Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
-
The table below show the increase (or decrease if negative) of the National Debt as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. Please explain to me how the Democrats are the spenders and the Republicans are for smaller government.
<table x:str="" border="0" width="512" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><col width="180"> <col width="64"> <col width="109"> <col width="159"> <tbody><tr height="18"><td width="180" height="18">U.S. president </td><td width="64">party </td><td width="109">Term years </td><td width="159">Increase debt/GDP </td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Roosevelt/Truman</td><td width="64">D</td><td width="109">1945-1949</td><td x:num="-0.24299999999999999" align="right" width="159">-24.30%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Harry Truman</td><td width="64">D</td><td width="109">1949-1953</td><td x:num="-0.219" align="right" width="159">-21.90%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Dwight Eisenhower</td><td width="64">R</td><td width="109">1953-1957</td><td x:num="-0.108" align="right" width="159">-10.80%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Dwight Eisenhower</td><td width="64">R</td><td width="109">1957-1961</td><td x:num="-5.3999999999999999E-2" align="right" width="159">-5.40%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Kennedy/Johnson</td><td width="64">D</td><td width="109">1961-1965</td><td x:num="-8.2000000000000003E-2" align="right" width="159">-8.20%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Lyndon Johnson</td><td width="64">D</td><td width="109">1965-1969</td><td x:num="-8.3000000000000004E-2" align="right" width="159">-8.30%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Richard Nixon</td><td width="64">R</td><td width="109">1969-1973</td><td x:num="-2.9000000000000001E-2" align="right" width="159">-2.90%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Nixon/Ford</td><td width="64">R</td><td width="109">1973-1977</td><td x:num="1E-3" align="right" width="159">0.10%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Jimmy Carter</td><td width="64">D</td><td width="109">1977-1981</td><td x:num="-3.2000000000000001E-2" align="right" width="159">-3.20%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Ronald Reagan</td><td width="64">R</td><td width="109">1981-1985</td><td x:num="0.113" align="right" width="159">11.30%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Ronald Reagan</td><td width="64">R</td><td width="109">1985-1989</td><td x:num="9.1999999999999998E-2" align="right" width="159">9.20%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">George H. W. Bush</td><td width="64">R</td><td width="109">1989-1993</td><td x:num="0.13100000000000001" align="right" width="159">13.10%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Bill Clinton</td><td width="64">D</td><td width="109">1993-1997</td><td x:num="-6.0000000000000001E-3" align="right" width="159">-0.60%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">Bill Clinton</td><td width="64">D</td><td width="109">1997-2001</td><td x:num="-8.2000000000000003E-2" align="right" width="159">-8.20%</td></tr><tr height="35"><td width="180" height="35">George W. Bush</td><td width="64">R</td><td width="109">2001-2005</td><td x:num="6.9000000000000006E-2" align="right" width="159">6.90%</td></tr><tr height="52"><td width="180" height="52">George W. Bush</td><td width="64">R</td><td width="109">2005-2009 projection</td><td width="159">+3.9% projection</td></tr></tbody></table> -
Posts: 30,452
Joined: Jul 06Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 3:32am) in reply to warden
this!Originally Posted by dpottz
Myth: You know what you're talking about.
-
This may very well be true, I am not an economics major. Please educate me. Show me how Reagan, or Bush 1, or Bush 2 worked to make government smaller. Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see it.
Originally Posted by dpottz
Myth: You know what you're talking about.
-
Posts: 840
Joined: May 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 3:39am) in reply to skisteve
One party spends tons to build up the military then the other party downsizes it. It happens over and over. We need a line item veto power for the president.
-
Posts: 10,222
Joined: Nov 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 3:42am) in reply to JD Roark
Democrats have historically spent more, and raised taxes to cover the spending. It's more government, but the budget balances.
Republicans historically do not increase spending, but they don't decrease it either. They do cut taxes. Of course that deadly combination of lower taxes and no change in spending creates an imbalanced budget and is irresponsible. Also, cutting taxes while not decreasing spending is not really cutting taxes. The debt created will be paid for, plus interest, in the form of more taxes, by us and our children, for years to come. Therefore, Republican "tax cuts" are actually tax increases.
