Americans choose Democrats

[Carol&Marc 0]

It's really entertaining watching the Bushies licking their wounds.

It will be entertaining to watch the VETO PEN cause a little chafing! Oh, dont forget the supreme court.

America voted for a change in direction. An unpopular President standing in the way of that change will make matters for the Republicans only worse and your dreams of a recapture in 2008 will surely remain just that. I wouldn't be surprised if Congressional Republicans with a sense of self-preservation would contribute to a veto-overriding majority in some instances.

But keep licking, Marc, keep licking.

Change? I keep hearing that word from the dems. Change,Change,Change! Any details? alot of the dems. elected are considered conservative compared to the far left leadership. It will be interesting to see if they can keep it together. I look forward to the dems. trip all over themselves! As far as licking goes, I beleive you got six years on me.

Actually, a lot of Democrats are far more conservative than Bush and his Bushies.

It will be interesting to see where in the spectrum of the left they come down on.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Actually, a lot of Democrats are far more conservative than Bush and his Bushies.

what a strange world we are living in

the french accuse the usa of arrogance.....

the dems claim to be conservative......

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's really entertaining watching the Bushies licking their wounds.

It will be entertaining to watch the VETO PEN cause a little chafing! Oh, dont forget the supreme court.

America voted for a change in direction. An unpopular President standing in the way of that change will make matters for the Republicans only worse and your dreams of a recapture in 2008 will surely remain just that. I wouldn't be surprised if Congressional Republicans with a sense of self-preservation would contribute to a veto-overriding majority in some instances.

But keep licking, Marc, keep licking.

Change? I keep hearing that word from the dems. Change,Change,Change! Any details? alot of the dems. elected are considered conservative compared to the far left leadership. It will be interesting to see if they can keep it together. I look forward to the dems. trip all over themselves! As far as licking goes, I beleive you got six years on me.

Exit polls show 62 per cent of voters in House races said national issues determined their vote, against 33 per cent who cited local issues. In many instances, the Democrats were able to make the vote a referendum on President Bush.

Republican candidates talked frankly about the "headwind" from Iraq and the President's low approval rating.

The polls also showed that 42 per cent of voters cited corruption and ethics as one of the most important factors motivating their vote – more than Iraq (37 per cent) terrorism (40 per cent) or the economy (39 per cent).

This suggests that there was a "values vote" in 2006, as in 2004, but this time in favour of the Democrats.

However, adding together Iraq and terrorism, Mr Bush's conduct of the war on terror was clearly the single biggest factor in the result.

Surprisingly to some Republicans, a majority of voters motivated by the economy broke for the Democrats, likely reflecting the fact that the average worker's wage has not risen much since 2001, in spite of impressive economic growth.

The elections also marked at least a temporary ebbing in the political power of the religious right in America. Voters in conservative South Dakota rejected by 55 per cent to 45 per cent a ballot proposal to introduce the nation's strictest anti-abortion law, while voters in Missouri voted to back stem cell research.

Ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage passed in seven states, but Arizona became the first state in the US to vote down a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Voters also backed initiatives to raise the minium wage in six states.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15621517/

Actually, a lot of Democrats are far more conservative than Bush and his Bushies.

what a strange world we are living in

the french accuse the usa of arrogance.....

the dems claim to be conservative......

Being fiscally conservative is not something the Republicans can even remotely try to claim ownership to.

It depends on the specific issues...and we've been down this road before ....trying to define just what is 'conservative' vs. 'liberal' politically.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Actually, a lot of Democrats are far more conservative than Bush and his Bushies.

what a strange world we are living in

the french accuse the usa of arrogance.....

the dems claim to be conservative......

Being fiscally conservative is not something the Republicans can even remotely try to claim ownership to.

It depends on the specific issues...and we've been down this road before ....trying to define just what is 'conservative' vs. 'liberal' politically.

fiscally conservative = raising my taxes and yours, good point.

Edited November 9, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[one...two...tree 2,762]

fiscally conservative = raising my taxes and yours, good point.

