or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › DEBT: Republicans Versus Democrats
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DEBT: Republicans Versus Democrats

post #1 of 102
Thread Starter 
Here are some figures (if you have figures showing a different perspective please post them) showing that The Republican Presidents bring great harm to America, indeed the hapless lot may be inadvertently destroying it.


Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending: 1962,-2001,

Dem 6.96 %

Repub 7.57 %



Percentage growth in Non-Defense Federal Spending: 1962,-2001,

Dem 8.34 %

Repub 10.08 %



Yearly budget deficit: 1962,-2001,

Dem $36 billion

Repub $190 billion


Increase in National Debt: 1962,-2001,

Dem Total debt increased by $0.72 trillion (20 years)

Repub Total debt increased by $3.8 trillion (20 years)
~ http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

Now, I know Repubs will say "the Dems are responsible for those higher debts etc", but that begs the question why don't Repubs just not run for office if they always let the Dems make it all worse than if the Dems had been in office?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2 of 102
dems need to fight more wars.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #3 of 102
These are some pretty misleading statistics given that they cover large amounts of time with no historical context. Although, talksense101 already hinted at a problem.
post #4 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

These are some pretty misleading statistics given that they cover large amounts of time with no historical context. Although, talksense101 already hinted at a problem.

That getting us into terrible wars makes Republicans spend more than Democrats? Got it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #5 of 102
There has been much more taxes cut under republican presidents than democrat.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html
post #6 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Here are some figures (if you have figures showing a different perspective please post them) showing that The Republican Presidents bring great harm to America, indeed the hapless lot may be inadvertently destroying it.


Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending: 1962,-2001,

Dem 6.96 %

Repub 7.57 %



Percentage growth in Non-Defense Federal Spending: 1962,-2001,

Dem 8.34 %

Repub 10.08 %



Yearly budget deficit: 1962,-2001,

Dem $36 billion

Repub $190 billion


Increase in National Debt: 1962,-2001,

Dem Total debt increased by $0.72 trillion (20 years)

Repub Total debt increased by $3.8 trillion (20 years)
~ http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

Now, I know Repubs will say "the Dems are responsible for those higher debts etc", but that begs the question why don't Repubs just not run for office if they always let the Dems make it all worse than if the Dems had been in office?

Pssst!

They don't like bottom lines! There's no good way to spin them. Haven't you got that yet?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #7 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

There has been much more taxes cut under republican presidents than democrat.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

I am going to post a few opionions ans observations. They will be simplistic but make the point I wish to make, I hope.

I think that under Republican presidents there have been noticible increases in revenue that have seen similar increases in spending by whichever congress is in power. Generally congress is controlled by the opposite party.

The republican presidents cut taxes to spur the economy and then either the following president or congress raises taxes which result in short term gains for the budget deficit but longer term problems for the economy itself.

It is not a perfect description, but I think it holds some water. Under Clinton I recall there were massive cuts to the military and much of that led to a drop in the deficit, but at the cost of national defense ability. And the nation had to pay a lot to build those forces back up when they were needed again. Short term gain, longer term problem.

I would be interested to see who held what power during those ups and downs. Also, what policies and programs were cut or created during those administrations. That would be more interesting to me than even the above guesses.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #8 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I am going to post a few opionions ans observations. They will be simplistic but make the point I wish to make, I hope.

I think that under Republican presidents there have been noticible increases in revenue that have seen similar increases in spending by whichever congress is in power. Generally congress is controlled by the opposite party.

The republican presidents cut taxes to spur the economy and then either the following president or congress raises taxes which result in short term gains for the budget deficit but longer term problems for the economy itself.

It is not a perfect description, but I think it holds some water. Under Clinton I recall there were massive cuts to the military and much of that led to a drop in the deficit, but at the cost of national defense ability. And the nation had to pay a lot to build those forces back up when they were needed again. Short term gain, longer term problem.

I would be interested to see who held what power during those ups and downs. Also, what policies and programs were cut or created during those administrations. That would be more interesting to me than even the above guesses.

