Poll: Do you think the Democrats really have a chance of capturing the house, senate or both in November?

[Lemon law]

To Prof John,

If GWB is impeached---I can pretty well state that the Republicans will lead the charge---regardless if they are in a majority or minority in a given wing of congress.
But given the scandals likely to come out post election---GWB will have to produce some bad stinks---he already has for that matter--its just that the chickens
have not come home to roost yet---but they will---its just a matter of time.---even if he survives until the end of his term---I understand Mislovich's cell is still empty at the Hague.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Prof John,

The biggest defecit spenders in American history were Ronald Reagan and GWB---Republicans both---its just a myth--and nothing more that you are peddling.

If you want to quanify things with the facts---use the facts---and Bill Clinton is the only President in recent history to have a balanced budget---and he was--gasp--a democrat.

It was a Republican congress that along with Clinton balanced the budget. Go back and look at the budgets deficits that Clinton had projected BEFORE the Republicans took over, there was no plan to balance the budget. Had the Republicans not taken over there is a good chance we would have never seen that balanced budget. Sad to say these same Republicans seem to be on a drunken spending spree. But the good news is that the deficit this year will be lower than last year and that if we can control spending we make actually balance the budget again in a few years.

John, you're peddling myths again.

Let's look at a very simple set of facts in isolating the parties' policies:

Democratic president+republican congress = move to balanced budget
Republican president + republican congress = move to record deficits

What changed between those two scenarios? You got it: when there is a democratic president - and the president submits the budget to congress which is the starting point they work from, and hugely influences the spending - the spending is more responsible, with less deficit (outside of extraordinary circumstances, such as WWII). When the republicans controlled the entire government - the problem reached its peak. It's pretty black and white.

You are faced with the facts saying one thing and your beliefs, your ideology, another, and you have to reconcile them.

You do so with a weak dodge, acknowledging that the republicans "seem to be" - SEEM TO BE, as if there's doubt about the facts of the budget - spending like drunken sailors.

You ignore the implications of this fact, you fail to offer any reason or explanation to reconcile the gap between fact and your ideology.

You simply are unable to utter the words, "the facts prove that the republican fiscal responsibility is a false myth." Instead, you try to have it both ways, acknowledging the facts while maintaining the myth. It's an echo of Ronald Reagan's televised speech where he said that the facts proved his administration had traded arms for hostages illegally, but that his heart told him it hadn't.

At the rate republicans are going, the human race is going to evolve greatly expanded capacity for handling cognitive dissonance out of Darwinistic need.

Come on, man. Intellectual honesty doesn't mean admitting budget numbers which can easily be disproven if misstated, and maintaining unjustified myths.

It means accepting the implications, changing your view of the party from what you want it to be to what it is - breaking free of the manipulations they use to get you to identify as a republican and saying "you know, maybe the critics are telling the truth when they say the republican party has been hijacked by some crooks who use various techniques to get support from people, and abusing their power to do implement far different policies."

I've seen you say how you acknowledge some problems with Bush but think you agree 75% while only 25% with democrats.

Keep at it John and face the facts, and you may end up one of the best kinds of democrats, the kind who is a voter scorned recognizing the truth about republicans.

People like Dwight Eisenhower's son and John Dean did not abandon their conservative views, they faced the facts about what the republicans have become. You should too.

Please click the following link, and deal with the *facts* of what it shows about the modern republican party and the debt since Reagan.


Chart of the US debt

 

[Craig234]

One more note on the reality of republican corruption: it's largely a *MARKETING* problem, not based on facts. Because the republicans get the big corrupt donations for propagandizing they SEEM like the honest party because their propaganda says they are - and it works.

For example, after republicans gained control of Congress, they shifted spending to republican districts over democratic districts with the gap far greater than democrats had when they were in power - making the republicans *worse* as the pork, corrupt party.

And consider how their leaders, pre-Bush, were quite corrupt on the same before you credit some honest, wonderful republican congress for balancing Clinton, as they were terribly corrupt:

When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he managed to get more tax dollars poured into his district than any other congressional district in the entire country. Representative Gingrich managed to slip in an additional billion dollars worth of pork in a defense bill to build aircraft that the Pentagon did not want, did not need, and could not maintain. And the Pentagon didn't even request the aircraft. It was a classic case of pork gathering by republican representative Gingrich.

