Who's Pissed They're Not Getting a Rebate Check?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
4 of the last 5 years:





The 108th Congress:











<th>House</th>

<th> </th>

<th>Senate</th>











PARTY BREAKDOWN














Republicans - 229


Democrats - 204


Independents - 1



<img width="15" height="10" border="0" src="http://www.c-span.org/images/spacer.gif" alt="" />



Republicans - 51


Democrats - 48


Independents - 1













109th











<th>House</th>

<th> </th>

<th>Senate</th>











<strong>PARTY BREAKDOWN</strong> <strong> </strong>











Republicans - 232


Democrats - 201


Independents - 1


Vacancy - 1







Republicans - 55


Democrats - 44


Independents - 1




 
<p>Well, you get credit for kinda trying. Here's the list going back to Reagan's first term since that's when the Left likes to start deficit discussions.</p>







<th>Congress</th>

<th>Years</th>

<th>Total</th>

<th style="BACKGROUND: #cceeff">Democrats</th>

<th style="BACKGROUND: #ffb6b6">Republicans</th>

<th>Others</th>

<th>Vacancies</th>

<th>Total</th>

<th style="BACKGROUND: #cceeff">Democrats</th>

<th style="BACKGROUND: #ffb6b6">Republicans</th>

<th>Others</th>

<th>Vacancies</th>





<a title="97th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/97th_United_States_Congress">97th</a>

1981–1983

100

46

<strong>53</strong>

1

—

435

<strong>242</strong>

192

1

—





<a title="98th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/98th_United_States_Congress">98th</a>

1983–1985

100

46

<strong>54</strong>

—

—

435

<strong>269</strong>

166

—

—





<a title="99th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99th_United_States_Congress">99th</a>

1985–1987

100

47

<strong>53</strong>

—

—

435

<strong>253</strong>

182

—

—





<a title="100th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100th_United_States_Congress">100th</a>

1987–1989

100

<strong>55</strong>

45

—

—

435

<strong>258</strong>

177

—

—





<a title="101st United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101st_United_States_Congress">101st</a>

1989–1991

100

<strong>55</strong>

45

—

—

435

<strong>260</strong>

175

—

—





<a title="102nd United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/102nd_United_States_Congress">102nd</a>

1991–1993

100

<strong>56</strong>

44

—

—

435

<strong>267</strong>

167

1

—





<a title="103rd United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress">103rd</a>

1993–1995

100

<strong>57</strong>

43

—

—

435

<strong>258</strong>

176

1

—





<a title="104th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/104th_United_States_Congress">104th</a>

1995–1997

100

48

<strong>52</strong>

—

—

435

204

<strong>230</strong>

1

—





<a title="105th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105th_United_States_Congress">105th</a>

1997–1999

100

45

<strong>55</strong>

—

—

435

207

<strong>226</strong>

2

—





<a title="106th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/106th_United_States_Congress">106th</a>

1999–2001

100

45

<strong>55</strong>

—

—

435

211

<strong>223</strong>

1

—





<a title="107th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress">107th</a>

2001–2003

100

<em>50</em>

<em>50</em>

—

—

435

212

<strong>221</strong>

2

—





<a title="108th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_United_States_Congress">108th</a>

2003–2005

100

48

<strong>51</strong>

1

—

435

205

<strong>229</strong>

1

—





<a title="109th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_United_States_Congress">109th</a>

2005–2007

100

44

<strong>55</strong>

1

—

435

202

<strong>231</strong>

1

1





<a title="110th United States Congress" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress">110th</a>

2007–2009

100

<strong>49</strong>

49

2

—

435

<strong>233</strong>

202

—

0







<p> </p>
 
<p>So, for 15 of the last 27 years the Democrats have controlled the House, and therefore have controlled the budget. For 11 of those years they also controlled the Senate, giving them total control of the budget process before it went to the President for signature. Now, who was in control of Congress when the budget provided a surplus? I'll give you a hint, the party name starts with an "R" and ends with "epublicans".</p>

<p>Edited to add:</p>

<p><img alt="" src="http://www.centrists.org/images/charts_and_graphs/deficit_1990-2004.gif" /></p>
 
I put the responsibility for fiscal responsibility on the President. They may tweak the budget a little around the edges, but Congress essentially rubber-stamps what ever the President sends them as his recommendation. And even if one weren't to agree with that, consider the fact that the President still doesn't have to sign the budget if it doesn't meet his defintion of fiscal restraint; so, ultimately, the buck (pun intended) stops with the President.



It's not that I don't have issues with the Left as well. I do. That's why I'm registered as a small 'i' independent.
 