Quote:
but at the cost of national defense ability


How do you figure?

Quote:
And the nation had to pay a lot to build those forces back up when they were needed again

For what? The Iraq war?

Quote:
That would be more interesting to me than even the above guesses

The opening statement wasn't a guess however. They were simple facts.

I know Republicans don't like to look at it but there's a fundamental difference between the end of say the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. There was ( for the first time in years ) a surplus in the budget. Now Republicans will site anything to downgrade this like the dot com bubble. However that excuse just goes so far. Obviously Clinton was doing something right in bringing an economy coming out of a recession to such a positive state in 7 years. True we went into a long overdue negative cycle after that but it passed. The thing is we've really never been on top like that since. Now we have another Democratic president coming into a different climate. The worst recession since the Great Depression and no surplus in the budget. But a lot of debt.

In the end it still doesn't change the bottom line. That's always important to pay attention to because there's really no excuse you can use to change it be it Democrat or Republican.

The question of who has raised the debt the most is one item. And if you're going to ask that question in the form of an accusation there's a simple answer.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #9 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Pssst!

They don't like bottom lines! There's no good way to spin them. Haven't you got that yet?

Apparently Statistical analysis along with economics is not your forte I see. Statisticians can compile data, but it's always painful to see it clearly misused / misinterpreted. Anyone can compile misleading statistics - that's easy to do. Generating statistics that can be meaningfully used is hard to do. Go take a stats class jimmac.
post #10 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Apparently Statistical analysis along with economics is not your forte I see. Statisticians can compile data, but it's always painful to see it clearly misused / misinterpreted. Anyone can compile misleading statistics - that's easy to do. Generating statistics that can be meaningfully used is hard to do. Go take a stats class jimmac.

Instead of the insults why don't you add something oh....say topical?

How does anything you've said about me change the bottom line?

No spin. No insults or Ad-Homs just a simple answer. And rememeber we're talking abouit the opening statement.

By the way I do know a thing or two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

With a simple outcome like measuring end results over a long period of time it's simple to draw a conclusion. The longer this pattern goes ( and different individuals are involved with the same group ) the less likely there were other variables involved to influence the outcome. 1962 to 2001 is quite awhile. I was 9 in 62'. The house I live in was built by my parents in 62'. That was quite awhile ago.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #11 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Instead of the insults why don't you add something oh....say topical?

And now apparently reading ability is lost upon you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

statisticians can compile data

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

it's always painful to see it clearly misused / misinterpreted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Anyone can compile misleading statistics - that's easy to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Generating statistics that can be meaningfully used is hard to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How does anything you've said about me change the bottom line?

The bottom line is the statistics generated here lead you to crappy conclusion - read above. lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No spin. No insults or Ad-Homs just a simple answer. And rememeber we're talking abouit the opening statement.

Read first and you might actually gleam some content off of people's non-liberal posts.
post #12 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

And now apparently reading ability is lost upon you.











The bottom line is the statistics generated hear lead you to crappy conclusion - read above. lol



Read first and you might actually gleam some content off of people's non-liberal posts.


Blah, blah, blah!
And "
Quote:
hear

in this instance is spelled here. How does this change the numbers in the bottom line? How does this change the conclusion? Be specific please.

Show us how it's different.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #13 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How do you figure?

For what? The Iraq war?

Our military was setup to be able to fight a war on 2 major fronts. With the Clinton cuts that was no longer possible. No matter how you slice it that reduces the ability of the military to defend the nation.

And they are there for any possibillity of war be it Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other front that we did not see coming and still do not see coming. This is not partisan politics to me.


Quote:
The opening statement wasn't a guess however. They were simple facts.

I know Republicans don't like to look at it but there's a fundamental difference between the end of say the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. There was ( for the first time in years ) a surplus in the budget. Now Republicans will site anything to downgrade this like the dot com bubble. However that excuse just goes so far. Obviously Clinton was doing something right in bringing an economy coming out of a recession to such a positive state in 7 years. True we went into a long overdue negative cycle after that but it passed. The thing is we've really never been on top like that since. Now we have another Democratic president coming into a different climate. The worst recession since the Great Depression and no surplus in the budget. But a lot of debt.

