[Totally OT and Hyjack]
IIRC and FTR, Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California; not sure if he ran nationally or not.
Big fan of his Muckracking books, esp. The Jungle!
[/Totally OT and Hyjack]
This from the man that said:
:rolleyes:
I’m not a “conservative voter”. But I did vote for a judge on Tuesday because his name is Lynch.
Judge Lynch.
I’m gonna try to stay out of his courtroom, though. 
It could be worse. Last week, I kept coming home to calls on my answering machine asking me to support both candidates for county controller, not to mention a few other candidates. What’s really bothersome is that even if I were on the National Do Not Call List, as I understand things, they’d still be legal. On the other hand, I was amused that the call asking me to support the Democratic candidate came from a man who said he was with a Baptist church. I also figure there’s a bit of karma in it – I’ve been known to call candidates at home and ask why I should vote for them or, in the case of one particularly obnxious twerp, tell him why he’s lost my vote.
You know, darkhold, you really could have messed with this caller’s head. Just say something about how you’re against gun control because it would mean you’re not allowed to shoot women who abort poor, innocent babies.:o
CJ
kniz, you might consider the party affiliations of those gentlemen, and then you might consider why they claim them. I could have added that the Republicans are now the party of Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond. No, friend, the tolerance and even embrace of racists by the GOP starting with Nixon’s 1968 “Southern Strategy”, and its repudiation by the Democrats with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is simple historical fact, and that invalidates the “party of Lincoln” line that helps you guys avoid facing what you’ve become.
Jodi, I’ve tried to give you credit for even a little responsibility, but if you’re reduced to saying that the opposite of everything someone says must be what’s right, then you really still haven’t left junior high school. Pity.
Seriously, ELVIS, do not trouble yourself trying to give me any credit. Yours is not the type of credit I am interested in having, at least insofar as politics are concerned. For all I know you’re the world’s nicest, smartest guy when other things are discussed, but your political views and the way in which you discuss and defend them are whacked. And I certainly am out of junior high, which I will prove to you just as soon as study hall gets over.
No, 'twas a Democrat. This was long after the primaries, on the Friday night before the general election.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
** Shodan, who is in control of both parties and the White House? ** Republicans are in charge of the Republican party and the White House. God knows who is in charge of the Democrats.
Yours, on the other hand, was up to your usual standards. Unfortunately.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, perhaps this needs to be down at Jodi’s level for you to get it: Which party has full responsibility for the current record deficit budgets? Hint: It’s yours. The Republicans have full control of the budget process, and look what they’ve done with it. Clear now? Or do you have another moronic crack to make to further establish your disconnect with reality?
This is just one of many examples of how you guys have been supporting actions that go against what you claim your principles to be. If what you say is what you really believe, then why are you doing that? What do you plan to do about it other than dismiss whatever anyone says to point out your hypocrisy to you? Is this the way to convince anyone you’re right about anything, or could ever be?
Ok. Let’s test this. I direct this message at anybody who believes that they are “90%” Republican.
I’ll take a Republican Senator from a swing state and display the first 10 “Key votes of the 197th Congress” from The Almanac of American Politics. Specifically, I’m taking Rick Santorum from PA.
Vote #1. Approve Bush’s tax cuts: Y
<<Flowbark’s comment: In practice, I can’t see how anybody can honestly call themselves a fiscal conservative and approve of W’s tax cuts. Unless they propose some rather serious budget cuts, which in practice would have to affect social security and/or medicare. This is why I yearn for a McCain, Lugar, Peterson, DuPont, Dole (either one) or even a Nixon over a GWB. Relatively speaking. It’s also why I’m leary of anybody claiming to be an elected moderate Republican. In practice, none will stand up for fiscal conservatism.*>>
-
Expand Patient’s Rights in Dealing with Insurers and HMOs: N
-
Campaign Finance Reform: N
-
Permit ANWR Development (Alaska Oil Drilling): Y
-
Confirm Ashcroft as Attorney General: Y
-
Bar Gays in the Boy Scouts: Y
-
$ for Hate Crimes Prosecution: N
-
Overseas Military Abortions: N/A
-
Bar Cooperation with International Criminal Court: Y
-
Extend “Trade Promotion Authority” for the President to negotiate Trade Agreements: Y
<<I’ll add an 11th, since #8 was NA:>>
- Authorize Force in Iraq.: Y
Full disclosure: I’m at about 20-30%.
