Give Republicans credit where credit is due: They certainly know
how to frame a message. For decades, Republicans have repeated this refrain so
often, “tax and spend Democrats,” they can pull phantom
rabbits from phantom hats and make you believe all Democrats are "liberal-commie-socialist-statists." Neat trick, as you can see from this graph:
As you can see, the biggest spenders
historically have been Republicans: (Reagan (188.6%), GHW Bush (55.6%), and GW
Bush (89%). In contrast, Democrats
turned out to be teetotalers: Carter (42.3%), Clinton (35.6%), and Obama (53.6%). In other words, all Democratic presidents spent significantly less than their Republican counterparts.
In April
1979, the first of a series of debt ceiling crisis occurred during the Carter
administration. In exchange for raising the debt ceiling, congressional
Republicans demanded ransom in the form of a Balanced Budget Amendment. The
hostage was freed without a ransom payment, and the impasse resolved one
day before deadline. Although a legal default was averted, a technical glitch
resulted in three late payments of one-week duration.
These
technical defaults raised concerns on Wall Street. As a result, the
interest rate on national debt rose more than one half percent (60 basis points to be exact). The cost to
American taxpayers: An extra $12 billion. Ahh, the hidden cost of political posturing!
In 1979,
the national debt stood at $845 billion. Today, the national debt is over
$16.4 trillion, or twenty times compared to 31 years ago. If history repeats itself, what would a similar interest
rate hike cost today? In simple
arithmetic: $240 billion!
Of course, this analysis is strictly hypothetical. Nevertheless, do you believe these
consequences are unintended?
Anyone care or dare to speculate?
The truth is the last thing they'll admit to. Democrats spend more and that's it and if you don't agree, you're a Commie.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but, but, but, but...
ReplyDeleteIsn't about HOW the money is spent? MIC/Defense and fighting righteous wars GOOD. All spending on social welfare BAD?
I need another coffee. You know, clear the head and all. :-)
I'm not sure Reagan's military expenditures had much to do with righteous anything, self- righteous though it was. Training death squads, sending Missiles to Iran, giving Chemical weapons to Iraq and buying all kinds of new obsolete bombers, etc. It never did anything to help the economy and that's the bottom line to me. Social Security checks, food stamps and medicare money gets spent in the US. Halliburton keeps their money abroad and pays no taxes on their massive profits. Hence we buy more cold war bombers and pay soldiers squat while we insist that retirees are sponging off the government.
ReplyDeleteI'm struggling to remember the last "righteous war" we fought, but I think it was when I was a baby. It cost less than Bush's wars by the way and somehow we paid for it without screwing the public too much.
Actually my morning comment was an attempt at humor or sarcasm. Perhaps I should try again.
DeleteTime to visit the senior center for my scheduled stability ball training workout session. Don't want to keep the participants waiting. Besides when engaged in personal or group fitness training it takes my mind off the non stop political loops on TV.
RB: "MIC/Defense and fighting righteous wars GOOD. All spending on social welfare BAD?"
DeleteReminds me of an old joke before the Soviet Union unraveled.
Two old commies debating amongst themselves. One asks the other: "Tell me comrade. What is the definition of capitalism?"
The other replies: "The exploitation of man by man."
"Then tell me, comrade. What is the definition of communism?" asks the first.
""The reverse," he replies.
I find it fascinating that the USSR collapsed and communism has been in reteat for some time. That capitalism ihas found wings in former communist states.
DeleteI've even heard some say a few are more capitalist than the U.S.
And here we are doing everythng we can to destroy the goose that laid the golde egg. Strange to me indeed.
Maybe it has something to do with stagnant 18th century thinking being applied to 21st century realities?
Talk to me after I have my morning coffee. Breakfast with Dad Wednesday morning.
In the above post, I left open this provocative question: "Nevertheless, do you believe these consequences are unintended?"
ReplyDeleteWhat I am starting to think! Consider this consequence of a possible, now probable, default: In order to protect what little remains of the "full faith and credit" of the United States government, and in order to better manage interest rate volatilities as a result, the Treasury will be forced to prioritize.
Debt owed to the government of China is 6% of the national debt; whereas debt owed to the Social Security Administration is more than 40%. What is a likely scenario?
Governments and bondholders will be paid. Social Security will end up savaged, and payments will cease.
For decades, extreme right-wingers of the Gilded Age mindset have regarded Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, environmental regulations, and food safety inspections as forms of “commie-socialism.” A badly compromised social safety net will then become an easy target for dismantling.
Does anyone disagree?
Seems likely. Killing Social Security has been a major goal for a very long time and as apparently psychotic as they seem to be, there's a nefarious plan behind it all.
DeleteDespite a public denial of Koch family involvement (laughable in view of their support for groups such as Freedom Works, Cato, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, Generation Opportunity, Heritage, and others), their fingerprints are everywhere.
DeleteKochroaches!
Possible. If that is the end result I suspect the social upheaval will result in a third world Banana Republic with lots of civil unrest. America may rival the streets of Beirut.
DeleteI have a headache. Coffee will be welcome in this morning.
We really don't hear "Tax & Spend" bandied about all that much any more, but it always confused me why that would be couched in terms of a bad thing. Isn't that exactly what a government is supposed to do?!
ReplyDeleteI am on the board of our local homeowner's association which oversees the maintence of the units in the housing development. We "assess" the owners (call it a tax, if you will) then we "spend" the money on the maintenance; landscaping, repairs, irrigation water, reserves for when the the buildings need painting and roofing in the future. To me and HOA is a microcosm, a mini government on it's simplest level. Why is that concept so difficult for people to understand?
For those of you who may recall the Savings and Loan Bailout of the 1980's - I recall watching a Bill Moyers TV show where there was this gallery of citizens Bill was soliciting opinons from. One older woman stood out when she said: "I don't thin the taxpayers should have to pay for it [the bailout], I think the government should pay for it!" I don't see anything in today's rhetoric where that level of disconnected thinking has ever gone away.