In the end it still doesn't change the bottom line. That's always important to pay attention to because there's really no excuse you can use to change it be it Democrat or Republican.

The question of who has raised the debt the most is one item. And if you're going to ask that question in the form of an accusation there's a simple answer.

Re-read my post. I was only talking about what I said, not the original post. Keep your partisan venom to yourself.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #14 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Our military was setup to be able to fight a war on 2 major fronts. With the Clinton cuts that was no longer possible. No matter how you slice it that reduces the ability of the military to defend the nation.

And they are there for any possibillity of war be it Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other front that we did not see coming and still do not see coming. This is not partisan politics to me.




Re-read my post. I was only talking about what I said, not the original post. Keep your partisan venom to yourself.

Quote:
Our military was setup to be able to fight a war on 2 major fronts

Why did we need to? The era of us playing world policeman is coming to an end. Even trumptman sees that. We can't afford it. If you want to see what happens to an economy that over spends on it's military I suggest you look at the Soviets. Oh! That's right! They don't exist anymore.

How was what I said to you partisan or venom?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #15 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Blah, blah, blah!
And " in this instance is spelled here. How does this change the numbers in the bottom line? How does this change the conclusion? Be specific please.

Show us how it's different.

I would be interested to see who held what power during those ups and downs. Also, what policies and programs were cut or created during those administrations.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #16 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I would be interested to see who held what power during those ups and downs. Also, what policies and programs were cut or created during those administrations.

But how does that change the bottom line. It's already been established that Republicans were in power during these times and this question was raised because of the charge ( by Republicans ) that Democrats raise the national debt? Plus there's the fact that this goes on over a long period of time. That kind of negates the idea that inviduals are the cause of this since it's a long period of time with different individuals in the same group.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #17 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Why did we need to? The era of us playing world policeman is coming to an end. Even trumptman sees that. We can't afford it. If you want to see what happens to an economy that over spends on it's military I suggest you look at the Soviets. Oh! That's right! They don't exist anymore.

How was what I said to you partisan or venom?

How about:
"I know Republicans don't like to look at it but there's a fundamental difference between the end of say the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. "

Seems to qualify as partisan.

As for the rest, I stated my post was my opinion already. Thank you for posting yours.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #18 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

How about:
"I know Republicans don't like to look at it but there's a fundamental difference between the end of say the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. "

Seems to qualify as partisan.

As for the rest, I stated my post was my opinion already. Thank you for posting yours.

Quote:
Seems to qualify as partisan.

Is what I said in anyway untrue?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #19 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But how does that change the bottom line. It's already been established that Republicans were in power during these times and this question was raised because of the charge ( by Republicans ) that Democrats raise the national debt? Plus there's the fact that this goes on over a long period of time. That kind of negates the idea that inviduals are the cause of this since it's a long period of time with different individuals in the same group.

What has been established is that there was a republican president. Who controlled the congress? What policies were put in place? What spending was done. What agendas were followed?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #20 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

What has been established is that there was a republican president. Who controlled the congress? What policies were put in place? What spending was done. What agendas were followed?

Actually that's not quite true. What's been established is that there have been many Republican presidents over a long period of time in this sample. That's a really important difference. If we were talking about one instance over a short period of time that would of course be different.

This is exactly why bottom lines like this are so important to look at.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #21 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

dems need to fight more wars.

So what about this?- Percentage growth in Non-Defense Federal Spending: 1962,-2001,

Dem 8.34 %

Repub 10.08 %



And this-

Non-defense Federal Government Employees:1962,-2001

Dems Rose by 59,000 (16 % of total rise over 40 years)

Repub Rose by 310,000 (84% of total rise over 40 years)
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #22 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Actually that's not quite true. What's been established is that there have been many Republican presidents over a long period of time in this sample. That's a really important difference. If we were talking about one instance over a short period of time that would of course be different.

