Which is the party of debt?

I usually don’t do this, but I was making the rounds for one of my other gigs this morning, stopping by many of the far-right sites I check in on daily. I’m frequently amazed by what I find, but today, one post stood out for me.

Riehl World View, a fairly prominent conservative blog, noted today that the DNC has taken out a loan in order to give a boost to some Senate campaigns, with the party increasingly confident that the Senate majority is within reach. RWV believes this is evidence of a fiscally irresponsible party.

The DNC doesn’t have enough money to finance all of the campaigns it wants to finance. So, what will they do about it? Simple. Go into debt.

I thought this is the Party so upset about things financial and such that they think they deserve to control the budget by taking over the House? If you needed proof the Dems can’t be trusted this is yet another example. […]

If they take Congress, you know exactly where they’ll be coming for the next loan to finance what they can’t afford. Good grief, they couldn’t even wait to get elected to demonstrate how fond they are of spending other people’s money. Today the bank, tomorrow your paycheck. Welcome to Democrat rules.

Now, I can appreciate the fact that the right is grasping at straws to stop Democratic gains this year, but for a conservative, without a hint of irony, to suggest that the DNC taking out a simple loan is a sign of fiscal irresponsibility is one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a very long time.

If Dems “can’t be trusted” because they’re borrowing a few million for a campaign cycle, what does it say about Republicans’ trustworthiness that Bush has run the biggest budget deficits in the history of the world?

We’re talking about a movement that has barely raised an eyebrow while Bush has added trillions (that trillions with a “t”) to the national debt. Complaining about Dems taking on an internal debt while Republicans in Washington have put two wars on the national charge card is rather breathtaking, even by conservative standards.

Dems are demonstrating “how fond they are of spending other people’s money”? The DNC is taking out a loan; they’re going to spend their own money. Spending other people’s money is when the Bush administration boosts federal spending more than any president since LBJ.

Indeed, all of this reminds me of the White House bragging last week that this year’s budget deficit is now only (only!) a quarter of a trillion dollars. While boasting of this “success story,” the president took credit for something he did not do.

With great fanfare, President Bush last week claimed credit for a striking reversal of fortune: New figures show the federal budget deficit shrinking by 40 percent over the past two years, a turnaround the president hopes will strengthen his push for further tax cuts. […]

Economists said Bush was claiming credit where little is due. The economy has grown and tax receipts have risen at historic rates over the past two years, but the Bush tax cuts played a small role in that process, they said, and cost the Treasury more in lost taxes than it gained from the resulting economic stimulus.

“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that,” said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. “It’s logically possible” that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. “But there’s no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that.”

Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion.

I’m not an economist, but listening to Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility makes me want to tear what’s left of my hair out.

The root of right wing “idealogue” is “idiot”.

  • I think you got it, except to point out that the whole Iraq war has been fought and paid for with debt from Communist China and there is no expectation that we will ever see the money to pay back those debts.

    At least the DNC has a real world expectation of getting money after the election to pay back its debt.

    Oh, and getting the loan is a great idea. Let’s extend the number of races in contest!

  • And, as CB has pointed out, Bush vastly over-estimates the projected deficits and then takes credit for doing better than projected. This is a president of superlatives:

    Worst Deficit Ever
    Worst President Ever
    Most Powerful President Ever
    Least Trustworthy President Ever

    He’s # 1! He’s # 1 !

  • Fiscal policy involves math, and everyone knows that math gives aid and comfort to the terrorists. Don’t let the Democrats come in with their so called math facts!

  • Sent the DNC a chunk of change 2 weeks ago. I am glad they are taking out this loan as it show they understand the importance of this election. I will send a chunk more after the election, to help pay the loan off.

  • Whenever Republican’ts talk about the “death tax”, Democrats should talk about the “birth tax” that the Bush deficits impose on children born during his reign.

    Bush will add at least $2.4 trillion to public debt in his 8 years in office and there’s approximately 4 million babies born in the U.S. every year. That translates to $75,000 in debt for each child born – with no child left behind!

    The Grand Old Looting Party at work.

  • Reason #1,209 why I need to win the lottery — to help Claire McCaskill (who’s only got about $250K in the bank, but has already bought her ads) beat Jim (no)Talent (who has $4.2 million in the bank).

    You know, reading anyone on the right go on about fiscal responsibility is like reading Nicole Ritchie go on about the importance of a healthy diet — they may have, at one time, understood the issue, but that time has long passed.

  • For fiscal malfeasance alone the new Democratic majority ought to set as its highest priority Impeachment of this entire administration, Cabinet officers included. Since much of the $300 billion sucked into the Iraq Quagmire went to private companies, the second priority should be setting up a Commission on War Profiteering. Offering leniency to those willing to share inside information ought to guarantee us 24/7 TeeVee coverage of the hearings for all of the next session of Congress and beyond. During the First Hundred Days of the new Congress we should roll back all the tax cuts (or re-direct them to working people) and restore Constitutional guarantees of our liberties. Should be an exciting time watching the Bush Crime Family furtively looking for some rock under which to slither.

  • Considering that many people take out loans and many people are in debt I’m not sure why this is being portrayed as a bad thing. Isn’t it more likely to make the guy who is trying to make his house payments and his car payments and cover health care identify with the Democrats? Hey, they’re poor, just like me!

    If the right scrapes at the barrel bottom any harder it’s going to bust that bad boy wide open.

  • i’d have to look the precise numbers up, but while the unified budget deficit has fallen, the general fund deficit has not. it’s the social security surplus that is the cause of the so-called improvement, and no democrat should allow this crap to go unchallenged.

    meanwhile, presumably the right-wing nutcase whose site you visited is opposed to buying a home with a mortgage….

  • Maybe it’s just me, but I think this is the wrong way to take this tack. The financing of campaigns is a long-festering issue.

    Let’s face it- Republicans, generally, have more money. They are the party of the rich and the uber-rich. So, I would expect them to be able to raise more money for a campaign.

    The real issue here should be a simple question to the American People: “Should our political representation be for sale to the highest bidder?”

    If the answer is no, then people should support Federally financed campaigns, wherein there would be no financial disparities for the candidates to have to make up, and all parties would have an equal say! (and, to attract the Republicans to this idea, we can remind them that, absent this sort of financing, they are having to abandon how many races right now, because even their deep pockets can’t compete everywhere?!?)

  • OK sometime recently (one of the “iberal” blogs but I can’t remember which) I saw somwhere where someon though this might be a good idea as a strategy, but not that it had been done. Is that what he is talking about?

  • Whenever Republican’ts talk about the “death tax”, Democrats should talk about the “birth tax” that the Bush deficits impose on children born during his reign.

    I mentioned this the other day, and will keep mentioning it because I think it is important(I apologize for the repetition).

    I don’t think we should use the term “birth tax”. Birth tax indicates that it will be money owed in the future and we are not responsible for it. Since politics is self-serving, it should be re-iterated that people today are the ones spending the money, people today are the ones who owe the money. Should be recalculated and described as “Bush Administration Personal Debt.” (first thing in my head, could be something better) For example, my Bush Administration Personal Debt is currently at $30,000, or whatever the real number is.

  • Rambuncle- Actually, the term “birth-tax” is an excellent one. First, it provides a direct antithesis to the Republicans’ “death tax”, and, in strictly English terms, it implies a tax on births- an immediate expenditure, not a delayed one. Not a bad foil at all to the Republican arguments.

  • Comments are closed.