And when Mississippi's Senator Trent Lott was the Republican Senate Majority Leader under President Clinton, he succeeded in getting a billion dollar contract slipped into a defense bill to build an aircraft carrier in his state. Again, the Pentagon did not want, did not need, and could not maintain the aircraft carrier. And the Pentagon didn't even request the aircraft carrier. Republican Trent Lott's state had more pork spending than any other state in the country. And if that wasn't bad enough, Trent Lott tried to bail out one of his biggest Mississippi campaign contributors using taxpayer money. This contributor owned a chicken processing company that made a bad business deal with a Russian company. The company lost 350 million dollars. Trent Lott tried to sneak in a provision into a bill that would have bailed out that business with 350 million dollars of our hard-earned money. At the last moment, Trent Lott's scheme was found out and he was forced to pull that portion of the bill out the night before it was going to be voted on. If you own a business and make a bad business decision would you expect the government to bail you out? Well, if you gave enough money to corrupt politicians like Trent Lott you could expect to be rewarded for your support.

Link to full article

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig my friend, as they say the truth will set you free
Go here and move to page 173 Clinton's 1996 Budget
This budget was presented on February 6, 1995 (page 6)
Now the good stuff.
Page 173 has a table called "Outlays, Receipts, and Deficit Summary" on it.
There are the budget deficits that Bill Clinton proposed in February of 1995.
1994 (actual deficit) $203 billion
1995 $192 billion
1996 $196 billion
1997 $213 billion
1998 $196 billion
1999 $197 billion
2000 $194 billion
See any attempted to balance the budget in there? Had Democrats kept congress would there have been any effort to reduce Clinton's spending in order to balance the budget? They didn't do it in his first two years, what makes you think they would have done it then?

Now go to the 2007 budget, and go to page 26 for a historic overview of budgets.
2007 FY Budget
Here you will see the actual budget and spending for 2000.
Compare the actual figures to what Clinton was proposing way back in 1995 and you will see that the actual spending was $1,789 billion compared to the $1,905 billion that Clinton wanted to spend. Actual revenue was also $315 billion more than what was expected in 1995, which leads up to our $236 billion surplus.

If you want to see the true impact of the Republican congress go look at Clinton's 1997 FY budget
1997 FY budget
Page 145.
From the 1996 budget to the 1997 budget he went from $190+ billion deficits as far as the eye could see to a balanced budget by 2001, we actual balanced it in 1998.

Summary, in 1996 Clinton proposes a budget plan that would see a FY 2000 deficit of $194 billion, in 1997 his budget plan sees a $27 billion deficit. The difference in the two figures? $156 billion less in spending in the 1997 plan with only an increase in revenue of $23 billion. What changed between the two plans? Republicans took over congress.
Any questions?

 

[Stunt]

Why aren't Republicans fiscally conservative anymore?

 

[Vic]

They would if college kids actually voted. But they don't. Old people vote and so the gerontocracy moves on as planned.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I voted "yes", but it is a very small chance. The Senate is a real long shot, and the House only slightly better. House districts coast to coast have been aggressively gerrymandered to protect incumbents. There is little chance the Dems will take enough seats in either instance to attain a majority.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Vic
They would if college kids actually voted. But they don't. Old people vote and so the gerontocracy moves on as planned.

The youth are apathetic, the elderly are gullable and trusting.
I bet most presidents are elected based on who they can relate to; not any of the issues or policies.

 

[Craig234]

Why aren't Republicans fiscally conservative anymore?

Because the republican party has been taken over by corporatists, and the republican voters have failed to exercise diligence, allowing themselves to be pandered to, letting thier leaders get away with murder under cover of demonizing the democrats, saying 'however much you hate the policies, the democrats are worse'.

That propaganda gives them amazing license as long as people fall for it. The republicans only seem to have two arguments - the 'democrats would be worse' argument, and the 'if you don't let them have their way, the terrorists will endanger you' argument. Sometimes both, as with increased spending.

It's the oldest game in politics, corrupt spending, but they've found a nice package and wrapper for it that makes the foolish republicans buy it - as long as they say it's for 'national security', they can do anything they want and get a pass - the corruption just as Eisenhower warned against.

If the public voted out every republican tomorrow, the republican leaders and donors already still won - hundreds of billions in their pockets now. But they'll keep milking the foolish as long as they can.

 

[Kadarin]

Not if electronic voting machines continue to be as insecure as they currently are. link

 

[Craig234]

John, you are confusing a couple things: the effect of republicans in congress on Clinton's budget, versus comparing the fiscal responsibility of the two parties.

