Which party is really about less government?

[tony]

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

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/fea...-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]

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]

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.

[BanginJimmy]

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]

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]

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

[rrutter81]

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.

[IndianStig]

libertarians...they're about less gov't.

the republicans, we just win

[man]

This thread makes no sense...

[Vteckidd]

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...utdown_of_1995

[tony]

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...utdown_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.

[BanginJimmy]

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]

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

[rrutter81]

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.

[Vteckidd]

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]

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]

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.