Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (47347)	11/19/2010 12:32:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

I think the change started years earlier If your talking about more than a few years earlier the change was in the other direction. The Republicans in the past, just like the Democrats in the past (at least the important politicians from both parties, perhaps not the rank and file), rarely cared much about containing spending and deficits. Then for a couple of years after the Republicans took over there was massive concern, from members and leadership in congress, about both, perhaps for the first time in generations. Then after the Republicans where defeated in this situation the concern faded away pretty rapidly, disappearing almost entirely, at least from the leadership, by the early 00s (with Bush as president causing the deficit to no longer be a partisan battle issue, and pushing spending upwards himself, with 9/11 which caused a lot of extra security related spending, then the wars, and with Katrina, and the recession pushing up spending). However, it does* seem that that change in behavior ACCELERATED right with the beginning of the first Bush II administration.* Yes that was the 2nd acceleration in recent years. The first was when the Republicans lost the "shut down the government battle", the 3rd was when the Democrats took over congress again, the 4th was the recent recession. In terms of actual spending the 1st was smaller than the others, it was primarily a change in attitude in the Republican congressional leadership, but in only part of the non-leadership, and not among the Democrats in congress who already supported large spending increases. Also it wasn't a change in non-political conditions. There was no associated major terrorist act, war, major disaster, or recession. But it contributed in an important way to the later increases. If Gingrich and Armey had won their battle with Clinton, the base line spending would have been even lower (not that spending wasn't decently contained during that time, but more control would have been even better), and we might even have moved toward entitlement reform), the congressional leadership probably wouldn't have been replaced by big spenders (Hastert rather than Gingrich, DeLay rather than Armey, the change in personnel in the senate didn't make so much difference but the attitudes of the people their changed as well), and likely even in the area of GOP presidential candidates you would have had more of a focus on controlling spending, building on the success the Republicans had achieved in congress. Instead you had a massive change in the Republican leadership from a relatively brief (only a few years) but very strong concern (unusually in deed as well as word) about controlling spending and deficits, to a belief that the country would support "compassionate conservatism", then with 9/11 and other issues you got a response of extra "guns" to go along with the extra "butter" (but the increase in "butter was far larger, a fact which many people across the political spectrum don't realize). All four (Gingrich and company being defeated, Bush II being elected, Pelosi and company being elected, and then the recession) where important in getting us to the fiscal situation we face today. Each one made things worse. Obama being elected, and his decisions as president are a fifth thing, but I'm not sure McCain would have been much better, also I'd blame the recession more than Obama). convincing enough smoke screen to keep the public confused... remember 'trickle down'? Hardly a smokescreen, lowering tax rates (cutting them from 70%) was a very effective economic policy.