Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

Redress said:

He did not cut domestic spending to the degree he raised military spending. He has no claim as a fiscal conservative, since he did not act fiscally conservative.

Click to expand...

Liberals are still bitching to this day about how much harm was done from his huge domestic spending cuts. Frankly, you're being very biased here; you're basically saying that sure, he cut domestic spending more than any other president, but he should have cut it even more than that. The fact that he wasn't revolutionary in his spending cuts doesn't mean that they weren't huge.

Let's go over this again: He put forth huge military spending increases- which are almost never shaped by fiscal policy concerns- which created large deficits. At the same time, he cut domestic spending so much that when the USSR fell and high military spending was no longer necessary, we eventually created a surplus. Fiscal conservatism almost never refers to militatary spending; only domestic spending, an area where Reagan was very fiscally conservative.

But by all means, don't let that stop you from looking only at the surface so you can bash Reagan....

Dav said:

Liberals are still bitching to this day about how much harm was done from his huge domestic spending cuts. Frankly, you're being very biased here; you're basically saying that sure, he cut domestic spending more than any other president, but he should have cut it even more than that. The fact that he wasn't revolutionary in his spending cuts doesn't mean that they weren't huge.

Let's go over this again: He put forth huge military spending increases- which are almost never shaped by fiscal policy concerns- which created large deficits. At the same time, he cut domestic spending so much that when the USSR fell and high military spending was no longer necessary, we eventually created a surplus. Fiscal conservatism almost never refers to militatary spending; only domestic spending, an area where Reagan was very fiscally conservative.

But by all means, don't let that stop you from looking only at the surface so you can bash Reagan....

Click to expand...

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that to be fiscally responsible, you have to match spending increases with similar cuts. Reagan did not do this. Therefore he was not fiscally responsible. The whole copout that fiscal conservatives don't count the military is just that, a copout. You want to cut spending, except where you don't want to cut spending. To be fiscally responsible, you have to, at the end of the day, control the deficit, and Reagan failed to do this.

Redress said:

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that to be fiscally responsible, you have to match spending increases with similar cuts. Reagan did not do this. Therefore he was not fiscally responsible. The whole copout that fiscal conservatives don't count the military is just that, a copout. You want to cut spending, except where you don't want to cut spending. To be fiscally responsible, you have to, at the end of the day, control the deficit, and Reagan failed to do this.

Click to expand...

Its a well known fact that the military is paid with monopoly money. That's why the majority of the military budget is never in the general budget.:lol:

megaprogman said:

Its a well known fact that the military is paid with monopoly money. That's why the majority of the military budget is never in the general budget.:lol:

Click to expand...

Uhhh....what in the.....

The massive and multi-leveled entitlement programs....are what is funded by monopoly money.....megaprogman. We provide for the common defense first...then promote the general welfare. Your defense of this nation is well within tax receipt amounts, it is the colossal and runaway entitlements that take up the majority of tax receipts and are most responsible for the huge debt today.

You have it correct, merely backwards.

Redress said:

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that to be fiscally responsible, you have to match spending increases with similar cuts. Reagan did not do this. Therefore he was not fiscally responsible. The whole copout that fiscal conservatives don't count the military is just that, a copout. You want to cut spending, except where you don't want to cut spending. To be fiscally responsible, you have to, at the end of the day, control the deficit, and Reagan failed to do this.

Click to expand...

Yes it is a Cop out. Notice though that Repubs always want to exclude the bad aspects of their admins..Reagan cut spending!!!!! as long as you don't count the Military....Bush kept America safe!!!!! as long as you don't count 9-11....and so on. Why can't people just focus on the good Repubs do and only the bad Dems do....

Redress said:

Interesting. SO you want to give republicans the benefit of the doubt, but criticize Obama's motives when he proposes something to reduce to growth of the deficit...

Click to expand...

Sorry my reply has been so late, I've been busy with college work.

I am giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt, why should I judge them for voting no on a bill that Obama supported? It may have a label that promotes a responsible government, but if the legislation within the bill doesn't meet these guidelines then I don't expect the Republicans to vote yes. I criticize Obama for proposing garbage. I myself personally support some form of a public option in health care and I do think it's a right for all citizens, but Obama's health care bill is garbage and doesn't truly help anyone. I do my best to not blindly condemn or support legislation, but I do make judgments and stick to them.

After reviewing the overall purpose of the panel as detailed by MCnoSpin (post #24, page 3), it's clear to me that Senate Republicans are still working along partician lines holding true to being the "Party of 'NO'" at all costs. It's shameful, IMO.

