A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Illustr...

[BuckyXTC]

Bluenix:

 

Thanks for posting this chart. It unequivocally shows the Republican penchant for deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility that anyone ought to be able to understand. Unfortunately, Republicans have never really been concerned about deficit spending. They have no qualms about leaving a mess for generations to come. It's all about their pleasure in the here and now.

[Guest Hole_4_Hire]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

>...It unequivocally shows the Republican penchant for deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility...

 

Come on, guys, let's get real. The chart clearly shows that the Democrats (Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter) also had deficit spending. What the chart shows is that all presidents since the 1960's (with the sole exception of Clinton) contributed to the problem.

 

I don't think this is a problem of Republicans or Democrats. It a problem with society wanting more and more and expecting the government to pay for it.

 

We need to start taking care of ourselves. I don't think the founding fathers expected us to become dependant upon the government for the necessities of life. Sometimes we have to provide that for ourselves. x(

[+ deej]

I'm the most apolitical guy you'll ever know, but I'd love to see the raw numbers that went into that graph. I'm willing to bet it would look different in different hands.

 

As Mark Twain (or Will Rogers?) said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

[VaHawk]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

So very true Deej. The first thing I learned in my very first statistics course in college, and I took several, was 'HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS"!. This is why election day exit polls are ridiculous especially on the east coast when the polls are still open on the west coast. The real tragedy is that they often discourage voters from even voting on the west coast after the "so called canvassing" has declared a winner based on east coast exit polls.

 

Anyway, that is beside the point. As you astutely point out, the USA always operated in a deficit, except under Clinton. But then again, Clinton was the only president who pushed for a balanced budget and non-deficient spending. I guess things were "just to damn good" under Clinton, that the pendulum had to swing the other way, and put a clown in the White House. x(

[BewareofNick]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/luckovich/2002/topten/1114osama.jpg

[ManHoleNC]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

As an objective moderate, one must point out that the defecit or surplus must be shown as a percentage of GDP in order to make even the most basic comparison.

[bluenix]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

>As an objective moderate, one must point out that the defecit

>or surplus must be shown as a percentage of GDP in order to

>make even the most basic comparison.

 

Oh, I looked that up, and after comparing it to the Clinton-Bush Moral Superiority Index, the chart comes out the same as posted above.

 

:7

[IM_Moore]

this board has come down to posting charts, get a fucking life. what next speak and spell lessons?

[Guest Merlin]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

To keep it in prospective, remember that the surplus is a SURPLUS of TAXES vs spending, while the deficit is a Deficit of Taxes vs spending. Anytime there is a surplus the government taxed more than was necessary. More importantly, all honest economists agree that when the economy is weak, a deficit is good because the government puts more into the economy than it takes out in taxes so that businesses and individuals have more to spend than they would if the gov taxed more. Conversely, when the economy is stronger, the surplus of taxes over spending will help to prevent inflation and high interest rates. Since Republicans pay a much larger share of the taxes than Democrats, the Democrats have historically favored ever higher taxes and have followed Marx's idea of progressive taxation as a way of destroying Capitolism and promoting socialism. Republicans who believe in economic freedom and free enterprise have seen high taxes as a dangerous infringment on individual liberty.

[BewareofNick]

Just remember, Moore, the agency is still watching you. The leash might be a little longer, but don't forget what happened to Auntie Semitic. On second thought, forgetting might be best.

 

<puffs on cigarette and fades into the shadows>

[Uncle Bill]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

Everyone likes to forget about the internet/tech/stock-market bubble that happened during Clinton's term. That boosted tax revenue through the roof for both the federal and state governments, and when it burst, there went the money (most of which had been eagerly spent). Funny how everyone seems to give Clinton credit for the tax revenue during that time, but they don't seem to see the folly of what caused that revenue or lay any of the blame for that on him. It's much easier (and conventional, though flawed) to blame the sitting president. Gee, the recession started two months after W took office, so it must be his fault. Sure, the near-term deficit would be less without the last tax cut, but the economy would be in even worse shape (and those tax cuts needed Democratic support to pass). Just something that's been bothering me in all of the political dialogue that's been happening on this board in the last couple of months.

 

Now, lets get back to talking about sucking cock. That's why I come here, anyway. (He says, as he cringes for the inevitable attack on his character for being both a moderate Rebublican and bisexual.)

[nate_sf]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

I's pretty ironic that the Clinton-era democrats were able to put the money where their mouths were in being fiscally responsible, wheras the Reagan-Bush administrations were totally irresponsible with their fiscal policies. The Democrats have started acting the way Republicans once did, emphasizing fiscal responsibility and defending the constitution. However, in all fairness to GW Bush (which I never thought I'd be saying...) the economy was already starting to head south before the end of the Clinton administration. It's a natural cycle since things can't grow endlessly forever, so whoever ended up taking over would have inherited a declining economy. Bush has done a very poor job of dealing with this sitution, however, and record deficits will only make things worse. Let's hope this time around people don't put up with it the way they did during the Reagan-Bush years.