<p>HBB, I agree that rubberstamping gets done, but it's usually the President doing it. Clinton refused to sign a budget and it shut down the government. This is generally considered a "bad idea" so most Presidents don't do it. In Clinton's case, he wasn't fighting for more cuts, he was fighting for a different allocation of funds than what the Republicans were offering. Congress rarely rubberstamps a budget. If you take the time to compare what a President submits and what Congress actually produces you will see the disparity and how much of the President's original requests get scrambled and shredded in favor of congressional choices.</p>

<p>This is where people like me feel the greatest disappointment in the Republican party. After Reagan's presidency showed us conservatives that just controlling the White House wasn't enough, that we had to control Congress in order to control spending, we were able to accomplish that and faced off with Clinton over not just how much, but also where and when federal money was spent. When Bush won, we had high hopes that we would finally have the power to get our fiscal house in order and... the Republicans failed miserably, instead choosing to concentrate on retaining power and ignoring the principles (and the people) that got them the power in the first place. Bush was responsible for that, but so was Congress, as they both failed to match spending cuts with tax cuts. The war spending just added more debt on top of it.</p>
 
Nude,





Do you still believe Republicans have any credibility on spending issues? I don't. You know, there is another way to interpret the graph above: Republican Presidents who must negotiate with Congress and sign the budget (Remember "The Buck Stops Here") ran up huge budget deficits while the lone Democrat President (1992-2000) showed a steadily decreasing budget deficit. Your Republican-Controlled-Congress theory doesn't bode well when you look from 2000-2004 when Republicans controlled both the House and the Presidency and still managed to squander a surplus and create an even bigger budget deficit. Republicans have no way of dodging responsibility for their lack of fiscal control during this period, and because of that, they will probably not see power again in Washington for quite a while.
 
<p>Republicans? No. Certain conservatives? Yes. </p>

<p>The distinction is important, because the Republican Party splits up into social conservatives, fiscal & government conservatives, and the patrician conservatives (also referred to as "blue-blood" Republicans). Both Bush and his father come from the patrician portion, which favors the status quo and big business because it is stable and allows them a framework with which to gather and compound power. Reagan and Goldwater were fiscal & government types, seeing democratic socialism as an affront to the basic creation of this country. The bible-thumpers weren't always a part of our party, but the cultural shift in the Democratic party in the 60's and 70's left them without a home until Reagan began courting them (Bush 41 blew them off and lost, but his son had Karl Rove, and Rove used them to win) and now we are stuck with them.</p>

<p>To be honest, I think fiscal and government conservatives are going to have to find a new home. Too many social conservatives become patricians when they obtain power, and too few fiscal & government conservatives are willing to fight the party establishment to oust either of them from power. Right now the Libertarian party come closest to our line of thinking, but they have their own loonies and that history would be tough to ignore in a large election. We also have no champions left to stand up or speak out. This is what cost us the mid-terms. McCain likes to promote himself as a straight talker, but I think his career shows he's trying to become a patrician, like Nixon did. Fortunately, he'll lose the general and the Republicans will be spared that experience. That defeat may prompt the party to once again hide it's patricians, but I really think conservatives like me are going to be more focused on the candidate than the party. We've had enough of Bush, of social intolerance, and of the acceptance of the status quo.</p>
 
Your chart "conveniently" stops at the 90s. How about this? The surplus in the 90s was but a glimmer of fiscal control. Of course, this was coincidental to a democratic president and republican rules congress. However, the same thing had happen previously with different results. We can play the blame game as much as we want but if history shows us anything, it is that fiscal restraint is in nobodies blood.





<img src="http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg409.jpg" alt="" />
 
The chart above takes us back to an age when there really was fiscal restraint at the federal level. Eisenhower was the last President to really show any. The budget surpluses he ran in 56 and 57 were blamed for the recession in 58 and 59 which Nixon believed cost him the White House. Barry Goldwater ran in 1964 on fiscal conservatism and lost in a Landslide. Then, as is apparent on the chart, we went to the Dark Side. Reagan touted fiscal conservatism, but the Democratic Congress was allowed to run amok (It was the only way Reagan got the rest of his agenda passed,) so we came to accept large deficits.





I really had high hopes when Bush ran in 2000. Here we had a Republican Congress -- guided by a fiscally conservative Democrat in Bill Clinton -- who put us on sound fiscal footing. I didn't vote for Al Gore in 2000 because I thought he would spend the deficit. Imagine the horror as I watched Bush and a Republican Congress run up huge deficits. The sting of that betrayal of trust will probably cause me not to vote Republican for a few cycles. Of course, the spendthrifts in the Democratic party will eventually annoy me as well and I will give the Republicans another look, but until the Democrats show the total lack of fiscal restraint the Republicans showed in the 00s, they will probably retain power, and they will probably get my vote.
 
