Budget 101: It's Democrats' turn

I think the Democrats proved in the 90's that they know how to formulate a budget that leads to growth and prosperity, all the while creating a military strong enough to withstand this president's disaster in Iraq.

Paul you got it there. The Budget Committee of the U.S. House shows Bush's Budget which goes after everyday people. They have their budget which funds America and the troops but not the Iraqi Government which cannot account for the money given for three years. I posted a link but it seems not to work in the swamp

Paul, let's not REVISE history. Clinton did not balance the budget. Clinton had deficits lasting well beyond his presidency ending in 2000. The GOP Congress, elected in 1994 with part of the Contract for America to balance the budget, is how we came to budget surpluses, along with a tech market that ballooned in the late 1990s. And, Clinton CUT the military. You see, all those government jobs Clinton got rid of the 1990s were military. The federal civilian workforce GREW under Clinton. Facts are facts, Paul.

Here's an alternative point of view: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009630

Paul--
You're a little off on your history.It was Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" that pressured Clinton and that led to a balanced budget,remember "workfare over welfare?"
Also,Clinton slashed the military by 50%---It took Clinton 8 years to destroy a great military power and now Bush is trying to re-build it in 8 years.

Paulo

John D Paulo you are the ones trying to change history. Paulo your right Newt and the Republican contoled Congress cut the Military. Bush has not re-built it he destouyed it. You two try to change history just like Bush. It does not change the subject those days of blaming Clinton are over. You have had six years now and done nothing.

John D-

Yep, Clinton cut military spending. As did George H. W. Bush. And rightly so. The cold war was over. The mission changed.

We now spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world COMBINED. When is enough enough?

The tax cuts of the Bush Administration should not be extended. In addition, capital gains from stock options, which are basically salary supplements to top executives, should be taxed as "ordinary income". These tax cuts block the potential of middle class tax relief. The Iraq War should be paid for by the same individuals who supported Bush so fervently with their campaign contributions by increasing taxes on their windfalls sustained during his tenure in office. When conservatives cleverly refer to "redistribution of wealth" as if lesser income families benefit, in reality, it is the wealthy that truly enrich themselves by redistribution in their favor.

Tony, the rest of the world spends less on military than we do because the rest of the world thinks we'll save their whimpy butts one day.

Dale,
You're losing it.

Paulo

The president's budget is a political attack, intended to starve Social Security and Medicare to feed no-bid military contracts. Mr. Bush has no real power get things done in Washington anymore, he can only create outrageous budget proposals intended to foment political division. This budget will never get past congress. Out in America, the rest of us see this, as well as other things like the proposed hike in greencard fees to almost ONE THOUSAND dollars, think of our elderly immigrant parents, and happily vote Democrat.

dbt-

Pretty foolish of us not to call their bluff, huh?

No, Tony, pretty foolish not to have a strong military. If we don't, who is going to come save our whimpy butts one day?

How much is enough dbt? We are many times more powerful than any other country on the planet. If we reduced military spendin a couple of percebt would that fact change? Nope.

And everybody here is missing the point of Mr. Neikirk's post:

It is one thing to run a political campaign, it is entirely another thing to govern. And I seem to recall those are some of the same complaints leveled against the Prez by his opponents.

Ha I love how people like to say the Republican Congress balanced the budget, when it was President Clinton's budget that was actually passed and enacted in 1993. All the cuts the Republicans wanted to make in education and health care in 1995, Clinton vetoed. It was making the rich pay their fair share that balanced the budget. But let's not forget what put us in that mess in the first place - President Reagan's failed economic policies.

If the Democrats can't get a non binding resolution on the floor of the Senate, what makes you think that they will submit a legitimate budget proposal? They have been the contrarian party for so long, they've forgotten how to govern. It should be entertaining to see the Dems approach to the Social Security behemoth. They'll probably punt to the next generation of taxpayers. Bush isn't much better though, he just chooses to borrow rather than tax. Either way it's spend, spend, spend.

"If the Democrats can't get a non binding resolution on the floor of the Senate, what makes you think that they will submit a legitimate budget proposal?"

jy- Are the Republicans planning on blocking debate on the budget as well?

