liberalism in the USA

[waauw]

Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

I see a trend here,pres Obama said he would cut the deficit in half.

In fairness both Bush and Obama, while influential, are not particularly relevant to those stats; lag and external influences make any trends based on that data pretty meaningless.

Well actually they are relevant. Bush created a whole lot of the deficits because of his wars, which were his choice. Obama, although he got stuck with the mess Bush created, did not do a very good job either.

If I look at Obama from a european perspective, I do understand why he wants to create a social welfare system. However Obama makes one big mistake that most socialists make. He likes to spend money rather than learn from capitalism and pursue efficiency and effectivity. The first thing he should do is make sure that what he spends, gets spent in a better way, before he starts setting up new systems to spend money inefficiently. In europe we have the experience of setting up such systems, but american democrats don't and will thus most probably end up making mistakes and wasting money.

In other words I think the timing of Obama's plans are horrible. He wants to create systems to spend more money at a time when the country is pretty much bankrupt already.

Huh, the IMF, a bastion of capitalists, are warning against austerity and suggesting government investment in infrastructure. Are they socialists now?

I was talking about different expenditures obama is planning on(social security system)
and expenditures which got more inefficient under Obama(education)

[Lootifer]

Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

I see a trend here,pres Obama said he would cut the deficit in half.

In fairness both Bush and Obama, while influential, are not particularly relevant to those stats; lag and external influences make any trends based on that data pretty meaningless.

Well actually they are relevant. Bush created a whole lot of the deficits because of his wars, which were his choice. Obama, although he got stuck with the mess Bush created, did not do a very good job either.

If I look at Obama from a european perspective, I do understand why he wants to create a social welfare system. However Obama makes one big mistake that most socialists make. He likes to spend money rather than learn from capitalism and pursue efficiency and effectivity. The first thing he should do is make sure that what he spends, gets spent in a better way, before he starts setting up new systems to spend money inefficiently. In europe we have the experience of setting up such systems, but american democrats don't and will thus most probably end up making mistakes and wasting money.

In other words I think the timing of Obama's plans are horrible. He wants to create systems to spend more money at a time when the country is pretty much bankrupt already.

Yeah pretty much agree. I mean you just have to look at the US medical system. Their government spending on medical care is a higher proportion of total government spending than most western countries with public healthcare systems. Its boggles my mind...

In other words, "I aint the rhetoric people, its the implementation".

[Symmetry]

Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

I see a trend here,pres Obama said he would cut the deficit in half.

In fairness both Bush and Obama, while influential, are not particularly relevant to those stats; lag and external influences make any trends based on that data pretty meaningless.

Well actually they are relevant. Bush created a whole lot of the deficits because of his wars, which were his choice. Obama, although he got stuck with the mess Bush created, did not do a very good job either.

If I look at Obama from a european perspective, I do understand why he wants to create a social welfare system. However Obama makes one big mistake that most socialists make. He likes to spend money rather than learn from capitalism and pursue efficiency and effectivity. The first thing he should do is make sure that what he spends, gets spent in a better way, before he starts setting up new systems to spend money inefficiently. In europe we have the experience of setting up such systems, but american democrats don't and will thus most probably end up making mistakes and wasting money.

In other words I think the timing of Obama's plans are horrible. He wants to create systems to spend more money at a time when the country is pretty much bankrupt already.

Huh, the IMF, a bastion of capitalists, are warning against austerity and suggesting government investment in infrastructure. Are they socialists now?

I was talking about different expenditures obama is planning on(social security system)
and expenditures which got more inefficient under Obama(education)

Do parentheses work differently(in Belgium?)

[Lootifer]

i assume he meant square brackets.

[Symmetry]

i assume he meant square brackets.

At least they do chips well. And biscuits and chocolate.

[waauw]

i assume he meant square brackets.

At least they do chips well. And biscuits and chocolate.

I never use square brackets in texts, never have, nor did my teachers ever tell me that was protocol.
and I assume you mean french fries, when you say chips

ps: don't forget our beer

[Symmetry]

i assume he meant square brackets.

At least they do chips well. And biscuits and chocolate.

I never use square brackets in texts, never have, nor did my teachers ever tell me that was protocol.
and I assume you mean french fries, when you say chips

ps: don't forget our beer

I always forget the beer. It's one of the reasons it's so good, alstublieft.

