My Buddy!!!

What a guy, , ,


PROB

Background!!!

That's a myth - or a lie (LINK).

Since 1970, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.
The results are quite clear - not only do Republican presidents spend far more money, but they often spend it on such “necessities” as creating wars. Sadly, the American people are extremely unlikely to let the use of any for of facts, figures, or statistics inform their decisions. So, it looks like the Republican Party can continue with it’s campaign of FUD, and people will listen.

Also REPUBLICANS vs. DEMOCRATS ON THE ECONOMY (LINK)

Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.

Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)

In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.

I presume your facts are correct, but is it not more fun for the interlectual to watch the great unwashed debate Obama's Religion, or McCains need for incontinance pads, or should we just settle for Fox news?

Actually; I am not basing my comment about about the little Bush being a "FISCAL LIBERAL" on his military spending ...

for the most part Liberals wouldn't want to spend on the military...

I'm talking how he dumped so much into the:

1. Head Start - which over 40 years has yet to accomplish it's goal.
2. credit card contraption for Katrina victems which was scammed on.
3. and others I can't think of right now ... sorry - just woke up ...

__________________

Part of the first videoed speech by any President was by President Calvin Coolidge said:
I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves.

Can you tell he was a Republican!

For those who want something to care about:
Want To Do Good? Help This Organization Moyer Foundation's Camp Erin started by Phillies Pitcher

When something happens through no fault of your own almost everyone in this country believes there must be a temporary safety net, for a period of time until the person can get back on their feet, as they work hard to do so.
But welfare in our country now is being abused by many people who see it as a free ride.

Republicans may believe in government spending and helping the well off.

Conservatives, however, believe in limited government spending and the government helping no one.

__________________

republicans are into limited government because thats necessary for the uninhibited pursuit of wealth. conservativism, in politics, has to do with preservation of order -- its not really about limiting government, but change. the core principles of conservativism and liberalism are constant, but the ideologies are relative to the zeitgeist.

__________________
https://www.voteforchange.com/

This is exactly why terms like "liberal" and "conservative" shouldn't be used often in politics. Ideologically explicit terms should be used instead.

One of my first threads was on this subject. Of "Left" and "Right"

__________________

these terms do confuse a lot of people in the us (most people, probably). they have their uses, but yeah, id say theyre more divisive than anything else. its politics though. what are ya gonna do.

__________________
https://www.voteforchange.com/