Not sure what you define as being fiscally conservative, but take a look at this...

United States National Debt

(1938 to Present)

An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending

The chart below shows the United Stated national debt (per Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia[1] and US Government data[2]) with the various Presidents’ terms marked by vertical lines. Under President Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction debt has taken since George W. Bush entered office. There is no question that the steepest upward rises in debt take place after President Reagan was elected when so called Conservative Republican Presidents are in office (see red below).

Historical Perspective

Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 33. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. The Democratic yearly average (that is the years Democrats were in the White House) was an increase of 8.3%. The years while the Republicans ran the White House, during this same period; the debt increased an average 9.3% per year. Those averages are pretty close.

If you look at the debt starting with Truman’s term (and remove Roosevelt’s WWII debt) the difference between the two parties contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.3% per year. Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87.[3]

Prior to the Neo-Conservative take over of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties debt philosophy, they both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan Presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton Presidency, where he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

fiscally conservative = raising my taxes and yours, good point.

Not sure what you define as being fiscally conservative, but take a look at this...

United States National Debt

(1938 to Present)

An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending

The chart below shows the United Stated national debt (per Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia[1] and US Government data[2]) with the various Presidents’ terms marked by vertical lines. Under President Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction debt has taken since George W. Bush entered office. There is no question that the steepest upward rises in debt take place after President Reagan was elected when so called Conservative Republican Presidents are in office (see red below).

Historical Perspective

Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 33. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. The Democratic yearly average (that is the years Democrats were in the White House) was an increase of 8.3%. The years while the Republicans ran the White House, during this same period; the debt increased an average 9.3% per year. Those averages are pretty close.

If you look at the debt starting with Truman’s term (and remove Roosevelt’s WWII debt) the difference between the two parties contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.3% per year. Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87.[3]

Prior to the Neo-Conservative take over of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties debt philosophy, they both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan Presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton Presidency, where he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

yet in all of that, a few important things are left out. after vietnam, very little money was spent on the refurbishment and modernization of the armed forces. that's what reagan was doing. just about every major piece of equipment on the battlefield today was from the r&d of that time.

so in essence, you wind up with the choice of a democratic president that spends next to nothing on the armed forces and allows it to become a "hollow force" or a republican one that has to catch up for those years of underfunding.

either way one chooses, we'll have a nice large debt to pay off when iraq is over. on that i'm sure we both agree.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

fiscally conservative = raising my taxes and yours, good point.

Not sure what you define as being fiscally conservative, but take a look at this...

United States National Debt

(1938 to Present)

An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending

The chart below shows the United Stated national debt (per Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia[1] and US Government data[2]) with the various Presidents’ terms marked by vertical lines. Under President Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction debt has taken since George W. Bush entered office. There is no question that the steepest upward rises in debt take place after President Reagan was elected when so called Conservative Republican Presidents are in office (see red below).

Historical Perspective

Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 33. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. The Democratic yearly average (that is the years Democrats were in the White House) was an increase of 8.3%. The years while the Republicans ran the White House, during this same period; the debt increased an average 9.3% per year. Those averages are pretty close.

If you look at the debt starting with Truman’s term (and remove Roosevelt’s WWII debt) the difference between the two parties contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.3% per year. Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87.[3]

Prior to the Neo-Conservative take over of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties debt philosophy, they both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan Presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton Presidency, where he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

yet in all of that, a few important things are left out. after vietnam, very little money was spent on the refurbishment and modernization of the armed forces. that's what reagan was doing. just about every major piece of equipment on the battlefield today was from the r&d of that time.

so in essence, you wind up with the choice of a democratic president that spends next to nothing on the armed forces and allows it to become a "hollow force" or a republican one that has to catch up for those years of underfunding.

either way one chooses, we'll have a nice large debt to pay off when iraq is over. on that i'm sure we both agree.

