Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Yep, democrats spend more historically, congratulations on your analysis.

That is not true though, Republicans spend more money than Dems, always have, always will.

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

When Carter got in the US yearly deficit was 74 Billion
When he left it was 74 Billion

Deficit remained the same as a raw number, probably slightly decreased as a percentage of GDP

Reagan got in the yearly defiict was 74 Billion
When he left it was 155 Billion

Deficit more than doubled as a raw number, increased as a percentage of GDP

Bush Senior got in it was 155 Billion
Bush Senior left it was 290 Billion

Deficit almost doubled as a raw number, increased as a percentage of GDP

Clinton got in it was 290 Billion
Clinton got out it was a surplus of 236 Billion

Deficit was eliminated and a surplus was left for the Conservatives to squander.

Bush Jr. got in with a 236 Billion dollar surplus
Bush Jr. will leave with a projected 396 Billion dollar deficit.

Bush Jr. followed his Republican predeceasors in increasing the deficit.

There is a clear pattern, where Republicans are irresponsible when it comes to spending and democrats are prudent and responsible.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

When a candidate proposes three major tax reforms (eliminating the Alternative-Minimum tax, extending the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers including those earning over $200,000 and raising the estate tax exemption) then I think estimating the total cost is fair game for a fact-checking site.

While I don't disagree with your statement, I do think you may be discounting economics such as the Laffer Curve, lower taxes can lead to higher gov't revenue.

The gov't should never be on the over-taxed side of the laffer curve, and I think that after Obama couldn't explain his stance on the Capital Gains tax he will have America on the down-swing.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

That is not true though, Republicans spend more money than Dems, always have, always will.

I'm trying to figure out how arguing about "spending more" can be proven by stats about a deficit.

Situation A:
Spending - 200M
Revenue - 200M
Deficit: 0

Situation B:
Spending - 150M
Revenue - 50M
Deficit: 100M

As can be seen, Situation B has spending lower, but also lower revenue. The amount of the deficit has nothing to do with the amount of spending....

[Azure]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

There is a clear pattern, where Republicans are irresponsible when it comes to spending and democrats are prudent and responsible.

Sure they are.

Thats why Congress has just passed a pork-laden bill with a deficit of nearly $400 billion. And when they were forced to pass a bill to fund the troops in Iraq, the attached how much crap onto it?

And both Hillary and Obama want to spend even 'more' money than Bush is.

Responsible? I don't think so. In fact, they're very far from it.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

That is not true though, Republicans spend more money than Dems, always have, always will.

A fair and balanced opinion to be sure.

I'm sure that a Ron Paul presidency would vastly outspend an Obama presidency.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Gozer

A fair and balanced opinion to be sure.

I'm sure that a Ron Paul presidency would vastly outspend an Obama presidency.

But a Ron Paul presidency hasn't happen and won't happen (even if it'd be the best thing for them, at least fiscally). Therefore your point is moot.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

But a Ron Paul presidency hasn't happen and won't happen (even if it'd be the best thing for them, at least fiscally). Therefore your point is moot.

How about a Ru Paul presidency?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

How about a Ru Paul presidency?

That would be both awesome and fabulous at the same time.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by troutman

How about a Ru Paul presidency?

Forecast:
FABULOUS!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Forecast:
FABULOUS!

HA HA beat you to it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

But a Ron Paul presidency hasn't happen and won't happen (even if it'd be the best thing for them, at least fiscally). Therefore your point is moot.

Well, if there is one thing politicians love to do....its spend money.

Ron Paul is the opposite of that, and he campaigned based on being fiscally responsible. So to say that Democrats are 'responsible'...when it comes to the budget, and yet you have two candidates, Ron Paul, who would cut back, and Obama would would just spend more...well it makes THAT point moot.

Plus, Reagan was POTUS during a time where he literally HAD to outspend the Soviets. MAD wasn't going to work if they had 10,000 nukes, and the US had 100. Theoretically, the only reason the USSR/USA never actually fought anything else but a proxy war, outside of MAD, was because they each spend so much freakin' money on their military, that going to war would have been suicide for either of them.