Nearly 20% of your tax bill goes to merely the interest on our national debt, and does not work for us in any way at all. -
Posts: 840
Joined: May 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 3:46am) in reply to Jennifear
Republicans historically do not increase spending, but do cut taxes. Of course that creates a deficit and is irresponsible. <<
That is factually inaccurate. tax increases raise revenues across the board including money that goes into welfare ect. The deficit and debt increase are due to out of control spending by both parties. -
Posts: 477
Joined: Feb 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 4:05am) in reply to Jennifear
What are you basing this on? This is a generally accepted statement but the numbers show that it is blatantly false. I am not saying that democrats don't increase spending. They have, just as Republicans have. But in many cases, especially in modern history, the Republicans have increased spending more than democrats.Originally Posted by Jennifear
Republicans historically do not increase spending -
OK, fair enough. Show me examples of republican controlled congresses that have lowered spending and worked towards a smaller government.
Originally Posted by dpottz
you're missing what the roles of the president and congress are -
Posts: 10,222
Joined: Nov 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 4:18am) in reply to JD Roark
This is definitely true in the recent past, but their plans are usually different. W increased spending on purpose, while Reagan couldn't get a lot of spending cuts that he wanted.Originally Posted by JD Roark
What are you basing this on? This is a generally accepted statement but the numbers show that it is blatantly false. I am not saying that democrats don't increase spending. They have, just as Republicans have. But in many cases, especially in modern history, the Republicans have increased spending more than democrats.Originally Posted by Jennifear
Republicans historically do not increase spending -
Posts: 477
Joined: Feb 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 4:28am) in reply to Jennifear
Do you honestly believe that if Reagan had free rein to make all the cuts he wanted and all the spending he wanted that government spending would have gone down under Reagan?
Does the Star Wars program ring a bell? -
Posts: 10,222
Joined: Nov 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 4:31am) in reply to JD Roark
No. I don't believe that government spending would have gone down under any Republican president in modern history. Check my post again, and you'll see that.Originally Posted by JD Roark
Do you honestly believe that if Reagan had free rein to make all the cuts he wanted and all the spending he wanted that government spending would have gone down under Reagan?
Does the Star Wars program ring a bell?
Under some recent Republican presidents, spending has increased dramatically, making the tax "cuts" even more appalling. -
Posts: 477
Joined: Feb 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 4:38am) in reply to Jennifear
True, you said that Republicans don't increase spending but don't decrease it either... which is only half true.Originally Posted by Jennifear
No. I don't believe that government spending would have gone down under any Republican president in modern history. Check my post again, and you'll see that.Originally Posted by JD Roark
Do you honestly believe that if Reagan had free rein to make all the cuts he wanted and all the spending he wanted that government spending would have gone down under Reagan?
Does the Star Wars program ring a bell?
Under some recent Republican presidents, spending has increased dramatically, making the tax "cuts" even more appalling. -
Posts: 10,222
Joined: Nov 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 4:52am) in reply to JD Roark
Historically, they don't increase it. The last three Republican presidents have, but it's true over the life of the party that their goal is not to do so.Originally Posted by JD Roark
True, you said that Republicans don't increase spending but don't decrease it either... which is only half true.Originally Posted by Jennifear
No. I don't believe that government spending would have gone down under any Republican president in modern history. Check my post again, and you'll see that.Originally Posted by JD Roark
Do you honestly believe that if Reagan had free rein to make all the cuts he wanted and all the spending he wanted that government spending would have gone down under Reagan?
Does the Star Wars program ring a bell?
Under some recent Republican presidents, spending has increased dramatically, making the tax "cuts" even more appalling.
I suppose we are splitting hairs here. Bottom line is that I agree with you that the Republicans are clearly at fault for our 10 trillion dollar debt. -
Posts: 21,619
Joined: Nov 06Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 5:06am) in reply to JD Roark
reagan was about cutting spending.... and the missile defense program was the primary defense spending that occurred when we had minimal active deployment at the time... but please tell us what your french teachers have taught you... we are quite interested in socialism, since it is the philosophy du jour right now...Originally Posted by JD Roark
Do you honestly believe that if Reagan had free rein to make all the cuts he wanted and all the spending he wanted that government spending would have gone down under Reagan?
Does the Star Wars program ring a bell? -
Posts: 477
Joined: Feb 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 5:10am) in reply to Jennifear
I probably am splitting hairs a bit but to go past the last 3 Republican presidents we have to go back over 30 years. That takes us back to before most people on these boards were alive and probably before 99% of P5ers voted. So to hear 25 year olds continually talking about Democrats as spenders and imply that Republicans aren't, I find it laughable. There are a lot of Republican ideals I agree with, but I just haven't seen them from the Republican party in my lifetime. I was born under Nixon. :)Originally Posted by Jennifear
Historically, they don't increase it. The last three Republican presidents have, but it's true over the life of the party that their goal is not to do so.Originally Posted by JD Roark
True, you said that Republicans don't increase spending but don't decrease it either... which is only half true.Originally Posted by Jennifear
No. I don't believe that government spending would have gone down under any Republican president in modern history. Check my post again, and you'll see that.Originally Posted by JD Roark
Do you honestly believe that if Reagan had free rein to make all the cuts he wanted and all the spending he wanted that government spending would have gone down under Reagan?
