Small is Beautiful

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111
What do they need a veto proof majority for when they endorse the same policy as the President?

Of course, this isn't the first time the Democrats have bailed out big auto: Jimmy Carter and the Democrats bailed out Chrysler in 1979, probably with the full backing of what is now Obama's cheer squad.

What you keep missing, jackass, in your neverending partisan spin, is that this is the first time that the Republicans have bailed out Big Auto.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Over the past 2-3 decades republicans have grown government FASTER than democrats and yet they still hold themselves as small gov and, worse, the idiotic rabble believe them for it, holding the mythical perception that democrats are bigger for government than republicans, then we have complete ass clowns like romney saying what he did. It is infuriating.

Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Great job, I'm proud of you for finding one tiny, comparitively miniscule issue of spending in an effort to refute a much grander argument with much grander supporting evidence.

You're subsequently vomiting out arguments about hillary and healthcare, blah fvcking blah. Can somebody please get a graph, because as I mentioned if you look at federal spending over the past few decades you see that each time a republican gets in power he jacks the fvck out of the budget. In some kind of idiot-placating move (and it works) he may even cut taxes, the end result being a terrible spend and borrow. Surely you realize that. You can find minutiae arguments all day, but in the grand scheme republicans have an indisputable track record of increasing government spending/size faster than democrats in the past few decades. I'll give you a cookie if you can tell me who the first president to sign a $1T budget was and who the first president to sign a $2T and $3T budget was. Hint, he doesn't have a (D) after his name.

Sooner or later people realize that the emperor wears no clothes. Will the people wise up in 2008 or not?

How many more centuries can we wait? The people who vote are uneducated, and interested in the vitriol over substance.

Spending growth based on what? Oh right, mandatory entitlement programs created by Democrats.

The Democrats came into power in the 30s, and passed a massive entitlement program that today is spiraling out of control.

The Democrats came into power in the 60s, and passed a massive entitlement program that today is spiraling out of control

The Democrats came into power in the 90s, and tried to pass a massive entitlement program that today is spiraling out of control. Of course, they lock about $1 trillion worth of oil in the ground at the same time.

The Democrats hail these achievements and the men who accomplished them. George Bush tries to reform one of these entitlements and they call him a devil.

The Democrats in Massachusetts passed a massive entitlement program a couple years ago that has already spiraled out of control. Forgive me if I'm not interested in that for the other 49 states.

 

[Vic]

Then the Republicans came into power in the 00s, and increased spending at a faster rate than the Dems ever did in 30s, 60s, or 90s, and now that already is spiraling out of control.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
US national debt and the Presidents responsible for it (1st google hit)

Graph of national debt as % of GDP (2nd google hit)

The debt clock (pushing $9.7 trillion and rising at the rate of about $25,000 per second).

Wiki's data

I suck at graphs, but I calculate that since Carter, Republican presidents have increased federal spending per term by about 15% on average, while Democratic presidents have increased spending by about 8% on average.

I don't understand why Obama talks about anything else. I didn't know just how bad Republicans really are.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Over the past 2-3 decades republicans have grown government FASTER than democrats and yet they still hold themselves as small gov and, worse, the idiotic rabble believe them for it, holding the mythical perception that democrats are bigger for government than republicans, then we have complete ass clowns like romney saying what he did. It is infuriating.

Actually, its Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who want to bail out big Auto.

Great job, I'm proud of you for finding one tiny, comparitively miniscule issue of spending in an effort to refute a much grander argument with much grander supporting evidence.

You're subsequently vomiting out arguments about hillary and healthcare, blah fvcking blah. Can somebody please get a graph, because as I mentioned if you look at federal spending over the past few decades you see that each time a republican gets in power he jacks the fvck out of the budget. In some kind of idiot-placating move (and it works) he may even cut taxes, the end result being a terrible spend and borrow. Surely you realize that. You can find minutiae arguments all day, but in the grand scheme republicans have an indisputable track record of increasing government spending/size faster than democrats in the past few decades. I'll give you a cookie if you can tell me who the first president to sign a $1T budget was and who the first president to sign a $2T and $3T budget was. Hint, he doesn't have a (D) after his name.

Sooner or later people realize that the emperor wears no clothes. Will the people wise up in 2008 or not?

How many more centuries can we wait? The people who vote are uneducated, and interested in the vitriol over substance.

Spending growth based on what? Oh right, mandatory entitlement programs created by Democrats.

