|
|
#1
09-14-2005, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
One Party Rule and the Deficit
Traditionaly it seems the anti deficit party is the party out of power while the party in power is convinced they are no big deal. Prehaps a division of power in the government breeds fiscal responsibility as neither party trusts the other and neither party can take sole credit for government programs? Neither party has complete power to allocate pork in ways that help them politicaly. And finally both parties will provide resistance to the implementation of the pet projects of the other. How historicaly sound is this trend (I only know its legit back through the 90s and a little before)? Any thoughts?
|
|
#3
09-14-2005, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One Party Rule and the Deficit
[ QUOTE ]
Why provide resistance. Doesn't it make more sense to cooperate and pass eachothers pork. The populace demands deficiet spending. Politicians are only responding to that demand. [/ QUOTE ] You may be right though that people for the most part desire deficit spending. The problem is that the pitfalls of deficit spending are in no way real to the average voter. However, it is much easier for politicians to cooperate with someone in your own party then someone with whom you are hoping to see defeated in the next election. I think historical trends will for the most part bear this out and I think my argument has added legitimacy in the current hyperpolarized political climate.
|
|
#4
09-14-2005, 06:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One Party Rule and the Deficit
Don't know. Our worst budget deficiet period was under Reagen correct, and I believe congress was democrat at the time. Moreover, it would be interesting to see if that model accounted for wars, economic booms, and recessions.
I've think we've entered a stage in politics where party differences don't matter anymore. For all intents and purposes the party is a fictitious organization. Politicians raise thier own funds and use thier own popularity as the springboard. Even candidates are chosen by elected primaries, not party bosses. This is easily reflected in the fact that parties posistions change radically from election to election.
|
|
#5
09-14-2005, 08:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One Party Rule and the Deficit
I agree with the original poster... it's clearly always the other persons fault.
Example Early 80's (REP Prez / DEM Congress) - all republicans said nothing could get done because the Dems controlled congrees and congress was more powerful than the presidency ; all Dems said they couldn't get anything done because Regan was Prez and the Prez is so powerful.... Fast forward... Late 90's (Dem Prez / Rep Congress) Dems - [censored]... we can't get anything done because congress is so powerful Reps - [censored]... we can't get anything done because a liberal president is to powerful WTF
|
|
#6
09-14-2005, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One Party Rule and the Deficit
I don't have stats to back this up at all, but I always assumed the economy has done its best during periods of gridlock.
As for deficits, I think the low deficits of the 90's were a combination of the 94 Republican campaign and a somewhat fiscally responsible Democrat in the White House. However, your generalization breaks down when you look at the 80's.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