Does the Star Wars program ring a bell?
Under some recent Republican presidents, spending has increased dramatically, making the tax "cuts" even more appalling.
I suppose we are splitting hairs here. Bottom line is that I agree with you that the Republicans are clearly at fault for our 10 trillion dollar debt.
My whole point of posting wasn't to say that Democrats are better than Republicans. It was just to point out that at least in most of our lifetimes the statement that Democrats are spenders and Republicans aren't is a myth. Anyone who says different hasn't looked at the numbers.
The real difference between the modern parties is the question of WHERE the money should be spent and WHO should be taxed more or less. That is a whole other argument. But it has been a long time since this country has seen leaders that truly wanted to spend less. -
Posts: 840
Joined: May 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 5:16am) in reply to resilient
i'm too tired to look it up, but when JFK cut taxes, revenues colleted from taxes INCREASED. Same thing happened when Reagon cut taxes and I believed it happened again when Bush cut taxes. Cutting taxes INCREASES tax monies collected. These are easily looked up facts. Keep ignoring that fact if you wish.
Our problem is that we refuse to cut spending. If you want an important bill passed several nutball politians put their votes up for sale. We spend too much plain and simple.
I want to see a line item veto even if it meant Obama was the first one to get that power. -
-
Posts: 477
Joined: Feb 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 7:16am) in reply to resilient
I've never gone to school in France. Born and raised in the Detroit area with an engineering degree from the University of Michigan. I live and work in France working for a US software company.Originally Posted by resilient
reagan was about cutting spending.... and the missile defense program was the primary defense spending that occurred when we had minimal active deployment at the time... but please tell us what your french teachers have taught you... we are quite interested in socialism, since it is the philosophy du jour right now...
I liked Jon Stewart's take on the "s-word" accusations:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...ays-the-S-Word
:)
Although there are a lot of things that I disagree with in the French system, there are some areas we could probably learn from. Their health system is probably the best in the world. It got put to the test for my family this year when we found a lump behind my son's ear that turned out to be a golf ball sized tumor. From the intial reactivity of our family doctor to the quality and professionalism of the surgeon and hospital staff to the nurse that made home visits to check up on him and remove the stitches, everything was amazing. We didn't pay anything out of pocket up front. Although we did get a bill from the hospital afterwards: 3.79 for the optional TV service in the room that we signed up for so our son could watch cartoons during recovery.
I am definitely not a socialist and am not saying the French system of government is a model to follow as a whole but not many people will argue with the fact that the US health system is a mess and it might not be a bad idea to look to places where it is working for ideas.
-JD -
-
Posts: 477
Joined: Feb 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 7:20am) in reply to Luckypizza
If you go back and look at my posts you'll see I didn't make any arguments about taxation. All I said was that modern Republicans are just as big of spenders (or bigger spenders) as Democrats. These too are easily looked up facts.Originally Posted by Luckypizza
i'm too tired to look it up, but when JFK cut taxes, revenues colleted from taxes INCREASED. Same thing happened when Reagon cut taxes and I believed it happened again when Bush cut taxes. Cutting taxes INCREASES tax monies collected. These are easily looked up facts. Keep ignoring that fact if you wish.
No argument here.Originally Posted by Luckypizza
Our problem is that we refuse to cut spending. If you want an important bill passed several nutball politians put their votes up for sale. We spend too much plain and simple.
I want to see a line item veto even if it meant Obama was the first one to get that power. -
Posts: 477
Joined: Feb 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 7:23am) in reply to Jennifear
Fixed her postOriginally Posted by Jennifear
Bottom line is that I agree with you that the Republicans clearly share the blame for our 10 trillion dollar debt.
-
-
Posts: 477
Joined: Feb 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 7:47am) in reply to Artiecat
True, although President's do submit their budgets to Congress.Originally Posted by Artiecat
To OP: Presidents don't spend the money, Congress does.
AgreedOriginally Posted by Artiecat
I agree there's little difference these days between R's and D's when it comes to spending.
This is where you lost me. This is that vague general sentiment that people throw out there and don't feel the need to back up with anything. There have been times when there was a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress and spending continued to increase. <Insert 6.5 years during Bush Regime here> Now, if you want to say "However, R's generally spend differently than D's." then I would agree with you.Originally Posted by Artiecat
However, R's generally spend less than D's. -
-
Posts: 477
Joined: Feb 05Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 8:07am) in reply to Artiecat
True, I am mainly looking at the national scene, but since we are in a national crisis, it seems appropriate.Originally Posted by Artiecat
Your sample size is too small, we are fighting a war, W isn't a good example, and you're only looking at national politics.
