PDA

View Full Version : Which party is really about less government?



tony
10-17-2008, 02:20 PM
Since the 1960s, deficits driven largely by increased levels of spending have been the norm, while surpluses were an exception. The current 2008 deficit projection — 2.9 percent of GDP — is slightly above the 45-year historical average of 2.8 percent of GDP.

Average Federal Deficit as a Percentage of GDP, by Administration
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C3-All-Recent-Administrations-Ran-Up.gif

This is info from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group.


Federal Spending Has Increased Steadily Regardless of Congressional Leadership

Real annual federal spending has more than tripled since 1965 and has nearly doubled since 1980.

Total Federal Spending, in Billions,1965–2008
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S1-Federal-Spending-Has-Increased.gif

Its hard to pin Federal Spending on a partisan Congress because as we see it continually rises regardless of who is control. It can be said though that Republican Presidents seem to increase the federal deficit at a higher rate than Democratic Presidents.

rrutter81
10-17-2008, 02:23 PM
legislative branch has more to do with the defecit than the president.

might want to look in to who was holding congress at the time. I know under Reagan he kept getting owned by the dem congress to spend. Add to his own military R&D spending for the cold war it wasnt pretty. Clinton had a good congress until gingrich hung up his spurs. Pelosi is stagnating everything. Bush + Pelosi = nothing done.

tony
10-17-2008, 02:29 PM
legislative branch has more to do with the defecit than the president.

might want to look in to who was holding congress at the time. I know under Reagan he kept getting owned by the dem congress to spend. Add to his own military R&D spending for the cold war it wasnt pretty. Clinton had a good congress until gingrich hung up his spurs. Pelosi is stagnating everything. Bush + Pelosi = nothing done.

Do you read Graphs very often? If you look at the second graph which is the legislative branch it shows that spending is continuous regardless of who has control. What changes is the slope of the line dependent upon who is president.

The graph on Congress is relatively flat during the Clinton years as compared to when George W. Bush took over. Obviously the president has an effect on Federal Spending.. to think otherwise would simply be fooling yourself.

Furthermore your argument, if true would absolutely negate the argument that Obama will raise spending to astronomical heights.. because as you say, the President cannot control that. Your words.

rrutter81
10-17-2008, 02:36 PM
President controls some spending. However legislative branch creates the legislature for new programs. We dont have a king. The president can veto certain things but that doesnt mean he wont be hammered until he caves on it.

Obama is proposing new legislature but cant pass it without congress. (and with pelosi it most likely will) And 57 trillion in liabilities is astronomical enough.

Besides, the democratic party has turned more towards marxism after the vietnam war. Once dems wanted to fight communism, now those hippies embrace it.

BanginJimmy
10-17-2008, 03:00 PM
Do you read Graphs very often? If you look at the second graph which is the legislative branch it shows that spending is continuous regardless of who has control. What changes is the slope of the line dependent upon who is president.

seems that a dem president and a republican congress flattens out spending.


The graph on Congress is relatively flat during the Clinton years as compared to when George W. Bush took over. Obviously the president has an effect on Federal Spending.. to think otherwise would simply be fooling yourself.

You also have to look at what happened during the individual presidencies. Reagan made no secret of the fact that he planned spend the soviet union out of existance. Every defense penny he spent caused the Soviet union to spend money they didnt have. Bush Sr. had Gulf War 1 and Hurricane Andrew. Both of which resulted in huge govt spending to pay for. Clintons presidency was pretty much eventless. Bosnia was under UN control and had a small impact. The terrorist attacks resulted in no action at all. Bush Jr. has had to deal with 9/11 and the resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, and an economic meltdown. All of which resulted in HUGE spedning at the federal level.


Furthermore your argument, if true would absolutely negate the argument that Obama will raise spending to astronomical heights.. because as you say, the President cannot control that. Your words.

The president alone cannot control that, but when the president has a congress that will go alone with his every whim it will definately cause increased spending.

tony
10-17-2008, 03:33 PM
seems that a dem president and a republican congress flattens out spending.