[Woodruff]

Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

I see a trend here,pres Obama said he would cut the deficit in half.

In fairness both Bush and Obama, while influential, are not particularly relevant to those stats; lag and external influences make any trends based on that data pretty meaningless.

Well actually they are relevant. Bush created a whole lot of the deficits because of his wars, which were his choice. Obama, although he got stuck with the mess Bush created, did not do a very good job either.

If I look at Obama from a european perspective, I do understand why he wants to create a social welfare system. However Obama makes one big mistake that most socialists make. He likes to spend money rather than learn from capitalism and pursue efficiency and effectivity. The first thing he should do is make sure that what he spends, gets spent in a better way, before he starts setting up new systems to spend money inefficiently. In europe we have the experience of setting up such systems, but american democrats don't and will thus most probably end up making mistakes and wasting money.

In other words I think the timing of Obama's plans are horrible. He wants to create systems to spend more money at a time when the country is pretty much bankrupt already.

Yeah pretty much agree. I mean you just have to look at the US medical system. Their government spending on medical care is a higher proportion of total government spending than most western countries with public healthcare systems. Its boggles my mind...

Meanwhile, the military's medical system, which is essentially a socialistic system, runs quite well.

[ooge]

Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

Just happened across this article (on a bit of a weird website). I don't agree with all of it, but much of it seems pretty accurate:
http://hypervocal.com/politics/2011/reagan-the-rino-how-far-right-has-the-right-shifted/

I agree with it all..The reason the right keeps moving farther to the right and as a result pull democrats to the right as well is this.When republicans lose elections badly the lesson they take from it is "we were not pure enough not enough truly conservative candidates"So they purge their party through primary's that the extreme right wing views as unacceptable.example Dick Luger.The Democrats when They lose elections badly The lesson They take from it is"well maybe we have moved to far to the left" The net effect of this over time is politicians who are more conservative then the electorate.I should point out that after president Obama was elected the first time I became aware of this,Then I watched it happen. Jeb Bush. quote "my father and Ronald Reagan would have a hard time winning a republican primary with today's republican party" and yet to the TEA ALIENS the republican party is not far enough to the right...scary.

[thegreekdog]

Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

Just happened across this article (on a bit of a weird website). I don't agree with all of it, but much of it seems pretty accurate:
http://hypervocal.com/politics/2011/reagan-the-rino-how-far-right-has-the-right-shifted/

I agree with it all..The reason the right keeps moving farther to the right and as a result pull democrats to the right as well is this.When republicans lose elections badly the lesson they take from it is "we were not pure enough not enough truly conservative candidates"So they purge their party through primary's that the extreme right wing views as unacceptable.example Dick Luger.The Democrats when They lose elections badly The lesson They take from it is"well maybe we have moved to far to the left" The net effect of this over time is politicians who are more conservative then the electorate.I should point out that after president Obama was elected the first time I became aware of this,Then I watched it happen. Jeb Bush. quote "my father and Ronald Reagan would have a hard time winning a republican primary with today's republican party" and yet to the TEA ALIENS the republican party is not far enough to the right...scary.

I don't disagree with this. The Republicans should take a page from the Democrats' playbook and move towards the center. The Democrats did it with great success and that party is no longer the party of the worker or the middle class. With the exception of raising the tax rates on the wealthy, the Democrats in Congress and the president have been solidly Republican. And so what if they piss off the socialists and the party faithful? They're called the party faithful for a reason. I don't see those rigthfully disillusioned Democrats flocking to third parties or the Republicans. So the Republicans should try the same thing. If they run a pro-choice candidate in the next election, worst thing that happens is the pro-life folks stay home and that probably won't happen because voters vote with their wallets.

Also, placing blame or credit on budgets with presidents is probably incorrect and is inherently misleading. First, presidents don't set budgets. Second, expenditures for laws that presidents sign when they are in office often don't hit the budget until after that president has left office. Third, I'm pretty sure that people who have a problem with budget deficits have a problem with expenditures being too high, not taxes being too low. I mean, I could help the budget deficit by raising tax rates to 100%, but that won't really mollify anyone (note I said "help" rather than "solve" - a 100% tax rate is not a cure for the problem, which goes back to the issue of cutting expenses rather than raising taxes... the tax rate increase on the wealthy was a political move, not a budgetary one).

[PLAYER57832]

Not to detract from your back and forth Phattscotty and Woodruff, but there really is a much bigger issue here.