The Democrats came into power in the 30s, and passed a massive entitlement program that today is spiraling out of control.

The Democrats came into power in the 60s, and passed a massive entitlement program that today is spiraling out of control

The Democrats came into power in the 90s, and tried to pass a massive entitlement program that today is spiraling out of control. Of course, they lock about $1 trillion worth of oil in the ground at the same time.

The Democrats hail these achievements and the men who accomplished them. George Bush tries to reform one of these entitlements and they call him a devil.

The Democrats in Massachusetts passed a massive entitlement program a couple years ago that has already spiraled out of control. Forgive me if I'm not interested in that for the other 49 states.

Please see Vic's links. First and second will do nicely.

I am not interested in "tried" "wanted" "will", etc. it's all noise. Look at the facts. History is well documented in regard to what has ACTUALLY happened, and no it's not because the republicans had to honor entitlement setup by the dems, that's just silly.

I don't understand why Obama talks about anything else. I didn't know just how bad Republicans really are.

Most people don't.

 

[Vic]

What's really interesting is that, per Wiki's data since 1977 that I linked to, GDP under Republican presidents has grown at an average rate of 2.6% annually, and under Democratic presidents GDP has grown at an average rate of 3.025% annually. Huh. I thought the R's were supposed to be better for the economy too.

 

[sandorski]

Some people are just content in being lied too. Just as long as the Lies are what they want to hear. Evidence be damned!

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Please see Vic's links. First and second will do nicely.

I am not interested in "tried" "wanted" "will", etc. it's all noise. Look at the facts. History is well documented in regard to what has ACTUALLY happened, and no it's not because the republicans had to honor entitlement setup by the dems, that's just silly.

I don't understand why Obama talks about anything else. I didn't know just how bad Republicans really are.

Most people don't.

When mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing at 6-7% annually, and compromises 2/3 of the budget, I'm sure it has nothing to do with it, no. :roll:

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic
What's really interesting is that, per Wiki's data since 1977 that I linked to, GDP under Republican presidents has grown at an average rate of 2.6% annually, and under Democratic presidents GDP has grown at an average rate of 3.025% annually. Huh. I thought the R's were supposed to be better for the economy too.

Congrats to Carter for inflating away everything he could and Clinton for having a Vice President who invented the internet!

Is that why they dumped recessions on their successors?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Please see Vic's links. First and second will do nicely.

I am not interested in "tried" "wanted" "will", etc. it's all noise. Look at the facts. History is well documented in regard to what has ACTUALLY happened, and no it's not because the republicans had to honor entitlement setup by the dems, that's just silly.

I don't understand why Obama talks about anything else. I didn't know just how bad Republicans really are.

Most people don't.

When mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing at 6-7% annually, and compromises 2/3 of the budget, I'm sure it has nothing to do with it, no. :roll:

See the post before yours. You are clearly uninterested in admiting the fact that the government demonstrably grows quicker under republicans as a result of their policies, not the democrats. This is what we call living in the dark. You are answering with things of mild relevance but completely sidestepping the actual issue at hand. How is it that the republicans are held to this 6-7% you talk about and yet the democrats are not? What, so entitlement programs are only something republicans pay for? When a democrat gets in power he temporarily shuts them down to make his figures look better and turns them on the day before he leaves office so that the next republican president has to pay? Come on, you are better than this, have some self-respect, you can do better.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Please see Vic's links. First and second will do nicely.

I am not interested in "tried" "wanted" "will", etc. it's all noise. Look at the facts. History is well documented in regard to what has ACTUALLY happened, and no it's not because the republicans had to honor entitlement setup by the dems, that's just silly.

I don't understand why Obama talks about anything else. I didn't know just how bad Republicans really are.

Most people don't.

When mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing at 6-7% annually, and compromises 2/3 of the budget, I'm sure it has nothing to do with it, no. :roll:

Who was it that last reformed welfare in a manner that reduced spending? That's right, Clinton.

Who was it that last reformed Medicare/Medicaid in a manner that drastically increased spending? That's right, GW Bush.

The only people who get Social Security benefits are those who pay it into it (for a minimum of 10 years too BTW), so that's just red herring on your part.

But wait, your whole argument here is red herring, because this spending increases regardless of which party is in power. The issue here is that R's have NO desire to cut these programs (besides the empty rhetoric fed to their loyal sheep like you), and then they go and jack spending on all their other pet projects as well.

You just don't get it, do you? Look at the fscking numbers. They don't lie.