This is exactly why bottom lines like this are so important to look at.

Jimmac, turn off the partisan filter and read the original post. Unless he misrepresented the article or data the repub vs democrat is when one side or the other has the presidency.

In and of itself that is not that great of an insight as to who was actually controlling fiscal policy. And so we come back to my, rather non-partsan point. Which policies were put in place, what programs and what speding was done. Who controllesd the purse strings. Etc.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #23 of 102
Although it would be contrary to the spirit of competitive argumentation, the issue is not one of left vs. right. The issue is now the government vs. the American people.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #24 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I am going to post a few opionions ans observations. They will be simplistic but make the point I wish to make, I hope.

I think that under Republican presidents there have been noticible increases in revenue that have seen similar increases in spending by whichever congress is in power. Generally congress is controlled by the opposite party.

The republican presidents cut taxes to spur the economy and then either the following president or congress raises taxes which result in short term gains for the budget deficit but longer term problems for the economy itself.

It is not a perfect description, but I think it holds some water. Under Clinton I recall there were massive cuts to the military and much of that led to a drop in the deficit, but at the cost of national defense ability. And the nation had to pay a lot to build those forces back up when they were needed again. Short term gain, longer term problem.

I would be interested to see who held what power during those ups and downs. Also, what policies and programs were cut or created during those administrations. That would be more interesting to me than even the above guesses.

Do you have any data to back any of that up regarding the economy?

GDP is often used as a measurement for the state of the economy and the Dems have had a much stronger showing there-

"GDP growth: 1962,-2001

Dems 3.9 %

Repub 2.9 %




GDP growth: 1930-2000

Dems 5.4%

Repub 1.6 %




And then inflation-

Inflation: 1962,-2001

Dems 4.26 %

Repub 4.96 %
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #25 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

There has been much more taxes cut under republican presidents than democrat.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

And there's been much more debt too. Most of Bush tax cuts went to the very well off. For the average person with higher health premiums higher State taxes, lower pay, higher unemployment, reduced benefits etc all Bush initiatives, their worse off.

Real disposable personal income growth is a better way to look at how much money all the tax cuts, tax increases and general living costs leave people.
The Dems have a better record their too-



Real Disposable Personal Income Growth per year 1953,-2001

Dems 3.65%

Repub 3.08%


And investments...

Average After-Tax Return on Tangible Capital: Jan 1952 - June 2004

Dems 4.3%

Repub 3.2%



The stock market?-

Annual stock market return: 1927 (through) 1998

Dems 11%

Repub 2%



Annual stock market return DOW: (1900) 1927 - 2000

Dems 13.4%

Repub 8.1%
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #26 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

And there's been much more debt too. Most of Bush tax cuts went to the very well off. For the average person with higher health premiums higher State taxes, lower pay, higher unemployment, reduced benefits etc all Bush initiatives, their worse off.

Real disposable personal income growth is a better way to look at how much money all the tax cuts, tax increases and general living costs leave people.
The Dems have a better record their too-



Real Disposable Personal Income Growth per year 1953,-2001

Dems 3.65%

Repub 3.08%


And investments...

Average After-Tax Return on Tangible Capital: Jan 1952 - June 2004

Dems 4.3%

Repub 3.2%



The stock market?-

Annual stock market return: 1927 (through) 1998

Dems 11%

Repub 2%



Annual stock market return DOW: (1900) 1927 - 2000

Dems 13.4%

Repub 8.1%

The president is not the only factor and he does not get to determine the way that the money is spent. Until the question I have asked many times is answered these stats are interesting figures and nothing more. When a republican holds the presidency who usually holds the congress? And vice versa?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #27 of 102
@ NoahJ

Your pointing out problems with trying to analysis too much into these statistics - the fact that they post them in and of itself means you'll have to teach them statistics to have even an ounce of success. And their unlikely to want to be taught statistics by anyone.