The US is largely still dependent upon use of natural and mineral resources at very high, unsustainable rates. Europe mostly does not have that luxury. They don't have vast swaths of land that they can destroy by turning them into landfills, nor huge areas of forest. They have some minerals still, but nothing like the US or areas we and Europe essentially colonize.. namely Africa and to some extent Latin America.

Beyond that, Europe came from a monarchy very recently. Our country was formed upon the idea of "throwing off" the "oppressors" and "individual work/ability". Europeans are much more likely to accept the ideas of status being somewhat set. Most Americans try to pretend that their success is basically all on their own. For example, if you look at how most people get their jobs, it turns out that most people rely upon contacts, friends, etc. People without those inbuilt contacts have a much, much, MUCH harder time cracking even lower end jobs, but particularly the "good" jobs, with very few exceptions. Yet, if you ask people what most contributed to their success, they inevitably say "my hard work". The real truth is that women and minorities have fewer contacts. Women also tend to not be as effective at using the contacts they have in general. There are, of course exceptions.

All of this means that those in the US are much more likely to believe rhetoric that touts to make people "individually responsible" and "living right and responsibly" (that last can be read "living by majority mores"). That is precisely what the Republicans first, but now Democrats and almost anyone other than the Green Party (even they are not totally immune) have done.

The truth is that all this "individual responsibility" means that millions are left holding debt that they cannot afford... but that was put forward to them as fully affordable and reasonable, even "patriotic" (remember Bush telling people to spend their tax returns instead of saving??? ). Its perfectly "OK" by this mindset to cut education funding, and all social services.. never mind that these are the things that really do hold our society up and that ensure that future generations will be able to sustain or build upon what we have now, instead of going deeper into a hole. None of that matters to the top few, because they benefit.

If you are in the top 7%, you have done well... everyone else has not. Yet, the 93% still seem to think that listening to the "wisdom" of the top makes sense.

In Europe, they just have not had that luxury.

Actually the reason europe is more leftist and america more rightist has even more reasons than just that. Europe throughout it's history has been a continent continuesly terrorized by wars. These wars have often led to nations bankruptcies and financial-economic crises. And as always once the people become deadpoor, they start to hate the rich, which drives them towards socialism.

The USA has had an entirely different situation. You guys have been very wealthy and have been advancing your economic strength for most of your history(mostly because europe was already all built up when the US was only just founded). It is only recently, in the past few decades, that the US has become more aggressive in it's policy by going to war more often. And it's only recently that the US has become poorer and poorer.

The fact that the US has had so much less periods of economic turmoil has prevented the US from becoming more socialist. However nowadays this trend has completely reversed and this I fear will inevitably lead it on the road to serfdom.

Wars certainly are important, but in many ways, I think you have the tail and dog backwards. Europe had a much more established and entrenched leadership and fought already to gain a better balance. "I'll take mine, and because I have more, I get to set the rules" works when the system is growing and expanding, to a point. When you want stability, you have to start dickering with neighbors, more or less. We were founded and grew precisely when Europe was waging war with its leadership, coming to more equitable balances. Those coming to the US fled that for a supposedly "free and open" system. Now, our system is entrenched and the "free market" and emphasis on allowing the market to dictate terms of basically everything means that those already in power are almost as entrenched (in many ways more entrenched) than the old monarchy's, but with fewer constraints. (and yes, I do mean even the extremes.)

In the past, excesses were limited by environmental and locational issues. Today, technology means that one industry, one company, alone, can permanently harm a huge Gulf of ocean. That scale goes well beyond any harm people could do in the past.

[tzor]

My eyes are wide open my friend , "liberals are not evil people they just kwon a good deal of things that are not true".

As opposed to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly?

Three interesting people, who are each interesting in their own interesting way.

But I'm pretty sure that each of them knows things that are are not true.

[Woodruff]

My eyes are wide open my friend , "liberals are not evil people they just kwon a good deal of things that are not true".

As opposed to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly?

Three interesting people, who are each interesting in their own interesting way.
But I'm pretty sure that each of them knows things that are are not true.

And?

