Worst Congress Ever!

[Partha]

Several generations?

Since 1935, I'd say. That's at least three or four.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm intrigued that you've defined his platform in terms of minority social stances and not mentioned a thing about fiscal policy.

He doesn't have one beyond continuing down the path of supply side Reaganomics, big tax cuts and increased defense spending, unsustainable debt curves. There is a reason Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than Republicans for several generations now, propaganda aside.

Did you miss my posts about what I think about the military? Maybe you missed the part about how Im ok with across the board cuts, how I don't see the neccessity of having a Navy that's larger than the other 13 navies underneath us, most of which are our allies.

How about farm subsidies? And TSA? And bloated gum'ment in general?

You two can pick and choose all you wamt, but the history shows I'm for less spending in all areas of government. Its just too damn big. Do you disagree?

[Kulaf]

Several generations?

Since 1935, I'd say. That's at least three or four.

You do realize that being fiscally conservative isn't just raising taxes to cover more spending.......right? I will give the Democrats credit for being much more fiscally conservative in the 90's+ than they ever were from the 30's - 80's.

But that said it hasn't been since 1935.

[Kulaf]

I too agree with spending cuts in the military. I am not sure that the timing is right since it would involve throwing a lot of people out of work, but something needs to be done. The Cold War is over, our military spending should reflect that fact.

[Partha]

I'm intrigued that you've defined his platform in terms of minority social stances and not mentioned a thing about fiscal policy.

He doesn't have one beyond continuing down the path of supply side Reaganomics, big tax cuts and increased defense spending, unsustainable debt curves. There is a reason Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than Republicans for several generations now, propaganda aside.

Did you miss my posts about what I think about the military? Maybe you missed the part about how Im ok with across the board cuts, how I don't see the neccessity of having a Navy that's larger than the other 13 navies underneath us, most of which are our allies.

How about farm subsidies? And TSA? And bloated gum'ment in general?

You two can pick and choose all you wamt, but the history shows I'm for less spending in all areas of government. Its just too damn big. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. We have the lowest number of public sector employees per capita since 1968. Back then there were about 200 million Americans. Today there are 300 million Americans, and even an equivalent level of jobs equal to 1968 would be at least two million more jobs in government than there now are.

Also, that government was built on a marginal tax rate of around 90% for every dollar you made over a million, and there were a shitload fewer loopholes back then too. We still want government to provide these services, but we expect them to do it with fewer people and less money all the time, which every businessman worth his salt would realize is impossible given that you can't triple or quadruple efficiency across a structure that big.

Government's been getting stripped left and right at all levels for the last 30 years. That's why it takes you all day to renew your drivers' license because a place with 20 walkups is staffed by 8 people, that's why your bridges and roads are turning into shit, and that why cops and firefighters are collecting overtime like it was free. Simple choice. You want to be a second or third world nation? Get rid of your expansive government. And enjoy your barricaded compound.

[Partha]

Several generations?

Since 1935, I'd say. That's at least three or four.

You do realize that being fiscally conservative isn't just raising taxes to cover more spending.......right? I will give the Democrats credit for being much more fiscally conservative in the 90's+ than they ever were from the 30's - 80's.

But that said it hasn't been since 1935.

Fourth chart.

Though the picture so far is of the Republicans as the party of austerity and the Democrats as the party of stimulus, there’s a surprise when it comes to changes in the federal deficit: Republicans are more liberal with the red ink than Dems. On average, a Republican in the White House has meant a shift of –1.9% of GDP in the government’s budget balance (i.e., towards smaller surpluses or bigger deficits), while a Dem has meant a 1.5% improvement in the budget position (or 1.8%, if you start in 1949, thereby omitting the huge World War II deficit). And in this case, the average is a faithful representation of the distribution, with only one Democrat in the minus column and only one Republican in the plus.

Some of this reflects different tax policies, with Reagan and Bush 43 cutting, and Clinton raising income taxes. But it also reflects the partisan difference in GDP growth.

For note, the Johnson administration also cut taxes as well, and most Democrats since 1935 did not tinker with the tax code at all.

Republicans cut taxes, blow up huge deficits, and leave the mess for responsible Democratic administrations to fix. This is not news.

