Ron Paul has my vote.

(Reposted for visibility)

I think that your numbers are severely flawed. Allow me to explain why.

My total for Republican-attributable debt is 3916B to your 3800B, while my D-debt is 7095B to your 7000B; the difference is small. I make no assertions as to whose totals are more accurate.

But you divided that total, in the case of Republicans, by 46 "events" (not sure what you mean here), while I divided it by the 83 "thirds" (of FY budget control) that Republicans exercised. 3800 / 46 = 82.61 (not sure how you arrived at 84, except perhaps by dividing in reality by 45) whereas 3916 / 84 = 47.18.

Similarly, for the Democrats, you divided 7000 by 68 "events" (again, what does this mean?), while I divided 7094 by 151 "thirds" of FY control. 7000 / 68 = 102.94 (again, not sure how you got 104, unless you actually divided by 67) whereas 7095 / 151 = 46.98.

WWII: (7095-2035) / (151-12) = 5060 / 139 = 36.40 In my above post, I (apparently) accidentally subtracted four years instead of twelve thirds from the 151 total. Whoops! My apologies.

So, in conclusion, I reaffirm my faith in my methodology (count up the debt by "thirds", then divide by number of "thirds") and register my utter confusion at yours (count up the debt by "thirds" (I presume), then divide by whatever the hell "events" are*).

*[edit:  In actuality, I had by this point developed a suspicion as to what you counted as "events", which a brief check has just confirmed.  You counted an "event" as a FY in which a party had some input on the debt, regardless of whether that was 1/3, 2/3, or 3/3.  I remain curious as to what possessed you to do this instead of weighting debt responsibility by degree of budget control, or if nothing else CONSISTENTLY applying the "event" rule instead of only applying it to one-half of your methodology.]

At first I didn't think this even merited a response, but on second thought you do have a bit of a point:

"To be unconvinced of something infers that you examined the evidence and found it lacking. To be wholly unconvinced of something suggests that a more exhaustive study occurred, but still did not persuade. For you to be wholly unconvinced of something you have not investigated is either a contradiction or arrogance."

I understand why you would take "unconvinced" to mean "someone tried and failed to convince me", but that's not what I meant nor is it inherent in the ordinary definition of the term. What I meant by "wholly unconvinced" was that I had not done actual research, but what little I did happen to know led me to be very skeptical, very dubious, though open to persuasion. (If, that is, I had the time to open up yet another avenue of dialog, which I don't, which was the point of my comment.)

@Final-Fan

Perhaps I did not make myself clear during the course of this train wreck. I will try again. I have utter contempt for your correlation as it is crude and misleading in all its many forms. While it pains me that I would so grossly misrepresent your tortured logic (my fault, not yours), your clarification does offer an opportunity for further edification.

In a way you are right when you say I missed the obvious. I should have put two and two together when you first said the R’s faired worst during the full 78 years than versus the last 25 years - the very years the R’s were the most complicit in runaway spending. Something should have clicked right then, but it just didn’t register (sort of like when it didn’t dawn on me that Bruce Willis was dead when he was talking to that kid until near the end of the movie).

Now that I have finally caught up, let’s test it.

In the event Dems had complete power for 4 years in a row, but the Reps took power of just the House in the 5 year, your methodology would find that both parties are equally responsible for deficit spending if change in debt is an equal $100B each year.

Yr1 DDD -100
Yr2 DDD -100
Yr3 DDD -100
Yr4 DDD -100
Yr5 DDR -100

Total Chg in Debt for D’s = -466; for R’s = -33. Avg for Dems = -33; Avg for R=-33.

This simple scenario is revealing since the D’s had complete control over your “thirds” 3 times as often as R’s. Even when it was divided, the D’s had the majority of your “thirds” more times than the R’s. Your methodology is weighted against the minority third who in theory may be in the weakest position to effect change.

Now, I probably should have figured out what you were doing from the very beginning, but given how unsound the whole premise, maybe I should get a pass. What’s ironic is, as much as I may have warped your methodology, my error seems to produce a more reasonable result than your “corrected” version whether looking at 25 years or 78 years (I’ve not tried any other cuts). I don’t take any pride in that. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, eh?

So tell me; in the example above, which party do you think is more responsible for deficit spending?

You say you have faith in your approach. Is it blind?

Oh.  Happy New Year.

The question is not who has done more deficit spending; it's obviously the Democrats, as they've had more opportunity to spend. The question is: whose spending has been more outrageously in the red? In your example, Republicans were exactly as eager to spend as Democrats (otherwise they should have been able to knock it down at least a little). So their score is exactly the same. As it should be. (It's what's known in mathematics as an "average". A more detailed description can be found below for your convenience.)

