Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The Democratic Party - The Party of Fiscal Responsibility!

Old 11-20-04, 09:25 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The Democratic Party - The Party of Fiscal Responsibility!

The Democratic Party has been erroneously labeled as the party of big spenders by the Republicans far too long. It's now time to set the record straight.

Which party in the current U. S. Congress is pushing for spending restraints - or at least budgetary responsibility through pay-go?

Which party believes that you should actually pay for the wars that the country is engaged in - certainly not the Repubican Party.

The last time that this country had a true, real budget surplus was in 1968. We were engaged in a war that involved many more troops that are in Iraq & Afghanistan combined. And, yet we were able to pay for that war and still have a budget surplus -a real one.

BTW: Which party occupied the White House and controlled the Congress in 1968?

Just wondering!!

Estimates of the national debt if things continue for the next 10 years as they are now: over 14 trillion dollars

When the Republicans blame the Democrats for this runaway spending - doesn't it ring a little hollow?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 10:02 AM
  #2  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,739
This all you got? It must be since we hear it over and over.
X is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 10:04 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The truth hurts - doesn't it?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 10:05 AM
  #4  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,739
If I gave a rat's ass it might.

Hey, did you hear? Bush invaded Iraq!
X is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 10:08 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,368
Re: The Democratic Party - The Party of Fiscal Responsibility!

Originally posted by classicman2
Which party in the current U. S. Congress is pushing for spending restraints - or at least budgetary responsibility through pay-go?
The same party advocating the draft? ie, democrats.
bwvanh114 is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 10:12 AM
  #6  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,739
It's pretty easy pushing for spending restraints when your priorities aren't the ones that are being spent on. And the ones being spent on are ones that will help keep Republicans in power.

It's purely politics. Trying to call Democrats the party of fiscal responsibility is disingenuous.
X is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 10:15 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,045
It's obvious that both parties simply take the opposite position on every issue with no concern for practicality or logic. It's the biggest kindergarten in the free world.
Jason is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 10:25 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally posted by X
If I gave a rat's ass it might.

Hey, did you hear? Bush invaded Iraq!
I thought you were concerned with runaway spending??

I understand when you can't respond to the subject - you attempt to switch it - 'Bush invaded Iraq.'
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 10:32 AM
  #9  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Posts: 6,677
I agree with this label. I mean, Clinton was fiscally responsible. Kerry ran on getting America back to fiscal responsibility.

Democrats are always labeled as "tax and spend".

Republicans are now labeled as "don't tax and spend".

I'll let you figure out which one actually works, and which one is leading to the dollar being weak and the economy still in trouble.
joshd2012 is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 10:37 AM
  #10  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,739
Originally posted by classicman2
I thought you were concerned with runaway spending??

I understand when you can't respond to the subject - you attempt to switch it - 'Bush invaded Iraq.'
I'm concerned with runaway spending on entitlements only. They can't be suddenly stopped and always grow far more than predicted. Not to mention the longterm social consequences they cause in addition to "solving" the problems they were intended for.

Concerning Iraq, I was just trying to give you another subject that we haven't heard about over and over that you could harp about.
X is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 10:50 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
"I'm only concerned with runaway spending with entitlements."



Need I remind you that the largest entitlement program runs a surplus.

You need to be concerned about the largest discretionary spending item. That's where the cuts need to be made.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 11:02 AM
  #12  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,739
Originally posted by classicman2
"I'm only concerned with runaway spending with entitlements."



Need I remind you that the largest entitlement program runs a surplus.
Right now. And it has to keep being tweaked by raising the percentage it takes from all salaried people and raising the age that you get benefits. Not to mention its unfairness as to how it redistributes wealth and stifles economic growth.

You'd think for 15% off all salary dollars up to $88,000 ($90,000 next year) we could do better.

Not to mention medicare's 2.9% take of salaries with no upper limit and the projections that by 2030 its premiums will only fund a third of it.
X is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 02:48 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
tasha99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: the North
Posts: 5,856
I think both parties are spenders--the democrats tax and spend, while the republicans borrow and spend.
tasha99 is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 04:11 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
There are a lot of labels about the parties that don't particularaly hold to well today, but they are still thrown around and believed by many.

So as long as Democrats want to say that it is the Republican party that is the party of the wealthy, and are racist, I will take the "fiscally conservative" label and not feel a bit guilty.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 09:52 PM
  #15  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,590
Well, it's pretty clear that both parties spend a lot. The difference is, the Dems spend and pay for it now, while the Republicans spend and pay for it later with interest. The former is obviously more fiscally responsible. The latter doesn't necessarily have to lead to disaster, but you have to be able to handle the national credit card successfully. I'm sure a lot of us wish we could voluntarily up our own credit card limits when times are tough.
VinVega is offline  
Old 11-20-04, 11:59 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The Good Book says, The truth shall make you free.

