If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message news:6_YUb.234289$I06.2628540@attbi_s01... John wrote: "Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ... John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls the oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection... denny I always thought that neither governments nor families should go into debt or live beyond their means. It is disappointing that neither party is focused on managing the debt, as this will create much bigger problems in the future. Neither party may be sufficiently focused on it, but there's been a substantial difference between Republican and Democratic administrations in this regard. Since WWII, Republican presidents have been in office for 31 years and during their terms the national debt has increased an average of 9.1% per year; Democrats have been in office 27 years and the debt has grown at a much smaller 3.7% per year during their terms. There's a huge difference between a growth rate of under 4% compared to over 9%. The DEFICIT took it's biggest LEAP under the democrats and their baseline budget process during the Nixon years (so they could maintain control of the purse strings). Factually totally untrue. Under Nixon the growth of the national debt averaged only 5% - true, this was an increase over Johnson's average of 3%, but it was very small compared to later Republican administrations. Reagan's average of 14% per year over eight years was the greatest contribution. And while Reagan kept publicly supporting a balanced budget amendment, the budgets he submitted to Congress contained huge and increasing deficits. Yes, Congress passes appropriations bills, but the reality during recent history has been that the budget submitted by the president shapes the debate and the final totals are seldom far from those sent over from the executive branch although there are frequently considerable changes in individual projects and departments. During Reagan's terms (when the debt growth rate was highest), Congress passed appropriations bills that were very slightly smaller overall (by about $29B over 8 years) than had been requested in the president's budget proposals although the actual spending was higher due to economic conditions not being as good as forecast by the administration. Both major parties love to increase spending, albeit in slightly different directions. But the impact on the deficit has been greatest under Republican administrations. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter" wrote in message news:Co%Ub.109492$U%5.567596@attbi_s03... Tom Sixkiller wrote: "Peter" wrote in message news:6_YUb.234289$I06.2628540@attbi_s01... John wrote: "Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ... John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls the oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection... denny I always thought that neither governments nor families should go into debt or live beyond their means. It is disappointing that neither party is focused on managing the debt, as this will create much bigger problems in the future. Neither party may be sufficiently focused on it, but there's been a substantial difference between Republican and Democratic administrations in this regard. Since WWII, Republican presidents have been in office for 31 years and during their terms the national debt has increased an average of 9.1% per year; Democrats have been in office 27 years and the debt has grown at a much smaller 3.7% per year during their terms. There's a huge difference between a growth rate of under 4% compared to over 9%. The DEFICIT took it's biggest LEAP under the democrats and their baseline budget process during the Nixon years (so they could maintain control of the purse strings). Factually totally untrue. Under Nixon the growth of the national debt averaged only 5% - true, this was an increase over Johnson's average of 3%, but it was very small compared to later Republican administrations. Reagan's average of 14% per year over eight years was the greatest contribution. Take a look at program by program spending under Reagan (six of eight yers under Democratic Congress, especially where "Reagan cuts" led to such "misery". Recall where the Dem's said they would cut spending 2-1 for tax increases...the tax inscreases came, but he speninding custs didn't. And while Reagan kept publicly supporting a balanced budget amendment, the budgets he submitted to Congress contained huge and increasing deficits. The one's Reagan proposed were close to balanced, but CONGRESS used the rising economy in later years to go on a spending binge...just like the 90's...$30 billion for :midnight basketball"... Yes, Congress passes appropriations bills, but the reality during recent history has been that the budget submitted by the president shapes the debate The presidents proposal us typically a very small fraction fo total spending. and the final totals are seldom far from those sent over from the executive branch although there are frequently considerable changes in individual projects and departments. During Reagan's terms (when the debt growth rate was highest), Congress passed appropriations bills that were very slightly smaller overall (by about $29B over 8 years) than had been requested in the president's budget proposals although the actual spending was higher due to economic conditions not being as good as forecast by the administration. Both major parties love to increase spending, albeit in slightly different directions. True enough...each has their pet projects, but for the most part Republican spending is _sorta_ tied to functions granted by the Consitution (defense). By and large, "Compassionate Conservativeism" had it's genesis under Nixon. But the impact on the deficit has been greatest under Republican administrations. Let's see: FDR's fiasco, Johnson's "Great Society", Carter's complete FUBAR, Clintons' FCC running the telecom's into the ground and kicking off the market burst from 1998 (Greenspan was much to blame, but Clinton's tax hike made it damn difficult to recoup losses) and the start of the collapse in early 2000. As said earlier, Republicans are NOT the answer, but the vast majority of spending is now redistribution of wealth and much of it by Repub's in on programs the Dems; created and made permanent. BTW: Reagan's defense buildup peaked at 29% of the budget, which was 22% of GNP), but in 1959, defense was 50% of the budget which was 10% of GNP (5% for defense). Today, the military budget is 19% of the budget ($480B of $2.4T), and HHS redistribution is 60% of the budget. IOW, you could give every family in poverty something like $60,000. Dept of Agriculture has more employees than Immigration and something like ten times as many as the Border Patrol... It's truly a sick situation...but every dime is spent by people ELECTED by your friends and neighbors. -- "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Spending has seldom, if ever, been tied to revenue, especially since baseline budgeting. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... Not love, nor, lust, not wealth...POWER. And what drives women to lust and love? |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ... Not love, nor, lust, not wealth...POWER. And what drives women to lust and love? That's something your father should have taught you! :~) |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
In article Hp7Vb.111641$U%5.573581@attbi_s03,
wrote: And when there is consistently the same trend in one Republican administration after another it's important to recognize the correlation. correlation cause/effect -- Bob Noel |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
And what drives women to lust and love? That's something your father should have taught you! :~) Yes? My wife explained it to me. - Andrew |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Sixkiller wrote: And what drives women to lust and love? That's something your father should have taught you! :~) Maybe, but *my* father didn't want me to know that sort of thing. He was somewhat of a Puritan. I had to figure out what little I know about it by empirical experiment. Might even have been more fun that way. George Patterson Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more often to the physician than to the patient. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Tom Sixkiller wrote: And what drives women to lust and love? That's something your father should have taught you! :~) Maybe, but *my* father didn't want me to know that sort of thing. He was somewhat of a Puritan. I had to figure out what little I know about it by empirical experiment. Might even have been more fun that way. Especially the redundant theory verification. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
sold 310 -- now what? | Cary Mariash | Owning | 49 | January 9th 05 04:46 PM |
Donald Campbell Bluebird helmet sold | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 1 | May 3rd 04 05:11 PM |
Japanese firm sold Libya uranium conversion plant | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 2 | March 17th 04 03:47 PM |
Sold out by IFR | Mike Rapoport | Owning | 126 | February 9th 04 10:47 PM |
SOLD Becker ATC-4401-175 and SigmaTek ARC EA-401A Servoed Encoding Alt | Juan E Jimenez | Home Built | 0 | August 11th 03 05:03 AM |