1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Can Democrats complain about over spending?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Andy, May 23, 2008.

  1. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    President Bush recently veto'd $300 Billion in government hand outs to the such family farms like Ted Turner. The Democraps, control the senate, and dictate most spending bills, voted to override the veto. The Farm bill is hailed by Citizens Against Government Waste, as being the most "farcical farm bill in history" and it would generate a $2.9 billion deficit over 11 years under 2009 numbers. Although it seems the bill may have to be redone due to some clerical errors, the question I have is this:

    Can you rightly complain about Bush and Republicans over spending, when it's your party writing the spending bills and over riding vetos of over spending bills? Do you think it's a double standard to have your own party handing out public funds to political supporters, while complaining about the president causing a deficit?

    Note: I am not absolving Bush or the Repugs for over spending. I am asking the liberal leftwing Democrap supporters if it is hypocritical to complain and bewail the over spending of government, when it's your own party writing a bloated farm subsidies bill, that will blow $300 billion, send it to the president who vetoes it because of it's fiscal irresponsibility, and then over rides that veto to force the irresponsible bill through? Is that not just a tad hypocritical?
     
  2. Stormy

    Stormy New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Take it even one step farther -can they claim to be the champions of the poor and middle class when this farm bill benefits the rich farmers (yes all -there are rich farmers).
     
  3. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Sure I can, the Republicans are the ones who want to cut the Federal Income, aka taxes, but still spend the money. Even a dumber idea then overspending. Also the whole reason to have Republicans around use to be to have Dems push the things we need, and Republicans to try to keep the cost in line and be bitter that they helped anyone at all. Now they spend it even more, thus the check and balances are gone. Due to said Imbalance, some Dems have had to step up and police the spending themself. ( note I said Some)

    All I know is Clinton Balanced a Budget, Bush piles more on one side and takes off the other...and we are very off balance now.
     
  4. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Maybe if you adressed us in slightly friendly terms you would get an honest answer. Instead you automatically start with the your petty name calling. Spare us that. Otherwise, why should anyone bother?
     
  5. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Fascist don't do that, you know that :)
     
  6. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It is amazing how repeating a lie over and over results in people believing it. There never was a balanced budget. It never happened. Clinton raided Social Insecurity, and used the funds to claim that he balanced the budget. But Social Insecurity funds... are debt. So our debt continued to climb while he proclaimed our budget was balanced. Total lie.

    It would be the same as you earning $1000 a month, spending $1200, and then making a cash withdraw on a credit card for $400 and saying it's 'income'. "Yay I have $1400 income!" Can you really claim you have a $200 surplus when you are now owe $400 more in debt?? Of course not. Nor was there any real surplus under Captain Underpants. He just wanted you to think he was doing something more than getting serviced by as many ugly girls as he could find.

    Yes some Repugs want to spend the money, but uh... this bill was vetoed, so clearly they didn't want to spend this $300 Billion. You claim repugs are being irresponsible. Yet when democraps are given a chance to show how responsible they are... what do they do? Over ride the veto! They are no better than the repugs! We have a word for this: Hypocrite.

    But it gets better. The Senate, in a half hearted effort to claim to be fiscally mature, has a PAYGO rule. The "pay-as-you-go" rule states that they can only spending bills, that they have the money to pay for, as they go. So if they were to say... pass a tax cut (which they did), and Bush signs it (which he did), they can not spend money, that they do not have. It's their own rule.

    Yet, the Farm, a bloated pay-off-political-friends, bill, was in violation of this PAYGO rule. So here the democraps, who blame the repugs and president for the over spending they pass, and then over ride a veto of their fiscally irresponsible spending bill, which was already in violation of their own Senate rules for spending. They are not even following their own rules at the same time they blame others for over spending?

    We have a word for this: Hypocrite.

    So I ask again... can Democrats really complain about over spending?

    Btw, how can I be a fascist? That makes no logical sense. I'm for less government... less controls on the public... less spending... less confiscation of rightfully earned income. That's about as anti-fascist as I know to get. I'm a constitutionalist. I think both parties suck.
     
  7. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA

    Sure they can! :)

    Sorry but the charts & graphs that should be with the text below won't copy. However if you Goggle: United States National Debt and look for An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for Borrowing you'll see the large curve. It leveled out under Clinton... went to the moon under Bush.

    You can read the text right here though. It tells the story well.