I fervently hope my Repub friends follow that, and admit the truth about which party is more fiscally responsible.

If they do that, they will be able to sing all the day long, Free at last, free at last - thanks to classicman, I'm free at last.

classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-21-04, 12:02 AM
  #17  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,739
Originally posted by VinVega
Well, it's pretty clear that both parties spend a lot. The difference is, the Dems spend and pay for it now, while the Republicans spend and pay for it later with interest. The former is obviously more fiscally responsible.
That's not even close to the truth. I'm afraid the 90's have lulled a lot of people into forgetting the decades before.
X is offline  
Old 11-21-04, 12:07 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The Bush administration has added more to the national debt in 4 years than the Democrats did while they were in power in the House for 40 years.

The Repubs once championed the idea of pay-go. Now they run from it like a scared biddy. Why?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-21-04, 12:11 AM
  #19  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,739
Because the Democrats blew the whole wad on entitlements. And GWB may just be the only one with the guts to touch the third rail of politics.

But you can come scare us in in two or four years when somebody cares to listen. Maybe Hillary will save us.
X is offline  
Old 11-21-04, 01:06 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,503
I EMBRACE spending.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 11-21-04, 01:12 AM
  #21  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Posts: 6,677
Whatever the democrats did years ago, it only took one democrat, Clinton, to get congress to be fiscally sound. So I think we can all agree that we were at a level playing field when Bush took office.

So what did Dubya do? He sent out checks to people. Instead of maybe investing in more social problems, or investing for a possible war (he knew he was going to hit Iraq one way or another... 9/11 just helped him force feed his case to the American people), he gave the money away.

Of course Republicans cheered, momentariliy forgetting that half that check goes right back to the government. And here is something else to think about. During the election, republicans kept clamining that the stock market bubble burst during the Clinton era. If that is so, why wouldn't Bush recognize this economic instability and use the surplus help fight the upcoming recession?

The answer is republicans like to throw money at problems - not solve them.

Right now, at this point in time, democrats have proven to be more fiscally conservative than republicans. Pointing back to stats from 50 years ago isn't going to change how things are today.
joshd2012 is offline  
Old 11-21-04, 08:47 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally posted by X
Because the Democrats blew the whole wad on entitlements. And GWB may just be the only one with the guts to touch the third rail of politics.

But you can come scare us in in two or four years when somebody cares to listen. Maybe Hillary will save us.
Hogwash!

Under what President do you believe that a bunch of what was discretionary spending programs became entitlement spending programs?

Again you're attempting to perpetuate this myth about social security being the third rail of politics & being untouchable. Many, many times the so-called third rail of politics has been 'touched' - it was 'touched' under Carter & Reagan a number of times. I know - I felt (and currently am feeling) that 'touch.'
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-21-04, 11:20 AM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 867
Originally posted by X
Because the Democrats blew the whole wad on entitlements. And GWB may just be the only one with the guts to touch the third rail of politics.

But you can come scare us in in two or four years when somebody cares to listen. Maybe Hillary will save us.
By passing the prescription drug benefit? You are right, GWB isn't afraid to change entitlements, he had no problem expanding medicare, and will have no problem changing Social Security, of course it will cost a few trillion, but it's not like it's real money anyway.
slappypete is offline  
Old 11-21-04, 01:03 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Originally posted by slappypete
By passing the prescription drug benefit? You are right, GWB isn't afraid to change entitlements, he had no problem expanding medicare, and will have no problem changing Social Security, of course it will cost a few trillion, but it's not like it's real money anyway.
who was harping about enacting a prescription drug benefit for all of the 1990's? So studies say that covering drugs will lead to lower longterm growth in medicare since it will require less expensive procedures to be performed by doctors.

the only real way to control medicare is to put the brakes on seeing specialists. there was a NY Times article earlier this year about how retirees in florida are going to see specialists simply for social reasons to see their friends.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 11-21-04, 02:01 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The difference is that most Democrats wanted a 'real' prescription drug benefit for seniors - not one that was written by the drug manufacturers, the HMOs, and insurance companies.

The Democrats wanted a prescription drug benefit that would actually benefit the seniors. Bush and the Republican leadership obviously wanted something else.

It's not at all surprising.
classicman2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.