[Kulaf]

Now focus on which party had control of Congress. You know.....the guys/gals that actually spend the money.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Partha, its not the people in governemnt, its the amount of money government takes in and then spends (and add the deficit spending on top of that... deficit spending is future taxes, remember that)

Here's a link

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/reve ... 111mcn_F0f

I think you can plainly see how revenue increases have greatly exceeded population growth. And again, this doesn't account for the actual spending, only the amount of revenue recieved by the Federal government.

[Partha]

Nice try.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spe ... 111mcn_F0f

Why, look at that - Federal spending has been pretty consistently around 20% of GDP since...oh...1980. And before that, it was still over 15% of GDP for most of the after war period.

Not only that, but if you look at the deficit, you'll note that in 1979, it had been on a downward trend from '76 (the beginning of the Carter administration). Then it took a sharp rise in 1980 (Gee, what happened then?). went back down somewhere between 1996 and 2000 (I'm beginning to see a pattern here) and then another large bump after 2000, and a really big bump in 2008 - when we took the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan and actually added it to the budget instead of hiding it like W. did.

Fiscally responsible Republicanism is a lie. Deficits, tax cuts, and defense spending are the holy trinity of the GOP. Always have been, always will be, no matter how you try to slice the numbers.

[Embar Angylwrath]

First, Presidents don't control spending, Congress does. In all fairness, Clinton should thank Gingrich for the spending, since all spending bills originate on the House floor (controlled by Reps and lead by Gingrich at the time). Since 1974 (when all this shit began to unravel thanks to the Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Spend happy Dems ended 160 years of a fiscal double-check at the Presidential level), deficits have declined in 8 out of 12 years Reps controlled the House. And in 18 of the 24 years the Dems controlled the House, deficits rose.

Overall, the Rep record on deficit spending is much better than the Dems.

[Ddrak]

It's interesting if you throw the whole thing into a Pivot table and do some analysis.

Democratic Presidents with Republican Houses are the magic to low deficits. Everything else is deficit city.

D-Pres, D-House = $258b
D-Pres, R-House = $85b
R-Pres, D-House = $299b
R-Pres, R-House = $276b

(inflation adjusted to 1983 dollars)

Dd

[Lurker]

First, Presidents don't control spending, Congress does. In all fairness, Clinton should thank Gingrich for the spending, since all spending bills originate on the House floor (controlled by Reps and lead by Gingrich at the time). Since 1974 (when all this shit began to unravel thanks to the Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Spend happy Dems ended 160 years of a fiscal double-check at the Presidential level), deficits have declined in 8 out of 12 years Reps controlled the House. And in 18 of the 24 years the Dems controlled the House, deficits rose.

Overall, the Rep record on deficit spending is much better than the Dems.

I don't think I've ever seen a more shallow analysis or absurd conclusion.

It was Clinton's budget and tax policy that led to surplus, not the party in charge of the House. Remember, Gringrich lost the budget battles during the Clinton years. It was Bush's budget and tax policy that led to an explosion in the deficit. And the recession and inability to expire Bush's tax and spending policies that produced the trillion dollar annual deficit Obama inherited.

These aren't arcane events lost to history that leave us guessing or making incredibly shallow observations about who had more House members in a given year. It's recent history and we all lived through it. We've seen which President championed policies that ballooned the deficit. And it's undeniable that, at least in the last 30 years, Republican policies have created much more debt than Democratic policies.

We don't have to look any further than the candidate you support and his deficit exploding policy proposals.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://fosterfriess.com/campfire-blog/2 ... ongresses/

Read, and educate yourself. He explains it alot better than I.

And please, Obama and trhe Dems are just victims? Lurker, they had control of the House and Senate, and didn't ONCE advance a budget.

[Lurker]

Heh. So it wasn't even your analysis, you were just parroting an incredibly vacuous blog post.

It's an amusing piece. I love how the author says that "outside events have to be taken into account before you assign praise or blame", and then proceeds to write a blog post that doesn't do that. Hmmm... did anything happen in 1993-94 that would explain declining deficits other than a change in which party controlled the House? Oh yeah.

It's a very shallow blog post.

Correction Mr. President, I DID build this.

Why are you parroting a false Romney attack in your signature line? It makes you look like a partisan rube.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Heh. So it wasn't even your analysis, you were just parroting an incredibly vacuous blog post.

Translation: Shit, I can't refute it on the facts... must just call it names now.

