Both candidates vague on how to solve deficit

[Cowperson]

Now, THIS is an important story, both candidates, says the headline, avoiding tough talk on the USA deficit.

The debate tonight, I think, will focus on domestic and economic issues so watch for the points raised here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6235291/

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

It's almost too bad Kerry has to be a Democrat, seems like there would be a fantastic opportunity here for a fiscally conservative party to exploit the dizzying deficit/debt.

Unfortunately, a Democrat calling for fiscal responsibility, regardless of how poorly the Republicans have handled it, won't ring true.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 13 2004, 08:30 PM
It's almost too bad Kerry has to be a Democrat, seems like there would be a fantastic opportunity here for a fiscally conservative party to exploit the dizzying deficit/debt.

Unfortunately, a Democrat calling for fiscal responsibility, regardless of how poorly the Republicans have handled it, won't ring true.

If I'm not mistaken, Bill Clinton inherited a deficit and ended up with a large budget surplus.

Kerry may regret promising not to raise taxes on the middle class in the last debate though.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 13 2004, 08:35 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Bill Clinton inherited a deficit and ended up with a large budget surplus.

Kerry may regret promising not to raise taxes on the middle class in the last debate though.

Cowperson

True, but Clinton also inherited the tech-boom (is what a Republican might say). Also, you may remember better than I, as I was a lad at the time, did Clinton run on a platform of fiscal responsibility? That's really the key, not whether he was actually good at the economics, but whether (as a Democrat) he was able to convince people that he wasn't a Spendo-crat when campagning. Unless you're suggesting that because of Clinton's reign the Democrats can re-dress themselves as 'for' the economy (at the obvious expense of other issues). Probably not a move that would appeal to their base.

Funny you mention the Kerry promise, I sort of cringed when I saw that. I believe he was actually asked to look at the camera or something and declare it. Props for the declaration, he looked like he meant. Besides, he can always screw it and raise them anyway, once he gets into office, right? (GST...)

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 13 2004, 08:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 13 2004, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 13 2004, 08:35 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Bill Clinton inherited a deficit and ended up with a large budget surplus.

Kerry may regret promising not to raise taxes on the middle class in the last debate though.

Cowperson

True, but Clinton also inherited the tech-boom (is what a Republican might say). Also, you may remember better than I, as I was a lad at the time, did Clinton run on a platform of fiscal responsibility? That's really the key, not whether he was actually good at the economics, but whether (as a Democrat) he was able to convince people that he wasn't a Spendo-crat when campagning. Unless you're suggesting that because of Clinton's reign the Democrats can re-dress themselves as 'for' the economy (at the obvious expense of other issues). Probably not a move that would appeal to their base.

Funny you mention the Kerry promise, I sort of cringed when I saw that. I believe he was actually asked to look at the camera or something and declare it. Props for the declaration, he looked like he meant. Besides, he can always screw it and raise them anyway, once he gets into office, right? (GST...) [/b][/quote]
How is not addresing the economy a good move for their base? A good economy keeps a lot of people happy.

Look at the last 4 presidents... only 1 of them was able to run a Budget surplus and that was Clinton. Reagan, Bush1, Bush2 spent this economy into the freaken ground, look at the starwars system (No it didn't end the cold war) a crazy waste of money. Absolutely inhuman amounts of money to other military projects, you name it.

Repubilicans have not been fiscally responsable for a while now.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 13 2004, 08:38 PM
[True, but Clinton also inherited the tech-boom (is what a Republican might say). Also, you may remember better than I, as I was a lad at the time, did Clinton run on a platform of fiscal responsibility? That's really the key, not whether he was actually good at the economics, but whether (as a Democrat) he was able to convince people that he wasn't a Spendo-crat when campagning. Unless you're suggesting that because of Clinton's reign the Democrats can re-dress themselves as 'for' the economy (at the obvious expense of other issues). Probably not a move that would appeal to their base.

And Bush inherited the tech explosion and subsequent recession.

To be fair.

Funny you mention the Kerry promise, I sort of cringed when I saw that. I believe he was actually asked to look at the camera or something and declare it. Props for the declaration, he looked like he meant. Besides, he can always screw it and raise them anyway, once he gets into office, right? (GST...)

It wasn't funny for GW Bush I in 1992 after his promise of "Read my lips, no new taxes" came back to haunt him.. . . . . as it probably would with Kerry if he's elected.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 13 2004, 09:04 PM
How is not addresing the economy a good move for their base? A good economy keeps a lot of people happy.