My sample size is my lifetime, seems big enough to me. -
Posts: 922
Joined: Jul 07Nov 6th, 2008 (11/6/2008 8:07am) in reply to Artiecat
We are fighting an elective war in Iraq. How is that not spending?Originally Posted by Artiecat
Your sample size is too small, we are fighting a war, W isn't a good example, and you're only looking at national politics.
-
We have only had 6 years of R pres, R house, and R senate in the last how many?
Originally Posted by JD Roark
True, I am mainly looking at the national scene, but since we are in a national crisis, it seems appropriate.Originally Posted by Artiecat
Your sample size is too small, we are fighting a war, W isn't a good example, and you're only looking at national politics.
My sample size is my lifetime, seems big enough to me.
Similar Threads
- 91 Replies
-
8 Replies
Democrats vs. Republicans (2nd attempt, hopefullly i did it right this time)
By coachstove in Off Topic
Last Post: Oct 15th, 2008, 08:47 PM -
30 Replies
Troops Deployed Abroad Give More To Republicans Than Democrats
By norcaljeff in Off Topic
Last Post: Aug 14th, 2008, 03:20 PM -
55 Replies
Still looking for 3 people who think democrats will win over republicans.....
By LVpokerdealer in Off Topic
Last Post: Feb 29th, 2008, 02:45 AM -
2 Replies
Democrats, Republicans, it never mattered
By keenan16 in Poker Discussion
Last Post: Oct 10th, 2006, 09:36 PM
-
Top Recommended Site
DraftDay
New DraftDay users get a free $5 heads-up draft just for trying out the site Click Here -
FanDuel
Qualify for the $250,000 Daily Fantasy Baseball Championship Click Here -
Buzzdraft
30% deposit bonus up to $150 with Promo Code FIVES Click Here -
Profanity Sports
50% Deposit Bonus with Promo Code FIVES Click Here -
PocketFives Monthly PLB
Player Score 1 Grip 3,559.38 2 Flush_Entity 3,248.29 3 Gettin Daize 3,231.71 4 matfrankland 3,081.68 5 ahustla16 2,993.75 6 LeChiffre19 2,779.79 7 moorman1 2,751.80 8 Naza114 2,591.01 9 RenRad 01 2,581.95 10 Mutha Flushaa 2,568.30 -
Recent PocketFives Awards
-
Its nap time
$1 million
May 25th, 2012
-
aces_up4108
Triple Crown
May 25th, 2012
-
ruxandescu
$500k
May 24th, 2012
-
-
Grip
$3 million
May 22nd, 2012
-
Best places to play daily fantasy sports
Tweets from P5ers
LeBruce
2012-05-26 05:35:01
RT @eusapresident: Good luck to @EdUniKorfball in their tournament. I hope they get the other team right in the korf-balls.
JasonMercier
2012-05-26 05:26:27
It's just bad luck bro
Daniel_Blum
2012-05-26 05:24:04
Da booklet http://t.co/Z2KcM7j4
Daniel_Blum
2012-05-26 05:21:37
Finally got em EDC vegas :) http://t.co/Pmd6lnww
KumoZing
2012-05-26 05:18:39
RT @empireofthekop: Looks like Dave Whelan is taking the day off today, it has been 24 hours since he last opened his mouth
Syker12
2012-05-26 05:16:19
Let's rip it up @TeamBoganOnline jeagerbombs on you today
PokerPlaying
2012-05-26 04:56:19
Shit, I'm addicted to Breaking Bad! How am I supposed to go grind tonight now? #seriousproblem
DimitrivanLeent
2012-05-26 04:54:02
after long thought I decided to play the main event #TSOP. So far 38 regged, maybe we can make it a 1 day thing.
ei8htyei8ht
2012-05-26 04:53:35
So dumb that I've bought this game but can't play it because the servers are having a fit. Now I know how Diablo III players felt! #GRFS
ASAALpoker
2012-05-26 04:52:32
And Rugby Union ;) @bwin: @ASAALpoker Yes,we're getting there.Hopefully we'll have even more cricket markets available as the summer goes on
ASAALpoker
2012-05-26 04:50:55
Oh Yeah! So much sport so little time! @sportsmadwilly: This game is gonna be a cracker.