- I use the old definition of fiscal conservative, refering to those who don’t like budget deficits.
Here’s some info on push polling:
Don’t worry though, W thinks that push polling is wrong: “When asked about “push-polling” after leaving a question-and-answer session with students at Northwestern High School in Rock Hill, South Carolina, Bush said he would fire anyone in his campaign who engaged in the practice.” http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/10/campaign.wrap/
Pre-emption:
Ultra-conservative Republican Presidents propose budget-busting tax cuts. “Cut taxes and spend anyway” Republican Presidents do the same.
Contemporary moderate Republicans will not propose budget-busting tax cuts while occupying the Oval Office, but will not vote against them while sitting in Congress either.
This was not always the case. In John Anderson’s day, “Fiscal Conservative” was more than just a phony slogan in Republican circles.
And, flowbark, the flip side of that is all the Democratic candidates for President are recommending that the Bush tax cuts be rescinded, all that money be spent, and that additional spending increases be implemented for everything except defense.
In other words, you would lose whatever economic stimulus to growth provided by the tax cuts, in addition to greatly increased spending. Which means, in practice, exactly what the Democrats have given us every time they get elected - tax and spend.
Which is in part why I am a Republican. Yes, I am in favor of a balanced budget. But the chances that the Democrats will provide it are darn near zero. The Republicans provided it, more than once. The Democrats have never provided it anytime in the modern era.
Play the percentages. What else is there?
Regards,
Shodan
What economic stimulus are you dreaming of? What we actually have is debt. Piles of it. Growing piles. No end in sight to those piles. Piles our children will still be digging. Piles bigger than any we’ve ever had before. Piles even bigger than those resulting from the budgets submitted by Saint Ronald. Piles that were growing holes under the budgets submitted by Lucifer Clinton. Piles dumped on us by a single-party Republican government. Piles you’re somehow blaming on the powerless Democrats anyway. Get the picture, Captain Cognitive Dissonance? That’s the “percentages” you’re playing. Zero.
You can denigrate your tax-and-spend strawman all you like, but now while defending borrow-and-spend-anyway tactics. Yet that’s what modern Republicanism does, in fact, stand for, as shown by its own actions. And that’s what you do, in fact, support by your own actions in the voting booth and with your checkbook. It isn’t a complex concept at all, but it seems to be difficult for you to accept anyway.
If you’d really like to attack the problem instead of perpetuate it, you might give your discretionary money to the IRS’s national debt reduction account, instead of to a party that shows no sign of doing anything but make the problem worse. Put your money where your mouth is, ya know?
This ignorance dissemination is embarrasing.
Clinton produced budget surpluses in 1998, 1999 and 2000. In case you don’t remember, he was a Democrat.
Nixon produced a small surplus in one year.
Furthermore, both Ron Reagan and GWB have made budget deficits larger as a share of GDP.
Let’s look at the numbers.
Date def/gdp ch def/gdp Ave Deficit
1977 -2.6% Democrat
1978 -2.6% 0.1% Democrat
1979 -1.6% 1.0% Democrat
1980 -2.6% -1.1% Democrat
1981 -2.5% 0.1% Republican
1982 -3.9% -1.4% Republican
1983 -5.9% -2.0% Republican
1984 -4.7% 1.2% Republican
1985 -5.0% -0.3% Republican
1986 -5.0% 0.1% Republican
1987 -3.2% 1.8% Republican
1988 -3.0% 0.1% Republican -4.2%
1989 -2.8% 0.3% Republican
1990 -3.8% -1.0% Republican
1991 -4.5% -0.7% Republican
1992 -4.6% -0.1% Republican -3.9%
1993 -3.8% 0.8% Democrat
1994 -2.9% 1.0% Democrat
1995 -2.2% 0.7% Democrat
1996 -1.4% 0.8% Democrat
1997 -0.3% 1.1% Democrat
1998 0.8% 1.1% Democrat
1999 1.4% 0.6% Democrat
2000 2.4% 1.1% Democrat -0.8%
2001 1.3% -1.1% Republican
2002e -1.0% -2.3% Republican
Ronald Reagan’s deficits averaged at 4.2% of GDP. Bush Sr.'s deficits averaged at 3.9%. Note that their average is worse than Carter’s largest deficit. Pathetic. Including his surpluses Clinton had an average deficit of 0.8%. Quite a bit smaller.