Notice jimmac for instance NoahJ; he can't distinguish between bottom-line and good statistical analysis. Statistics for the sake of statistics is meaningless.
post #28 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

@ NoahJ

Your pointing out problems with trying to analysis too much into these statistics - the fact that they post them in and of itself means you'll have to teach them statistics to have even an ounce of success. And their unlikely to want to be taught statistics by anyone.

Notice jimmac for instance NoahJ; he can't distinguish between bottom-line and good statistical analysis. Statistics for the sake of statistics is meaningless.

But Talon if you're so right and I'm so wrong why didn't you answer any of my questions with logic instead of insults?

You'll have to do much better than that. Show how it's meaningless in this instance. What you're saying is true for isolated cases where you have a small sampling over a short period of time with limited variables. That's not this.
This has many different economic conditions with different people ( up to and including the president ) running things over a long period within the same group.

The initial premise is pretty simple here. Republicans claim that Democrats are always creating debt. But the numbers just don't support that accusation.

In fact just the opposite.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #29 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Jimmac, turn off the partisan filter and read the original post. Unless he misrepresented the article or data the repub vs democrat is when one side or the other has the presidency.

In and of itself that is not that great of an insight as to who was actually controlling fiscal policy. And so we come back to my, rather non-partsan point. Which policies were put in place, what programs and what speding was done. Who controllesd the purse strings. Etc.

The very fact that you can't see there's a pattern here ( established over a long period of time ) shows that it's you showing a partisan side not me.

Saying in essence " You're just wrong and I'm just right " isn't enough.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #30 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Although it would be contrary to the spirit of competitive argumentation, the issue is not one of left vs. right. The issue is now the government vs. the American people.

That in itself is a opinion based statement ( a third side? ).

What's the truth about something that's been going on for 40 years?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #31 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The president is not the only factor and he does not get to determine the way that the money is spent. Until the question I have asked many times is answered these stats are interesting figures and nothing more. When a republican holds the presidency who usually holds the congress? And vice versa?

From the BEA's figures, GDP less increase in debt-

President Dem
Congress Dem
Yearly Growth 3.45

President Dem
Congress Rep
Yearly Growth 3.31

President Rep
Congress Dem
Yearly Growth 1.28

President Rep
Congress Rep
Yearly Growth 0.59

President Rep
Congress Mixed
Yearly Growth 1.64

~ http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/0...tively_16.html

BEA data~ http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...JavaBox=no#Mid
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #32 of 102
@ Hands Sandon

- Those are much more useful statistics to discuss and thank you for providing links.

@ Hands Sandon latest data:

I think NoahJ is right in that we still need to look at the data with the eye of what was happening in history at that time. A lot has happened in the past 40 years, and each decade has been different (think Carter vs Reagan for one example) and if we don't get to that fine of grain of detail, its harder to objectively discuss and analysis the reasons for how it ultimately got this way in the long term. There isn't anything to account for that with this data. The data by Hands Sandon's latest post isn't useless, but deserves more attention and analysis.
post #33 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

@ Hands Sandon

- Those are much more useful statistics to discuss and thank you for providing links.

@ Hands Sandon latest data:

I think NoahJ is right in that we still need to look at the data with the eye of what was happening in history at that time. A lot has happened in the past 40 years, and each decade has been different (think Carter vs Reagan for one example) and if we don't get to that fine of grain of detail, its harder to objectively discuss and analysis the reasons for how it ultimately got this way in the long term. There isn't anything to account for that with this data. The data by Hands Sandon's latest post isn't useless, but deserves more attention and analysis.

So with all those different things happening there has to be something going on. Some commonality. The likelihood of it just being coincidence is very small. So you're saying that something else happened every time a Republican took office in the Whitehouse over a 40 year period? There's been 5 of them.

Quote:
There isn't anything to account for that with this data.

Except that Republicans cause more debt. Naw! It couldn't be that!

Why don't you show us how that's wrong and why since you've implied this is your " forte "?

If you can show there is some other common factor causing this or that this really is a wild coincidence I'll admit I'm wrong. But you have to prove your supposition. You have to prove it first otherwise Hands' original idea stands. He's supplied the data. So far you've supplied opinion.