Tony,
As usual, you left half of the story untold. The Dems were not allowing the Repub's resolution supporting the surge to come up for debate or vote. Whatever- all I know is that the Majority Leader Sen. Reid voted with the Republicans.

It's going to be hard work to clean up Bush's mess.

Frankly, I think they should just freeze everything until revenue surpasses spending.

If they do that, and cancel Bush's Vanity War in Iraq, we may have a balanced budget in time to start paying down Social Security and Medicare.

Of course, the Republicans always sabotage balanced budgets, so I hold out little hope for Social Security, Medicare or, frankly, this country.

Jy,

Better learn something about Parliamentary Procedure. Reid voted with the Republicans so he could bring the issue back up for vote later - Frist did it all the time when he was Majority Leader. In addition to that, the Budget cannot be filibustered, it passes with a majority.

Jy-

As usual you left half the story untold. The Republicans are also demanding that the debate be with rules that it take 60 votes for any resolution to pass.

I guess with the republicans, if the election goes against you, just change the rules, huh?

Did any of you look for more information on the budget beyond this Swamp post? Sheesh. At least take a look at the article link I posted earlier so you can sound like you tried to get more than one-sided points of view.

And jy is correct - - the Republicans want an open debate on the issue, which the Democrats are not allowing, thus the blocking. I didn't hear you guys complaining when the Democrats blocked debate on judges. Boo hoo.

Bush and his republican congress have run up historic debt. Yet somehow it was the GOP that balanced the budget in the 90's?
Makes no sense.
But sock puppets aren't paid to make sense.

That's some spin No Name. The Republicans filibuster, thus preventing the debate and you try to claim, with a straight face, that the Democrats are the ones blocking the debate? The 60 to pass rule is absolutely rediculous, no other senate resolution requires 60 to pass. it's just another ploy to keep the heat off this administration's failed war and the sins of its apologists.

Paulo, you never had it.

George W. Bush kept his word to balance the budget today. He will do it by balancing it on the backs of those who don’t have health insurance and rely of Medicare and Medicad. He accomplished this feat by taking dollars out of the health care system and placing them in the Defense Budget. Somebody has to suffer for the war and you can bet it is not going to be his loyal constituency.

In deference to GWB, he is not being mean. Anyone naïve enough to think he has the interests of average Americans at the top of his list should read the highlights of his new budget.

Loyal GOP Americans can rest easier tonight, knowing their President has made the country safer by making sure there are less people alive to be killed by an RPG rolling down main street USA.

Mr. President, you never fail to live up to who you really are!

York Van Nixon III 2/6/07

York@YorkVanNixonIII.Com

Did you hear during Bush's meeting with the Democrats, one of them asked Bush who held our debt, and Bush replied that he didn't know?

What an idiot. China holds our debt.

China owns the United States and there's not a damn thing the United States can do.

Bush put the country in hock to the commies. Imagine that.

Neil -

Huh?

Here ya go, Neil:

"Senate Republicans are ready to proceed with a full and open debate on the president's strategy in Iraq," Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, said after the vote. "But we want a full debate on all the various resolutions, not just one that was handpicked by the Democratic leadership."

I'd like to see the Senate openly debate all of the resolutions out there, don't you? Let's finally hear what everyone has to say.

"Ha I love how people like to say the Republican Congress balanced the budget, when it was President Clinton's budget that was actually passed and enacted in 1993."

And without one single Republican vote for good measure. The revisionist history by the right assailing the Clinton economy would be funny if it weren't so tragic. The formula that worked in the 90's- progressive taxation coupled with budgetary restraint- would work again if enacted. Instead we get the usual supply-side garbage: a Robin Hood-in-reverse flow of tax dollars, with the logical result of increased poverty and a falling median income. And of course the first things that need to be cut from the budget are those that benefit the most indigent.

To the "conservatives" (if any) out there, please don't talk to me about class warfare/ envy, or "income redistribution." ALL taxation is income redistribution with winners or losers. You just prefer the winners to be the ones who are already winning, and the losers to get buried down below. Climb the ladder (or find yourself dropped off at the top floor) and pull it up after you, that is the effect of supply-side policy.

