Republican Economic Ship of Doom

[Chris M.]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5932469/

Three cheers for conservative Joe Scarborough:

"My fellow Republicans, Congress, the president, and national party bosses have conspired with Democratic politicians, lawyers, and bureaucrats to indulge in the most reckless federal spending spree in U.S. history. How reckless, you ask? Well, in just three years since George W. Bush was elected president, your Republican-run Congress took a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a staggering $455 billion deficit. These self-described conservatives did it in part by passing a staggering array of pork-barrel bills, billion-dollar farm subsidies, and trillion-dollar entitlement programs that America cannot afford.

At the same time, Republican congressmen voted into power in 1994 under the platform of cutting wasteful Washington spending have worked with liberal Democrats to strap you and your unsuspecting fellow Americans over the course of the last decade with the largest annual budget deficit and federal debt in the history of the United States. Most get reelected with ease by telling the folks back home that they still support smaller government and balanced budgets. But when they return to Congress, these politicians meekly fall in line. That is why the U.S. National Debt Clock in New York City blinked wildly out of control as it streaked somewhere north of $7 trillion.

Seven Trillion Dollars! Dear God."


To be fair, he certainly is not endorsing democrats as he claims they are cheerleading the deficit, but it has been a republican congress and a republican president that are wrecking our future.

[Claymore]

SSSSSHHHHHHH...the terrorists are coming!

[John Galt]

You better be careful before you cite Republican conservatives decrying our current economy. That's part of the plan. Just as soon as this election is over, a Bush administration will "see the light" and agree with these conservatives that we need to cut spending on our social programs to balance the budget. This is a two-step strategy to impoverish our country and then claim that the only solution is to cut out the programs that aid the impoverished.

Don't be fooled. There's two despicable things the administration has done. One is create the budget deficit through reckless tax cuts. The other is to suggest reductions in spending is the way to cure the deficit problem. Don't join in with the right wingers that want you to complain so loud about the first problem that you have to accept step two of the argument.

It's the tax cuts, not the spending.

[Chris M.]

It's the tax cuts, not the spending.

It's both. We spend very foolishly as well. I'm not advocating reduction in needed services, I'm talking about the pork.

I have always been fiscally conservative, but in Ronald Reagans words, "I didn't leave the Republican party -- they left me."

I was a little surprised in 2000 when Bush et al. were intent on giving back and then spending the surplus. It's not as if we were at a zero balance in federal debt (nor should we be) however, in my mind, it would have been a good idea to pay down some of our existing debt during the salad days.

Bush's tax cuts were absolutely ridiculous, but I won't stand in the way if Congress woke up one morning and said that they were going to address spending issues now, so that my children aren't left holding the bag.

[Chicago1871]

I'd rep you both, but apparently there are only 24 hours in a day.

[topcatcole]

It's both. We spend very foolishly as well. I'm not advocating reduction in needed services, I'm talking about the pork.

I have always been fiscally conservative, but in Ronald Reagans words, "I didn't leave the Republican party -- they left me."

I was a little surprised in 2000 when Bush et al. were intent on giving back and then spending the surplus. It's not as if we were at a zero balance in federal debt (nor should we be) however, in my mind, it would have been a good idea to pay down some of our existing debt during the salad days.

Bush's tax cuts were absolutely ridiculous, but I won't stand in the way if Congress woke up one morning and said that they were going to address spending issues now, so that my children aren't left holding the bag.
Spot on. Spending is out of control. Unfortunately the only difference in Democrats and Republicans appears to be what they want to spend OUR money on!

[-cman-]

The dirty little secret of the GOP is their long-term strategy to downsize the government. Abject failure of various streamlining, reform and budgetary constraints in the past have forced a radical rethink. The strategy is fiendishly simple; by dangling the stick of impossible-to-resist massive tax cuts in front of Congress and through the fortuitious occurrence of a national security crisis the GOP can, over the course of 8 or so years completely beggar the Federal budget. This will force Congress to choose between "security" and "discretionary spending." This last will cover everything from the arts to environmental protection, housing to health care. By 2010, if all goes according to plan there will be little left of the federal budget that does not in one way or another go to fund Defense, National Security and whatever is left of Medicare, Medicad and Social Security, and at long last the GOP will have gotten the government off the people's backs.