You made the statement that it was meaningless so the obligation is for you to prove otherwise.

You know there's that old Sherlock Holms adage :
Quote:
After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth


But I'm guessing you don't like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle either.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So with all those different things happening there has to be something going on. Some commonality. The likelihood of it just being coincidence is very small. So you're saying that something else happened every time a Republican took office in the Whitehouse over a 40 year period?

Yes, are you dense? Where have you been that every decade looks the same to you? Oh right, Liberal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Except that Republicans cause more debt. Naw! It couldn't be that!

I'll give all debt incurred by Iraq to Bush, however, all debt generated surrounding the current economic state is due to the Democratic Congress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Why don't you show us how that's wrong since you've implied this is your " forte "?

I just told you what's wrong - and its blatantly obvious to see. You have statistics that are being thrown around that don't account for very many factors that are potentially misleading you to inappropriate conclusions. I say potentially because no detailed statistical analysis has been put forth yet to establish any such conclusions as valid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If you can show there is some other common factor causing this or that this really is a wild coincidence

I don't have to, there is plainly insufficient statistics present in this thread atm to come to any real conclusion. Putting out an half-assed one is no substitute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'll admit I'm wrong.

What, you do that? Since when?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But you have to prove your supposition.

My supposition is anything but - in multivariate situations if you want to come to any sensible conclusion about the data you'll need a heck of a lot more analysis done to come to any in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You have top prove it first otherwise Hands original idea stands.

So to counter I must pull out an equally absurd statistical analysis to counterpoint this one? No point stands because there is insufficient analysis done on the data to conclude anything meaningful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

<snip misuse of adage>

This data has left anything but more questions and more problems to be resolved. Not all possibilities have been precluded because this data barely touches the surface.
post #35 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Yes, are you dense? Where have you been that every decade looks the same to you? Oh right, Liberal...



I'll give all debt incurred by Iraq to Bush, however, all debt generated surrounding the current economic state is due to the Democratic Congress.



I just told you what's wrong - and its blatantly obvious to see. You have statistics that are being thrown around that don't account for very many factors that are potentially misleading you to inappropriate conclusions. I say potentially because no detailed statistical analysis has been put forth yet to establish any such conclusions as valid.



I don't have to, there is plainly insufficient statistics present in this thread atm to come to any real conclusion. Putting out an half-assed one is no substitute.



What, you do that? Since when?



My supposition is anything but - in multivariate situations if you want to come to any sensible conclusion about the data you'll need a heck of a lot more analysis done to come to any in the first place.



So to counter I must pull out an equally absurd statistical analysis to counterpoint this one? No point stands because there is insufficient analysis done on the data to conclude anything meaningful.



This data has left anything but more questions and more problems to be resolved. Not all possibilities have been precluded because this data barely touches the surface.

Quote:
Yes, are you dense? Where have you been that every decade looks the same to you? Oh right, Liberal...

What was that NoahJ was saying about " partisan venom "? And I've already said there are a lot of differences here. There is one thing that's the same. Three guesses.

Quote:
all debt generated surrounding the current economic state is due to the Democratic Congress.

In two years vs. six?

Quote:
I don't have to, there is plainly insufficient statistics present in this thread atm to come to any real conclusion. Putting out an half-assed one is no substitute.

Do I need to quote Holms for you again?

Quote:
So to counter I must pull out an equally absurd statistical analysis to counterpoint this one? No point stands because there is insufficient analysis done on the data to conclude anything meaningful.

So in other words you've got nothing.

One thing I've learned in life is that most " truths " are really basic and simple. If someone tries to tell you something else they're probably selling something.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #36 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What was that NoahJ was saying about " partisan venom "? And I've already said there are a lot of differences here. There is one thing that's the same. Three guesses.

I have nothing against NoahJ but I don't see why your grouping me in with him? I think I'm slightly more conservative than he is from reading his comments. Eventually he'll figure out how dense liberals are and it'll either draw him towards or away from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

In two years vs. six?