    United States National Debt

    (1938 to Present)

    An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing
    By Steve McGourty

    Update History

    6 May 2007, Third Revision

    June 2006, Second Revision

    April 2005, First Revision

    July 2003, Original

    The chart below, Figure 1, shows the United States 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 since George W. Bush entered office. There is no question and a lot of mathematical proof that the steepest upward rises in debt since the end of World War II, started with President Reagan and continued with other so called Neo-Conservatives. (See red in Figure 1 below. For larger views of any graph in this paper just put your mouse pointer over the graph and click on it)

    For those who would prefer to see this debt data presented on a log scale click this link. The log scale certainly shows the WWII debt in a different perspective, and tends to flatten the more recent debt numbers. Changing the scale does not mask an obvious slant towards increased debt during Neo-Con administrations.

    While the data prior to 1946 is included for historical reference, most of this paper will concern itself with the years since World War II -- the last time this nation was in an all out war. The undeclared wars since 1946 have never required the mobilization of the entire population and thus would skew the modern data. Most of one lifetime is a wide enough sweep of time to cover[3].

    For the mathematically inclined, if you take the first derivative of the data presented to find the slope of each President’s debt increase, you will find that the Republican slopes are consistently more positive than the Democratic slopes. For everyone else, this just means that unbiased mathematical proof exists to support the claim that since 1945, Republican presidents have borrowed more than Democratic presidents regardless of the inflation rate[4].

    Historical Perspective

    "I place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."

    Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

    Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 34. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.7% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

    If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year.

    Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99[5].


    Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover 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, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

    Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents.

    The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.
     
  8. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Wow... that entire post basically said nothing new, accept that you are in fact, exactly what I stated... a hypocrite.

    Let's review. I did *NOT* say... that Bush didn't increase debt. I did *NOT* say... that repugs didn't increase debt.

    What I successfully proved, and documented, without in question or doubt, that your post didn't even address is....

    The Democraps are currently, as we speak, causing huge debt by passing and over riding a veto of a $300 Billion dollar farm bill. It was written by them... passed by them... and the veto on it was over turned by them... even despite it being against their own PAYGO anti-debt policy. :rolleyes:

    How can you whine about Bush/repugs over spending when it's YOUR party causing it here? There's a word for this, let me give you a refresher:

    hyp·o·crite
    –noun
    1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

    You CLAIM to believe in fiscal responsibility, by virtue of your whining about Repugs, while your ACTIONS (over riding a veto of a fiscally irresponsible bill) belie the stated belief. :cool:
     
  9. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    And this works quite well when the tax cuts help the economy, as they did when they were enacted.

    The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increas*ing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 re*cession) shows that this is exactly what hap*pened.

    # Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consec*utive quarters.
    The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Divi*dend payouts increased as well.
    # The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar*ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
    # The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar*ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

    As for the revenue issue:

    Tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated. By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.

    The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre–tax cut revenue level pro*jected in January 2000.

    The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre–tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue.

    It is spending, not tax cuts that have lead to a budget deficit. The tax cuts were a big success in terms on the economy. That is why I support them and the overall Republican philosophy of lowering taxes, as opposed to massive higher taxes and increased spending that a democratic government typically follows. While certainly Bush has increased spending by large amounts, the typical Republican mantra is not this, and many on the right are angry with Bush over this. However, his tax cuts were a big success for the economy and did not have a major effect on creating less income or an unbalanced budget, that was solely the effect of increased spending. (Typically a democrat mantra)
     
  10. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Nice rant. :)

    All I said was history clearly shows that when the Republicans are in charge they run up the debt more than the Dems. If that's someone's interpretation of being more trustworthy that's fine.
    ;)

    On the one particular Bill that you raised... The Farm Bill... I might remind you that the Democrats don't have 67 votes in the Senate to override anything (until November). Now I wonder how that override happened? :D
     
  11. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I said nothing at all about being trust worthy. You made that up. You never debate what evidence is given, only some lame excuse for a point that you made up yourself.

    Does it matter if some repugs helped the overspending democraps? No, actually it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference at all to the point made. They wrote the bill, they passed the bill, they reversed the veto. At any point they could have stood up and refused to over spend. But... they didn't. The fact they needed repug support to over ride the veto, and still did it, proves how committed they are to over spending.

    Again, is it hypocritical to blame another party for over spending when YOUR OWN PARTY IS OVER SPENDING? Why yes, yes it is. Are you a hypocrite? Why yes... yes you are. :cool:

    Time to grow up and accept responsibility for your actions. But then, you are more like a 10 year old. What new mythical point will you claim I said and attack this time? More youtube videos? I'll be waiting for another ignorant reply.
     
Loading...

Share This Page