Who spends more - Democrats or Republicans?
Major Debacle
while Republicans grew the deficit by 9.7 percent - almost a 20 percent
increase.
Perhaps most startling is what's happened since 1946.
From 1946 to today, Democratic presidents pushed the deficit up by 3.2
percent per year. Meanwhile, Republican presidents increased the budget
deficit by 9.7 percent. In other words, since 1946, Republican
presidents have outspent Democratic presidents by almost 3 to 1.
http://www.todaysfinancialnews.com/politics/republicans-vs-democrats-who-spends-more-3935.html
Geno4321
"Major Debacle" <major_...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h7f65q$7oa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Doorman
news:h7f65q$7oa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Now, spend as much time researching congress.
Since democrats controlled congress from 1954 through 1994, wouldn't all the
spending be associated with democrat programs? Congress writes tax laws,
and the house of representatives writes spending bills, such as the ones
being created by Pelosi right now. Reid, and the democrats will have their
spending bills too. After a conference agreement, the final bill will be
signed by Obama, not written by Obama. He does have more influence over
Pelosi and Reid, than Bush had over Pelosi and Reid.
As Reagan promoted tax cuts, which he got, he also promoted spending cuts,
which the congress didn't give him. Remember those most famous words, "Dead
on Arrival", democrat indication that whatever Reagan wanted in his budget,
was not going to happen.
And, Contract with America wasn't a Clinton program. It was a Newt Gingrich
idea. So, the surpluses during the Clinton administration could be
attributed to spending programs and tax laws forced on him by the
republicans. He vetoed welfare reform 3 times before signing it. But he
didn't write it nor did he agree with it.
Since 1954, democrats have controlled congress all but 12 years. We're $10
trillion in debt. Democrats have had 47 years of controlling congress to
reduce spending, cut taxes, and create simplified tax laws their own members
could follow, but haven't done so.
Democrats now control 2 branches of government, and obviously have major
influence on the third. If we have problems, it's up to them now. If we
continue to have problems, or current issues get worse, they have nobody
else to blame. Next time you do research on presidents, look to whom they
had in congress to work with.
PreCog
thanks for pointing out how duplicitous dems are or how stupid if they
think the pres writes bills.
Christopher Helms
wrote:
That's because corporations suck down far more $$$ in welfare than
individuals do. Republicans climb the walls over the "morality" of
using public money for sex ed or giving a single mother 300 dollars a
month to feed her kid and pay the heating bill, and then they
vigorously defend hundreds of millions in publicly funded AIG bonuses
for rich white guys.
Phlip
> while Republicans grew the deficit by 9.7 percent - almost a 20 percent
> increase.
You forgot the "national debt"...
The GOP loots the treasury & borrows, using Commyanism or Terr'ism as
their excuse ("Disaster Capitalism"). Then, when the electorate gets
fed up, they allow Democratic leaders to clean up after them.
Sometimes this requires balancing the books - converting invisible
debt into visible debt (like Obama already did), or raising taxes
(like he promised to do). So the Democrats look bad, and the GOP uses
this in the next election.
(Compare California's succession of Pete Wilson (R), Gray Davis (D),
and Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). Davis could not clean up Wilson's mess
fast enough, so we got Arnold, like clockwork, to make the mess
bigger!)
One way the GOP raises taxes on the middle class is increase the rate
they get audited. That means forcing people who already have enough
burdens in their lives to cough up all their paperwork. And of course
the GOP reduces audits for the rich - allowing them to exploit tax
shelters of dubious legality.
When Clinton lowered taxes on the middle class, he created prosperity.
Expect Obama to do the same.
Phlip
> individuals do. Republicans climb the walls over the "morality" of
> using public money for sex ed or giving a single mother 300 dollars a
> month to feed her kid and pay the heating bill, and then they
> vigorously defend hundreds of millions in publicly funded AIG bonuses
> for rich white guys.
+1.
Dollar per dollar, in all its various incarnations, corporate welfare
is much, much more expensive than social welfare.
And what was it the wingnuts are always screaming about welfare - it
makes you lazy? Yup.
Doorman
news:51c066df-2364-4a35...@p36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
California is a liberal utopia. An economic failure, but an ideological
success.
You are grossly ignorant.
The reason the republicans gained control of congress in 1994 was because
the democrats in congress and Clinton teamed together to raise taxes.
Doorman
news:2b940c7d-e16d-43b8...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
AIG wasn't "publically funded" until recently.
In 1994, republicans forced welfare recipients to "prove they couldn't
work". The welfare rolls dropped by 75%. The people were given training,
and child care money so they could go to work. Unemployment actually went
down in the subsequent years. Conservatives think that America became great
because we objected to the economically stale belief that a society can
survive on the principle of "two men eat, one man works" philosophy.
The government does not create wealth. It monitors the monetary supply, but
hard working people create wealth. The government has spent the better part
of 50 years trying to convince you that working hard and making money is
selfish. However, unless they're going to start just printing money and
handing it out, we need producers to make things we want and need. You take
the profit out of business, and there won't be any business.
Businesses aren't started "to provide healthcare and benefits to employees".
They're started to try to make a living.
Go into a bank to request a loan for a new business.
What will you sell, they'll ask. You reply, "I don't know".