But that still doesn't excuse Reagan for not 'trying' to balance the budget, or any other President for that matter. Clinton tried, but cutting funds to the intelligence/military services directly led to 9/11. Bush 1 was also responsible for that.

Its funny actually, when the US 'should' have spent money: Afghanistan after the Soviets left, they basically refused. Yet when they 'should' be cutting back, abolishing social programs and trying to balance the budget, they just want to spend more.

Yet it seems like the average American is ignorant to the idea of being fiscally responsible.

[Nehkara]

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1719
Obama 1918 (199 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1442
Obama 1613 (171 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 277
Obama 305 (28 ahead)


Obama's lead almost breaks 200.

[Gozer]

*Note: America

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, if there is one thing politicians love to do....its spend money.

Ron Paul is the opposite of that, and he campaigned based on being fiscally responsible. So to say that Democrats are 'responsible'...when it comes to the budget, and yet you have two candidates, Ron Paul, who would cut back, and Obama would would just spend more...well it makes THAT point moot.

Plus, Reagan was POTUS during a time where he literally HAD to outspend the Soviets. MAD wasn't going to work if they had 10,000 nukes, and the US had 100. Theoretically, the only reason the USSR/USA never actually fought anything else but a proxy war, outside of MAD, was because they each spend so much freakin' money on their military, that going to war would have been suicide for either of them.

But that still doesn't excuse Reagan for not 'trying' to balance the budget, or any other President for that matter. Clinton tried, but cutting funds to the intelligence/military services directly led to 9/11. Bush 1 was also responsible for that.

Its funny actually, when the US 'should' have spent money: Afghanistan after the Soviets left, they basically refused. Yet when they 'should' be cutting back, abolishing social programs and trying to balance the budget, they just want to spend more.

Yet it seems like the average American is ignorant to the idea of being fiscally responsible.

You have some interesting historical points here. A lot of people called the presidency of Ronald Reagan the first true economic war as he spent billions on missiles, upgrading the military due to its poor performance in vietnam, and especially missile defense spending on a star wars program that most knew didn't work. Regean used Russian paranoia against them, they actually believed that Regean was a proponent of a first strike against the U.S.S.R so they went on a crash defense spending program to stay equally strong as the American's and it was money that they couldn't afford to spend. Regean basically forced the Russians to spend their way into the poor house which showed them that Communism didn't work in a global economy.

Yes he could have tried to balance the budget, but Regean came in at what was truly the height of the civil cold war and economics came in second place to his foreign policy.

On the second point about Afghanistan, the movie Charlie Wilson's war had a tremendous scene in the end where Wilson tried to get $1 million dollars from Congress to rebuild schools in Afghanistan after spending Billions to arm the Afghans to beat the Soviets, and when he was refused, he basically said, "The ball keeps bouncing", later he more cruelly said that America had a bad habit of going somewhere and leaving before they were done except the F word was prominant in the quote.

In a lot of ways arming the Afghan's to fight the Soviets, and the forced increase in their defense budget doomed the Soviets and exposed their system as dishonest and unworkable, but the American's in a lot of ways made their next generation of enemies by leaving Afghanistan too soon after they armed and trained them, and gave them fierce pride, and allowed the crazies like the Taliban to take over.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Gozer

*Note: America

That one is way out-dated, my bad.


The estimated population of the United States is 304,025,438
so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,781.56.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.49 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

Comical.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, if there is one thing politicians love to do....its spend money.

Ron Paul is the opposite of that, and he campaigned based on being fiscally responsible. So to say that Democrats are 'responsible'...when it comes to the budget, and yet you have two candidates, Ron Paul, who would cut back, and Obama would would just spend more...well it makes THAT point moot.

Plus, Reagan was POTUS during a time where he literally HAD to outspend the Soviets. MAD wasn't going to work if they had 10,000 nukes, and the US had 100. Theoretically, the only reason the USSR/USA never actually fought anything else but a proxy war, outside of MAD, was because they each spend so much freakin' money on their military, that going to war would have been suicide for either of them.

