Sold out by IFR

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.

"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.

In article Co%Ub.109492$U%5.567596@attbi_s03,
wrote:

Yes, Congress passes appropriations bills,

I'm happy to see that you realize that. but of course, you go on
to ignore it.


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.

WHAT?! during the Reagan years, the democracts would gleefully proclaim
that the President's submission was DOA. They would claim he was
cutting the budget for certain line items when in fact his submission
had increases for those items (but not as much as they wanted).

During the Reagan administration, Congress appropriated $1.29 (iirc)
for every new dollar of tax revenue.

[snip]
Both major parties love to increase spending, albeit in slightly
different
directions. But the impact on the deficit has been greatest under
Republican administrations.

when something occurs during an administration, it is important
to understand the cause.

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel wrote:

In article Co%Ub.109492$U%5.567596@attbi_s03,
wrote:


Yes, Congress passes appropriations bills,


I'm happy to see that you realize that. but of course, you go on
to ignore it.

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.


WHAT?! during the Reagan years, the democracts would gleefully proclaim
that the President's submission was DOA. They would claim he was
cutting the budget for certain line items when in fact his submission
had increases for those items (but not as much as they wanted).

During the Reagan administration, Congress appropriated $1.29 (iirc)
for every new dollar of tax revenue.

Which was still slightly *less* overall than Reagan had asked them to
appropriate (as was pointed out in the part you snipped), just not for
exactly the same programs.

Both major parties love to increase spending, albeit in slightly
different
directions. But the impact on the deficit has been greatest under
Republican administrations.


when something occurs during an administration, it is important
to understand the cause.

And when there is consistently the same trend in one Republican
administration after another it's important to recognize the correlation.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Not love, nor, lust, not wealth...POWER.

And what drives women to lust and love?

"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! :~)

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

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

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.

"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.