http://mediamatters.org/research/201205240001

So, RJ, do you believe that Obama has been irresponsible with regard to spending? And do you believe that Romney would be better? Recent history indicates that Democratic presidents have been better at controlling spending. And they have also not cut taxes at the same time. Romney is promising to do more of the same.

So, Monte, do you believe that Obama has been irresponsible with regard to spending?

Yes. (by the way, I'd prefer you use my Redscape name.). He promised to go through the budget line by line to cut out waste and fraud and he hasn't. Most of the $1 trillion in spending in the new health care legislation hasn't started yet. He didn't end earmarks even though he promised to do so. Spending more than the high spending Bush years (even if only by a little) is not a good record.

(I'm a little suspicious of the chart, but I don't have time to look into it right now. Spending has definitely been more constrained in Obama's last 2 years, but that's thanks to the Republican House. )

And do you believe that Romney would be better?

I don't know. He would be better on domestic spending, but perhaps worse on miitary spending. The latter can certainly get out of control with a few bad decisions as we saw in the Bush years. I still like Obama's foreign policy.

Ray Jay wrote:

So, Monte, do you believe that Obama has been irresponsible with regard to spending?

Yes. (by the way, I'd prefer you use my Redscape name.).

I would like to know why this convention has fallen by the wayside. It strikes me as rude, which is why I object to it when rickyp does it. (Now, why he can't figure out the whole quotation thing is another matter)

He promised to go through the budget line by line to cut out waste and fraud and he hasn't. Most of the $1 trillion in spending in the new health care legislation hasn't started yet. He didn't end earmarks even though he promised to do so. Spending more than the high spending Bush years (even if only by a little) is not a good record.

(I'm a little suspicious of the chart, but I don't have time to look into it right now. Spending has definitely been more constrained in Obama's last 2 years, but that's thanks to the Republican House. )

As for the source, it has been thoroughly debunked. I have done it here on Redscape before and don't intend to repeat the effort. Instead, I will give a simple Yes/No question from freeman2's source:

Did President Bush design or implement the 2009 American Reinvestment Act?

The article suggests Bush is responsible for it.

Here's another one: was President Obama sworn in on January 20, 2009?

To read that article, it's as if Bush was still President. Could Obama and the Democratic majority not have changed the entire budget structure? Did they have to continue Bush's policies that they allege were so destructive?

If you want to blame Bush for 2009, that's fine. But, please explain how President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and then-Speaker Pelosi have no responsibility. They had every financial lever in their hands and somehow the man in Texas was running things.

What is President Obama doing to reverse Bush's policies now?

As far as I can tell, it's called "whining."

Doctor Fate wrote:I would like to know why this convention has fallen by the wayside.

Well, in your case your previous username did include your actual name...

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I would like to know why this convention has fallen by the wayside.

Well, in your case your previous username did include your actual name...

Right, which is relevant . . . how, exactly?

I have another username. And, I daresay if we looked back in the vaults, my name is used more now than then.

For me it's just that I have a relatively uncommon first name ...

I didn't think I was being rude (as per Dr. Fate), it just seems more comfortable to me to use a person's name if I actually know it, but now that I know that RJ and Dr. Fate don't want their real names used on a public form such as this one is I won't use them. I guess I will refrain from using anyone's real name, but I reserve the right not to use someone's made-up name if it is ridiculous (in that case I am not sure what I will do to refer to that person's post--I guess I will think of something)...

I call Steve by his name because for about 4 years or so (longer for people who joined redscape earlier) that was the name that everybody called him and I'm not about to change now. I call Ricky by his name for the same reason, but even though I know Danivon is really called Owen I still call him Dan because that's what I'm used to. I also have absolutely no problem with the fact that Randy (or should I say Ruffhaus ?) calls me by my real name.

This really shouldn't be an issue. Steve, if you really find it rude that I call you by your name then I guess I can stop, but I do find it slightly odd that you'd care, especially since you call Danivon by his name on a fairly regular basis. Nobody is intending to be rude here.

freeman2 wrote:I didn't think I was being rude (as per Dr. Fate), it just seems more comfortable to me to use a person's name if I actually know it, but now that I know that RJ and Dr. Fate don't want their real names used on a public form such as this one is I won't use them. I guess I will refrain from using anyone's real name, but I reserve the right not to use someone's made-up name if it is ridiculous (in that case I am not sure what I will do to refer to that person's post--I guess I will think of something)...

Thanks!

I've asked rickyp repeatedly, to no avail.

Feel free to call me "you."

Sass: I just started referring to Danivon by his name because I was annoyed by his repeated use of my name. I have never preferred my name to be virtually the only "real" one used. So, I would start using Ricky's in every sentence after asking him to stop, hoping that eventually he would get it.

By the way RJ I think there are some structural reasons to think a Democratic president willl be able to keep a better hold on spending than a Republican president. First, even if we assume that a Democratic president is naturally more inclined to spend than a Republican president he still has to get his spending bills passed. Republicans will naturally oppose any non-military spending and in order to get a bill passed in the Senate you need 60 votes to get cloture on a filibuster (which by the way has been very a long time the tool used by the South to stop legislation they do not want and the Republican Party is now very powerful in the South). Democratic presidents also tend to be less hawkish and ask for less military spending than Republican presidents. Democratic presidents also do not tend to cut taxes.

Republican presidents, on the other hand, even if they are opposed to most spending do tend to want to substantially increase military spending. They also tend to want tax cuts. Democrats are not united in their opposition to military spending and tax cuts. so Republican presidents are able to get these things passed. However, if a Republican president wants to substantially cut social spending he then is faced with united opposition from the Democratic Party.