Look at the last 4 presidents... only 1 of them was able to run a Budget surplus and that was Clinton. Reagan, Bush1, Bush2 spent this economy into the freaken ground, look at the starwars system (No it didn't end the cold war) a crazy waste of money. Absolutely inhuman amounts of money to other military projects, you name it.

Repubilicans have not been fiscally responsable for a while now.

Adressing the economy? That's a whole different ball of wax than the deficit/debt specifically. The 'economy' includes job creation, tax rates, tariffs, interest rates, inflation, etc. It would be stupid to run for President without talking about the economy.

What I'm implying is that there are preconceptions about Republicans and Democrats. Republicans favour small government, low taxes, etc. Democrats are for expanding social programs, raising taxes (or at least, not reducing them), big government, that sort of stuff.

My original premise was that it was unfortunate that Kerry's (for the purposes of winning the election) party isn't known for 'fiscal responsibility'. That does not equal 'the economy'. A fiscally conservative party could clean up in this election. However, both sides are promising to spend away the future, so there's little difference.

Hope that clears it up.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 13 2004, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 13 2004, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Oct 13 2004, 09:04 PM
How is not addresing the economy a good move for their base? A good economy keeps a lot of people happy.

Look at the last 4 presidents... only 1 of them was able to run a Budget surplus and that was Clinton. Reagan, Bush1, Bush2 spent this economy into the freaken ground, look at the starwars system (No it didn't end the cold war) a crazy waste of money. Absolutely inhuman amounts of money to other military projects, you name it.

Repubilicans have not been fiscally responsable for a while now.

Adressing the economy? That's a whole different ball of wax than the deficit/debt specifically. The 'economy' includes job creation, tax rates, tariffs, interest rates, inflation, etc. It would be stupid to run for President without talking about the economy.

What I'm implying is that there are preconceptions about Republicans and Democrats. Republicans favour small government, low taxes, etc. Democrats are for expanding social programs, raising taxes (or at least, not reducing them), big government, that sort of stuff.

My original premise was that it was unfortunate that Kerry's (for the purposes of winning the election) party isn't known for 'fiscal responsibility'. That does not equal 'the economy'. A fiscally conservative party could clean up in this election. However, both sides are promising to spend away the future, so there's little difference.

Hope that clears it up. [/b][/quote]
Actually I consider Deficit/Debt a big part of the economy.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 13 2004, 09:29 PM
Actually I consider Deficit/Debt a big part of the economy.

And you'd be right. Where you'd be wrong is equalling 'fiscal responsibility' with 'the economy'.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 13 2004, 09:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 13 2004, 09:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Oct 13 2004, 09:29 PM
Actually I consider Deficit/Debt a big part of the economy.

And you'd be right. Where you'd be wrong is equalling 'fiscal responsibility' with 'the economy'. [/b][/quote]
All in the eye of the beholder. Paying Billions out in interest every year to creditors isn't exactly an example of fiscal responsablity.

[badnarik]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 13 2004, 02:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 13 2004, 02:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Oct 13 2004, 09:04 PM
How is not addresing the economy a good move for their base? A good economy keeps a lot of people happy.

Look at the last 4 presidents... only 1 of them was able to run a Budget surplus and that was Clinton. Reagan, Bush1, Bush2 spent this economy into the freaken ground, look at the starwars system (No it didn't end the cold war) a crazy waste of money. Absolutely inhuman amounts of money to other military projects, you name it.

Repubilicans have not been fiscally responsable for a while now.

Adressing the economy? That's a whole different ball of wax than the deficit/debt specifically. The 'economy' includes job creation, tax rates, tariffs, interest rates, inflation, etc. It would be stupid to run for President without talking about the economy.

What I'm implying is that there are preconceptions about Republicans and Democrats. Republicans favour small government, low taxes, etc. Democrats are for expanding social programs, raising taxes (or at least, not reducing them), big government, that sort of stuff.

My original premise was that it was unfortunate that Kerry's (for the purposes of winning the election) party isn't known for 'fiscal responsibility'. That does not equal 'the economy'. A fiscally conservative party could clean up in this election. However, both sides are promising to spend away the future, so there's little difference.