<p>Apples and oranges, g_c. My chart shows real dollar amounts, not as a percentage of GDP, which fluctuates during booms and busts and skews any percentages. Mine goes back to 1990, but it also stops at 2004.</p>

<p>I do find it amusing that you use this graph as "proof" though; it clearly shows that the bulk of deficit spending occured when the purse was controlled by Democrats. They held Congress for 40 years straight ('55-'95), the Senate was controlled by Democrats for all but 6 of those same 40 years ('55-'81, '87-'95), and there were 4 different Democratic Presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton). In fact it shows that, despite all that power and influence over four DECADES, the only year with a surplus was 1968.</p>

<p>Thanks for helping me prove my point.</p>
 
If you look at the numbers, you will find that prior to LBJ's "War on Poverty", the Federal government actually ran a surplus about once every three years. Since the massive increase in government programs under LBJ, the budget hasn't been in balance for a single year. (And yes, I am ignoring the supposed surplus at the end of the Clinton administration. Even with the massive, but temporary increase in revenues from the stock market bubble, the budget was only "balanced" by applying excesses in collections of Social Security tax receipts over disbursements)





If Obama or Hillary are successful in implementing "Universal Healthcare", things will only get worse. With "Universal Healthcare", we might not even be able to offset the inflow of tax receipts from people converting pre-tax IRAs into Roth IRAs in 2010 and 2011.
 
In inflation adjusted dollars - I don't know how this is ANY better ... as percent of GDP is a much better measure in any case. I wasn't trying to prove anything with this graph - only showing that running a deficit seems to be the thing to do by any combination of partisan controls.





<img src="http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-constant-dollars.png" alt="" />
 
But g_c, you are intentionally ignoring the point: Congress controls the budget process and therefore the deficit. Since 1946 (61 years), Democrat-controlled congress' produced just five years with a budget surplus. That's 5-for-45, while in contrast, a Republican-controlled congress produced a surplus 6 out of 16 years. Now, if you argued that a Democrat president and Republican Congress means a surplus, you would have a point. But HB Bear wasn't arguing that, he claimed that Republicans don't deserve the title of "fiscally" conservative and that the data proved it. Clearly, the data proves otherwise when you include <strong><em>all</em></strong> the facts. Moreover, it proves that it's been that way for almost two generations, regardless of who is in the White House.
 
Exactly! We have to scrape for those surplus years out of the bunch. I don't see an end to this madness - be it Reps or Dems in charge. Both Congress and the Executive have culpability in this case. Anyways, the picture looks pretty grim for me for the coming future. Higher taxes will probably be the norm since Social Security and Medicare will be impossible to contain. Just think of who the majority of the voters are - and every day there are more of them and they live longer.
 
<em>"Congress controls the budget process and therefore the deficit."</em>





You do realize this is BS? The President must <em>sign </em>the budget or government can get shut down like the Clinton/Gingerich showdown in 1995. We have a system of checks and balances to make sure neither the Congress or the President has too much power. You are conveniently ignoring the Presidential control of the purse-strings because you want to blame everything on the Democratic Congress. The Congress initiates spending bills, but the President must sign them. Reagan was pretty good about shooting down pork spending and earmarks, but the Democratic Congress forced him to sign on to their big spending budgets in order for him to pass his agenda. Plus, Reagan was more concerned with winning the Cold War which we did through an expensive arms race and the associated budget deficits. I think it was money well spent given the results, but it was deficit spending a Republican desired and approved.





Let me be clear. I am not saying the Democratically controlled congress of the latter half of the twentieth century showed any kind of fiscal restraint: they didn't. They became drunk with power and used the largess of the Federal Government to ensure their own re-elections. (What was astonishing was watching the Republicans become just as corrupted in 12 years as the Democrats became in 60.)





<em>"But HB Bear wasn't arguing that, he claimed that Republicans don't deserve the title of "fiscally" conservative and that the data proved it. Clearly, the data proves otherwise when you include <strong><em>all</em></strong> the facts."</em>





I don't think so. The Republican party of today does not deserve the title of "fiscally" conservative. I wish they did. I would probably vote for them. To hold on to the belief that the Republican Party in any way has demonstrated fiscal conservatism is to ignore the facts of the Bush Presidency and the Republican controlled Congress that coincided.