The Democrats in your example are more culpable only in that they've had much more opportunity to do what the Republicans were (apparently) equally willing to do.

I did notice that I'd used the word "faith", but I thought, despite all that's gone between us, that you wouldn't sink so low as to jump on it like that. (Feel free to replace it with "confidence" and it won't affect what I meant the sentence to mean one little bit.)

What better way to calculate an average is there than to add together all the sample sizes and divide by the number of samples? It appears to be simple math from my point of view.

If you like, you can try re-running the statistics based on deficits per FY calculated according to whichever party had a 2/3 or 3/3 majority and discarding the 1/3 remainders as innocent bystanders. I'd actually be interested in seeing that but I'd be surprised if the comparison came out any better for Republicans. And it'll be you doing it since I really don't want to do all that over agian.

By the way, I'm curious as to the exact way in which your method produces "a more reasonable result". I certainly hope you don't mean one that happens to agree with your opinion. I assure you that if my method had produced Democratic average deficits that crushed Republican ones, I would have posted it. Not eagerly, but just as doggedly.

HOWEVER!

I'm more than willing to abandon the whole thing, though, in favor of either stopping entirely OR returning to my basic ideas, which I've mentioned throughout and fkusumot and Entroper have both commented on:

--Deficit spending is bad, except in times of national emergency -- i.e. crisis situations. [edit: Well, it's still bad, but it can produce a much greater good in such times.]
--Debt is bad in the long term.

Building on those foundations, I also submit these assertions:
--Tax cuts reduce revenue in the short term, and tax increases increase revenue in the short term.
--Tax cuts that produce deficits are to be avoided.
--Tax increases to reduce deficits are justified.
--Tax increases to reduce the debt at a modest rate are justified.

(What started this train wreck -- an apt phrase -- was my assertion that Republicans had failed more completely at the two foundations of my position.)

Choosing either the "back to the basics" or "stopping entirely" option this far into a vigorous, protracted, and dare I say entrenched exchange will not be taken as any sort of admission. Frankly, I've come quite close at various points to choosing the latter myself and if I do in the future I ask the same courtesy.

@Final-Fan

You don’t seem to get it. Your underlying premise is flawed. Just as it was flawed when you looked at only the White House, your method for allocating culpability by party in control of White House/Senate/House is also flawed. You set out to put together what you think is an obvious corollary, and it’s anything but that. Unfortunately, the deficiencies in your method do not end with the false assumption that the minority third has equal relative influence to the majority two thirds (let’s forget that the basis for the “third” is already subjective).

Would you say that a 10 vote advantage in the House has equal influence to a 100 vote advantage in another year? When the D’s had control over the House, they had an average 61% of the seats (max of 77%) When the R’s had control over the House, they had an average of 52% of the seats (max of 57%). It’s similar in the Senate. Do I need to point out other holes before this thing is finally dead?

You should abandon your proposition, not because it has been harped on for far too long, nor because it is a distraction from other topics (both of which are true), but because it is sloppy and misleading. In the future, I recommend thinking twice before guffawing over so dubious a calculation.

Now on to greener pastures.

Your position:
Deficit spending is tolerable under the rarest of conditions. It’s so rare that only once in the last century has deficit spending been justified.

My thoughts:
I would always support balancing the budget by cutting spending. My natural position is that outlays be reduced. My quarrel with you has been over your misguided obsession with the tax side of the equation. As I have already said, I am suspicious of anyone who only advocates tax increases to balance the budget in the name of fiscal conservativism. Those people tend to be believers in government solutions – the very source of the outlays that drive the debt to begin with (we’ll get to the “it-wouldn’t-be-a-problem-if-taxes-were-high-enough” reply in a moment). It’s a slight of hand of sorts. If you had to justify the spending side you would risk being labeled a tax and spend liberal or a socialist. By focusing on the tax side, you avoid that messiness and as an added bonus can claim just how fiscally responsible you really are. In any event, our exchange validated my suspicion. You can not name one major program you would cut, but instead would advocate even greater involvement by the government in the most problematic programs. Sure, you can say you’re against wasteful spending like the bridge to nowhere or government research on the rate ketchup leaves the bottle, but that’s only the very tip of the iceberg – it amounts to nothing. By itself, a desire to end deficit spending does not make one fiscally conservative. Let’s move on.


Your position:
Debt is very bad. Especially the long term variety.