NUMBJkE
2012-05-26 04:44:49
закончил универ. теперь я просто безработный чувак))
KumoZing
2012-05-26 04:43:03
RT @LFC: Luis Suarez was in fine form and on target for Uruguay during their friendly against Russia last night... http://t.co/fu3wyVr2 #LFC
NDGrinder
2012-05-26 04:42:16
Getting desperate almost 20 hours into this road trip after driving by "Las Vegas" New Mexico now rocking out to nickleback #goinginsane
Daniel_Blum
2012-05-26 04:39:17
I feel like we should have teleportation by now
HighlandFox
2012-05-26 04:35:24
RT @DirtyACPokerGuy: DirtyVegasPokerGuy for 6 weeks watching people play poker, smoking pot, grifting, and sleeping in a van in the Impe ...
killahmcgillah
2012-05-26 04:32:37
@HighlandFox confirmed. i dig outliers.
Daniel_Blum
2012-05-26 04:27:07
Headed to airport to head to Vegas for @Trevor_Pope WPT 25k final table being recorded for TV :)
ChancesCards
2012-05-26 04:26:48
RT @KeithFerrera: @BigCheese_poker congrats on winning the bellagio 100k #sicko #welldeserved
ReynoldsXO
2012-05-26 04:24:53
Just cuz concert photos are so pretty #PokerParty! http://t.co/aMeeahSS
ASAALpoker
2012-05-26 04:20:41
Tnx i cheered Blues to get their last try! @Voltbet: nice call RT @asaalpoker: @Voltbet Highlanders to win by small margin 6 to 9 margin
RoscoJohnson
2012-05-26 04:20:33
Rise and gym
ReynoldsXO
2012-05-26 04:19:56
Surrender w @steveaoki http://t.co/utm3Tvde
PNigh89
2012-05-26 04:17:53
RT @LegitAP47: Put in the 7bet on 772r w the Queen 10 + got it through then AA next hand flop Axx at maniac table... 200k+ #WouldTheReal ...
BrokeLivingJRB
2012-05-26 04:13:09
RT @OMGNima: Yep. @BrokeLivingJRB and some guy that looks like @DanBilzerian are here at @1OAKLV. #WheresTheBeard
MandaLeatherman
2012-05-26 04:12:20
RT @funnyortruth: Never allow yourself to be defined by someone else's opinion.
mjw006
2012-05-26 04:11:22
Woeful.
PeachIsNice
2012-05-26 04:11:02
Sianakt dalyvavau nerealiausiame renginyje savo gyvenime, kuriam apibudinti nerandu zodziu..
coreyburbick
2012-05-26 04:10:08
@laurenkling owaat id love to see any or all of them but ya i like drive the best..
Bond_18
2012-05-26 04:03:38
Brain is fried from commentating @WorldPokerTour SHR all day but ready for main tomorrow. @DanOBrienPoker, @olivierbusquet, you boys in?
laurenkling
2012-05-26 03:54:57
@coreyburbick yes...u want drive, wish you were here, or pardon me?
Maridu
2012-05-26 03:52:19
Booked Sunday! RT @elkypoker: @Maridu sure let's do it sometime Sunday ! Got to do it before the WSOP madness for sure !
elkypoker
2012-05-26 03:49:15
@Maridu sure let's do it sometime Sunday ! Got to do it before the WSOP madness for sure !
ReynoldsXO
2012-05-26 03:47:07
Aoki & lil John at surrender for the @BigCheese_poker #VICTORY http://t.co/9o8TcDV4
elkypoker
2012-05-26 03:46:53
Great Job! RT @WorldPokerTour: Congrats @BigCheese_poker on winning the @BellagioPoker Super HR! http://t.co/2KJZmEF3
PocketFives Rankings
| Player | PLB | PRO | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Flush_Entity | 1st 7,569 |
2nd 15 |
|
2 |
Gettin Daize | 3rd 7,210 |
3rd 16 |
|
3 |
Big Huni | 9th 6,652 |
1st 14 |
|
4 |
weavel | 2nd 7,408 |
13th 28 |
|
5 |
mtstackin88 | 4th 7,034 |
10th 23 |
| Country | Top 20 PLB |
P5s Members |
Prev Rank |
||
| 1 |  Canada |
103770 | 1924 | 1st | |
| 2 |  United Kingdom |
102421 | 1855 | 2nd | |
| 3 |  Costa Rica |
89458 | 123 | 4th | |
| 4 |  Australia |
88336 | 994 | 3rd | |
| 5 |  Mexico |
87509 | 184 | 5th |
Denmark
Russian Federation
Sweden
Brazil
Germany
© 2012 PocketFives.com