The progressive policies of the 1990's produced widespread and broad economic growth as well as reduced poverty and debt. The current policies offer nothing of the sort.

Your posts just prove that neither Democrats or Republicans have a monopoly on stupidity. People on both sides of the aisle need to stop drinking their party's koolaid! All politicians look out for themselves and they use the typical partisan political bull crap to get themselves elected and reelected because we Americans are stupid. On every issue in this country; the conservatives are right and the liberals are right and their both wrong depending on which perspective one is looking at it. Until we in this country wise up, we will never get anything done. We'll just have cycles of Republican and Democratic leadership. But let me ask you! What is the real difference? Who do they really help? What are their true motives?

Gee, you would of thought that GW could have addressed this issue in his SOTU. You know, inform your public. But of course we have not had a State Of The Union Address as of yet. What we had was the State of Iraq Address. Still waiting George.

Bryan I have to butt in..I know this is hypocritical with my previous post. But take a look at government revenues since Bush has been President. At all time highs! Raising taxes on the rich does not benefit the poor. Supply side economics has been proven to be effective. The issue is spending. And there my friend, you can bash the Bush administration all you want.

"The Democratic leadership gave Republicans a choice: Allow all four versions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passing any of them, or debate and vote on the Warner and McCain resolutions, with both needing 60 votes to pass.

McConnell wanted all four resolutions to meet a 60-vote threshold, for a simple reason: Both Democrats and Republicans think the only measure that could attract 60 votes is Gregg's, because Democrats would be concerned about the political ramifications of appearing to take action that might harm troops in battle."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500675_2.html

No name, The Republicans are just too scared to put all the options to a vote.

So did either President George W Bush's Budget
or The Democrats Budget Remember To Include
Enough Money to operate Democrat Speaker & Airlne
Executive Nancy Pelosi's New "Fly US Air Force
Airlines Free Anywhere You Want To Go"?...After
all Speaker Pelosi only travels First Class you
know!..And how many U S Air Force Luxury Jetliners are included in the Budget so that
Air Line Tycoon Nancy Pelosi can fly all her
family and friends free at tax payers expense?..
And why didn't the Chicago Tribune pick up on
this story,since I saw it first on Lou Dobbs
Tonight anyhow now?..As I was told the Press
Is The Watchdog Of The Treasury? Oh I forgot The
Chiecago Tribune is too busy covering Rock Star
Mr Charisma Barack Obama to do that for us!

"China holds our debt."

Posted by: tom | Feb 6, 2007 2:48:27 PM

It may not be as simple as that.

It'd be interesting to know exactly who does hold the national debt. For instance, anybody who owns US savings bonds holds some of the debt.

Anybody who holds Treasury notes, or shares in a mutual fund that holds Treasury notes, holds some of the debt. The Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any cash, but rather Treasury notes. Presumably, the Trust Fund holds some of the debt. (Is that counted? With the funny accounting that goes on in Washington, who knows?)

Does anybody know how the debt is broken out, who holds what shares of it? I'm sure that China holds some of it, but how much? Just asking.

Stewart,

"But take a look at government revenues since Bush has been President."

Apparently, in your eyes the only important thing is that the government brings in revenue? What about economic growth, decreasing poverty, raising the median income, etc? I would not argue that the only way to quantify economic success is with total tax revenues. That is simply one small piece of the economic puzzle.

It does not take into consideration deficit spending (i.e., borrowing money to be paid with interest to finance spending today). One would think that the trillion $+ that have been borrowed over the last 6 years would have SOME positive impact on the economy. I simply argue that dispersing the borrowed money progressively would have, and has, produced more bang-for-the-buck. I would also argue that we should not be borrowing accept in emergencies, and should be funding the government of now with today's dollars, rather than pawning the necessary hardships (tax increases, dramatic spending cuts) off on the next generation.

"And there my friend, you can bash the Bush administration all you want."

Umm, thanks for your permission. Do note, though, there is no reference to Mr. Bush in the aforementioned post.

John D hit the nail on the head.

Paul you need a clue on what the economy was like before President Reagan's tax cuts.

Bryan needs to go back to the 1995, when Speaker Gingrich promised a balanced budget in five years and President Clinton stated that there were $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye can see.