Let me also clarify that I do not see the Democrats as being any better. In fact, they may very well prove to be worse, but they haven't been given the chance yet. The Republicans of this generation were given the chance, and they blew it. Those are the facts. If you are a Republican party loyalist, you will be unhappy for the next couple of decades as the Democrats consolidate power. Remember, I have no party loyalty, I just call them as I see them. I am not arguing the right or wrong of Democratic control, just pointing out that they are in power, and they will likely stay there for the foreseeable future. They have a large enough buffer in the house to lose some seats and retain power, and in the Senate, the Republicans are defending 20 seats in each of the next 2 cycles, so the Democrats are likely to gain seats in the Senate. Coupled with the near certainty of a Democratic win following the Bush Presidency, I foresee at least 4 years of very solid Democratic control. Who knows, maybe they will totally screw up and piss off the American public enough to throw them out of power like 1994 and 2006, and I imagine every core Republican is waiting for the next watershed election to occur, but it won't be in the next 2 cycles.
 
<p>IR,</p>

<p>I agree with your assessment of the Republican chances. I don't agree with your assessment of their fiscal responsibility... prior to 2004. Once GWB won re-election, they became just as spendy and corrupt as any Democrats; the difference being that the Democratic base practically demands more spending while the Republican base wouldn't support that kind of behavior and either quit writing checks or stayed home in 2006. Prior to that, we shifted to a war footing in late 2001 which undid all the budget cuts. I think it would have taken them longer to become corrupt had the money spigot not opened up again. However, there are still dozens in congress that are fiscally conservative, though they admittedly make up the minority of the Republican party. Worse still, some of the ones that remain are starting to announce they won't run for re-election.</p>

<p>That said, I strongly disagree with you on the budget process. Yes, the President holds the veto power and the pen. What he doesn't have is a way to keep the things he wants and cut the things he doesn't. That is what forced Reagan's hand in the 80's and caused Clinton to shut down the government in the 90's. That power rests with Congress alone. While they are free to take the President's budget proposal and rubber stamp it, this has never happened. Not even with GWB. "Earmarks" and increases in the rate of increases and pet projects and whatnot, all get added in by Congress. The tax rate is set by Congress. Everything in the budget came from some member of the House or Senate. The only choice the President gets when he sees it again (months later) is to take what they give him and hope for the best, or shut the government down until they send him something he will sign. Thinking the President controls the budget is like thinking you control electricity because you can flip a light switch; grab a bare live wire and see how much control you actually have. </p>

<p>As you pointed out, Reagan was forced to accept hefty deficit spending in order get the money for what he considered the greater of two evils, but he bitched about it the whole way every time a budget was passed. I didn't even know what a "line-item" veto was until he mentioned it while bitching about the budget coming from Congress. He asked for it in the State of the Union in 1986, Clinton asked for it in 1995 (and got it, thanks to Republicans), though it was ruled unconstitutional in 1996. An amendment was never seriously considered once that happened. My point is that if the President really had the power you think he has, they wouldn't be asking for this tool. They wouldn't need it.</p>
 
The line-item veto certainly would be a great tool for cutting the Federal budget. Many state governors have this power and use it effectively. I agree that Congress certainly has more power in the process than the President, and the line item veto would have put more balance in the process, but ultimately, the President must sign the budget spending bill. Presidents shape legislation all the time with the threat of veto and the budget is no different in that respect. I suppose it is a matter of degree. From your previous comments it sounded like you viewed the President as a mere rubber stamp of the wishes of Congress on budget issues, and he/she does have more power than that, and with that power comes responsibility for the outcome.





It is probably good that many Republicans currently in Congress are retiring. The Republican party needs some young, charismatic leaders to remake their image. Every Republican associated with the 107th Congress will be associated with their failure, just like Richard Gephardt and much of the former leadership of the Democratic Congress was in 1994.





The Democrats have a once in a generation opportunity to take away a key issue in national politics that has been costing them elections: fiscal responsibility. It was not long ago the Republican party was not associated with a strong defense. When the fiscal conservatives dominated, they would not have borrowed and spent to build the military. In 1968 Johnson was so unpopular because of Vietnam that the Democratic party -- which used to be the party of tax and spend on the military -- went dovish with Hubert Humphrey and then went off the deep end with George McGovern. They lost all credibility on national defense, and the Republicans used the opportunity to take that issue away from Democrats and use it to win elections. In the same way, the behavior of Republicans have given the Democrats the opportunity to take the fiscal conservative issue away from Republicans -- if the Democrats chose to. It is a once in a generation opportunity for them. I don't hold out much hope of them following through on it, but the opportunity is there.





The American populace really wants a leader and a party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This is one of the reasons Arnold is so popular in California. If the Democrats can make themselves over in this mold, they would really resonate with the American people. I think this challenge is much more difficult for Republicans because the social conservatives are so strong, and the fiscal conservatives are in such disarray. Our current Republican leader is the exact opposite -- a social conservative and a fiscal liberal -- the worst of both worlds. It also explains much of his unpopularity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top