Hope that clears it up. [/b][/quote]
i will be voting for the other fiscally conservative party, the Libertarians. Their candidate, badnarik, is on 48 of the states' ballots i believe, but unfortunately most people are unaware of the alternative choices. http://www.lp.org

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by badnarik+Oct 13 2004, 11:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (badnarik @ Oct 13 2004, 11:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Adressing the economy? That's a whole different ball of wax than the deficit/debt specifically. The 'economy' includes job creation, tax rates, tariffs, interest rates, inflation, etc. It would be stupid to run for President without talking about the economy.

What I'm implying is that there are preconceptions about Republicans and Democrats. Republicans favour small government, low taxes, etc. Democrats are for expanding social programs, raising taxes (or at least, not reducing them), big government, that sort of stuff.

My original premise was that it was unfortunate that Kerry's (for the purposes of winning the election) party isn't known for 'fiscal responsibility'. That does not equal 'the economy'. A fiscally conservative party could clean up in this election. However, both sides are promising to spend away the future, so there's little difference.

Hope that clears it up.

i will be voting for the other fiscally conservative party, the Libertarians. Their candidate, badnarik, is on 48 of the states' ballots i believe, but unfortunately most people are unaware of the alternative choices. http://www.lp.org [/b][/quote]
Cool. I saw this Badnarik fellow on the tube the other night (a PBS show, Badnarik was on it with the Green Party candidate).

I don't have a vote and I probably wouldn't use it for either, but they both made pretty good pitches. Certainly better than the mainstream pair. I must admit though that they both seemed rather hopelessly inadequate when it came to the real world and foreign policy stuff.

Maybe I'm just accustomed to the dark suit/matching tie and all the trappings of power that the mainstream guys come with (millions and millions of dollars, experience, blue blood) but the Green and Libertarian guys seemed as though they would be quite outmatched, regardless of message.

That's too bad, on a few levels.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 13 2004, 01:38 PM
True, but Clinton also inherited the tech-boom (is what a Republican might say).

He did inherit a tech boom. If companies in the US are doing well, the economy is doing well. The american people are investing the country, as well as other countries are investing. Clinton just had to sit back and smile.

Bush inherited the tech bust, 9/11 attack on americans the financial heart of the US and the World. He did what he had to in order to keep the US from going into a depression. Giving tax cuts so Americans had more money, so they could invest in the country.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 14 2004, 12:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 14 2004, 12:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Oct 13 2004, 01:38 PM
True, but Clinton also inherited the tech-boom (is what a Republican might say).

He did inherit a tech boom. If companies in the US are doing well, the economy is doing well. The american people are investing the country, as well as other countries are investing. Clinton just had to sit back and smile.

Bush inherited the tech bust, 9/11 attack on americans the financial heart of the US and the World. He did what he had to in order to keep the US from going into a depression. Giving tax cuts so Americans had more money, so they could invest in the country. [/b][/quote]
That's a pretty hard sell, giving everyone else the credit for Clinton's successes. The Republicans have been at the helm for 16 of the last 24 years but the best economic times were during the 8 years under Clinton. Yet here you are giving credit for Clinton's success to George I and blaming the failures of George II on Clinton.

Kinda unrealistic, don't you think?

Edit: oh yeah, real question... did Clinton inherit the tech-boom? That whole internet thing took off long after '91.

[arsenal]

Taken from this webpage: link

How then to explain the boom? .... The second was the stock market bubble: a 14 trillion increase in stock holdings over the last decade caused many upper income households to spend freely. This spending, even if it was based on paper increases in wealth that are now disappearing, provided a considerable stimulus to the economy-- much the same as we would get from a large increase in deficit spending by the federal government.
Mr. Clinton cannot claim credit for the stock market bubble, nor would he necessarily want to. Nor did he have anything to do with the Fed's policy shift, which was probably the most important positive change in economic policy in the last 20 years.

I didn't mean to give the impression that Clinton benifited from what Bush I did. All I am saying is that Clinton didn't really do anything to benifit from stock-market boom of the late 90's.

I also am not blaming Clinton for what Bush II has/had to deal with. All I am saying is that there are aspects of the economy that the Govt has little to no control over, yet will get credit for becuase they where in power at that time.

For example: The canadian dollar is at its highest point against the american dollar in recent history. Is this becuase of Cretien or Martin? It probably has more to do with the Americans running a deficit, less investment in American economy. Yes, there is most likely more investment in canada, and that has helped as well.