[ooge]

Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

Just happened across this article (on a bit of a weird website). I don't agree with all of it, but much of it seems pretty accurate:
http://hypervocal.com/politics/2011/reagan-the-rino-how-far-right-has-the-right-shifted/

I agree with it all..The reason the right keeps moving farther to the right and as a result pull democrats to the right as well is this.When republicans lose elections badly the lesson they take from it is "we were not pure enough not enough truly conservative candidates"So they purge their party through primary's that the extreme right wing views as unacceptable.example Dick Luger.The Democrats when They lose elections badly The lesson They take from it is"well maybe we have moved to far to the left" The net effect of this over time is politicians who are more conservative then the electorate.I should point out that after president Obama was elected the first time I became aware of this,Then I watched it happen. Jeb Bush. quote "my father and Ronald Reagan would have a hard time winning a republican primary with today's republican party" and yet to the TEA ALIENS the republican party is not far enough to the right...scary.

I don't disagree with this. The Republicans should take a page from the Democrats' playbook and move towards the center. The Democrats did it with great success and that party is no longer the party of the worker or the middle class. With the exception of raising the tax rates on the wealthy, the Democrats in Congress and the president have been solidly Republican. And so what if they piss off the socialists and the party faithful? They're called the party faithful for a reason. I don't see those rigthfully disillusioned Democrats flocking to third parties or the Republicans. So the Republicans should try the same thing. If they run a pro-choice candidate in the next election, worst thing that happens is the pro-life folks stay home and that probably won't happen because voters vote with their wallets.

Also, placing blame or credit on budgets with presidents is probably incorrect and is inherently misleading. First, presidents don't set budgets. Second, expenditures for laws that presidents sign when they are in office often don't hit the budget until after that president has left office. Third, I'm pretty sure that people who have a problem with budget deficits have a problem with expenditures being too high, not taxes being too low. I mean, I could help the budget deficit by raising tax rates to 100%, but that won't really mollify anyone (note I said "help" rather than "solve" - a 100% tax rate is not a cure for the problem, which goes back to the issue of cutting expenses rather than raising taxes... the tax rate increase on the wealthy was a political move, not a budgetary one).

seeing as you agree with most of it,all I can say is look into it again on presidents and deficits from Carter on.Also look at the stock market and what political party had the presidency when the stock market did well and when it has crashed.for that one go back to the 1920's

[tzor]

My eyes are wide open my friend , "liberals are not evil people they just kwon a good deal of things that are not true".

As opposed to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly?

Three interesting people, who are each interesting in their own interesting way.
But I'm pretty sure that each of them knows things that are are not true.

And?

Sigh, my Vulcan friend ... just Sigh.

Even I will not take the joke of "knows things that are are not true," that far. The joke is old, let's let it die. I mean had it been "believed" or "stated" it would be reasonable for discussion, but "know?" Everyone knows things that are not true. And while the spelling error of "kwon" is also extra sauce for the goose, it's Ad Hominem and I've signed George Washington's signature against the practice.

[ooge]

Bob Dole disusing the current republican party

[patrickaa317]

[thegreekdog]

Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

Just happened across this article (on a bit of a weird website). I don't agree with all of it, but much of it seems pretty accurate:
http://hypervocal.com/politics/2011/reagan-the-rino-how-far-right-has-the-right-shifted/

I agree with it all..The reason the right keeps moving farther to the right and as a result pull democrats to the right as well is this.When republicans lose elections badly the lesson they take from it is "we were not pure enough not enough truly conservative candidates"So they purge their party through primary's that the extreme right wing views as unacceptable.example Dick Luger.The Democrats when They lose elections badly The lesson They take from it is"well maybe we have moved to far to the left" The net effect of this over time is politicians who are more conservative then the electorate.I should point out that after president Obama was elected the first time I became aware of this,Then I watched it happen. Jeb Bush. quote "my father and Ronald Reagan would have a hard time winning a republican primary with today's republican party" and yet to the TEA ALIENS the republican party is not far enough to the right...scary.

I don't disagree with this. The Republicans should take a page from the Democrats' playbook and move towards the center. The Democrats did it with great success and that party is no longer the party of the worker or the middle class. With the exception of raising the tax rates on the wealthy, the Democrats in Congress and the president have been solidly Republican. And so what if they piss off the socialists and the party faithful? They're called the party faithful for a reason. I don't see those rigthfully disillusioned Democrats flocking to third parties or the Republicans. So the Republicans should try the same thing. If they run a pro-choice candidate in the next election, worst thing that happens is the pro-life folks stay home and that probably won't happen because voters vote with their wallets.

