freeman2 wrote:. And you want to have the Democrats to take the political heat for doing so. That takes some chutzpah!

No I want the Democrats to have some balls and stand up for their poitical principles. Otherwise quit yer bitchin.

archduke

Republicans tend to run deficits by tax cuts and military spending. However, Demcrats do it by increasing domestic spending without comparable revenue increases

two bad choices. In the first, money is redistributed to the wealthy (redistributed from the previous level of taxation) and a wasteful organization (see military contracting, especially in Iraq) blows money on needless weaponry and unnecessarry conflict.

In the second, programs get inflated that might benefit the poor or working and middle classes.

I can see the appeal to the electorate (the poor, working and middle classes) of increasing the offerings of socail programs.... I can also see that the military industrial complex benefits from the first, and requires a constant threat to the US for the investment to continue unabated....
So you're saying there's pandering to the lower classes by Democrats - and pandering to jingoism and unreasoned fear by the republicans?
Interesting why Romney is pledging to boost military spending today? When the Pentagon has begun the process of cutting spending willingly? Its a guns or butter question . And Romney seems to be out of touch with both the military and the mood of much of the public on this...he's drifting into foreign affairs. Obama's highest approval ratings are on his running of foreign affairs....

Romney Pledges Defense Boost; Analyst Predicts $1 Trillion in DoD Cuts

source: http://defense.aol.com/2011/10/07/romne ... ion-in-do/

Archduke Russell John wrote:The problem with your entire point though freeman is that Brad has posted links showing that just about every President since WWII has run deficits for the majority of their Presidency's. Therefore, it is not just a Republican thing.

The difference is what they run the deficit on.

It would also be interesting to compare the sizes of those deficits, the trends, and the situation with the total debt as well (and to introduce some normalisation to account for the effects of economic cycles).

Because a 1% deficit is not the same as a 10% deficit, but both would be missing from Brad's list of balanced years.

Ahhh, the sweet smell of rationalization...

Is that for me, Brad? Do you think that all deficits are equal?

Debt and Deficits are just that. Yes, some are bigger and that is wrong. Some are smaller, and that is wrong as well.

There I go being black and white again. No grey with me...

But can't some be less wrong that others? Do you see all 'wrong' things as equally bad? Is running a red light the same as genocide?

Which one is NOT wrong? Is one less wrong? Yes, but does that make them right? No. That is my point.

The other ways to look at the aspects you pooh-poohed are:

1. Is the deficit caused by direct policy changes, or by external effects. The was why I mentioned normalising for cycle, because downturns reduce tax income and usually increase spending pressures.

2. A small deficit that can easily be wiped out by a small surplus, or which still results in debt being reduced as a proportion of GDP may be 'wrong' to you, but over a period seen in context could work itself out.

If you are looking at 'blame', the first will perhaps show that it's not always directly attributable to those in power at the time, and the second will perhaps show whether there's some mitigation.

please don't get angry because the world is not monochrome,

Danivon,
I agree with you that the deficit/debt relationship is not perfect. I also understand that there are changes that happen year to year. However, you certainly cannot say that the deficit/debt increases are anything but overspending by BOTH sides of the aisle. Are you saying that we should be running the deficits we are and have been? I cannot agree with that.

My world is not as monochrome as you think.

bbauska

Are you saying that we should be running the deficits we are and have been? I cannot agree with that

.

For which specific time period? Because I'd absolutely agree with you that from 2000 to 2006 there should not have been deficits. Want a war? Pay for it. Want added health benefits, pay for it..... Want a tax break? Make sure you can still balance the books before you cut the rates....
But after the crash? And from 2008 through to now?
Deficits after the crash were unavoidable. In fact, the drop in revenue from tax reciepts caused by the drop in economic activity alone caused a deficit, forget any bailout or stimulus packages ... (And that drop in economic activity was mostly caused by the failure of financial institutions, who caused their own problems when they failed to act rationally when they were no longer regulated effectively.)

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I agree with you that the deficit/debt relationship is not perfect. I also understand that there are changes that happen year to year.

I'm saying more than that, but hey.

However, you certainly cannot say that the deficit/debt increases are anything but overspending by BOTH sides of the aisle.

Yes I can say that there are other factors.

One is cutting taxes. Another is recession. You think that they are not important factors in the deficit?

Are you saying that we should be running the deficits we are and have been? I cannot agree with that.

No, you should not have been. The Bush Tax cuts should have had a shorter time frame. Afghanistan was just about affordable but Iraq was not paid for. Expanding Medicare wthout funding it was dumb.

However, given that there were increasing deficits up to the 2008 crash, since then you will have had virtually no way to avoid seeing them rise, let alone reduce them because of what recessions do to fiscal flows.

Could the 2009-11 Congress and the President have done more? Sure. But they did kind of inherit a total mess. One that wasn't really there less than 10 years before.

My world is not as monochrome as you think.

You were talking about black and white earlier. Monochrome at least allows for grey. One day we'll introduce you to some tones