Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
:laughing: Some of you guys aren't going to like this, at all.. but facts are facts, and the 2 parties are not much different once you get to national politics..

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
That's because spending originates in the house.

the largest increases are during Dem controlled congresses.

In reality the President impacts spending very little
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,300 Posts
That's because spending originates in the house.

the largest increases are during Dem controlled congresses.

In reality the President impacts spending very little
The President has Veto power and is ultimately responsible for all bills passed under his watch.

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Raw numbers mean very little in themselves. Context is needed. Look at the increase in interest paid under Reagan in the early 80's. Did he go on a spending spree? No. Interest skyrocketed to 21%+ during that period. As you go up and down the list, if you lived those years you know the ups and downs are related to world events, economic conditions and politics of the time. Bush looked pretty good until that last year, and then the massive increase blew his average way out of proportion. Interesting stats, but meaningless out of context. :thumbsup:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I know it stings Tex, but you can't argue the numbers or spin it good for either party.

But the most important part, is the over picture. This is an unsustainable pattern, that all presidents, regardless of party, are locked into. GDP isn't increasing fast enough to keep up with debt. The US has a debt to income problem, a serious one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
I know it stings Tex, but you can't argue the numbers or spin it good for either party.

But the most important part, is the over picture. This is an unsustainable pattern, that all presidents, regardless of party, are locked into. GDP isn't increasing fast enough to keep up with debt. The US has a debt to income problem, a serious one.
I'm not trying to make it look good for either party. Both parties want more more more in taxes and whatever they get, they spend more than that. That has to change. But these numbers don't give an accurate picture of Presidential leadership. Clinton, for example, looks pretty good here, but he was the beneficiary of the hottest economy in 50 years with the flood of revenue that generated. But the only reason we didn't get a deficit monster in the form of nationalized healthcare under him was that the Pubs were strong enough to stand in the way. There is no simple generalization other than we spend too much. :cheers:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I'm not trying to make it look good for either party. Both parties want more more more in taxes and whatever they get, they spend more than that. That has to change. But these numbers don't give an accurate picture of Presidential leadership. Clinton, for example, looks pretty good here, but he was the beneficiary of the hottest economy in 50 years with the flood of revenue that generated. But the only reason we didn't get a deficit monster in the form of nationalized healthcare under him was that the Pubs were strong enough to stand in the way. There is no simple generalization other than we spend too much. :cheers:
Another way of looking at it, is on the national level, dems/reps aren't much different... :laughing: Big spending, big taxing, big government, all 3 the by products of the 2 party system.

Every child born here, is $42k in debt at birth. :surprised
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Another way of looking at it, is on the national level, dems/reps aren't much different... :laughing: Big spending, big taxing, big government, all 3 the by products of the 2 party system.

Every child born here, is $42k in debt at birth. :surprised
There is a generalized difference in Dem and Pub spending. Dems tend to institute massive perennial spending programs that balloon over time into absolute budget busters. Pubs tend to buy stuff - ships, planes, bridges, etc. And that type of spending can be reined in if necessary. Not so easy with Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
There is a generalized difference in Dem and Pub spending. Dems tend to institute massive perennial spending programs that balloon over time into absolute budget busters. Pubs tend to buy stuff - ships, planes, bridges, etc. And that type of spending can be reined in if necessary. Not so easy with Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc.
:laughing: I don't car what they are buying, the pubs spend just as freely as the dems. And together, they have drove the car off the cliff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
:laughing: I don't car what they are buying, the pubs spend just as freely as the dems. And together, they have drove the car off the cliff.
OK, I'll take one more stab at showing the difference.:laughing: If the Dems had never instituted Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, we would not be in financial trouble now (Not saying those programs aren't good - just expensive). Those programs are the biggest single part of our spending. Name a program the Republicans put in place that hits us in the face every year, grows every year, and absolutely cannot be reversed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
OK, I'll take one more stab at showing the difference.:laughing: If the Dems had never instituted Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, we would not be in financial trouble now (Not saying those programs aren't good - just expensive). Those programs are the biggest single part of our spending. Name a program the Republicans put in place that hits us in the face every year, grows every year, and absolutely cannot be reversed.
The same argument could be made about defense.. :laughing: Why were we so terrorized into thinking the Russians were enemies? Defense spending. Why did we get into Vietnam? Defense spending. Why are we in Iraq? Defense spending. Why are we in Afghanistan? Defense spending.

I don't know about you, but I can't label it "defense" when all we are doing is trying to put genie's we created, back into the bottle. That sounds more like "Bad Policy" spending to me, how about you? You can't go out, **** with other people's countries and then cry defense when it blows up in your face, and that's what we do..

And I have yet to see a republican controlled congress, pass a balanced budget amendment.. they aren't even the lesser of the evils anymore, just another evil.