But that still doesn't excuse Reagan for not 'trying' to balance the budget, or any other President for that matter. Clinton tried, but cutting funds to the intelligence/military services directly led to 9/11. Bush 1 was also responsible for that.

Its funny actually, when the US 'should' have spent money: Afghanistan after the Soviets left, they basically refused. Yet when they 'should' be cutting back, abolishing social programs and trying to balance the budget, they just want to spend more.

Yet it seems like the average American is ignorant to the idea of being fiscally responsible.

Well after the bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 in 1994 and the subsequent raids on Ramzi Yousef Manilla apartments a few months later..it was pretty clear to everyone in the know what Al-Qaeda was up to in fact it was in black in white - "use planes to blow up landmarks..."..Clinton tried to take out Osama, but coped out a couple of times...other than that no one took the intelligence seriously...so budget cuts or not...nothing was really done...if fact just bolting cockpit doors prob would of prevented it...

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Gozer

That one is way out-dated, my bad.


The estimated population of the United States is 304,025,438
so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,781.56.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.49 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

Comical.

and yet it's so much less than the "Canadian" debt load:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/comme....aspx?nid=5343

Each Canadian taxpayer owes $150,211 in federal, provincial, and local liabilities, according to a new study released today by independent research organization the Fraser Institute.

(and yes, I know they aren't measuring the same thing)

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You have some interesting historical points here. A lot of people called the presidency of Ronald Reagan the first true economic war as he spent billions on missiles, upgrading the military due to its poor performance in vietnam, and especially missile defense spending on a star wars program that most knew didn't work. Regean used Russian paranoia against them, they actually believed that Regean was a proponent of a first strike against the U.S.S.R so they went on a crash defense spending program to stay equally strong as the American's and it was money that they couldn't afford to spend. Regean basically forced the Russians to spend their way into the poor house which showed them that Communism didn't work in a global economy.

Yes he could have tried to balance the budget, but Regean came in at what was truly the height of the civil cold war and economics came in second place to his foreign policy.

Pretty much what I was referring too.

On the second point about Afghanistan, the movie Charlie Wilson's war had a tremendous scene in the end where Wilson tried to get $1 million dollars from Congress to rebuild schools in Afghanistan after spending Billions to arm the Afghans to beat the Soviets, and when he was refused, he basically said, "The ball keeps bouncing", later he more cruelly said that America had a bad habit of going somewhere and leaving before they were done except the F word was prominant in the quote.

In a lot of ways arming the Afghan's to fight the Soviets, and the forced increase in their defense budget doomed the Soviets and exposed their system as dishonest and unworkable, but the American's in a lot of ways made their next generation of enemies by leaving Afghanistan too soon after they armed and trained them, and gave them fierce pride, and allowed the crazies like the Taliban to take over.

You know, I never realized what actually happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets left until I watched that movie.

It was actually pretty good, and as far as I know, just about exactly on par with what happened.

Sad that the US ignored Afghanistan at that time....they had already won over the hearts and minds of the people by helping them beat the Soviets, instead they let the Taliban come in and take over.

Very sad.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Well after the bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 in 1994 and the subsequent raids on Ramzi Yousef Manilla apartments a few months later..it was pretty clear to everyone in the know what Al-Qaeda was up to in fact it was in black in white - "use planes to blow up landmarks..."..Clinton tried to take out Osama, but coped out a couple of times...other than that no one took the intelligence seriously...so budget cuts or not...nothing was really done...if fact just bolting cockpit doors prob would of prevented it...

Can't argue with that.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Azure

Pretty much what I was referring too.



You know, I never realized what actually happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets left until I watched that movie.

It was actually pretty good, and as far as I know, just about exactly on par with what happened.

Sad that the US ignored Afghanistan at that time....they had already won over the hearts and minds of the people by helping them beat the Soviets, instead they let the Taliban come in and take over.

Very sad.

Yes the Americans should have predicted was going to happen and sent troops into Afghanistan. Never mind the fact they were in the middle of the cold war and this would have brought them into direct contact with Soviet troops.