No. Actually the economic philosophy of the neocons has been to not be concerned about raising the national debt. Secondly, until we invaded Iraq - there was a consensus among military experts that warfare was evolving - we no longer would need large troop sizes - air power was the focus. That of course all changed when we got into the business of regime change.

Worth mentioning - you want to talk about the billions of dollars spent on worthless things such as the B-1? Sorry, but if you're going to say the Dems are soft on defence, that's a load of #######. There are sensible ways to spend money for defence and in terms of the budget on it - no other country has come close to ratio that we spend. But really that's whole other tangent you're taking this argument into.

Remember...fiscally conservative? History shows the Republicans clearly can't claim stake in that. Conservative my #######.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[dalegg 143]

Not saying the chart isn't accurate because I think it probably is, but you always got to question the bias of a chart that uses such benchmarks as "1st Oil War" and "2nd Oil War"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not saying the chart isn't accurate because I think it probably is, but you always got to question the bias of a chart that uses such benchmarks as "1st Oil War" and "2nd Oil War"

You can check his sources...

Related Websites:

The GDP to debt data can be found at the US Government web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

An Excel spreadsheet with the debt data and the chart above can be found at the following URL; http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.xls

Here is a link to see what the current debt is: http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

[1] The debt totals in Encarta show the actual amount of money borrowed by the United States in a given year. This total is often different, and typically larger than the total a given budget might have stated. Budgets are planning documents; the borrowed totals given here are what actually happen. That is why even though the budget was balanced during Bill Clinton’s last few years, the debt shown here shows an increase. The budget was balanced but the nation still borrowed more money than the budget predicted, or the treasury brought in.

[2] Government data on debt and the GDP can be found at the following website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

[3] Some who have read earlier versions of this paper suggest that to remove the WW2 debt biases the data. That is true to an extent. But rather than reaching into the distant past for comparisons it makes more sense to look at the last quarter century for to best understand current trends in government spending.

[4] In 2002 Bush’s increase of the debt was 24 times greater than Clinton’s last year in office, 430 billion v. 18 billion. In a matter of only two years neo-con leadership had managed to get spending completely out of control.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

No. Actually the economic philosophy of the neocons has been to not be concerned about raising the national debt. Secondly, until we invaded Iraq - there was a consensus among military experts that warfare was evolving - we no longer would need large troop sizes - air power was the focus. That of course all changed when we got into the business of regime change.

Worth mentioning - you want to talk about the billions of dollars spent on worthless things such as the B-1? Sorry, but if you're going to say the Dems are soft on defence, that's a load of #######. There are sensible ways to spend money for defence and in terms of the budget on it - no other country has come close to ratio that we spend. But really that's whole other tangent you're taking this argument into.

Remember...fiscally conservative? History shows the Republicans clearly can't claim stake in that. Conservative my #######.

as the replies were getting a bit long, snip!

steven, the first gulf war showed that air power alone won't win, that until you have a man on the ground, you don't own it. i fail to understand how that thinking survived into the next decade. we fought that war and learned the lesson and prompty forgot it during clinton's years as the politicians cut us down to almost half of what we had in active duty strength divisions. so much for remembering lessons learned

on the b-1, that was designed for deep penetration into soviet airspace for strategic raids on major targets. it's original purpose is gone now. whether it still has a purpose nowadays is a toss up. my remarks about dems being soft on defense is based on this: my early years in the military was during the last gasp of carter's reign. my first duty assignment we had more vehicles than people. does that sound right to you? i hope not. we had old equipment from the vietnam era and not enough people to even perform basic services on those vehicles (typically done one day a week). due to the shortage of personnel, what should have been a one day event would often occupy over half the week, affecting training and operations. what a choice eh?

Edited November 9, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No. Actually the economic philosophy of the neocons has been to not be concerned about raising the national debt. Secondly, until we invaded Iraq - there was a consensus among military experts that warfare was evolving - we no longer would need large troop sizes - air power was the focus. That of course all changed when we got into the business of regime change.