 

As for tax philosophy, taking care of oneself, etc., it's something people talk about a lot and sounds nice in concept, but how would this happen? Build your own roads and bridges? Your own schools (please -- no home schooling!)? Close the hospitals so that all that's left are those pay-as-you-go clinics in the strip malls? Airport security? Police and fire? There are a lot of things the government has to provide for a society, which people would not be able to provide for themselves. And not everybody is able to take care of themselves -- what about that schizophrenic homeless person outside my door? If only he'd just get it together and take care of himself! And what about those mortgage deductions we all love so much, which are nothing but a tax subsidy? It's just not that simple.

 

OK, that's my rant for the day. :-)

[Guest Les]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

As a libertarian I should probably stay out of this but I think the chart shows both republicans and democrats are slowly bankrupting America. ;(

[Guest feisty1]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

>To keep it in prospective, ...

 

Um, perspective?

 

>... Anytime there is a surplus the government taxed more than was necessary.

 

More than was necessary for what (aside from more than was necessary for a balanced budget)? If you never have a surplus, you never pay down the national debt, which is now in excess of $6 trillion. See:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

 

>...More importantly,

>all honest economists agree that when the economy is weak, a

>deficit is good because the government puts more into the

>economy than it takes out in taxes so that businesses and

>individuals have more to spend than they would if the gov

>taxed more.

 

An overstatement. It depends, as any legitimate economist will tell you, entirely upon the nature of the deficit spending. For the government to spend $10,000 on a toilet seat, to use a well-worn example, doesn't help the economy, it wastes money. But government certainly does need the flexibility to use deficit spending as a tool to stimulate the economy, which is one reason the Republican and conservative Democrat calls for a balanced budget amendment are irresponsible.

 

The current political debate doesn't really center on whether the U.S. needs deficit spending - it centers on how government should arrive at the deficit, where the cuts need be, and where deficit spending would do the most good. I've little doubt, however, that Republicans as a group will revive the call for balanced budgets once their own President isn't sending the deficit into the stratosphere. Of course, since 1969 one one President has ever presented a balanced budget - Clinton, a Democrat.

 

>... Since Republicans pay a much larger

>share of the taxes than Democrats, ...

 

Your source for this information? And does it account for all taxes (for example, payroll; state and/or local income, property, sales, etc.) or just federal income taxes? Also, are you talking per capita or in total? I've never seen figures that even attempt to show how much people registered to each political party actually pay in taxes. Since federal income tax returns don't require you to reveal your party affiliation, I'm not sure how this information can be obtained. It would be even harder to gather information about how much Republicans or Democrats pay in taxes overall.

 

>the Democrats have

>historically favored ever higher taxes and have followed

>Marx's idea of progressive taxation as a way of destroying

>Capitolism and promoting socialism.

 

That's a good one. BTW, it's "capitalism." You mean that conservative Republican Phil Gramm was actually a stealth Democrat when he boasted "I'm carrying so much pork I'm beginning to get trichinosis"? Or do you mean "pork good; health care, education, social services bad"? Pork - politically motivated irresponsible and unnecessary spending - is precisely the type of spending economists agree harms the economy.

 

>Republicans who believe in

>economic freedom and free enterprise have seen high taxes as a

>dangerous infringment on individual liberty.

 

Who are these mythical Republicans? At the time Newt Gingrich was lambasting "tax & spend" Democrats, his own state was receiving more federal money than it contributed to the federal government. Overwhelmingly Democrat New York City, on the other hand, was (and still is) contributing more to federal (and state, for that matter) coffers than it gets back in either federal or state spending. The only "economic freedom" most Republican Congressmen believe in is the freedom to re-route money to their own supporters whenever possible. I'll start believing Republicans genuinely believe in fiscal responsibility when they start being responsible.

 

--Michael

<N.P. "(We Don't Need This) Fascist Groove Thang" - Heaven 17>

[Guest feisty1]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

>...There are a lot of things the government has to provide

>for a society, which people would not be able to provide for

>themselves.

 

Exactly! It makes me laugh when politicians in favor of deep tax cuts talk about "letting people keep more of their own money," as if that were the only consideration. They conveniently forget (when it suits them) that a strong government made it possible for people to earn that money in the first place. No one in the U.S. is truly "self-made."

 

We wouldn't even be having this conversation had not government spending made the Internet possible in the first place. A huge chunk of what we call "the new economy" owes it's existence to government investment.