And oh BTW, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid made up 42% of the budget in FY2007, not 2/3's. Text

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic
What's really interesting is that, per Wiki's data since 1977 that I linked to, GDP under Republican presidents has grown at an average rate of 2.6% annually, and under Democratic presidents GDP has grown at an average rate of 3.025% annually. Huh. I thought the R's were supposed to be better for the economy too.

Congrats to Carter for inflating away everything he could and Clinton for having a Vice President who invented the internet!

Is that why they dumped recessions on their successors?

Like Bush is doing now? Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Vic
US national debt and the Presidents responsible for it (1st google hit)

Graph of national debt as % of GDP (2nd google hit)

The debt clock (pushing $9.7 trillion and rising at the rate of about $25,000 per second).

Wiki's data

I suck at graphs, but I calculate that since Carter, Republican presidents have increased federal spending per term by about 15% on average, while Democratic presidents have increased spending by about 8% on average.

Your sampling is unfair. if you look at your first link the sampling went back to 1938, I believe ,and the difference was minimal. Obviously each govts numbers are also going to be affected by what is happening internationally as well during his administration.

However that does not completely dismiss your premise that the small govt party needs to do a better job of being the small govt party.
On that we can agree and no matter who wins the election be united in voicing opposition to Govt growth.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic
What's really interesting is that, per Wiki's data since 1977 that I linked to, GDP under Republican presidents has grown at an average rate of 2.6% annually, and under Democratic presidents GDP has grown at an average rate of 3.025% annually. Huh. I thought the R's were supposed to be better for the economy too.

Congrats to Carter for inflating away everything he could and Clinton for having a Vice President who invented the internet!

Is that why they dumped recessions on their successors?

Are you somehow implying that Carter and Clinton didn't have recessions dumped on them by their predecessors?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Vic
US national debt and the Presidents responsible for it (1st google hit)

Graph of national debt as % of GDP (2nd google hit)

The debt clock (pushing $9.7 trillion and rising at the rate of about $25,000 per second).

Wiki's data

I suck at graphs, but I calculate that since Carter, Republican presidents have increased federal spending per term by about 15% on average, while Democratic presidents have increased spending by about 8% on average.

Your sampling is unfair. if you look at your first link the sampling went back to 1938, I believe ,and the difference was minimal. Obviously each govts numbers are also going to be affected by what is happening internationally as well during his administration.

However that does not completely dismiss your premise that the small govt party needs to do a better job of being the small govt party.
On that we can agree and no matter who wins the election be united in voicing opposition to Govt growth.

Uh... my linked data includes all that. But it's only because FDR had to fight the Great Depression and WWII, and because Eisenhower was the last true Republican President.

What I am saying is that, in the past 40 years, the 'small govt party' has in fact been the big govt party. That's why I am united in voicing opposition to govt growth by voting the Republicans out. Is this confusing or something?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Please see Vic's links. First and second will do nicely.

I am not interested in "tried" "wanted" "will", etc. it's all noise. Look at the facts. History is well documented in regard to what has ACTUALLY happened, and no it's not because the republicans had to honor entitlement setup by the dems, that's just silly.

I don't understand why Obama talks about anything else. I didn't know just how bad Republicans really are.

Most people don't.

When mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing at 6-7% annually, and compromises 2/3 of the budget, I'm sure it has nothing to do with it, no. :roll:

See the post before yours. You are clearly uninterested in admiting the fact that the government demonstrably grows quicker under republicans as a result of their policies, not the democrats. This is what we call living in the dark. You are answering with things of mild relevance but completely sidestepping the actual issue at hand. How is it that the republicans are held to this 6-7% you talk about and yet the democrats are not? What, so entitlement programs are only something republicans pay for? When a democrat gets in power he temporarily shuts them down to make his figures look better and turns them on the day before he leaves office so that the next republican president has to pay? Come on, you are better than this, have some self-respect, you can do better.

Because there are more old people now than there were 15 years ago, and health care technology is getting more expensive faster than it was 15 years ago? I guess the emergence of the baby boomer generation is now W's fault as well.

Oh, and the economists definition of a recession is 2 quarters of negative GDP growth. We haven't had that yet today, no matter how much the lefties crow otherwise.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic
What's really interesting is that, per Wiki's data since 1977 that I linked to, GDP under Republican presidents has grown at an average rate of 2.6% annually, and under Democratic presidents GDP has grown at an average rate of 3.025% annually. Huh. I thought the R's were supposed to be better for the economy too.