How do you plan to repay the loan, they'll ask. I don't know, you'll reply.
Why are you going into business then, they'll ask. To provide healthcare
and benefits to my employees, you'll reply.
The meeting will end as soon as you finish the sentence.
John Q Public
Why don't you break that down using who was in control of congress as
they are the ones setting
the budgets and leave out yer BS presidential theory.
Just like everyone likes to bash reagan but was dem controlled congress
overriding his vetoes
and spending like drunken sailors ran the deficit up then
Fish
> "Phlip" <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
California is the leading state for many decades - it is in trouble
because the whole country is in trouble. As a state, its GDP is higher
than most European countries, the 8th largest back in 1999.
As a liberal state, it produce the best brains and attract brains from
somewhere that create Silicon Valley and Hollywood and the finest art
and culture. If you came from red state to Calif, you find your brain
35 yrs behind their thinking. Remove all blue state from US, all this
country has left is bully redneck.
Rex Ballard
wrote:
> Since 1938, Democrats increased the budget deficit by about 8.3 percent,
> while Republicans grew the deficit by 9.7 percent - almost a 20 percent
> increase.
> Perhaps most startling is what's happened since 1946.
> From 1946 to today, Democratic presidents pushed the deficit up by 3.2
> percent per year. Meanwhile, Republican presidents increased the budget
> deficit by 9.7 percent. In other words, since 1946, Republican
> presidents have outspent Democratic presidents by almost 3 to 1.
Harry Truman
Let's see. Dwight Eisenhower - 8 years
Kennedy/Johnson combined - 8 years.
Nixon-Ford 8 years
Carter - 4 years
Reagan/Bush 12 years
Clinton - 8 years
Bush - 8 years
Obama - 1 year.
Republicans - 36 years
Democrats - 25 years.
More significant is HOW the money is spent by Democrats and
Republicans.
Republicans spend more on destructive power, defense contractors, and
weapons "in bulk".
Democrats spend more on Defense R&D and weapons upgrades, construction
projects, roads, communications, and infrastructure upgrades.
During Republican administrations, big corporations thrive, especially
defense, energy, and financial services institutions. Also self-
employed people get more tax breaks, even though they are not "growth
oriented" (usually because they have been laid off).
During Democratic administrations, technology companies thrive,
largely due to incentives that promote investing in growth oriented
small-cap an mid-cap companies. Often, employees who are laid off are
able to get capital to fund development of ideas that larger
corporations couldn't afford to implement in traditional corporate
infrastructure (paid overtime, layers of management, budget reviews
and progress reviews...)
> http://www.todaysfinancialnews.com/politics/republicans-vs-democrats-...
During the Bush administration, the internet collapsed and technology
suffered due to anticompetitive measures imposed by monopolists like
Microsoft, Intel, and Oracle. Open Source projects were the only ones
to thrive, because there was no capital available thanks to the tax
exempt status of dividends. Even Microsoft stopped investing in R&D
so they could pay dividends.
During the Carter Administration - Recession combined with critical
financial situation as a result of massive bombing in Vietnam created
an environment where Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were able to create
micro-computers - the predecessors of PCs. Steve Jobs had to go to
numerous banks and finally caught the eye of a venture capital firm
who had fostered Intel's microprocessor.
During the Clinton Administration - Recession caused by Reagan/Bush
policies created a surge of investment in TCP/IP - most of the
original companies started on a shoe-string and getting venture
capital funding and going public as growth companies because of the
Clinton tax policies that encounraged investment in R&D oriented
growth companies. The result was the Internet (as a public/commercial
network vs a research network), and e-mail, the Web, and chat. The
result was a many-fold jump in productivity during the 4 years
following the start of each Democratic administration.
Carter almost bankrupted the country with over-spending,
entitlements. Nixon had imposed a wage/price freeze, then gas prices
shot from 25 CENTS a gallon to over 1 DOLLAR a gallon. Inflation
started racing at the end of the Ford administration with Carter
having to try to "fix it" whlie banks were charging prime rate
interest rates higher than the usury limits in most states.
On the other hand, during Republican Administrations, interest rates
tend to go down, which makes investments in bonds very attractive
initially. Banks are deregulated, which tends to make more credit
available. Unfortunately, eventually, the banks assume far too much
risk, often because eased regulations are combined with poor training
of new staff, advisors, and brokers. The result has usually been a
banking and financial crisis at some point. The Savings and Loan
crisis during the Reagan/Bush years, and the Mortgage crisis during
the Bush years.
Usually it's the Demorcats who administer the bad medicine of
restoring regulatory sanity to the financial system, which often
results in tighter credit, which results in need for more publicly
funded projects. The Cause/Effect is often blamed on the successor.
For example, had the Bush/Chaney policies continued unchecked, we
would have poured several $Trillion into bank and mortgage "bail-outs"
with no regulation to restore sanity to the risk management process.
The integrity of the American financial system had almost collapsed.
Obama has had to take drastic actions, but he probably isn't doing
anough about restoring the integrity of the financial system by
restoring regulations. On the other hand, letting the Federal Reserve
and Treasury impose the regulations, and assess how much should be
deposited in the reserve to appropriately offset the risk was a
brilliant tactic, because it manages risk BEFORE a violation creates a
crisis.