Also, placing blame or credit on budgets with presidents is probably incorrect and is inherently misleading. First, presidents don't set budgets. Second, expenditures for laws that presidents sign when they are in office often don't hit the budget until after that president has left office. Third, I'm pretty sure that people who have a problem with budget deficits have a problem with expenditures being too high, not taxes being too low. I mean, I could help the budget deficit by raising tax rates to 100%, but that won't really mollify anyone (note I said "help" rather than "solve" - a 100% tax rate is not a cure for the problem, which goes back to the issue of cutting expenses rather than raising taxes... the tax rate increase on the wealthy was a political move, not a budgetary one).

seeing as you agree with most of it,all I can say is look into it again on presidents and deficits from Carter on.Also look at the stock market and what political party had the presidency when the stock market did well and when it has crashed.for that one go back to the 1920's

I addressed this immediately above your post. The president has little to do with the budget. The president has even less to do with the performance of the stock market. There appears to be a common misconception that the president and his policies dictate the economic performance of the country, at the exclusion of other factors. Kind of weird that one man can hold so much power and extremely disappointing that people think he holds that power.

My response to your post otherwise, is to look at the party in control of Congress and compare to the budget deficit.

[ooge]

Then is must be one hell of a coincidence then,Reagan got the massive spending increase in defense spending and tax cutting he wanted from congress,Bush the second got the rebate checks given to the American people he wanted as well as his two tax cuts that were the largest factor in blowing a hole in the budget the rest of his presidency,other than the financial crash at the end.The only time republicans care about deficits is when there is a democratic president.

[thegreekdog]

Then is must be one hell of a coincidence then,Reagan got the massive spending increase in defense spending and tax cutting he wanted from congress,Bush the second got the rebate checks given to the American people he wanted as well as his two tax cuts that were the largest factor in blowing a hole in the budget the rest of his presidency,other than the financial crash at the end.The only time republicans care about deficits is when there is a democratic president.

I mean, I'm not sure how better to put it or what else I can do to prove to you that presidents don't decide what the budget will be. I guess we can start with wikipedia and go from there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... et_process

I guess your point is that Republicans don't criticize Republicans, which I guess is true, but I'm not sure what there is to criticize comparatively to Democrats.

The other thing I guess I'm not sure I get is why you are focused on "deficits" and not what the term "deficits" means. As I indicated earlier in this thread, cutting the deficit alone doesn't really do the job as far as most fiscal conservatives are concerned; spending needs to be cut. So if we assume that President Obama set the budget himself (which we know is not true, but we're just doing this for the sake of ease since I'm tired of continuing to post Civics 101 stuff here to someone who is supposedly politically savvy enough to type posts in political threads)... anyway, sorry, I digressed... President Obama sets the budget himself and lo and behold he cuts the deficit by $300 billion! Should we cheer? What if you found out he raised taxes on not just the rich, but everyone? Would that influence how you feel about how the president cut the deficit?

My concern (fiscal conservative that I am) is that we should cut spending, not raise taxes (on a general basis... there are certain taxes that I think should be increased, but generally we should have less taxes). If the president, in his annual budget proposal, proposed significant cuts to spending, I would be happy about the decrease in the deficit. But he didn't, so I'm not.

That was a sort of long-winded way to say that Republicans criticize Democratic presidents for deficit "cutting" that occurs during that president's administration because the Democrats tend to do it by increasing taxes rather than by decreasing spending.

[Symmetry]

Then is must be one hell of a coincidence then,Reagan got the massive spending increase in defense spending and tax cutting he wanted from congress,Bush the second got the rebate checks given to the American people he wanted as well as his two tax cuts that were the largest factor in blowing a hole in the budget the rest of his presidency,other than the financial crash at the end.The only time republicans care about deficits is when there is a democratic president.

I mean, I'm not sure how better to put it or what else I can do to prove to you that presidents don't decide what the budget will be. I guess we can start with wikipedia and go from there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... et_process

I guess your point is that Republicans don't criticize Republicans, which I guess is true, but I'm not sure what there is to criticize comparatively to Democrats.