Correct, but since you weren't paying attention for the last 40 years I have no doubt that you failed to tune into what was happening for the last two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Do I need to quote Holms for you again?

Feel free, when it comes time to post your final word of the thread again (because I'm sure you'll want to have the last word here too since I've given it to you in all the other threads we've had as well) you can mindlessly post the misused Holms quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So in other words you've got nothing.

No, that would sum up your assessments and comments in this thread. Other people have actually put in some effort to add some analysis, whether it be statistical or otherwise. But there is still nothing I can do to increase your reading comprehension or make you non-partisan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

One thing I've learned in life is that most " truths " are really basic and simple. If someone tries to tell you something else they're probably selling something.

So you live as a simpleton? Here you go, I present to you the Darwin Award. http://www.darwinawards.com/

For everyone else, there's higher level reasoning...
post #37 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

I have nothing against NoahJ but I don't see why your grouping me in with him? I think I'm slightly more conservative than he is from reading his comments. Eventually he'll figure out how dense liberals are and it'll either draw him towards or away from it.



Correct, but since you weren't paying attention for the last 40 years I have no doubt that you failed to tune into what was happening for the last two.



Feel free, when it comes time to post your final word of the thread again (because I'm sure you'll want to have the last word here too since I've given it to you in all the other threads we've had as well) you can mindlessly post the misused Holms quote.



No, that would sum up your assessments and comments in this thread. Other people have actually put in some effort to add some analysis, whether it be statistical or otherwise. But there is still nothing I can do to increase your reading comprehension or make you non-partisan.



So you live as a simpleton? Here you go, I present to you the Darwin Award. http://www.darwinawards.com/

For everyone else, there's higher level reasoning...

Quote:
Other people have actually put in some effort to add some analysis, whether it be statistical or otherwise

Well let's see.......in looking back in the thread the only proof of anything I see other than opinion ( and of course a little help from Mr. Holms ) was supplied by Hands.

You did offer a few insults.

But still nothing.

Thanks anyway!

You know the really sad thing about this is the Republicans used to be thrifty.

But that was awhile ago.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #38 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well let's see.......in looking back in the thread the only proof of anything I see other than opinion ( and of course a little help from Mr. Holms ) was supplied by Hands.

You did offer a few insults.

But still nothing.

Thanks anyway!

You know the really sad thing about this is the Republicans used to be thrifty.

But that was awhile ago.

There used to be a difference between Republicans and Democrats that was more obvious than just the name as well. But that was a long time ago.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #39 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

There used to be a difference between Republicans and Democrats that was more obvious than just the name as well. But that was a long time ago.

That's been an on going thing since I was a kid. The idea that the Republicans and the Democrats were becoming more and more alike. I'd say that stopped with the Neocons.

The Democrats have nothing like them. That doesn't mean the Democrats are angels. It just means they're different. The Neocons are a different breed and really quite scary. They don't just want to have more government intervention ( wiretapping etc. ) they're not afraid to spend a lot on their pet projects. They're really into control ( while blaming the Democrats for big government ). Thank god their time is over now as they've been caught with their collective pants down too many times.

When Republican reform finally happens there will be no room for them as they don't exactly bring in the votes anymore.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #40 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

That's been an on going thing since I was a kid. The idea that the Republicans and the Democrats were becoming more and more alike. I'd say that stopped with the Neocons.

The Democrats have nothing like them. That doesn't mean the Democrats are angels. It just means they're different. The Neocons are a different breed and really quite scary. They don't just want to have more government intervention ( wiretapping etc. ) they're not afraid to spend a lot on their pet projects. They're really into control ( while blaming the Democrats for big government ). Thank god their time is over now as they've been caught with their collective pants down too many times.

When Republican reform finally happens there will be no room for them as they don't exactly bring in the votes anymore.

The Democrats have nothing like them? I wish that were true. And noit because they are some kind of evil group. Because then there would be some sort of choice between the 2 parties other than mostly rhetoric.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › DEBT: Republicans Versus Democrats