[Mr. Warmth]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5932469/

Three cheers for conservative Joe Scarborough:

"My fellow Republicans, Congress, the president, and national party bosses have conspired with Democratic politicians, lawyers, and bureaucrats to indulge in the most reckless federal spending spree in U.S. history. How reckless, you ask? Well, in just three years since George W. Bush was elected president, your Republican-run Congress took a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a staggering $455 billion deficit. These self-described conservatives did it in part by passing a staggering array of pork-barrel bills, billion-dollar farm subsidies, and trillion-dollar entitlement programs that America cannot afford.

At the same time, Republican congressmen voted into power in 1994 under the platform of cutting wasteful Washington spending have worked with liberal Democrats to strap you and your unsuspecting fellow Americans over the course of the last decade with the largest annual budget deficit and federal debt in the history of the United States. Most get reelected with ease by telling the folks back home that they still support smaller government and balanced budgets. But when they return to Congress, these politicians meekly fall in line. That is why the U.S. National Debt Clock in New York City blinked wildly out of control as it streaked somewhere north of $7 trillion.

Seven Trillion Dollars! Dear God."


To be fair, he certainly is not endorsing democrats as he claims they are cheerleading the deficit, but it has been a republican congress and a republican president that are wrecking our future.

Bump

[Claymore]

Paging Mr. Norquist, Grover Norquist to the white courtesy phone...

[Dr. Wankler]

The dirty little secret of the GOP is their long-term strategy to downsize the government. Abject failure of various streamlining, reform and budgetary constraints in the past have forced a radical rethink. The strategy is fiendishly simple; by dangling the stick of impossible-to-resist massive tax cuts in front of Congress and through the fortuitious occurrence of a national security crisis the GOP can, over the course of 8 or so years completely beggar the Federal budget. This will force Congress to choose between "security" and "discretionary spending." This last will cover everything from the arts to environmental protection, housing to health care. By 2010, if all goes according to plan there will be little left of the federal budget that does not in one way or another go to fund Defense, National Security and whatever is left of Medicare, Medicad and Social Security, and at long last the GOP will have gotten the government off the people's backs.


This reads like an early rough draft of Tom Frank's latest book, The Wrecking Crew, published earlier in 2008.

[Kobranzilla]

Starve the Beast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast)

[Dr. Wankler]

Starve the Beast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast)

Putting people who despise government in charge of government is amazingly ********ing stupid. It's like putting someone like the Unabomber in charge of a corporation.

No one would install an anti-capitalist CEO at the head of a company. I can't understand why Americans repeatedly put anti-government officials at the head of Government.

[Chris M.]

I found this little nugget while arguing over in the Archer guestbook in response to a question if McCain and bush tried to get Fannie Freddie legislation through congress:

The bill was called the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.

Far from writing the bill, McCain jumped on board as simply a co-sponsor and made the speech he would cite to during the election in May of 2006 in the Banking committee that was chaired by Richard Shelby (R). At the time, both houses were controlled by Republicans and in the senate banking committee, the Republicans held a two vote advantage. It appears that the bill never made it out of committee and in fact, I don't believe it was even put to a vote in committee, so it died a natural death.

For all those who like to blame Barney Frank for the implosion of our economy, I did find this interesting article that quotes retired republican Mike Oxley who moved the house equivalent through the process:

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.

Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7...nclick_check=1

[Chicago1871]

Would that bill really have staved off the problems we're having now? It might have softened the blow (like your airbag deploying after you fly off a 50 ft cliff), but I don't see it changing practices quickly enough to keep us from ending up where we are now. This ball started rolling a while back, and nobody from either side did anything to change its course.

[Chris M.]

Would that bill really have staved off the problems we're having now? It might have softened the blow (like your airbag deploying after you fly off a 50 ft cliff), but I don't see it changing practices quickly enough to keep us from ending up where we are now. This ball started rolling a while back, and nobody from either side did anything to change its course.

You are most likely correct. I found it interesting for a couple of reasons. First, many on here are quick to blame Barney Frank for the entire mess. Oxley suggests that Barney is the one that helped him get a huge majority in the house on a bill that upped the regulation of Fannie/Freddie.

Second, you will recall that McCain used a speech read in the banking committee to suggest that he was screaming from the mountain top about this problem three years ago but no one would listen. So, the comment that the bill failed because of opposition to bush and because it lacked a champion in the senate struck me as well.

[dannytoone]

Wow...I just repped Chris for a post that he made over 4 years ago, without even realizing it!