 

--Michael

<N.P. "Websites" - Minotaur Shock>

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

>Republicans who believe in

>economic freedom and free enterprise have seen high taxes as a

>dangerous infringment on individual liberty.

 

 

except when they can get together those quickly-constructed tax shelters ...

[Guest Merlin]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

It is important to remember that a large part of the national debt, more than half, I believe, is owned by the Social Security Trust Fund, which is invested in government bonds (as a book entry). If we paid off the debt, there would be several trillion in trust funds available. What would we do with it? Reduce it to currency and stuff in a very very large mattress? But currency is a form of government debt. We could invest it in corporate bonds, but then the Democrats would really howl--and most Republicans would not think it was a good idea. The safest investment is usually considered to be in obligations of the US Government which has never defaulted. But if we pay off the national debt, there would be no US investments available.

[Guest feisty1]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

>It is important to remember that a large part of the national

>debt, more than half, I believe, is owned by the Social

>Security Trust Fund, which is invested in government bonds (as

>a book entry).

 

Not anymore. So-called "intragovernmental holdings," which include the Social Security Trust Fund, account for not quite 43% of the U.S. national debt.

 

See: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

 

I don't think anybody is arguing that paying off the national debt is desirable, nor that is even possible now. The question is how big should it be allowed to grow. Only Democrats have made any headway in the attempt to get it under control.

 

--Michael

<N.P. "The Landscape Is Changing" - Depeche Mode>

[bluenix]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

>this board has come down to posting charts, get a fucking

>life. what next speak and spell lessons?

 

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-37.gif

[Guest RetrdEscrt]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

Do people really worry about this sort of stuff !!

 

I can't imagine many people going to bed at night and wondering as they fall asleep what the national debt is or how big the defecit is in trillions of dollars ,to the average American it's probably up there with are there men on Mars ,the bottom line for me is I wanna pay LESS taxes and i dont care how it happens thats why i have accountants .

 

Bush isn't the shapest knife in the drawer and before the name calling starts i have NEVER voted in ANY election whether for President or Governor etc etc it doesnt interest me one bit and to be frank my 1 vote isn't gonna make ANY difference at all.By rights i should be a Republican but i did like Clinton until he signed the DoMA then any respect went straight down the toilet.

 

The difference between a Republican and a Democrat =NOTHING they will both say anything to get your vote and when they do finally get some power its all for themselves and fuck any one else.

[dick_nyc]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

At last a voice of reason. The only problem is if we all stayed home and didn't vote what would happen. Maybe that's the answer. Everybody stay home and don't vote. What if they had a war and no one came.

[+ bigjoey]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

a large part of the problem is congress and not the president. congress usually overspends any budget figure to provide pork for the folks back home. both republicans and democrats load up farm bills, highway bills, military bills with extras beyond what the president wants. the only cure for this is the line item veto so the president can save the congress from itself. the party in power does not seem to make a difference.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

Apparently everyone has forgotten one small, tiny, teensie weensie thing that happened one year into Bush's term:

 

9/11 and the War on Terrorism

 

I'm sure the financial havoc that was caused by those two things has NOTHING to do with tax revenues taking a hit. Nope, no siree. Not a chance, bub.

 

Once again, the Left shows its total and absolute dishonesty in making a case. To INTENTIONALLY ignore this shows them for who they are and how weak their case is without it. If you want to say that Bush is mishandling the economy, that's open for debate. However, at least be HONEST about all the factors. It would be like saying that Michael Jackson is a great father and he loves children and isn't it awful how the media rake him over the coals, without mentioning the small little fact that he's A FREAK who sleeps with little boys.

 

Why don't you guys move to France, I think you'll be more comfortable there.

 

Disgustedly yours,

 

FFF

[+ Lucky]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

The financial havoc that will be wrought by Bush's budget plan does NOT include the cost of the war. Bush is the one ignoring it in his rush to put money in Cheney's pocket.

[phage]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

>Do people really worry about this sort of stuff !!

 

Worry might be a bit strong, but yes, people actually are concerned and do think about these things. At least the “average” Americans that I hang out with.

 

>The difference between a Republican and a Democrat =NOTHING

>they will both say anything to get your vote and when they do

>finally get some power its all for themselves and fuck any one

>else.

 

No offense, but this is a typical kind of response from someone who is not involved (at least minimally) in politics. I’ll never understand that attitude. How can you not be interested in the people and processes that impact your life? How can you not want a say in that process?

 

In fact, there are difference between the parties. All politicians have to make political choices and compromises, and there are sleazy dirtballs in both parties that sell their souls to the Devil to be successful. There is also a great deal of overlap in the middle, but at the core there are some real differences that matter.

 

If you’re not interested…fine. If you can’t be bothered…great. I’m not the least bit interested in the current state of American theatre, but I don’t think it has anything to do with my inability to impact it with a single ticket purchase.