Clinton's spending raised in his second term, when he had a republican congress. The others I havent really looked at in detail, I'll do it when I get home.

rrutter81
10-17-2008, 03:55 PM
Clinton's spending raised in his second term, when he had a republican congress. The others I havent really looked at in detail, I'll do it when I get home.

er....what? lol

gingrich cockblocked his ass

tony
10-17-2008, 04:06 PM
er....what? lol

gingrich cockblocked his ass



Bill Clinton 1993-1997 debt/GDP -0.6%
Bill Clinton 1997-2001 debt/GDP -8.2%

BanginJimmy
10-17-2008, 05:39 PM
Bill Clinton 1993-1997 debt/GDP -0.6%
Bill Clinton 1997-2001 debt/GDP -8.2%


during those years our national security apparatus really took a hit in the budgets so where he cut spending is not a secret.


1 moer thing I have to mention though. Since the late 70's the Republican party and the conservative platform have been drifting apart. I have a feeling that that is a big part of the problem republicans are having now. They are more like the dems of the 60's than the reps of the 60's while the dems have drifted so far to the left that I'm not even sure they are in the same playing field anymore.

rrutter81
10-20-2008, 11:21 AM
Bill Clinton 1993-1997 debt/GDP -0.6%
Bill Clinton 1997-2001 debt/GDP -8.2%

After Gingrich and the Reps. swept into office in 94 with the "contract with America", Clinton worked with Congress to balance it. Don't forget that Clinton pushed the largest tax increase in US history in his first 2 years which led to the Reps. winning Congress for the first time in 42 years in 94.

You have to take in to account everything instead of skewing the LARGEST tax increase in U.S. history vs spending.

tony
10-20-2008, 11:29 AM
After Gingrich and the Reps. swept into office in 94 with the "contract with America", Clinton worked with Congress to balance it. Don't forget that Clinton pushed the largest tax increase in US history in his first 2 years which led to the Reps. winning Congress for the first time in 42 years in 94.

You have to take in to account everything instead of skewing the LARGEST tax increase in U.S. history vs spending.

But the budget was balanced nonetheless, forget all these little stupid partisan explanations.. the data is straight forward.

rrutter81
10-20-2008, 06:33 PM
But the budget was balanced nonetheless, forget all these little stupid partisan explanations.. the data is straight forward.

dude you are so full of shit.

When Republicans assumed control of Congress in 1995, their foremost goal was to keep a promise they made to the American people: To balance the federal budget and to cut their taxes. However, standing between Republicans and the fulfillment of their promise was the President. Now after more than two years of refusal, President Clinton has finally agreed to a balanced budget that reduces taxes.

Getting to this point has not been easy. Prior to Republicans assuming control of Congress in 1995, President Clinton refused to embrace the idea of a balanced budget. Clinton's first budget called for an astronomical tax hike of $220 billion that Democrats in Congress increased to $240 billion.

Clinton's first three budgets -- released in 1993, 1994, and 1995 (for FYs 1994, 1995, and 1996 respectively), left deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion by his own estimation (which CBO scored at $228.5 billion, $206.2 billion, and $276 billion respectively). In the meantime he vetoed the Republicans' budget in 1995 -- a budget that would have cut taxes and been the first to have balanced since 1969. Not until election year 1996 did he even aspire to balance, producing a budget that left an $81 billion deficit in its final year.

This is on a government site btw.

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/BUDDEAL2.JT.htm

Clinton was a failure masked by republicans (newt gingrich) balancing the budget and Clinton finally caving.

stephen
10-20-2008, 07:14 PM
dude you are so full of shit.

When Republicans assumed control of Congress in 1995, their foremost goal was to keep a promise they made to the American people: To balance the federal budget and to cut their taxes. However, standing between Republicans and the fulfillment of their promise was the President. Now after more than two years of refusal, President Clinton has finally agreed to a balanced budget that reduces taxes.

Getting to this point has not been easy. Prior to Republicans assuming control of Congress in 1995, President Clinton refused to embrace the idea of a balanced budget. Clinton's first budget called for an astronomical tax hike of $220 billion that Democrats in Congress increased to $240 billion.