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
The same argument could be made about defense.. :laughing: Why were we so terrorized into thinking the Russians were enemies? Defense spending. Why did we get into Vietnam? Defense spending. Why are we in Iraq? Defense spending. Why are we in Afghanistan? Defense spending.
OK, let's just say I understand that both Dems and Pubs spend too much. In particular, the Pubs had a chance to lead conservatively from 1994 to 2006 and blew their chance in the worst way. However, I disagree with your statement above. All of those wars were solely about supporting the defense industry? I understand the paranoid desire to assign a corrupt motive to everything government does - we all do that at times. But even though the defense industries benefitted from those wars, there were also geo-political reasons behind them. Some had merit and some didn't. It takes about 50-100 years to really know the answer. My evaluation of the merits of the above wars: Arms race with Russia - Justified, Vietnam - not justified. A total waste. Iraq/Afghanistan - too soon to tell. We don't know all of the facts yet nor do we know the geo-political outcome. However, I am not optimistic and I think my opinion 30 years from now would be not justified. :cheers:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
OK, let's just say I understand that both Dems and Pubs spend too much. In particular, the Pubs had a chance to lead conservatively from 1994 to 2006 and blew their chance in the worst way.
Because they have no interest in controlling government, government is their career. It would be like me electing you to eliminate dental problems.. why would you ever do that? :laughing:

However, I disagree with your statement above. All of those wars were solely about supporting the defense industry? I understand the paranoid desire to assign a corrupt motive to everything government does - we all do that at times. But even though the defense industries benefitted from those wars, there were also geo-political reasons behind them. Some had merit and some didn't.
None had merit, all were a product our our meddling. :laughing:

And your arguments for defense, are just as lame as the dems arguments for social programs.. :laughing: All either one does, is milk our wealth, and drive us deeper and deeper into debt.

Right now, we are fighting cavemen, and losing. Now how the hell do you justify that, with the largest military budget in the world? :laughing:

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Because they have no interest in controlling government, government is their career. It would be like me electing you to eliminate dental problems.. why would you ever do that? :laughing:



None had merit, all were a product our our meddling. :laughing:

And your arguments for defense, are just as lame as the dems arguments for social programs.. :laughing: All either one does, is milk our wealth, and drive us deeper and deeper into debt.

Right now, we are fighting cavemen, and losing. Now how the hell do you justify that, with the largest military budget in the world? :laughing:

:cheers:
Well, one way or the other, we are going to be fighting Islamic terrorists as long as we live. We usually won't get to pick the battle. They will be bringing it to us. That has nothing to do with the defense industry. As for the 50's and 60's, I think you ignore the expansionist and threatening leadership of the USSR. Kruschev said "We will bury you" and he had 100 megaton weapons to do it with. If we had been pacifists sitting on our hands during those two decades, it would be a very different and more dangerous world today, and we might not even be a nominally free country.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Well, one way or the other, we are going to be fighting Islamic terrorists as long as we live. We usually won't get to pick the battle. They will be bringing it to us.
Ever wonder, why? ;) I know you like to toe the line with what the government tells you as absolute truth.. but sometimes you gotta pull back the curtain and see what really goes on.

As for the 50's and 60's, I think you ignore the expansionist and threatening leadership of the USSR. Kruschev said "We will bury you" and he had 100 megaton weapons to do it with.
Have you ever delved into the question of, why? Do you really think they just sat over there, pondering ways to realize our mutual destruction? Ask yourself why, and then do some research. ;)

If we had been pacifists sitting on our hands during those two decades, it would be a very different and more dangerous world today, and we might not even be a nominally free country.
We aren't a nominally free country, and defense is a big part of why. Do you really think the Soviets would have just attacked us, for the hell of it? :laughing: Do you have any clue how easy it would have been, to defeat us and never even fire a conventional shot, or directly kill anyone, or destroy the country? Come on Tex..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
I still stand by my previous statement.

Congressional control means more than the White House and the provided charts prove it. Spending increased at its fastest paces under Dem Congresses regardless of President.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Ever wonder, why? ;) I know you like to toe the line with what the government tells you as absolute truth.. but sometimes you gotta pull back the curtain and see what really goes on.
OK. Educate me. Connect the dots between our defense industry and the 9/11 attacks. Does Halliburton have a mole inside Al Qaeda sending out bombers so we will have to buy more weapons?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
OK. Educate me. Connect the dots between our defense industry and the 9/11 attacks. Does Halliburton have a mole inside Al Qaeda sending out bombers so we will have to buy more weapons?
Dang, at least come up with a hard one... :laughing:

What were the reasons stated by the madman we created, for the 911 attacks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
Dang, at least come up with a hard one... :laughing:

What were the reasons stated by the madman we created, for the 911 attacks?
ref: Charlie Wilson's War... that was cool, but the follow-through sucked ass.

back to the OP...
At least some of the pubs have either woken up, or have 'repented', and are attempting to put through some legislation that will curb the 'madness'. I haven't seen anything from the dems, except that now they want the pubs to work with them on stupid dem **** and stuff...azzhats.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top