My thoughts:

Of course I hate the debt. To me it is a just one of the many signs of government gone amok. I was delighted to see the debt come off a fair amount in the 90’s. But your concern over the current debt level is tantamount to anguishing over a broken window when a tornado is about to plow through your home. You still have not shared how the debt of your grandparents (109% of GDP) has been a burden to you today. Whether the debt was worthy or not should have little change on its impact to you. As I have said before, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the burden of entitlement obligations on future generations. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid obligations will dwarf the size of the national debt and are poised to outpace GDP growth.

Your position:
Tax cuts during an economic downturn are unjustified. Instead tax increases should be advanced to balance the budget (regardless of the health of the economy?)

My thoughts:
I can justify cutting taxes in the wake of a recession further aggravated by an attack on the country, skyrocketing fuel costs, and global instability. Despite these challenges and more the economy has been remarkably buoyant. Why you would disbelieve that a tax cut could be an economic stimulant escapes me. Your own resource admits that it delivered the desired result. Revenues returned to historical levels versus GDP in a few short years. The real killer was government spending which went through the roof. Again, you lament tax policy when your ire should be directed at the expense side of the equation.

Your position:
It’s all so easy! Tax the rich, stupid!

My thoughts:
Ah, the magical goose that lays the golden eggs! We got away with top brackets of 50% - 70% in the past. Why can’t we do it again? Sorry friend. You’re not going to get the bang for the buck you’re looking for. As a test, look at historical rate cuts in the top tax brackets (JFK’s 90% to 70% or Reagan’s 70% to 50% to 39%). They did not translate to massive drops in individual income tax revenues and in turn will not translate to massive increases if they are brought back. It seems taxpayers have this nasty habit of seeking out tax havens when faced with punitive tax rates. If you’re not willing to take a serious look at government outlays you’re going to have to hit a lot more Americans than just the rich.

In conclusion:
Saying that the government should spend what it receives (or as you might put it, should receive what it spends) is a fine thing, but in the end it’s about as meaningful as the message on a Hallmark greeting card. If you have no interest in seriously reforming entitlements and reducing government’s involvement in any serious way, all your balanced budget succeeds in doing is guaranteeing a massive tax burden on future generations that will not impact the rich alone. You can say, “if you want to cut spending, cut spending,” but since you are not willing to call for such cuts, you are part of the problem not the solution.

Fiscal conservativism is not just about adequately funding the budget. It’s also about reining in the budget. George Bush is not a fiscal conservative, and neither are you.

And as far as your “enmity” for me is concerned... Lighten up.

"Deficit spending is tolerable under the rarest of conditions. It’s so rare that only once in the last century has deficit spending been justified."

I didn't say this. What I said is that the deficit levels of WWII were justified while the deficit levels of Reagan's presidency and those of Bush the Younger were/are not. Smaller deficits in Reagan's presidency were probably justifiable, and if the existence and criminal mismanagement of the occupation of Iraq is taken as a given then some deficits were probably unavoidable in this decade. But in both cases the deficits that actually occurred were blown far, far beyond any even remotely reasonable size.

Do you really think I'm laboring under the impression that my model is a perfect one? It is not and I never said it was. Far from it, in fact -- as I have actually pointed out on at least one occasion. But how much evidence do you really have that the model is biased very much against Republicans? What years does your statistic cover? Do you also want to account for the Republicans' superior party discipline (witness the 100% vote solidarity against Clinton's/Democrats' 1993 budget-balancing)? and the effect that had on budget decisions?

Whatever faults my arguments may have, you misrepresent them and my positions until the errors you point out are at best grotesque parodies of my own errors. I no longer wish to tolerate this.

I did exaggerate my feelings towards you when I spoke of "mutual enmity". I do apologize for that misrepresentation and any misunderstandings it produced. But I don't think that someone who stands in "utter contempt" of my positions, my arguments, my intelligence, and myself -- and who has been with me every step of the way of a series of arguments spanning untold thousands of words over a period of several days -- is in a position to tell me to "lighten up".

I do not anticipate responding to any reply of yours that does not contain something truly unexpected.

Anyone want to lay odds of Paul getting double digits in Iowa?  I'd put it at a 1/4 chance which is fairly remarkable since it seems like he only exists on the internet sometimes.

I'm on the edge of my seat to see what happens in Iowa tomorrow. Not just for Paul, but for all the candidates.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You guys crack me up!

Why on earth would you make a topic like this on a video game website?

Anyway, I know a lot of you have said that Ron Paul and/or George Bush are nuts. If you think they're bad, look at what happened during Ulysseys Grant's term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Scandals 

Specifically, he pardoned a guy who was indicted for helping steal $3,000,000 dollars (equivilent to ~$383,472,000 today)