I'm not saying that the republicans didn't have a dampening effect on Clinton's budgets, as they were trying to cripple him every way they could, in domestic spending and power, in foreign policy spending and power, with legal attacks, attacks on his office's powers, and much more.

However, what you have to compare that to is how the republicans behave when they have all the cards (and also compare how democrats behaved when they had all the cards).

You will see that the democrats acted far more responsibly than the republicans. The majority of our all our debt comes from the Reagan/Bush and Bush 43 administrations, where skyrocketing borrowing paid for political support and false prosperity. They mask utter irresponsibility under the guide of responsible deficits. You fall for it, apparently.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Not if electronic voting machines continue to be as insecure as they currently are. link

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Not if electronic voting machines continue to be as insecure as they currently are. link

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I hope the Democrats lose the House/Senate elections so they can go back the drawing board, develop some good policies and prepare for the presidential election. If they win these midterm elections they will waste all their energy impeaching Bush and trying to get out of Iraq.

And republics will be like "omgz they got no bills passed over bushes veto!!!1 wat lozers"

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
John, you are confusing a couple things: the effect of republicans in congress on Clinton's budget, versus comparing the fiscal responsibility of the two parties.

I'm not saying that the republicans didn't have a dampening effect on Clinton's budgets, as they were trying to cripple him every way they could, in domestic spending and power, in foreign policy spending and power, with legal attacks, attacks on his office's powers, and much more.

However, what you have to compare that to is how the republicans behave when they have all the cards (and also compare how democrats behaved when they had all the cards).

You will see that the democrats acted far more responsibly than the republicans. The majority of our all our debt comes from the Reagan/Bush and Bush 43 administrations, where skyrocketing borrowing paid for political support and false prosperity. They mask utter irresponsibility under the guide of responsible deficits. You fall for it, apparently.

Craig... had there been no Republican congress there would have been no balanced budget, simple as that.

On what they have done since I pretty much agree, they suck. Now some of the deficit is due to war on terror and the drop in revenue following the bursting of the tech bubble, but a lot of it has to do with just plain over spending.
The amount of money coming into the treasury was lower in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 than in 2000. The main reason for the surge in 2000 was the tech bubble and the fact that the NASDQ was at 5000, by the end of the Clinton's term it was back down to 2500. Hence big surge of profits (taxes) one year and less taxes the next when everyone reported losses.
Sadly spending went up every year even though revenue was down. Hence budget deficits.

 

[miketheidiot]

nvm poor spelling and me being a bit irate.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig my friend, as they say the truth will set you free
Go here and move to page 173 Clinton's 1996 Budget
This budget was presented on February 6, 1995 (page 6)
Now the good stuff.
Page 173 has a table called "Outlays, Receipts, and Deficit Summary" on it.
There are the budget deficits that Bill Clinton proposed in February of 1995.
1994 (actual deficit) $203 billion
1995 $192 billion
1996 $196 billion
1997 $213 billion
1998 $196 billion
1999 $197 billion
2000 $194 billion
See any attempted to balance the budget in there? Had Democrats kept congress would there have been any effort to reduce Clinton's spending in order to balance the budget? They didn't do it in his first two years, what makes you think they would have done it then?

Now go to the 2007 budget, and go to page 26 for a historic overview of budgets.
2007 FY Budget
Here you will see the actual budget and spending for 2000.
Compare the actual figures to what Clinton was proposing way back in 1995 and you will see that the actual spending was $1,789 billion compared to the $1,905 billion that Clinton wanted to spend. Actual revenue was also $315 billion more than what was expected in 1995, which leads up to our $236 billion surplus.

If you want to see the true impact of the Republican congress go look at Clinton's 1997 FY budget
1997 FY budget
Page 145.
From the 1996 budget to the 1997 budget he went from $190+ billion deficits as far as the eye could see to a balanced budget by 2001, we actual balanced it in 1998.

Summary, in 1996 Clinton proposes a budget plan that would see a FY 2000 deficit of $194 billion, in 1997 his budget plan sees a $27 billion deficit. The difference in the two figures? $156 billion less in spending in the 1997 plan with only an increase in revenue of $23 billion. What changed between the two plans? Republicans took over congress.
Any questions?

Economic projections also changed over those two years, as the economy really began to heat up the year before.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Economic projections also changed over those two years, as the economy really began to heat up the year before.

