How or Why did you become a Democrat?

[Texsox]

[Reddy]

Because I think all people deserve equal rights. I think the government has a responsibility to protect and care for its people.

 

Almost entirely because of social policy. On my totem pole of important issues, these FAR outweigh anything else.

[Texsox]

My hot button issues are immigration, a balanced budget, health access for everyone, engaging in wars as a last and final resort, I prefer money be in the hands of the middle class, if someone should be allowed to kill another human, I prefer a woman killing her fetus to the government killing an adult. (I pray neither happens). I think we can always do better by going forward not returning to the 1950s.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Grew up with a radical leftist friend and was into the punk/skating scene in early high school. That, plus the Iraq war and spending years arguing with uber-conservatives on another message board helped form what I was not for, at least. I've continued to move further leftward over the past four years.

[Y2HH]

My hot button issues are immigration, a balanced budget, health access for everyone, engaging in wars as a last and final resort, I prefer money be in the hands of the middle class, if someone should be allowed to kill another human, I prefer a woman killing her fetus to the government killing an adult. (I pray neither happens). I think we can always do better by going forward not returning to the 1950s.

 

It's actually amazing how much I agree with you from time to time...

 

However, I don't like being lumped in with a group hive mind simply because I agree with some of what they think or say. I think it should be acceptable to agree with either side depending on the issue at hand.

 

On certain issues, I lean to the conservative side, and on certain issues I lean to the liberal side, to a varying degree on both accounts. The "all or nothing" mentality is what really hurts political discourse in this nation...especially when the system implemented forces you to make such all or nothing decisions.

 

* Note I said conservative side, not republican side...most republicans are not conservatives. Just like all democrats are not liberals.

[Texsox]

I agreed with Republicans on more issues fifteen years ago, but the divide has gotten bigger and bigger. I believe our best defense against the government are the courts and the press. The GOP seems to think those are threats and the only real defense are guns.

 

I also agreed with the GOP more when I felt they were trying to balance the budget. Now that neither side seems to take that idea seriously, I find myself supporting those candidates less and less.

[StrangeSox]

I disagree with the notion that the GOP ever actually tried to balance the budget beyond using it as an excuse to cut programs they don't like while also advocating for tax cuts.

[mr_genius]

I've continued to move further leftward over the past four years.

 

that's very sad. i should post more.

[Y2HH]

I disagree with the notion that the GOP ever actually tried to balance the budget beyond using it as an excuse to cut programs they don't like while also advocating for tax cuts.

 

Of course you do, because simple explanations are simple. He's talking about Republicans of 15-20 years ago...a time I guarantee you don't remember politically.

[StrangeSox]

15-20 years ago? Newt Gingrich's Congress? No, they weren't actually interested in balancing the budget any more than Boehner or McConnell is now. Then as now, it was used as an excuse to slash entitlement programs they've always imposed while also arguing that any tax increases would lead to economic disaster.

 

Or did you mean the Reagan era? When budget deficits first massively exploded, thanks largely to tax cuts and huge defense spending?

 

Concerns about a balanced budget are used by the opposition minority to oppose policies they never support when they're not in power. As soon as they get back in power, suddenly "deficits don't matter."

[Y2HH]

15-20 years ago? Newt Gingrich's Congress? No, they weren't actually interested in balancing the budget any more than Boehner or McConnell is now. Then as now, it was used as an excuse to slash entitlement programs they've always imposed while also arguing that any tax increases would lead to economic disaster.

 

Or did you mean the Reagan era? When budget deficits first massively exploded, thanks largely to tax cuts and huge defense spending?

 

Concerns about a balanced budget are used by the opposition minority to oppose policies they never support when they're not in power. As soon as they get back in power, suddenly "deficits don't matter."

 

I think you're argument of using it as an excuse holds a lot more water now than it did back then.

 

I want to edit this to highlight the words : a lot.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Why? Do you have any historical evidence to the contrary?

 

They've always opposed entitlement programs and taxes, at least since 1980.

[Y2HH]

Why? Do you have any historical evidence to the contrary?

 

They've always opposed entitlement programs and taxes, at least since 1980.

 

I don't...mostly because I don't want to bother digging right now. Historically, the republican perspective was to be more fiscally conservative, a perspective I agreed with them on. They were opposes to taxes, but they also wanted smaller government, so less taxes were necessary to run it. Whether that ever became a reality or not is another story, but a lot of them fought for it. Today, I agree with you that it's become nothing more than an excuse to 'appear' conservative. The majority of them are clearly not conservatives anymore. They want tax cuts, but when in power, they spend, spend, spend...simply on different things than the democrats would...but they still spend just as much.

[StrangeSox]

But I don't think there's anything to support your claim that historically, they were any different. At least in any of our lifetimes and certainly longer ago than 15-20 years. You have to go back to pre-Reagan at the earliest to find Republicans actually interested in a balanced budget.

[Balta1701]

But I don't think there's anything to support your claim that historically, they were any different. At least in any of our lifetimes and certainly longer ago than 15-20 years. You have to go back to pre-Reagan at the earliest to find Republicans actually interested in a balanced budget.

He can tell me that I'm wrong, but I read his statement to be talking about the pre-1980 Republican party, and genuinely there was probably a lot more actual interest in deficit reduction even when it was a mistake amongst that group.