Here it was a recommendation to form a commission - not a new branch of government, not hiring new people, but use members of Congress, evenly divided (8 Dems, 8 Reps -- accept for the 2 Presidential appointees which one would hope would be split evenly as well) to review government spending in order to reduce the deficit -- something Republicans have been complaining about since the Stimulas bill was passed - and yet Senate Republicans vote it down!?! :shock: Unreal!!!

It's not like this commission would have had any powers to do anything. They'd simply be reviewing budget proposals and making recommendations where to trim the fat. That's it. Now, if Republics who voted against this commission had said there was already a mechanism in government to do what this commission would be tasked to do, I'd agree with their opposition. But that's not what's being said. Instead, they're more worried about the Democrats gaining more power (which I fail to see how formulating such a commission would translate to a power grab here except where the 2 Presidential appointees could help make a majority on the commission) than in doing the one thing they claim to be stewarts of - deficit control.

Unreal!!!! :doh

If any Republican can explain to me how this commission would have been a threat to their power based, I'd really like to hear your argument. Otherwise, it's ridiculous for them not to approve such a commission that would stand to do more good than bad especially where being more fiscally responsible is concerned. I just don't get the rational behind voting nah against this commission. The opposition is going to have to explain this one to me.

(Sidenote: Good thing for Executive Orders; looks like this commission will be started anyway, but dang! Did the President have to take such drastic measures? I mean, c'mon, folks! The man's trying to do the right thing here.)

Redress said:

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that to be fiscally responsible, you have to match spending increases with similar cuts. Reagan did not do this. Therefore he was not fiscally responsible. The whole copout that fiscal conservatives don't count the military is just that, a copout. You want to cut spending, except where you don't want to cut spending. To be fiscally responsible, you have to, at the end of the day, control the deficit, and Reagan failed to do this.

Click to expand...

I'm going to stop arguing with you now because you're completely working around the point and bringing up the same arguments over and over even when I point out their flaws. Just because you keep pushing forward the notion that the deficit is the only possible indicator of fiscal responsibility doensn't make it so. If Reagan was not fiscally responsible, then neither was any president in history, because no president cut domestic spending as much as he did. I am willing to bet that if he had cut domestic spending more - especially if it was so much, it actually eliminated the deficit - you'd today be bashing Reagan for not caring about the poor (note: most liberals are already doing this) enough to want to keep welfare programs. Not that he could have done this anyways, in the face of a Democratic congress.

Military spending - I have brought this up several times, but it apparently hasn't been enough - has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. Nobody who is sane has ever argued that reducing the deficit is even remotely as important as national security; defense policy is therefore formed solely formed based on the maximalization of security, with no regard for fiscal concerns.

Dav said:

Nobody who is sane has ever argued that reducing the deficit is even remotely as important as national security; defense policy is therefore formed solely formed based on the maximalization of security, with no regard for fiscal concerns.

Click to expand...

You seem to run around the argument. In regards to fiscal being conservative (fiscally), you have to be against spending. And if by chance there is a necessity... guess what? A true conservative would raise the tax revenues necessary to avoid a deficit.

Although you did bring up an interesting point. No president has ever been fiscally conservative.

Goldenboy219 said:

You seem to run around the argument. In regards to fiscal being conservative (fiscally), you have to be against spending. And if by chance there is a necessity... guess what? A true conservative would raise the tax revenues necessary to avoid a deficit.

Click to expand...

No, tax raises are an explicitly un-conservative policy. You can make up your own definitions of conservatism all you want, but that's just the way it is. Fiscal conservatism is about low spending and low taxes.

This being beside the point that tax raises don't necessarily mean more tax revenues in the first place.

Redress said:

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that to be fiscally responsible, you have to match spending increases with similar cuts. Reagan did not do this. Therefore he was not fiscally responsible. The whole copout that fiscal conservatives don't count the military is just that, a copout. You want to cut spending, except where you don't want to cut spending. To be fiscally responsible, you have to, at the end of the day, control the deficit, and Reagan failed to do this.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

The CONGRESS under Reagan did not do this. You may recall that the United States Congress is a co-equal body independent of the Execuitive Branch with it's own duties under the Constitution.

The deal Congress made with Reagan was to cut domestic spending in parallel with the tax cuts to avoid any deficit.

The Democrat dominated Congress broke that deal immediately.