Perhaps you missed the part where spending also dropped.
In 1995 Clinton had a plan to spending $1,905 in 2000.
The actual amount spent in 2000 was $1,789 how much of that decrease of $116 billion in spending is the result of a Republican congress? I would say all of it, since Clinton had no plan to cut spending before the GOP took over congress.

Maybe we need Newt back in congress since he was one of the driving forces to balance the budget.

 

[ProfJohn]

oops... forgot to add... that if Clinton spent as much money each year as he had planned in 1995 the budget would have balanced itself in 2000 due to the rise in revenue, but because of a Republican congress it was balanced in 1998, 2 years sooner and billions of dollars saved.
Like I said, if Democrats were running on a plan to balance the budget instead of impeaching Bush then having them in charge would not be such a bad idea.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Maybe we need Newt back in congress since he was one of the driving forces to balance the budget.

That just might not be so far-fetched :laugh:

Newt's looking pretty sharp on the campaign trail.

 

[Ferocious]

n/m

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Back to the original topic, since our favorite trollsters have predictably gone off-topic, I think it is very possible for the Democrats to take both the House and the Senate. At the moment the momentum is going all in favor of the Democrats, and the amount of seats they need to pickup is getting smaller and smaller thanks to all of the Republican scandals that are going on. There are still around 5-6 weeks left though and anything can happen in this time. As unfortunate as it sounds, the Democrats will probably do better if the situation in Iraq is highlighted by the media.

 

[Vic]

The real question IMO is why people think it matters. There is only one political party in America, it just has 2 names and 2 marketing agendas.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Vic
The real question IMO is why people think it matters. There is only one political party in America, it just has 2 names and 2 marketing agendas.

Sometimes I wonder if the US was engineered like that.

I mean 2 party system; one advocates control (lack of freedom) over your personal finances and wants more state control over goods and services, the other advocates control (again lack of freedom) over your personal social being wanting to protect you from "sins" (drugs, nudity, marriage, abortion).

Ironically they take the opposite stance on every issue so the words freedom and liberty are tossed around just as much as state involvement, although in the end the state maintains control over every single issue.

Similar thing happens in Canada where we have a first past the post system which allows a party to win a majority government with usually less than 40% of the vote, depending on how the other parties do. This in effect creates a 4 year dictatorship for the governing party, with little ability to dissolve the government.

Even though we live in democracies...we as people seem to have little input and control over our society. I'm sure it was engineered like that to maintain stability within a diverse population.

 

[Screech]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig my friend, as they say the truth will set you free
Go here and move to page 173 Clinton's 1996 Budget
This budget was presented on February 6, 1995 (page 6)
Now the good stuff.
Page 173 has a table called "Outlays, Receipts, and Deficit Summary" on it.
There are the budget deficits that Bill Clinton proposed in February of 1995.
1994 (actual deficit) $203 billion
1995 $192 billion
1996 $196 billion
1997 $213 billion
1998 $196 billion
1999 $197 billion
2000 $194 billion
See any attempted to balance the budget in there? Had Democrats kept congress would there have been any effort to reduce Clinton's spending in order to balance the budget? They didn't do it in his first two years, what makes you think they would have done it then?

Now go to the 2007 budget, and go to page 26 for a historic overview of budgets.
2007 FY Budget
Here you will see the actual budget and spending for 2000.
Compare the actual figures to what Clinton was proposing way back in 1995 and you will see that the actual spending was $1,789 billion compared to the $1,905 billion that Clinton wanted to spend. Actual revenue was also $315 billion more than what was expected in 1995, which leads up to our $236 billion surplus.

If you want to see the true impact of the Republican congress go look at Clinton's 1997 FY budget
1997 FY budget
Page 145.
From the 1996 budget to the 1997 budget he went from $190+ billion deficits as far as the eye could see to a balanced budget by 2001, we actual balanced it in 1998.

Summary, in 1996 Clinton proposes a budget plan that would see a FY 2000 deficit of $194 billion, in 1997 his budget plan sees a $27 billion deficit. The difference in the two figures? $156 billion less in spending in the 1997 plan with only an increase in revenue of $23 billion. What changed between the two plans? Republicans took over congress.
Any questions?

When one party controls both congress and the executive, you end up with insane spending, ie, now.

When opposing parties control the respective branches, there is the possibility of not-quite-so-much drunken-sailor spending. Which is what we need right now.