Clinton's first three budgets -- released in 1993, 1994, and 1995 (for FYs 1994, 1995, and 1996 respectively), left deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion by his own estimation (which CBO scored at $228.5 billion, $206.2 billion, and $276 billion respectively). In the meantime he vetoed the Republicans' budget in 1995 -- a budget that would have cut taxes and been the first to have balanced since 1969. Not until election year 1996 did he even aspire to balance, producing a budget that left an $81 billion deficit in its final year.

This is on a government site btw.

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/BUDDEAL2.JT.htm

Clinton was a failure masked by republicans (newt gingrich) balancing the budget and Clinton finally caving.

if clinton was so God awful...how come your boy mccain had to call hillary to ask about what to do with the economy???? why didn't he just call the father of "reaganomics" jack kemp??? oh and to correct you in an earlier post...dems weren't in control of congress during the reagan presidency until his last 2 years.

tony
10-20-2008, 10:00 PM
dude you are so full of shit.



Seriously, your head is so far up your ass that even if I typed it in 2nd grade terms it would still fly far over your head so you know what, you're right. Newt Gingrich is all the reason for the good economy in the 90's. :goodjob:

IndianStig
10-20-2008, 11:26 PM
libertarians...they're about less gov't.

the republicans, we just win

rrutter81
10-21-2008, 12:02 AM
if clinton was so God awful...how come your boy mccain had to call hillary to ask about what to do with the economy???? why didn't he just call the father of "reaganomics" jack kemp??? oh and to correct you in an earlier post...dems weren't in control of congress during the reagan presidency until his last 2 years.

u fail worse than anyone.... republicans didnt have contorl of the house until the 90s and before that was 40 fricken years. WAYYYY before reagan.

go check your history before you spout bullshit on this forum because i need some boots for the shit you spill.


Seriously, your head is so far up your ass that even if I typed it in 2nd grade terms it would still fly far over your head so you know what, you're right. Newt Gingrich is all the reason for the good economy in the 90's. :goodjob:

That wasnt the debate. Newt Gingrich MADE bill clinton sign the balanced budget amendment and made sure he did. hell they camped out waiting for him to cave and when he did it finally went from a tax+spend legislation to tax+pay legislation.

As far as economy goes that is up for debate and i dont feel like educating people who can only think of president's term and the economy at that time when others before him set the stage.

I will say this though, the deregulation of redlining and subprime mortgages that GOT US IN TO THIS MESS was ALL CLINTON ERA.

95% of it....rest of it was Carter during the Community Reinvestment Act. I wont fault clinton 100% but acorn and those democratic rejects made sure we fell real quick. I hope obama is elected, it will show u a whole new world of RETARD for everyone.

man
10-21-2008, 12:09 AM
This thread makes no sense...

Vteckidd
10-21-2008, 12:19 AM
rrutter , while crass, does make EXCELLENT Points.

Remember the GOVT shutdowns under Clinton? IIRC that was from the Repbulicans refusing to spend anymore money and to try to get Clinton to pass a balanced budget.

Like him or not Newt was VERY active, and that congress did some great things, with and without clinton.

I kinda wished Newt would run, he would have been a good candidate IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_shutdown_of_1995

Vteckidd
10-21-2008, 12:50 AM
Its hard to pin Federal Spending on a partisan Congress because as we see it continually rises regardless of who is control. It can be said though that Republican Presidents seem to increase the federal deficit at a higher rate than Democratic Presidents.

i agree with that statement. Couple of things

1) I think its hard to compare todays numbers with Carters or even Kennedys. Its only natural that with a growing country, spending will increase. That means that our economy grows, social programs, population, etc.

2) Reagan had the Cold War, BUsh SR had Gulf War, Clinton had nothing and actually drew down the military considerably, Bush JR had 9-11 and Iraq War. SO i think its fair to say that clinton had a peacefull time in office, which resulted at least in some small way less spending.

3) 9-11 caused the creation of several new govt agencies including HomeLand Security and TSA. That was a huge increase in GOVT coupled with the 9-11 cleanup effort and pentagon, i bet those figures alone are astronomical. Things you HAVE to take into consideration when looking at BUSHs numbers compared to past presidents.