The Economist’s estimate of the current US budget deficit is 4.6% of GDP.
The Democratic Party is clearly the party of Greater Fiscal Responsibility. Oh, for the days of Dwight Eisenhower.
(Caveat: Deficits are good during a recession. The problem is having a long-term or even medium term chronic deficit).
---------And, flowbark, the flip side of that is all the Democratic candidates for President are recommending that the Bush tax cuts be rescinded, all that money be spent, and that additional spending increases be implemented for everything except defense.
CITE? Actually, I understand that the deficits projected under Gephart’s plan are quite a bit higher than those associated with the other candidates.
And OBTW, I think that Clinton’s military did a fine job in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
----- In other words, you would lose whatever economic stimulus to growth provided by the tax cuts, in addition to greatly increased spending.
Um, according to my economic textbook, a dollar’s worth of spending gives more stimulus than a dollar’s worth of tax cutting. Explanation provided upon request.
---- Which means, in practice, exactly what the Democrats have given us every time they get elected - tax and spend.
Well, no actually. Government outlays as a share of GDP bottomed out at 18.4% in 2000. That compares with 21.2% in 1989, the minimum amount during the Reagan-Bush deficit era and 20.1% in 1979 under Jimmy Carter.
Republicans are the party of small government only in rhetoric. For the facts, I would recommend that you take a look at the Statistical Abstract of the United States. http://www.census.gov/statab/www/
You’re confusing who is in the White House, with who is in control of Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate.
The budget was balanced in 1969, when Republicans controlled the House, and in 1998 - 2000, when Republicans controlled the House (and Senate, mostly).
And which party was in control of the House in 2000? And who in 1989, and in 1979?
Therefore, the government should confiscate all income, and spend it all. So command economies, where government controls the economy, will outperform free-market capitalistic economies. So North Korea is an economic powerhouse, and South Korea suffers famines.
Only not.
Regards,
Shodan
No, therefore Shodan should take an introductory course in macroeconomics. Only yes. Remember, we’re here to fight ignorance, not advance it.
As for the budget process, the President proposes a budget with a given deficit. Congress usually responds by rejiggering the priorities, but keeping a similar deficit figure.
The fact that Clinton proposed budgets with surpluses is to his credit and is testimony to his political courage. Remember, not one Republican had the guts to vote for his 1993 tax increase, an increase that laid the foundation for the following decade’s prosperity.*
The fact that W has overseen one of the fastest deteriorating budget positions in US history would be to his shame, if he had any. Remember, he started with a surplus of 2.4% of GDP and most recently had a deficit of 4.6%. That change of 7 percentage points is rather extraordinary.
- Caveat: Of course there were a number of factors involved in the 1990s growth miracle.
At any rate, you only need to look at my table. Every year Clinton turned in either lower deficits or higher surpluses. With both Democratic and Republican majorities in Congress.
And let’s not forget that Clinton didn’t stop Gingrich et al from pushing budget-busting tax cuts. It’s pretty clear that when modern Republicans are left to their own devices, red ink ensues.
Honestly, look at my table again. There are a total of 2 Republican years where the budget situation improved by more than 1% of GDP (1984 and 1987). Clinton racked up a total of 4 years – half his time in office.
Let’s try to be a little less fact-resistant shall we?
Now you’re just making things up. During the 91st Congress (1969-70), the Democrats held 245 seats, while the Republicans held 189. I call foul.