The fact of the matter is that the increased federal revenues from the tax cuts far outpaced the necessary military spending, but could not keep pace with the unnecessary domestic spending.

Redress said:

Interesting. SO you want to give republicans the benefit of the doubt, but criticize Obama's motives when he proposes something to reduce to growth of the deficit...

Click to expand...

We already know that if Obama proposes it, it's not going to work.

Kandahar said:

:roll:
So if you're unwilling to even allow a commission to TALK about ways to reduce the federal deficit,

Click to expand...

What's to "talk" about?

The way to reduce the federal deficit is simple:

Reduce taxes to grow the economy, cut federal spending to return to the limits set by the Constitution.

Problem solved. No discussion needed.

liblady said:

damn you're articulate.

tax hikes and spending cuts, what we need. the real issue is WHO gets the tax hikes and spending cuts, as usual.

Click to expand...

The poor should get both the spending cuts and the tax hikes.

It's past time they started paying their fair share.

liblady said:

as were his deficits. and as a percentage of our economy, no, the revenues were not record breaking.

Click to expand...

Well, Obama shattered Bush's Deficit Record in his first few months in office.

So much for that.

Dav said:

I'm going to stop arguing with you now because you're completely working around the point and bringing up the same arguments over and over even when I point out their flaws. Just because you keep pushing forward the notion that the deficit is the only possible indicator of fiscal responsibility doensn't make it so. If Reagan was not fiscally responsible, then neither was any president in history, because no president cut domestic spending as much as he did. I am willing to bet that if he had cut domestic spending more - especially if it was so much, it actually eliminated the deficit - you'd today be bashing Reagan for not caring about the poor (note: most liberals are already doing this) enough to want to keep welfare programs. Not that he could have done this anyways, in the face of a Democratic congress.

Military spending - I have brought this up several times, but it apparently hasn't been enough - has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. Nobody who is sane has ever argued that reducing the deficit is even remotely as important as national security; defense policy is therefore formed solely formed based on the maximalization of security, with no regard for fiscal concerns.

Click to expand...

I do recommend running away Dav, because your repeating the same flawed argument does not work. Saying that spending is bad, except for the spending you like does not make you fiscally responsible. Living within a budget does that. Paying your bills does that.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Wrong.

The CONGRESS under Reagan did not do this. You may recall that the United States Congress is a co-equal body independent of the Execuitive Branch with it's own duties under the Constitution.

The deal Congress made with Reagan was to cut domestic spending in parallel with the tax cuts to avoid any deficit.

The Democrat dominated Congress broke that deal immediately.

The fact of the matter is that the increased federal revenues from the tax cuts far outpaced the necessary military spending, but could not keep pace with the unnecessary domestic spending.

Click to expand...

The budget passed by congress was within 5 % of the budget proposed by Reagan over his 8 years in office. Please try again.

Dav said:

No, tax raises are an explicitly un-conservative policy. You can make up your own definitions of conservatism all you want, but that's just the way it is. Fiscal conservatism is about low spending and low taxes.

This being beside the point that tax raises don't necessarily mean more tax revenues in the first place.

Click to expand...

:rofl

Unless of course (as Reddress cited) you approve.

Fiscal conservativism centers around a balanced budget.

Redress said:

I do recommend running away Dav, because your repeating the same flawed argument does not work. Saying that spending is bad, except for the spending you like does not make you fiscally responsible. Living within a budget does that. Paying your bills does that.

Click to expand...

I'm repeating the same "flawed" arguments because instead of arguing against them, you keep bringing up your initial assertions and then pretending that I haven't addressed them.

Goldenboy219 said:

:rofl

Unless of course (as Reddress cited) you approve.

Click to expand...

Unless you think that it's necessary.

Fiscal conservativism centers around a balanced budget.

Click to expand...

Yes, and Reagan's fiscal conservatism led to the balancing of the budget in the 90s.

Dav said:

Unless you think that it's necessary.

Click to expand...

So you can spend what you want, as long as you think it's important? Yeah, that does sound pretty fiscally responsible...

Yes, and Reagan's fiscal conservatism led to the balancing of the budget in the 90s.

Click to expand...

I do not think this is true, certainly not entirely. The dotcom bubble was a big contributor, and that had nothing really to do with Reagan as just one example. Conservatives and liberals all tend to get extreme with Reagan, either love or hate, and all miss the reality, which is that he was a mediocre president. Liberals blame him for all his faults, and miss his strengths, whereas conservatives give him credit for far too much.