The other thing I guess I'm not sure I get is why you are focused on "deficits" and not what the term "deficits" means. As I indicated earlier in this thread, cutting the deficit alone doesn't really do the job as far as most fiscal conservatives are concerned; spending needs to be cut. So if we assume that President Obama set the budget himself (which we know is not true, but we're just doing this for the sake of ease since I'm tired of continuing to post Civics 101 stuff here to someone who is supposedly politically savvy enough to type posts in political threads)... anyway, sorry, I digressed... President Obama sets the budget himself and lo and behold he cuts the deficit by $300 billion! Should we cheer? What if you found out he raised taxes on not just the rich, but everyone? Would that influence how you feel about how the president cut the deficit?

My concern (fiscal conservative that I am) is that we should cut spending, not raise taxes (on a general basis... there are certain taxes that I think should be increased, but generally we should have less taxes). If the president, in his annual budget proposal, proposed significant cuts to spending, I would be happy about the decrease in the deficit. But he didn't, so I'm not.

That was a sort of long-winded way to say that Republicans criticize Democratic presidents for deficit "cutting" that occurs during that president's administration because the Democrats tend to do it by increasing taxes rather than by decreasing spending.

I don't know dude, two terms of Republicans increasing spending while cutting taxes after a Democrat who seemed to be fairly balanced? Iraq and Afghanistan weren't cheap.

[ooge]

Then is must be one hell of a coincidence then,Reagan got the massive spending increase in defense spending and tax cutting he wanted from congress,Bush the second got the rebate checks given to the American people he wanted as well as his two tax cuts that were the largest factor in blowing a hole in the budget the rest of his presidency,other than the financial crash at the end.The only time republicans care about deficits is when there is a democratic president.

I mean, I'm not sure how better to put it or what else I can do to prove to you that presidents don't decide what the budget will be. I guess we can start with wikipedia and go from there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... et_process

I guess your point is that Republicans don't criticize Republicans, which I guess is true, but I'm not sure what there is to criticize comparatively to Democrats.

The other thing I guess I'm not sure I get is why you are focused on "deficits" and not what the term "deficits" means. As I indicated earlier in this thread, cutting the deficit alone doesn't really do the job as far as most fiscal conservatives are concerned; spending needs to be cut. So if we assume that President Obama set the budget himself (which we know is not true, but we're just doing this for the sake of ease since I'm tired of continuing to post Civics 101 stuff here to someone who is supposedly politically savvy enough to type posts in political threads)... anyway, sorry, I digressed... President Obama sets the budget himself and lo and behold he cuts the deficit by $300 billion! Should we cheer? What if you found out he raised taxes on not just the rich, but everyone? Would that influence how you feel about how the president cut the deficit?

My concern (fiscal conservative that I am) is that we should cut spending, not raise taxes (on a general basis... there are certain taxes that I think should be increased, but generally we should have less taxes). If the president, in his annual budget proposal, proposed significant cuts to spending, I would be happy about the decrease in the deficit. But he didn't, so I'm not.

That was a sort of long-winded way to say that Republicans criticize Democratic presidents for deficit "cutting" that occurs during that president's administration because the Democrats tend to do it by increasing taxes rather than by decreasing spending.

I no longer will be responding to you as you are insulting.

Ronald Reagan, First Term (1981-1984)
Spending Grew by 9.62% YoY
Spending Grew by 3.46% YoY (Inflation Adjusted

Ronald Reagan, Second Term (1985-1988)
Spending Grew by 5.79% YoY
Spending Grew by 2.33% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

George H. W. Bush (1989-1992)
Spending Grew by 6.75% YoY
Spending Grew by 2.24% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

Bill Clinton, First Term (1993-1996)
Spending Grew by 3.1% YoY
Spending Grew by 0.31% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

Bill Clinton, Second Term (1997-2000)
Spending Grew by 3.48% YoY
Spending Grew by 1.15% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

George W. Bush, First Term (2001-2004)
Spending Grew by 6.41% YoY
Spending Grew by 4.02% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

George W. Bush, Second Term (2005-2008)
Spending Grew by 6.82% YoY
Spending Grew by 3.4% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

but hey I guess the facts have a liberal biases

[thegreekdog]

I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but I just can't get behind the inaccuracy that you're espousing. Presidents do not pass budgets. Congress does. So the blame for budget deficits (or increased spending) should be placed primarily with Congress. You can keep typing over and over that presidents cause budget deficits, but they don't so you're wrong. Not wrong from a political partisan perspective. You're wrong from a factual perspective. It is factually inaccurate.