Edit: No, he didn't inherit the tech boom. But the tech boom was born of people investing in newly created companies. That was a one time thing, that will not happen again.

[Lurch]

So for all the Republican backers, how many feel like Clinton inherited his economic success but Ralph succeeded here in AB due to his brilliance?

Another question as to which party is more successful economically. If you look back on the last 40 years, there have been 5 recessions in the US, all of which occurred under Republican presidents. Is this just bad luck, or is there perhaps something to be said for Republican right wing economic policy not working???

Note: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all presided over 'technical' recessions in 71, 76, 82, 91 and 02 respectively.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 14 2004, 02:47 PM
So for all the Republican backers, how many feel like Clinton inherited his economic success but Ralph succeeded here in AB due to his brilliance?

Another question as to which party is more successful economically. If you look back on the last 40 years, there have been 5 recessions in the US, all of which occurred under Republican presidents. Is this just bad luck, or is there perhaps something to be said for Republican right wing economic policy not working???

Note: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all presided over 'technical' recessions in 71, 76, 82, 91 and 02 respectively.

Well . . . . I've said I hope Kerry wins just to put what follows in context. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, through the last 100 years, stock markets do better under Democrats than under Republicans. Anyway, some thoughts:

You could certainly argue that Alan Greenspan's mania - and John Crow's in Canada - for killing inflation in the early 1990's prompted a recession that was difficult to crawl out of. GW Bush I was at 70% in the polls after the Gulf War and was out of office a year and a half later based on an economy that had gone into the tank. Ditto Mulroney. Clinton and Chretien walked into a fairly sweet situation given most of the damage was already done and the only way was up BUT they kept the ball rolling, I'll given them that.

In 1982, as you know, Paul Volker, chairman of the Fed, was also on a maniac drive to bring inflation under control and left scorched earth around the globe as a result. Canada Savings Bonds were paying 18% or something in 1981.

In 1976, there was probably residual from the massive economic shock of the OPEC oil embargo and subsequent rise in oil prices which occurred, I believe, in 1973-74.

In 1971, the massive government effort in Vietnam was winding down, withdrawing that spending from the economy after a lengthy period of prosperity through the 1960's.

I'm just pointing out there are other factors involved in those events aside from economic policies of particular governments, although that may be a factor as well.

My random thoughts.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

No doubt there are always other factors - my belief is the government has a role in the economic performance, but there are countless other issues playing a role as well. I've just always found it interesting the moderate governments tend to do better than governments that slip too far to the right. If results matter, it seems as though Democrats do a better job of managing the economy (and I do recall reading a stat on stock market performance under Democrats as well). Funny how the popular perception of conservative parties does not generally mesh with reality.

With regards to Ralph's brilliance, how much credit should he get? I like the guy, but then I see him as a moderate not all that far right of the Liberals on spending issues - just a little more open to looking at a few more solutions than Liberals, IMO. Funny how people forget in Alberta the when Ralph won his first election, the Liberal party here was actually to the right of Ralphie boy!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 14 2004, 03:41 PM
No doubt there are always other factors - my belief is the government has a role in the economic performance, but there are countless other issues playing a role as well. I've just always found it interesting the moderate governments tend to do better than governments that slip too far to the right. If results matter, it seems as though Democrats do a better job of managing the economy (and I do recall reading a stat on stock market performance under Democrats as well). Funny how the popular perception of conservative parties does not generally mesh with reality.

With regards to Ralph's brilliance, how much credit should he get? I like the guy, but then I see him as a moderate not all that far right of the Liberals on spending issues - just a little more open to looking at a few more solutions than Liberals, IMO. Funny how people forget in Alberta the when Ralph won his first election, the Liberal party here was actually to the right of Ralphie boy!

If you compare Ralph to his predecessor, Don Getty, then Ralph is far and away the better fiscal conservative, even if you think he's gotten a lot of help from oil at various points (remember when the price was $12 a barrel a few years ago?).

There was a point when Ralph - do you mind if I call you Ralph? - was being wooed by both the Liberals and the Conservatives and, if I'm not mistaken, was generally regarded as a bit of a Liberal.

He went with the winning team even if the Getty Conservatives were fairly unpopular at the time. The rest is history.

Remember that popular bumper sticker from the mid-80's - "Dear Lord give us another oil boom and I promise not to screw it up this time."

Well, I would look at Ralph's legacy and say he didn't screw it up, although there are many here who aren't fans of his social policies.

Cowperson