So, you might be justified in being concerned about a Democratic president who had 65 liberal votes in the Senate; otherwise you have a situation where you can be reasonably confident that if you elect a Republican president the deficit is going to get worse . (I think you have posted about your preference for divided government, so I don't think is something new).

Health care is a special case and we will just to see how that turns out. If Obama did not get it passed a Republican president would have come up some with kind of health care proposal, too. By the way, what about Bush II's medicare prescription drug benefit (that was pretty costly)?

freeman2 wrote:So, you might be justified in being concerned about a Democratic president who had 65 liberal votes in the Senate; otherwise you have a situation where you can be reasonably confident that if you elect a Republican president the deficit is going to get worse . (I think you have posted about your preference for divided government, so I don't think is something new).

He didn't have 65 Democratic Senators as he worked his way to $5T in new debt in 3+ years. They simply refuse to pass a budget, and the Republicans blink when Democrats threaten to shut down the government if Republicans won't authorize more borrowing to cover "already spent" money. Of course, in a real budget, the money would not have been spent.

Democrats have perfected this.

As for your claim that Democrats are less likely to get us into war, that's historically not accurate.

Further, Rand Paul seems to believe, after talking to Romney, that he gets the whole "declaration of war must be approved by Congress" thing.

Health care is a special case and we will just to see how that turns out. If Obama did not get it passed a Republican president would have come up some with kind of health care proposal, too. By the way, what about Bush II's medicare prescription drug benefit (that was pretty costly)?

Actually, it's not that costly. And, it surely does not belong in the same breath as Obamacare.

As of the end of year 2008, the average annual per beneficiary cost spending for Part D, reported by the Department of Health and Human Services, was $1,517,[17] making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 (billions). Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion.

Now, that's not nothing, but it's chump change compared to the President's plan.

freeman2 wrote:By the way RJ I think there are some structural reasons to think a Democratic president willl be able to keep a better hold on spending than a Republican president. First, even if we assume that a Democratic president is naturally more inclined to spend than a Republican president he still has to get his spending bills passed. Republicans will naturally oppose any non-military spending and in order to get a bill passed in the Senate you need 60 votes to get cloture on a filibuster (which by the way has been very a long time the tool used by the South to stop legislation they do not want and the Republican Party is now very powerful in the South). Democratic presidents also tend to be less hawkish and ask for less military spending than Republican presidents. Democratic presidents also do not tend to cut taxes.

Republican presidents, on the other hand, even if they are opposed to most spending do tend to want to substantially increase military spending. They also tend to want tax cuts. Democrats are not united in their opposition to military spending and tax cuts. so Republican presidents are able to get these things passed. However, if a Republican president wants to substantially cut social spending he then is faced with united opposition from the Democratic Party.

So, you might be justified in being concerned about a Democratic president who had 65 liberal votes in the Senate; otherwise you have a situation where you can be reasonably confident that if you elect a Republican president the deficit is going to get worse . (I think you have posted about your preference for divided government, so I don't think is something new).

I largely agree with this. I remember the Clinton years fondly when we had a Republican Congress and Democratic President. I much prefer B. Clinton to Obama, but the same principle is at work. I'm probably going to split my vote and vote for Obama for president and Republicans for Senate and the House which may both be in play in my state. Of course, this does depend on Romney's VP pick and the ideas put forth by both candidates. Since I tend to be indecisive, and I am an Independent, I might be the best bell weather that you all have for this election.

Freeman:

By the way, what about Bush II's medicare prescription drug benefit (that was pretty costly)?

Yes, and it generally goes into the theme of this thread. Democrats and Republicans have increased the budget substantially and continually for longer than any of us have been allive. I think that this is The Tea Party critique and it makes sense. There's a feeling that when the Parties compromise the net result is more government spending. It may be moderated, but it always goes up. That's why they don't want Republicans to compromise and mount challenges to them in the primaries if they do. It's a dangerous situation, but from that perspective it is understandable.

Freeman:

By the way, what about Bush II's medicare prescription drug benefit (that was pretty costly)?

ray

Yes, and it generally goes into the theme of this thread. Democrats and Republicans have increased the budget substantially and continually for longer than any of us have been allive. I think that this is The Tea Party critique and it makes sense. There's a feeling that when the Parties compromise the net result is more government spending. It may be moderated, but it always goes up. That's why they don't want Republicans to compromise and mount challenges to them in the primaries if they do. It's a dangerous situation, but from that perspective it is understandable

It wasn't that the Bush plan was bad. It was that it introduced a benefit without two things:
1) The levers within the administrators of the plan to keep costs down. In many nations with national plans costs are as much as a fifth as the medicare Drug Plan (i.e. New Zealand )
2) The taxes to actually pay for the benefit.

The first neglect was due to corporatism or cronyism.... or the need to keep the political donations from Pharma coming in...
The second, magical thinking that has people believing taxes going down pay for themselves... (It preconditions voters to think taxes never have to be paid to ensure services are delivered.)

If the US health care segment accounted for less than 17% of GDP, say 11% as in socialized systems, what would the effect be on the overall economy?

Ray Jay wrote:I much prefer B. Clinton to Obama, but the same principle is at work. I'm probably going to split my vote and vote for Obama for president and Republicans for Senate and the House which may both be in play in my state. Of course, this does depend on Romney's VP pick and the ideas put forth by both candidates. Since I tend to be indecisive, and I am an Independent, I might be the best bell weather that you all have for this election.

What gives you the sense that President Obama will moderate as Clinton did?

How did he moderate after the 2010 "shellacking?"

If Reid is Majority Leader, what makes you think spending will do anything but increase--at more than a trillion a year in red ink?