The Myth of the Modern Day GOP and “Fiscal Conservatism”

But, then, Lefties only offer Credit to the President when the GOP controls Congressional Purse Strings, like when Clinton was froLICKING in the Mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue, for example... Oh! That's when the Surpluses were recognized?? hmmmm..

Hmm, this sounds a lot like Tim's recent post about wingnuts!

I know you guys are kind of slow, so I'll be thorough. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (pretty recent, so I can understand if you aren't fully familiar with it) stipulates that the federal budget is proposed by the President. It is sent to Congress for approval, where they will often make changes, and - this might be the most important point - it's sent back to the President, who has the option to veto it.

The President has a tremendous amount of influence on fiscal policy, and - as the chart implies - it makes a difference who is in office.

Did good ole Prez Johnson include the monies he "appropriated from Social Security surpluses" to help continue funding the war in Vietnam? Let's revise the Chart to reflect that going forward, please. And, let's allow ownership of the decision as well to be squarely placed in the Blue Column as a result.

While the Democratically-controlled Congress and President Johnson did move SS funds from the trust fund where they began and into the government's general fund (where they could be spent on anything), I fail to see what such a point really has much to do with the issue at hand. It was a movement from one account into another (and is thus not reflected in the chart), and it was a move that they should be rightly criticized for, but is it any better or worse than claiming that the Iraq war would pay for itself through oil revenues? Or that it would cost less than $100 billion (Yale's Economics Dept. prediction)? Because we're up to $700 billion dollars and counting now, and for what?

For what it's worth, I'd argue that the right has so poisoned political discourse in this country and shifted that ever mushy middle to the right over time with inflammatory lies and slander that Johnson lost his nerve; he didn't want to appear weak, so his administration incrementally increased our involvement. Since Truman the Republican Party has made a habit out of portraying the Democratic Party as weak on national security issues (Not only in spite of Sept. 11th, but actively USING the event!)simply because they don't rush to blow up anyone who offends the United States. By doing so they drove a politician to make the worst of all political calculations with the lives of men.

Not that this has anything to do with our chart. I just thought you might enjoy a lesson in some critical thinking besides "b-b-but DEMOCRATS ARE JUST AS BAD!*"


*so vote Republican?

It's called Unfunded Liabilities, and the movement of Social Security Surpluses to the General Slush Fund of the then Democratically Controlled Government, continues to plague the budgetary process for all of the"post-Greatest Generation" recipients. The action of the Democratically controlled District of Columbia in the 60s allowed for the borrowing of Cheap Dollars to make up for the shortfalls in financing/passing Johnson's War and (Kennedy's desired) Social Programs. I guess Johnson must also be seen as being "weak" for cowering to the Welfare crowd when perhaps he and Congress knew the accounting shenanigans were the only way to create the Great Society.
Johnson weak? naw... Source, U.S. Dept. of State: http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-...

(Note: Since Russo was too young at the time of Vietnam, he'll probably recuse himself from arguments herein?)

Great Society, Great Entitlements and resultant off-budget accounting--if current bloggers were to have it their way, would be Bush's fault. History tells us otherwise... Now, comes another great Social Program designed to further enhance the effects of Roosevelt and Johnson... what did Einstein say about the definition of Insanity? Taking from Medicare/Medicaid to offset the real cost of Obamacare... sheesh!

And, as long as I am at it, and in a repeated defense of being accused of sounding racists by Eric, the math involved in realizing the mess we are in can be summarized by a simple statement: Middle-class Boomer Generation Americans failed to have enough children* to sustain the actuarial calculations used intially by the framers of Social Security Act to ensure the payout of a Huge Boomer Retirement Bubble beginning now and extending for the next 20 to 30 years. (*working, tax paying, not multi-generational-entitlement recipient children)

Without either HUGE increases in SS Payroll witholding (tax increases) by young working folks (not welfare folks), or HUGE reductions in PROMISED BENEFITS (The Reduction or Denial of Claims against a pseudo-insurance policy underwritten by U.S. Government) the entitlment program payouts ACTUALLY PAID FOR by hoodwinked Americans will not be realized by the same folks who actually worked hard, and funded it.

The raiding of the Surpluses in the 60s by Johnson and a Democratically Controlled Congress are to blame. The nail in the Coffin is being debated, beginning this evening... same Party, same Results.

I submit, the Chart above is full of errors and the premise of blame on the Right is wrong.

Cool, I guess you'd rather talk about SS than the actual subject of this article- that's fine, but in your random spew of words not once did I read anything close to confirming the point in your final sentence. But keep trying troll.

As far as middle class Americans not breeding enough, maybe it's because that as a result of the policies of Reagan/Bush I the middle class has been shrinking for 2+ decades.

Yes, we should blame the poor for their own problems! None of them want to work, they want everything for free, and we're going bankrupt because of THEM! It was stupid to try and help them!

You're a model of decency mate, perhaps you'd enjoy a truly libertarian country, like Somalia?

Excellent point. The two wars, the massive tax cuts, the expansion of Medicare and the failed No-Child-left behind program were all pushed for by Dubya Bush. Reagan also pushed for massive tax cuts and increased military spending, so once again...the Presidents fault! Bill Clinton pushed for fiscally sound tax increases and pushed for program cuts and surpluses were created.

Moral of the story? Tax cutting and spending is stupid.

need to post this graph daily, brian. boohoo and ouch!

I guess minorities have been pro-creating at a faster rate recently, and Whitey has been slackin' in producing Productive Americans... Them Social Programs ain't cheap, ya know... Toss in a few Democratically Controlled Congress' and you have a fine recipe for red-ink.

But, then, Lefties only offer Credit to the President when the GOP controls Congressional Purse Strings, like when Clinton was froLICKING in the Mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue, for example... Oh! That's when the Surpluses were recognized?? hmmmm..

Nice Try, now redo the homework assignment until you get it Right!

Final warning here on racist rhetoric. You'll get banned and maybe even exposed. Don't do it.

Now. Go stand in the corner with the dunce cap on.

Here's a more user friendly version:

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/greenberg/ar...