charge of bathing itself.

There are points to be made about everything in the political spectrum, I just hope we can discuss it with reason, not with our party blinders on.

I guess one of my bigger pet peeves are when we toss around blame for something without qualification. Yes, I will hold GWB accountable for many of the things that occurred during his tenure as President, but he didn't act alone either. We need to look at how good, or bad ideas become policy before we can then judge them with our 20/20 hindsight. Similarly, we should be holding Mr. Obama up to the same standard of scrutiny.

[Jester]

There are points to be made about everything in the political spectrum, I just hope we can discuss it with reason, not with our party blinders on.

Are you saying we should argue without partisan affiliation? I agree with that - what the Democrats or Republicans want for their own partisan reasons shouldn't be relevant to the discussion of what should be done.

However, you can't debate politics without locating yourself somehow on the map of political opinions. Unless you pick your beliefs randomly, you're going to have some ideological identification, however weak.

Since I don't live in the US and never have, however, I'm not sure how that could be terribly relevant in my own case. My bread is not buttered by either side. I agree with Democrats more often than Republicans by a large margin, but if they swapped political positions, then my support would go with it.

-Jester

[RiotInferno]

There are points to be made about everything in the political spectrum, I just hope we can discuss it with reason, not with our party blinders on.

Are you saying we should argue without partisan affiliation? I agree with that - what the Democrats or Republicans want for their own partisan reasons shouldn't be relevant to the discussion of what should be done.

However, you can't debate politics without locating yourself somehow on the map of political opinions. Unless you pick your beliefs randomly, you're going to have some ideological identification, however weak.

Since I don't live in the US and never have, however, I'm not sure how that could be terribly relevant in my own case. My bread is not buttered by either side. I agree with Democrats more often than Republicans by a large margin, but if they swapped political positions, then my support would go with it.

-Jester

Sadly, it seems here that when parties start to drift ideologies, the voter base tends to follow. In the last 10 (20?) years, we've seen the Right move more right, and become more affiliated with Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. The perception is that the more moderate republicans have now been pulled more to the right, instead of jumping boat to hold their ground.

[Jester]

I think the other difference is that the Democrats and Republican parties have shifted vastly from what they were during the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon time period. After the 1968 Democratic convention, the party made significant changes to the way in which party delegates are allocated to states which significantly changed the center of power to the national party. This has heavily impacted their choice of a presidential nominee starting with Carter, and it also caused many southern Democrats to switch sides altering the Republican Party composition and direction.

I'm pretty sure this is a story about civil rights. At least, Lyndon Johnson and George Wallace seemed to think so.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm pretty sure this is a story about civil rights. At least, Lyndon Johnson and George Wallace seemed to think so.

Well, sure. But it's not that simple either. The Republican party founded during Lincoln was one of Northern white protestants who were morally opposed to slavery. Under Hoover, it failed to stem off the great depression, and mostly languished as a northern minority party up until that transition time after the 1968 election, where Republicans successfully attracted the growingly disaffected southern white protestant politician.

For some, it had to do with the enhanced role of the federal government inserting itself again in race politics (as it did about a century earlier) where Goldwater championed for States rights in 1964. I haven't researched it in great depth, but I'm sure the implications of Goldwater's support for states rights were a nod for the segregationist practices in the old south. It seems a convenient time to resurrect a principle otherwise abused by all sides in most federal politics.

For others, it had to do with Reagan's (and the Republican's) embrace of religion, esp. evangelicals. But, then, the 60's and part of the 70's were the reprehensible era of the "Southern Strategy" in the Republican party. A sad fall from their abolitionist roots.