Trust me when I tell you that I understand all too well your frustration with Republicans and the Republican party relative to spending. But keep in mind that most Republicans are in favor of spending when it's for stuff that they want (e.g. military spending, as Symmetry has posted). Imagine that you are actually in favor of decreased spending across the board and the alternatives you are given are two political parties: one that wants to increase spending and taxes and one that wants to increase spending. That's my frustration.

In any event, I have some alternative statistics, by year, starting in 1980. This is from http://www.whitehouse.gov and is the OMB budget file. See pages 347 and 348 of the pdf. I've obviously taken some liberties with presidents and Congress (e.g. President George H.W. Bush's first year in office was 1989, but President Reagan was in office for 20 days in 1989).

Year - federal expenditures - president's party - senate majority party - house majority party --> increase (+) / decrease (-)

1980 - $590.9 billion - Democratic (Carter) - Democratic - Democratic --> n/a
1981 - $678.2 billion - Republican (Reagan) - Republican - Democratic --> +$87.3 billion
1982 - $745.7 billion - Republican (Reagan) - Republican - Democratic --> +$67.5 billion
1983 - $804.8 billion - Republican (Reagan) - Republican - Democratic --> +$59.1 billion
1984 - $851.8 billion - Republican (Reagan) - Republican - Democratic --> +$47.0 billion
1985 - $946.3 billion - Republican (Reagan) - Republican - Democratic --> +$94.5 billion
1986 - $990.4 billion - Republican (Reagan) - Republican - Democratic --> +$44.1 billion
1987 - $1004.0 billion - Republican (Reagan) - Democratic - Democratic --> +$13.6 billion
1988 - $1064.4 billion - Republican (Reagan) - Democratic - Democratic --> +$60.4 billion
1989 - $1143.7 billion - Republican (Bush) - Democratic - Democratic --> +$79.3 billion
1990 - $1253.0 billion - Republican (Bush) - Democratic - Democratic --> +$109.3 billion
1991 - $1324.2 billion - Republican (Bush) - Democratic - Democratic --> +$71.2 billion
1992 - $1381.5 billion - Republican (Bush) - Democratic - Democratic --> +$57.3 billion
1993 - $1409.4 billion - Democratic (Clinton) - Democratic - Democratic --> +$27.9 billion
1994 - $1461.8 billion - Democratic (Clinton) - Democratic - Demoractic --> +$52.4 billion
1995 - $1515.7 billion - Democratic (Clinton) - Republican - Republican --> +$53.9 billion
1996 - $1560.5 billion - Democratic (Clinton) - Republican - Republican --> +$44.8 billion
1997 - $1601.1 billion - Democratic (Clinton) - Republican - Republican --> +$40.6 billion
1998 - $1652.5 billion - Democratic (Clinton) - Republican - Republican --> +$51.4 billion
1999 - $1701.8 billion - Democratic (Clinton) - Republican - Republican --> +$49.3 billion
2000 - $1789.0 billion - Democratic (Clinton) - Republican - Republican --> +$87.2 billion
2001 - $1862.8 billion - Republican (Bush) - Republican - none --> +$73.8 billion
2002 - $2010.9 billion - Republican (Bush) - Republican - none --> +$148.1 billion
2003 - $2159.9 billion - Republican (Bush) - Republican - Republican --> +$149 billion
2004 - $2292.8 billion - Republican (Bush) - Republican - Republican --> +$132.9 billion
2005 - $2472.0 billion - Republican (Bush) - Republican - Republican --> +$179.2 billion
2006 - $2655.1 billion - Republican (Bush) - Republican - Republican --> +$183.1 billion
2007 - $2728.7 billion - Republican (Bush) - Democratic - Democratic --> +$73.6 billion
2008 - $2982.5 billion - Republican (Bush) - Democratic - Demoractic --> +$253.8 billion
2009 - $3517.7 billion - Democratic (Obama) - Democratic - Democratic --> +$535.2 billion
2010 - $3456.2 billion - Democratic (Obama) - Democratic - Democratic --> -$61.5 billion
2011 - $3603.1 billion - Democratic (Obama) - Democratic - Republican --> +$146.9 billion

The biggest year over year increase in spending occurred with a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Democratic president (2009). The biggest (and only) decrease in spending occurred with a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Democratic president (2010).

[Symmetry]

That doesn't link to a PDF, dude.

[thegreekdog]

That doesn't link to a PDF, dude.

Sorry. Here you go.

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ ... s/hist.pdf