Congrats to Carter for inflating away everything he could and Clinton for having a Vice President who invented the internet!

Is that why they dumped recessions on their successors?

Are you somehow implying that Carter and Clinton didn't have recessions dumped on them by their predecessors?

Not really. The brunt of those recessions hit in 1974-1975 and 1990-1991 when their predecessors were still in office.

Take a look for yourself:

http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Oh, and the economists definition of a recession is 2 quarters of negative GDP growth. We haven't had that yet today, no matter how much the lefties crow otherwise.

I'm sorry, but I am a financial professional, and I'm wondering how many bank failures this year it's going to take for you Bush hacks to wake up about the economy...

Wait, did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac just fail? And is one of the oldest investment houses on the Street teetering on the verge of collapse? After we just lost another prestigious investment house earlier this year? FFS, the Europeans just took advantage of our weak dollar to scoop up Budweiser for a song, and the steel industry our military depends on for its armor plating got bought up by the Russians. Wake the fsck up.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Please see Vic's links. First and second will do nicely.

I am not interested in "tried" "wanted" "will", etc. it's all noise. Look at the facts. History is well documented in regard to what has ACTUALLY happened, and no it's not because the republicans had to honor entitlement setup by the dems, that's just silly.

I don't understand why Obama talks about anything else. I didn't know just how bad Republicans really are.

Most people don't.

When mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing at 6-7% annually, and compromises 2/3 of the budget, I'm sure it has nothing to do with it, no. :roll:

See the post before yours. You are clearly uninterested in admiting the fact that the government demonstrably grows quicker under republicans as a result of their policies, not the democrats. This is what we call living in the dark. You are answering with things of mild relevance but completely sidestepping the actual issue at hand. How is it that the republicans are held to this 6-7% you talk about and yet the democrats are not? What, so entitlement programs are only something republicans pay for? When a democrat gets in power he temporarily shuts them down to make his figures look better and turns them on the day before he leaves office so that the next republican president has to pay? Come on, you are better than this, have some self-respect, you can do better.

Because there are more old people now than there were 15 years ago, and health care technology is getting more expensive faster than it was 15 years ago? I guess the emergence of the baby boomer generation is now W's fault as well.

Oh, and the economists definition of a recession is 2 quarters of negative GDP growth. We haven't had that yet today, no matter how much the lefties crow otherwise.

Oh, now I see 🙂 So with Reagan everyone was old and then with Bush they stay old, but when Clinton comes in everyone gets young again, and then when Bush comes in they're all old again! Damn, I want Obama to come in, it will do wonders for my wrinkles.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Vic
US national debt and the Presidents responsible for it (1st google hit)

Graph of national debt as % of GDP (2nd google hit)

The debt clock (pushing $9.7 trillion and rising at the rate of about $25,000 per second).

Wiki's data

I suck at graphs, but I calculate that since Carter, Republican presidents have increased federal spending per term by about 15% on average, while Democratic presidents have increased spending by about 8% on average.

Your sampling is unfair. if you look at your first link the sampling went back to 1938, I believe ,and the difference was minimal. Obviously each govts numbers are also going to be affected by what is happening internationally as well during his administration.

However that does not completely dismiss your premise that the small govt party needs to do a better job of being the small govt party.
On that we can agree and no matter who wins the election be united in voicing opposition to Govt growth.

Uh... my linked data includes all that. But it's only because FDR had to fight the Great Depression and WWII, and because Eisenhower was the last true Republican President.

What I am saying is that, in the past 40 years, the 'small govt party' has in fact been the big govt party. That's why I am united in voicing opposition to govt growth by voting the Republicans out. Is this confusing or something?

not at all confusing.

Yes fdr had that, W had katrina, some administrations have nothing major.
I am simply saying all I hear from Obama is spend , spend, spend.
You don't vote the party out who claims to want small govt. you hold them accountable and help reform them to thier original principles.

In laymans terms, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: NeoV
um.......

hmm...

"leave Palin alone, she's a good woman"

"sexism!!!"

🙂

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: daniel49
not at all confusing.

Yes fdr had that, W had katrina, some administrations have nothing major.
I am simply saying all I hear from Obama is spend , spend, spend.
You don't vote the party out who claims to want small govt. you hold them accountable and help reform them to thier original principles.

