The one important issue across all elections.

[gaijinda]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Alexander Tytler -- "Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic."


We are on to a pretty good thing, here in this U.S.A. 228 years and counting. As we vote - on the local, state and national level let us heed the lessons of history. Vote for the candidates who promise the least!

[Superman]

Well, the comforting thing about a democracy is that when and if the people want change, or anything else, they can make that change quietly, without violent revolution, each November. If our nation goes too far down a road, then we can reverse course once we see that a mistake has been made. Like for example, if people voted themselves too many entitlements, or tax cuts, or whatever. As long as we notice our mistake before we've gotten so far down that wrong path that we are doomed. But even in doom, if we agree to be a nation, and agree on a course that follows a correct path, then we can always just do that. So, democracy is certainly the way to go, in my humble view. So, it appears we agree, Gaijinda.

But to the degree that you may be imagining that the "candidates that promises the least" are the fiscally conservative, entitlement-hating republicans, and that the enemy is the big-spending welfare-loving democrats, we probably would disagree. In another thread, I made the observations that in recent decades, republican presidents are the heavyweight champion spenders, leaving recent democratic presidents in the dust. Further, I think your "candidates that promise the least" criteria is probably a good one. I'm going to oppose candidates that turn their backs on general society needs like education and environment, while at the same time giving billions in tax breaks to corporations. And frankly, I'm not just criticizing the republicans. Democrats are just as beholdin' to corporations. And it is business that has figured out that they can vote themselves money from the treasury. That's an interesting discovery, since businesses cannot actually vote. But they can have their way with our political system. Go figure. Only in Amerika.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by LynnsABCs
Here's an interesting graph about spending.

Those damn tax and spend Democrats!

Don't you know that if you have a "cause" you are free to spend all you want?

In the republican mind; the end justifies the means.

[304065]

Uh huh. More revisionist history.

President Clinton happens to be in office at the same time as the greatest expansion of the equity markets in human financial history, and you guys:

1) Claim credit for it, which is like an astronomer claiming credit for the Lunar eclipse; and

2) Have the audacity to suggest that the party that gave us both the persistent economic problems of the New Deal (for those of you in Washington State, the Social Security system was created by FDR) and the Great Society (created by LBJ, and responsible for the perpetuation of a permanent povertied underclass in the USA) is the party of fiscal conservatism.

Let me refresh your memories: the "Surplus" was the result of a dramatic expansion of the economy during the late 1990's. This expansion was caused by the technology boom. Government policy has NOTHING to do with it, unless you consider Al Gore's "invention" of the Internet to be the fundamental catalyst for that growth period.

One more time: the Democratic party has a consistent history of enacting expansions of the federal budget whenever the opportunity presents itself. This is also entirely consistent with the "big government" approach, that is premised on the assumption that academic elites, because they are "smarter" than the rest of Americans, have a monopoly on political judgment and therefore are entitled to impose their views on the majority. And this is also behind the principles of judicial activism, using unelected, undemocratic methods to advance their political agenda. Does this sound familiar?

Superman, what kind of political naïveté leads you to suggest that we have the ability to put the genie back in the bottle once entitlement programs are expanded? SOP on Capitol Hill is to perceive "a decrease in the rate of increase" as a cut. Once a dependency is created, it's pretty difficult to roll it back.

But I'm glad to see your rising concern over the expansion of federal spending. That's one thing we have in common.

[Tishabet]

The conclusion that the graph has anything to do with who is in the whitehouse is not only misleading, it's idiotic. Look at that graph for a second....does anyone else just see a normal wave trend? It's not like the Clinton administration harnessed in the budget, it was on an absolutely tremendous upswing since 1992. You'll also notice that the apex occurs BEFORE the dems left the whitehouse. And, wonder of wonders! That 109 billion downswing under Clinton and the continued descent just so happen to coincide with the tech bubble! That is SUCH an incredible coincidence!
I mean, come ON! The fact of the matter is, I'm voting for Kerry on tuesday, but not because of something like THIS! People who can be blindly swayed with such obvious manipulation deserve what they get, IMHO.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Tshabet
The conclusion that the graph has anything to do with who is in the whitehouse is not only misleading, it's idiotic. \

Not so fast.

The administration proposes the budget, the legislature approves it. Administrations have a lot to do with the deficit.

Setting aside the 90s tech bubble, look at the Reagan years as an example. In 5 of 8 years, the Reagan administration proposed higher spending than the legislature approved, creating plenty of pork for all involved and raging deficits -- largely because of some major tax cuts made early on. Now even the Reagan administration was able to see the error of their ways, and quickly raised taxes higher than they had been before the cuts, but not in time to reverse the deficit growth. No, it's true that no administration acts alone; nor even the administration and Congress. But they do have more than a little to do with the ratio of income to spending.

[techweenie]

There are a couple of other graphs that illustrate a core fallacy regarding the 'tech boom' that supposedly helped Clinton:

First, overlaying GDP against the budget



Then, tracking discretionary spending...

[ErVikingo]

I swore I'd stay away of politics so I just want a clarification to put proper weight on my analysis of the multiple arguments made here.

What is the background of those of you providing & analyzing graphs and economy related theories?

Are you economists, financiers, accountants or ?

[tabs]

Originally posted by gaijinda
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Alexander Tytler -- "Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic."

YOu boyz havn't gotten off the track of the orginal premise...

Now do U boyz begin to see why I am pessmistic about America...Both sides of the Political spectrum have gotten so used to sucking at the tit of the public treasury that they can't stop...they can't reverse themselves..this trend has been going on at least since the late 1970's....and instead of correcting the course both political parties just delay addressing the problem...and it keeps getting worse...Now with the election process being called into question ( 2000 election) this is where the 2 poitical factions have begun to fight with each other and the result will be that at some point the public will cry out for ORDER AT ANY COST...and it will be Hail Caesar...