4) I will say this again that Reagan had an unbeleiveable mess left over from CARTER that required him to spend money to create jobs and get the economy going.

5) Bush SR, to be honest, no idea why he spent so much. Id have to do some research but i cant see why he would have unless im forgetting someone.

6) Clinton also raised taxes,incredibly high, even against his campaign promises. So IMO he had more revenue.

Id love to see figures of Clinton Era Taxes compared to BUSH SR and BUSH JR. Id love to see how our economy has grown under REAGAN , BUSH SR, BUSH JR compared to Clinton. ALong with Wages, etc.

To be honest this is a real problem, i think its finally getting the attention it deserves. WE SPEND TOO MUCH, and its got to stop

tony
10-21-2008, 08:33 AM
rrutter , while crass, does make EXCELLENT Points.

Remember the GOVT shutdowns under Clinton? IIRC that was from the Repbulicans refusing to spend anymore money and to try to get Clinton to pass a balanced budget.

Like him or not Newt was VERY active, and that congress did some great things, with and without clinton.

I kinda wished Newt would run, he would have been a good candidate IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_shutdown_of_1995


Whoa whoa Mike, now on the government shutting down I absolutely remember when that happened because my dad was working for the government at the time. I will say I was about 15 at the time but it was interpreted as Clinton standing his ground with his veto Pen (as McCain touts he would do) and basically said I will shut the government down before I pass this budget.. Republicans called his bluff and he did exactly what he said, eventually he got what he wanted. Newt was not the aggressor in that exchange.

Nonetheless, nobody can argue that the republican party has lost its identity. As it was said before there are two different parties and they are not unified. When they cheated to get Mitt Romney out of the race that is when I KNEW I was done with them.. and they will do the same to Sarah Palin in the future if she is not a Washington insider.

rrutter81
10-21-2008, 10:11 AM
eh sorry for the rudeness, was drinking and trying to hurry to bed. Didnt mean to be rude last night.

lol I get heated on misinformation sometimes.

and yes, the republican party lost it's roots/identity during the imperial Bush years.

Damn i wish Romney was in this, k back to work for me.

BanginJimmy
10-21-2008, 12:04 PM
Nonetheless, nobody can argue that the republican party has lost its identity. As it was said before there are two different parties and they are not unified. When they cheated to get Mitt Romney out of the race that is when I KNEW I was done with them.. and they will do the same to Sarah Palin in the future if she is not a Washington insider.


The changes in the republican party had me register independant this year while I was a regstered republican in 2k and 2k4. Romney was backly blackballed by the MSM during the primaries and I think the RNC had something to do with it. Maybe the RNC was holding Romney out for 2008 or 2012, I dont know. The MSM is also mostly at fault for the constant slandering of Palin. The whole troopergate thing is actually very minor and being blown well out of proportion by the media.

Vteckidd
10-21-2008, 12:10 PM
I really think they rail roaded Romney cause he was Mormon, and they dont think that he can win. Most of the Republican party is christian IE traditional religious values, and i dont think alot of them would vote Mormon.

sad, but i think that was the main problem

alpine_aw11
10-21-2008, 03:57 PM
I really think they rail roaded Romney cause he was Mormon, and they dont think that he can win. Most of the Republican party is christian IE traditional religious values, and i dont think alot of them would vote Mormon.

sad, but i think that was the main problem

I agree. I mean Mormonism has cooked up some weird shit, but it should in no way effect who is selected to be president. It is going to be a long time before we see a Republican nominee that takes influence outside of traditional Christian subsets. It's pretty pathetic, but that's what the Republican party is based on now.

alpine_aw11
10-21-2008, 04:23 PM
I really think they rail roaded Romney cause he was Mormon, and they dont think that he can win. Most of the Republican party is christian IE traditional religious values, and i dont think alot of them would vote Mormon.

sad, but i think that was the main problem

I agree. I mean Mormonism has cooked up some weird shit, but it should in no way effect who is selected to be president. It is going to be a long time before we see a Republican nominee that takes influence outside of traditional Christian subsets. It's pretty pathetic, but that's what the Republican party is based on now.