$2.9 trillion. 300 million people. You do the math. It's only divsion.

As far as the 90's. The largest driver was the private sector. All one has to do is look at the corporations that were born or grew to maturity during that decade. It had nothing to do with gov't programs. Did MicroSoft grow because of some gov't program? How about Intel? WalMart? Look at the market capitalization of the stock market during this decade - it wasn't a bureaucractic gov't that created this.

Cutting spending?????

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

I have never seen such unmitigated waste in my entire LIFE. Trillions to Iraq? Iraq was never the source of middle east unrest. Everyone knew it and Republican sheeple went along with it because they didn't know any better. Executing Saddam accomplished NOTHING. We are arguing over pennies for American projects compared to the trillions that are being wasted in Iraq. Iraq is a waste! How DARE he send all that money over there - nothing is being done, we have already lost.

Spend AMERICA'S TAX DOLLARS on AMERICANS.

What a concept.

Its time to reverse the so called peace dividend and military procurement holiday of the 1990s. Reducing the army down to 10 divisions was stupid, in a world where war is always possible. We are in the first years of a world war that will last for over a decade, and its time we start our ramp up toward building a military large enough and capable enough to fight a world war in many places. Iraq and Afghanistan are only two fronts - we will be in others before this global war is concluded.
The good news is that the Congress seems to recognize the Army and Marine Corps are too small, and are now raising the cap 67,000K for the Army and 20K for the Marines. That is a start. But we will have large military presence in Iraq and Afghanstan for 10-15 year probably, so forces will be required to fight elswhere.
In two years the Iraqi Army will approach 300K men, and we are just staring to get them out of the old Soviet stuff into newer equipment. Another 21 brigades are being recruited this year, all from scratch.
We should take this effort as seriously as we did WWII, and get the resources in place and growing our military and those areas of materiel support to Iraq and other areas that need it.
People complain this is no expensive - nonsense. We are fighting a necessary was on 3% GDP! Fifteen years ago during relative peacetime the military budget was over 6% of GDP, in WWII several times that much. Most people think this thing should have been over three weeks after we invaded Iraq. Also nonsense.
This war will ebb and flow like the French and Indian wars for one to two decades, and will require direct military engagement in many places, as well as large presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time to come. Iraq and Afghanstan are simply fronts we have opened. Even if the efforts of Al-Qaeda and the insurgents stopped there next week, we will stay for the duration for the larger war.
Purging the Muslim world of fanatic fascist terrorism will take about as long as it did for the old guard communists to retire and pass away within communist block, and allow moderates to come to power. We have to fight them where they are, draw them in to where we are, kill them, and set the conditions in places so that terrorism cannot take root.
That is reality. A very long, expensive, and at times difficult world war is what we are in the first years of. The sooner we get to it, and stop thinking we can just disengage and hide behind our oceans, the better off we will be in fifteen or twenty years when we are closer to the finish line of this war.

"All one has to do is look at the corporations that were born or grew to maturity during that decade. It had nothing to do with gov't programs. Did MicroSoft grow because of some gov't program? How about Intel?

Terry, did you ever hear of DARPA? How about CERN?

Terry, how about Halliburton and Bechtel? One of Darth Cheney's bigger lies was that he became wealthy without the interference of the government. Do you know what privatization really is? Using tax dollars to increase the bottom line of corporations. And bamboozling citizens like you in the process.

I believe DARPA is a DoD agency that developed the internet (it wasn't Al Gore?).

I think CERN is a European Physics lab.

I think you point is without the gov't doing intiall work on the internet, these companies' wealth would not have been made possible.

Notice that the internet was created by the most valued gov't agency, not say, the Dept of Education or Labor.

Even though the internet was created by the gov't and then turned over to univeristies, where it let eggheads talk to one another; it wasn't until the private sector got a hold of it that wealth was created from it. It was this wealth that created, that the 90's economy took off.

Think of this analogy, the gov't is the seed. Private industry is the dirt, water, sun, and farmer that make it grow.

Catherine,

You forgot Exxon-Mobil.

"Think of this analogy, the gov't is the seed. Private industry is the dirt, water, sun, and farmer that make it grow."

Terry, how far is a farmer going to get without seeds?