[Y2HH]

But I don't think there's anything to support your claim that historically, they were any different. At least in any of our lifetimes and certainly longer ago than 15-20 years. You have to go back to pre-Reagan at the earliest to find Republicans actually interested in a balanced budget.

 

Well, we're kind of talking about two different things to a degree.

 

I wasn't strictly speaking about a actually achieving a "balanced budget", I was simply saying historically they were closer to trying to achieve such a thing via being a bit more conservative without the help of a Clintonesque .com explosion which made such a budget easy mode. Today, I agree, it's just an excuse...they don't want to balance a budget unless they're not in power...and even then, I doubt they care...it's political pandering and nothing more.

 

I think Tex's point -- and it's my point -- is there was a time that the majority of them actually wanted this...they no longer do until it's convenient for them politically.

[StrangeSox]

Well, we're kind of talking about two different things to a degree.

 

I wasn't strictly speaking about a actually achieving a "balanced budget", I was simply saying historically they were closer to trying to achieve such a thing via being a bit more conservative without the help of a Clintonesque .com explosion which made such a budget easy mode. Today, I agree, it's just an excuse...they don't want to balance a budget unless they're not in power...and even then, I doubt they care...it's political pandering and nothing more.

 

I think Tex's point -- and it's my point -- is there was a time that the majority of them actually wanted this...they no longer do until it's convenient for them politically.

 

This was, at a minimum, pre-Reagan, though. Deficits exploded under Reagan. Yes, Democrats controlled Congress, but Reagan's proposed budgets were right in line or even above what Congress ultimately enacted. So if you want to say that you agreed with the Republican party of 32+ years ago, ok, but we're getting quite a ways back there.

[Y2HH]

This was, at a minimum, pre-Reagan, though. Deficits exploded under Reagan. Yes, Democrats controlled Congress, but Reagan's proposed budgets were right in line or even above what Congress ultimately enacted. So if you want to say that you agreed with the Republican party of 32+ years ago, ok, but we're getting quite a ways back there.

 

Deficits were supposed to explode under Reagan, when he came into office, he had an unemployment rate almost double what Obama has, with interest rates of 13-17%. You're supposed to spend such times...you have to spend in such times. Which is why I disagree with conservatives that say we need to stop spending now. It shows they don't understand economics.

 

Once again, the problem is that when times get good, we tend to not stop that spending. That's where we go wrong.

[StrangeSox]

Deficits were supposed to explode under Reagan, when he came into office, he had an unemployment rate almost double what Obama has, with interest rates of 13-17%. You're supposed to spend such times...you have to spend in such times. Which is why I disagree with conservatives that say we need to stop spending now. It shows they don't understand economics.

 

Once again, the problem is that when times get good, we tend to not stop that spending. That's where we go wrong.

 

Budgets continued to explode for Reagan's entire Presidency, though. And Bush's. They stopped towards the end of Clinton's Presidency, but then we had a mild recession, two rounds of tax cuts and two unfunded, decade-long wars.

 

BTW the unemployment rate when Reagan took office was ~7%, lower than what Obama has now and what he faced coming into office. Didn't Volcker also intentionally cause the early-80's recession in order to crush inflation?

[Balta1701]

Deficits were supposed to explode under Reagan, when he came into office, he had an unemployment rate almost double what Obama has, with interest rates of 13-17%. You're supposed to spend such times...you have to spend in such times. Which is why I disagree with conservatives that say we need to stop spending now. It shows they don't understand economics.

 

Once again, the problem is that when times get good, we tend to not stop that spending. That's where we go wrong.

Actually, if your unemployment rate is high because you've raised interest rates to fight inflation...then deficit spending on the part of the government actually pushes the wrong way. Deficit spending at that point is inflationary, so it's pushing counter the move by the central bank to try to fight inflation and making their work harder.

[Y2HH]

Budgets continued to explode for Reagan's entire Presidency, though. And Bush's. They stopped towards the end of Clinton's Presidency, but then we had a mild recession, two rounds of tax cuts and two unfunded, decade-long wars.

 

BTW the unemployment rate when Reagan took office was ~7%, lower than what Obama has now and what he faced coming into office. Didn't Volcker also intentionally cause the early-80's recession in order to crush inflation?

 

I'm positive in the early 80's unemployment was in double digits...

[Y2HH]

Actually, if your unemployment rate is high because you've raised interest rates to fight inflation...then deficit spending on the part of the government actually pushes the wrong way. Deficit spending at that point is inflationary, so it's pushing counter the move by the central bank to try to fight inflation and making their work harder.

 

I'm not saying they did things right...but when recessions hit, governments are supposed to flood money.

[StrangeSox]

Not until the recession really hit in 82/83

 

 

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

[StrangeSox]

I'm not saying they did things right...but when recessions hit, governments are supposed to flood money.

 

That depends on the nature of the recession.

 

edit: the Fed pursued policies in the early 80's to stamp down inflation, and they knew it would cause a recession. It was intentional, so they wouldn't want to turn around the fight the recession they induced.

Edited December 12, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

That depends on the nature of the recession.

 

I'm sure it depends on a number of factors.

 

Our problem is we do it all the time, regardless of recession, and regardless of any other economic factors.