Dav said:

Unless you think that it's necessary.

Click to expand...

It is necessary to prevent economic collapse. It is necessary to defend yourself from invaders.

Yes, and Reagan's fiscal conservatism led to the balancing of the budget in the 90s.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Credit computer and technological innovation entirely to Reagan.

Redress said:

So you can spend what you want, as long as you think it's important? Yeah, that does sound pretty fiscally responsible...

Click to expand...

"Wanting" has nothing to do with it. Nobody but anarchists argue that there aren't certain roles which a government must undertake, and nobody but pacifists deny that defense is one of them. The question then is how much defense spending is necessary. Carter cut defense spending, and look at where he ended up. Whereas the Soviet Union fell almost immediately after Reagan left office.

I do not think this is true, certainly not entirely. The dotcom bubble was a big contributor, and that had nothing really to do with Reagan as just one example.

Click to expand...

It was definitely a factor. But Reagan is pretty much the only president to cut non-defense discretionary spending in decades, including those who came after him. In fact, non defense discretionary spending actually rose throughout the time after Reagan left office; only because military spending decreased significantly did we end up with a surplus.

Even the most dedicated fiscal conservatives aren't foolish enough to think we should balance the budget immediately. Reagan never balanced the budget, or even came close, but he set up the conditions that helped lead to its eventual balance.

Conservatives and liberals all tend to get extreme with Reagan, either love or hate, and all miss the reality, which is that he was a mediocre president. Liberals blame him for all his faults, and miss his strengths, whereas conservatives give him credit for far too much.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion, I guess.

Dav said:

The question then is how much defense spending is necessary. Carter cut defense spending, and look at where he ended up. Whereas the Soviet Union fell almost immediately after Reagan left office.

Click to expand...

This is the positive effect of supply side economics. However not all instances call for such measures. Not to mention, the ends justified the means in regards to abandoning political ideology (fiscal conservativeness).

It was definitely a factor. But Reagan is pretty much the only president to cut non-defense discretionary spending in decades, including those who came after him. In fact, non defense discretionary spending actually rose throughout the time after Reagan left office; only because military spending decreased significantly did we end up with a surplus.

Click to expand...

Already addressed.

Even the most dedicated fiscal conservatives aren't foolish enough to think we should balance the budget immediately. Reagan never balanced the budget, or even came close, but he set up the conditions that helped lead to its eventual balance.

Click to expand...

I will not deny the supply side policies applied were important in helping pave the way for the recovery. The italics however are a matter of opinion.

Dav said:

"Wanting" has nothing to do with it. Nobody but anarchists argue that there aren't certain roles which a government must undertake, and nobody but pacifists deny that defense is one of them. The question then is how much defense spending is necessary. Carter cut defense spending, and look at where he ended up. Whereas the Soviet Union fell almost immediately after Reagan left office.

Click to expand...

You are making the assumption that military spending was the reason the Soviet Union fell, which is at best highly debatable. As a (believe it or not) capitalist, I think that the Soviets where doomed not by our military spending, but by the weaknesses inherent in their own system.

Furthermore, no one is suggesting that some level of military spending is necessary, but to say that any level, no matter how high is ok(because it's spending we like) is patently false. I joined the navy in 1987, when Reagan was president, and waste, abuse and fraud in the military was at unreal. I remember seeing the orders for 250 dollar wrenches that where seriously inferior to ones you can get from Sears(in fact, we would have gotten alot of our own tools from Sears if allowed, at our own expense).[/quote]

It was definitely a factor. But Reagan is pretty much the only president to cut non-defense discretionary spending in decades, including those who came after him. In fact, non defense discretionary spending actually rose throughout the time after Reagan left office; only because military spending decreased significantly did we end up with a surplus.

Click to expand...

And this is the problem with what you are doing. You are separating out the spending you support from the spending you like, and saying "hey look at only this part".

Even the most dedicated fiscal conservatives aren't foolish enough to think we should balance the budget immediately. Reagan never balanced the budget, or even came close, but he set up the conditions that helped lead to its eventual balance.

Click to expand...

Everybody who came before contributed to the conditions that allowed for a balanced budget. Bush the elder, who started the "peace dividend" concept probably contributed as much or more than Reagan himself, as did Clinton, and importantly, as did the congresses under all 3 of those presidents.

That's your opinion, I guess.

Click to expand...

Of course. It's also I think a much more reasoned opinion than those who blind themselves to his strengths or weaknesses.