In laymans terms, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think it is pretty damned clear that it is no longer possible to hold the Republicans accountable to their professed small govt agenda. The more they voice it, the faster they increase spending. In fact, I would argue that it has become little more than an excuse FOR spending. As long as they get their followers to believe that they are the small govt party, then they don't actually have to be the small govt party.

I also think it's a touch dishonest to blame Katrina for W's spending habits (when the bulk went elsewhere by far).
And all I hear from McCain is spend, spend, spend as well. In fact, didn't an independent study show that McCain spending proposals would increase spending faster than Obama's? Link anyone? While McCain will also cut taxes and revenue, meaning more deficits, more debt, and more economic pain to the America people because of that. Hell, let's just move the capitol to Dubai, eh?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: daniel49
not at all confusing.

Yes fdr had that, W had katrina, some administrations have nothing major.
I am simply saying all I hear from Obama is spend , spend, spend.
You don't vote the party out who claims to want small govt. you hold them accountable and help reform them to thier original principles.

In laymans terms, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think it is pretty damned clear that it is no longer possible to hold the Republicans accountable to their professed small govt agenda. The more they voice it, the faster they increase spending. In fact, I would argue that it has become little more than an excuse FOR spending. As long as they get their followers to believe that they are the small govt party, then they don't actually have to be the small govt party.

I also think it's a touch dishonest to blame Katrina for W's spending habits (when the bulk went elsewhere by far).
And all I hear from McCain is spend, spend, spend as well. In fact, didn't an independent study show that McCain spending proposals would increase spending faster than Obama's? Link anyone? While McCain will also cut taxes and revenue, meaning more deficits, more debt, and more economic pain to the America people because of that. Hell, let's just move the capitol to Dubai, eh?

the bulk of reagans went elsewhere also. The result was the fall of the soviet union, the freedom of eastern Europe, the falling of the Berlin wall.
I know you won't want to hear this but the verdict on Iraq and afghanistan is still out. It may be 10-20 years before the total good or bad may be fully appreciated.


Must go to work now, but let me attempt to agree with you once more. Your premise is not without merit.
Gov't gets bigger under both parties however.
and this is one man who sticking with the republicans, if the Dems ever put out a conservative for a nominee, dial me up again.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: daniel49
not at all confusing.

Yes fdr had that, W had katrina, some administrations have nothing major.
I am simply saying all I hear from Obama is spend , spend, spend.
You don't vote the party out who claims to want small govt. you hold them accountable and help reform them to thier original principles.

In laymans terms, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think it is pretty damned clear that it is no longer possible to hold the Republicans accountable to their professed small govt agenda. The more they voice it, the faster they increase spending. In fact, I would argue that it has become little more than an excuse FOR spending. As long as they get their followers to believe that they are the small govt party, then they don't actually have to be the small govt party.

I also think it's a touch dishonest to blame Katrina for W's spending habits (when the bulk went elsewhere by far).
And all I hear from McCain is spend, spend, spend as well. In fact, didn't an independent study show that McCain spending proposals would increase spending faster than Obama's? Link anyone? While McCain will also cut taxes and revenue, meaning more deficits, more debt, and more economic pain to the America people because of that. Hell, let's just move the capitol to Dubai, eh?

the bulk of reagans went elsewhere also. The result was the fall of the soviet union, the freedom of eastern Europe, the falling of the Berlin wall.
I know you won't want to hear this but the verdict on Iraq and afghanistan is still out. It may be 10-20 years before the total good or bad may be fully appreciated.


Must go to work now, but let me attempt to agree with you once more. Your premise is not without merit.
Gov't gets bigger under both parties however.
and this is one man who sticking with the republicans, if the Dems ever put out a conservative for a nominee, dial me up again.

They just might do that. Do you want a Liar or someone who really is a Conservative?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: winnar111
Because there are more old people now than there were 15 years ago, and health care technology is getting more expensive faster than it was 15 years ago? I guess the emergence of the baby boomer generation is now W's fault as well.

Oh, and the economists definition of a recession is 2 quarters of negative GDP growth. We haven't had that yet today, no matter how much the lefties crow otherwise.

Oh, now I see 🙂 So with Reagan everyone was old and then with Bush they stay old, but when Clinton comes in everyone gets young again, and then when Bush comes in they're all old again! Damn, I want Obama to come in, it will do wonders for my wrinkles.

No, Reagan and Bush I had that small deal known as the Cold War, another foreign policy that their predecessors didn't bother with.

It's true for Bush II and Obama/McCain, though.