Worth mentioning - you want to talk about the billions of dollars spent on worthless things such as the B-1? Sorry, but if you're going to say the Dems are soft on defence, that's a load of #######. There are sensible ways to spend money for defence and in terms of the budget on it - no other country has come close to ratio that we spend. But really that's whole other tangent you're taking this argument into.

Remember...fiscally conservative? History shows the Republicans clearly can't claim stake in that. Conservative my #######.

as the replies were getting a bit long, snip!

steven, the first gulf war showed that air power alone won't win, that until you have a man on the ground, you don't own it. i fail to understand how that thinking survived into the next decade. we fought that war and learned the lesson and prompty forgot it during clinton's years as the politicians cut us down to almost half of what we had in active duty strength divisions. so much for remembering lessons learned

on the b-1, that was designed for deep penetration into soviet airspace for strategic raids on major targets. it's original purpose is gone now. whether it still has a purpose nowadays is a toss up. my remarks about dems being soft on defense is based on this: my early years in the military was during the last gasp of carter's reign. my first duty assignment we had more vehicles than people. does that sound right to you? i hope not. we had old equipment from the vietnam era and not enough people to even perform basic services on those vehicles (typically done one day a week). due to the shortage of personnel, what should have been a one day event would often occupy over half the week, affecting training and operations. what a choice eh?

Why would Carter have made a career as a Naval Officer if he didn't think the military was important? Again, you're arguing semantics. My reply was to your claim that the Dems want to tax and spend, so I gave you historical facts that it's actually the neocons who are not fiscally conservative and then you used the excuse that it's because Reagan spent more money on the military.

So, essentially you've said the Republicans spend less, except with military they spend more and will do it even if it increases our national debt?

Somewhere I've lost you with the term conservative...

Edited November 9, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[mawilson 2,133]

The national debt only makes sense when expressed as a percentage of GDP.

If you owe $10,000, is it a lot of money? Sure - for someone who makes $1,000 / month,

but it's peanuts for someone who makes $100,000 / month.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The national debt only makes sense when expressed as a percentage of GDP.

If you owe $10,000, is it a lot of money? Sure - for someone who makes $1,000 / month,

but it's peanuts for someone who makes $100,000 / month.

...from the source I posted.

The ratio of debt to GDP had been generally dropping since the end of World War II. When Mr. Reagan entered office the percent of US debt relative to GDP was down to 33.3%. Mr. Reagan campaigned on, and lobbied for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. He argued strongly to reduce the level of all that liberal spending. However the only plan he pursued to get there was cutting taxes. You can see in the chart above that cutting taxes and not spending, predictably made the debt increase - in real dollars and as a percent of GDP. During his eight years in office the percentage of debt to GDP grew to 51.9%. This increase amounts to a 64% increase in debt relative to GDP, a rather significant increase by anyone’s measure.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Why would Carter have made a career as a Naval Officer if he didn't think the military was important? Again, you're arguing semantics. My reply was to your claim that the Dems want to tax and spend, so I gave you historical facts that it's actually the neocons who are not fiscally conservative and then you used the excuse that it's because Reagan spent more money on the military.

So, essentially you've said the Republicans spend less, except with military they spend more and will do it even if it increases our national debt?

Somewhere I've lost you with the term conservative...

we've had that discussion before, about carter being a "career naval officer"

Upon the death of his father in 1953, however, Carter resigned from the Navy and took over and expanded his family's peanut farming business in Plains. link

at least in the military, a career is one who is in at least 20 years and retires.........

he was not..........so enjoy your semantics cereal

so you're denying that dems tax and spend? or is that not an issue as it's on social programs instead of the military? are you going to tell me that the underfunding of carter and lack of foresight on his part in regards to the soviet threat, which reagan saw and embarked on a long term spending program to catch up, something that carter should have done instead?

[dalegg 143]

This increase amounts to a 64% increase in debt relative to GDP, a rather significant increase by anyone’s measure.

Not by Truman's!