I listened to Obama give that speech. I found it offensive. In its context, small business people don't work harder or risk anything more than others, which is bullshit. He mentions the building of roads, part of which I pay for, and so does the business (especially mine since its transportation heavy and buys a lot of fuel). Part of which you do to, and use it to get the job that must have built itself, or would have eventually just sprung up of its own accord. Did I have a teacher? Sure, I did. So did you. Why didn't you start a business then?

Dd mentioned earlier about how success in business is all about luck. He's full of shit. Its about having a bit of luck, being a smart worker, being a hard worker, managing cash and managing fear. TYhe last two are probably the most important aspects of making a business work.

I risked my house, my retirement and my -then wife's retirement to do this. My partners did the same to a large extent. Then we worked our asses off, seven days a week for a long time. And as an owner, you can't just put it on the shelf at night. I wouldn't expect you to understand that, its something you have to experience to grasp.

So yeah, I DID build it. And here's the telling point. The business MAY have been around with other employees and other teachers, but it definitely wouldn't be around without me and my partners. That's why a lot of businesses fail when they are sold. The talent that started the business exits, and contrary to Obama, businesses don't just happen, nor do they run themselves.

[Lurker]

Translation: Shit, I can't refute it on the facts... must just call it names now.

I'm not going to go line by line refuting the vacuous blog post, but I did destroy his shallow premise.
repeating...

I love how the author says that "outside events have to be taken into account before you assign praise or blame", and then proceeds to write a blog post that doesn't do that. Hmmm... did anything happen in 1993-94 that would explain declining deficits other than a change in which party controlled the House? Oh yeah.

I listened to Obama give that speech. I found it offensive. In its context, small business people don't work harder or risk anything more than others, which is bullshit.

You might want to listen again because you missed the point of the speech. Also, the "you didn't build that" was referring to infrastructure, not the business itself. You shouldn't get offended so easily, and you shouldn't parrot false talking points.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The context was class warfare, not infrastructure.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Emphasis mine.

Obama spent a lot of time drawing lines in that speech. It wasn't about infrastructure. You should quit parroting lines from the Obama campaign.

[Lurker]

You should quit parroting lines from the Obama campaign.

Nice try, but I linked to a Politfact article that found the Romney attack false.

In speeches and videos, the Romney campaign has repeatedly distorted Obama's words. By plucking two sentences out of context, Romney twists the president's remarks and ignores their real meaning.

The preceding sentences make clear that Obama was talking about the importance of government-provided infrastructure and education to the success of private businesses.

Romney also conveniently ignores Obama's clear summary of his message, that "the point is ... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

By leaving out the "individual initiative" reference, Romney and his supporters have misled viewers and given a false impression. For that, we rate the claim False.

Quoted for emphasis: "Romney and his supporters have misled viewers (rubes like you) and given a false impression."

[Ddrak]

Dd mentioned earlier about how success in business is all about luck. He's full of shit. Its about having a bit of luck, being a smart worker, being a hard worker, managing cash and managing fear. TYhe last two are probably the most important aspects of making a business work.

Nah, look at the stats and stop generalizing your own story. Over 90% of startups fail, even when managed by incredibly successful VC firms. It's no secret why VCs want 100:1 returns.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Dd mentioned earlier about how success in business is all about luck. He's full of shit. Its about having a bit of luck, being a smart worker, being a hard worker, managing cash and managing fear. TYhe last two are probably the most important aspects of making a business work.

Nah, look at the stats and stop generalizing your own story. Over 90% of startups fail, even when managed by incredibly successful VC firms. It's no secret why VCs want 100:1 returns.

Dd

I know the stats. You don't. People trot out that 90% failure rate all the time, and its used out of context. If you define "failure" as a start-up going out of business and liquidating assets, then the failure rate is 30% to 40%. There is a spectrum of "failure" in a business, ranging from the worst (going bankrupt and liquidating assets) to not so bad (business doesn't perform as well or make the rate of return anticipated).

And using VC backed companies is misleading, since most VC backed firms are high-risk, emerging market companies.

Also, its not just my story, but my experience with others that have started companies, and the reasons why they failed or succeeded. I don't know of one instance where it was just a throw of the dice, as you make it out to be. The ones that succeed know how to manage cash and fear. The ones that failed, didn't.