[Superman]

John, I understand your point, and I accept that many things are beyond the president's control. Oh, and I know about FDR and the nation's recovery from depression. If you also know about that, then you know what an eye-opening impact government can (and has a duty to) have on the economy of the nation in time of need.

But unfortunately there is a disagreement in our land today about who should be the target of the government's benevolence. Haliburton......or schools? Exxon.....or families? As can plainly be seen, not only does Dubya favor corporate profits over people (of course he does, silly), he appears to be willing to spend more on them, than dems spend on families. So, it is both a question of how much to spend (and the republicans have won that contest HANDS DOWN over the last few decades), and who to give it to.

[turbo6bar]

Good call, gaijinda.

[ErVikingo]

Who to give money to? An old relative of mine had it right; he always said: "don't give them fish, teach them to fish".

[Superman]

That's a good idea, Juan. For those on welfare, that would be called "education," and I support that idea 100%. So, where are the empty seats in school that those people can afford to occupy?

[304065]

But unfortunately there is a disagreement in our land today about who should be the target of the government's benevolence. Haliburton......or schools? Exxon.....or families?

OK, please pull up the text of ANY appropriations bill passed in the U.S. Congress and show me where it includes ANY kind of subsidy for HAL or XOM. Please pull up ANY financial report from either company and show me where there was a subsidy payment received from the Federal Government.

Oh wait, you can't?

It is PATENTLY ABSURD for you to suggest, on the one hand, that you appreciate the role that government had in stimulating the economy during the New Deal period, and then to simultaneously turn around and BASH programs designed to stimulate economic growth today.

I suppose if it were up to you, you would eliminate loans to small businesses? How about grants to companies to stimulate investment in alternative energy resources? Do you think oil companies are going to fund that research? Does your bleeding heart want to eliminate agricultural subsidies, too?

Go ahead, quote the Cato institute! Noah, watch this, he's going to quote the Cato institute!

[gaijinda]

Corporations cannot vote, but they can spend dollars to get people to vote, or to get those who have been voted in to vote or act in certain way. So do teachers unions and public employees and every other special interest group.

But mostly we need to look at ourselves. We need to get away from a system that is based solely on government largess. Lets not be bought off with our own money.

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by gaijinda
But mostly we need to look at ourselves. We need to get away from a system that is based solely on government largess. Lets not be bought off with our own money.

Outta the park, again.

We have to look at ourselves for part of the solution. Is it proper to criticize the government for running deficits, when consumers are running massive debt, as well? Is it proper to chastize the SS/Medicare establishment when personal savings rates are terribly low?

It's not just the government running the nation into the ground. Citizens are equally guilty.

[Superman]

John, we've been over this. Congress just recently passed a bill that by all accounts is packed with pork for corporations. No, they don't get grants. They get tax breaks. Same thing.

bottom line: You buy into the "trickle down" theory of economics which has been proven patently false many times, and which Reagan and Bush 41, et.,al. have rejected. But go ahead. If you think "business" is more important than people, or if you think that what's good for business must also be good for people, then Exxon and Haliburton likes you and so does Dubya. And you deserve each other.

Me? I think government is about people. I'm silly that way.

[ErVikingo]

Thanks Lynn !

Super, just a note, who do you think owns those businesses?

Its "the circle of life" theory.. more investment, more jobs, ... versus, welfare and government dependence.

Different perceived solutions to the same principal problem. We will all have a chance to decide which "solution" we prefer or believe in next Tuesday.

[304065]

No, they don't get grants. They get tax breaks. Same thing.

Wrong AGAIN! A tax break merely allows you to keep more of what you have earned through your own use of Capital and Labor! A grant is a redistribution of your conscripted income to somebody else! Are you that dedicated to the idea that individuals "owe" the government that you can't see the difference?

But since you can't cite an example I'll assume you concede the point.

WRT "trickle-down" economics, I was unaware that the theory had been repudiated. From my perspective, I see a couple hundred billion dollars of investment capital pouring into growth companies from Venture Capitalists, Private Equity Firms, Pension Plans and Mutual Funds. In fact, we are fortunate to have the largest accumulation of risk capital in the scope of human financial history, just waiting to chase new good ideas.

Where do you think that comes from? The Government? Have you ever wondered why there is no culture of small business in Japan or Germany? No climate of entrepreneurship in Old Europe? It's because, in addition to their socialist economic policies and comparatively high tax rates, they have no tradition of individual investment.

Next time you're down at the Coffee shop wearing a brown turtleneck and reading Le Monde, ask an European what stocks they own. While you're sipping a hazelnut latte and reading about how horrible Bush is in The New Republic, inquire as to how their equity portfolios are doing.

But don't be surprised if you get thrown out of the love-in, because there IS no culture of personal wealth. The barriers of "Class" that Marx so eloquently described are standing tall in those economies, because of PUNITIVE TAXES and the fundamental premise that anyone who accumulates wealth is EVIL.

In short, the concept of allowing people to retain their wealth, and limiting the role of government, is absolutely fundamental to the American way of life. And it applies equally to everyone, whether high or low born. Not bad for 200 or so years.

[Tishabet]

Originally posted by ErVikingo
I swore I'd stay away of politics so I just want a clarification to put proper weight on my analysis of the multiple arguments made here.

What is the background of those of you providing & analyzing graphs and economy related theories?

Are you economists, financiers, accountants or ?

I'm the CTO of a specialty finance firm.