Who really spends more

[Cynthia]

I hear that the Democrats are tax and spenders...and the economy is better off when a Republican is in office.
Really?
Then why are we in dire straights?
Is there a "war" card that trumps this bias?

How long will it take to pay off this war?

anyone?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The REpublicans were resopnsible financially up to more or less the Eisenhower administration. The chief advocate of a balanced budget was Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, who was the son of President/ Supreme Court Justice Taft and the father ofd another Senator Taft. The family owns Taft Broadcasting and Kings Dominion amusement parks and is loaded with money.

Sen. Taft LOST the nomination to Eisenhower.

During the Kennedy and Johnson administrations the GOP bitched and stewed about government waste and borrowing, but the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations set new records for pissing away money and running up the debt.

The budget was slightly closer to being balanced under Carter and Clinton.

The 1970's, which began with Nixon in office (1968-1975, Ford 1975-77) were noteworthy for stagnant economic growth.Carter was president from 1977-1981. Nixon devalued the dollar and demonetized it (it can no longer be exchanged for silver). He instituted price controls, which were not very successful, and failed to end the Vietnam war, which drug on past his impeachment and resignation. In 1981, Carter advocated "zero-based budgeting".  Reaqan and his handlers (the one who wrote the aged actor's scripts) ruled from 1981 until 1989, and handed the economy over to Olebush, who was President until 1993.

From 1982 to 1989, the economy did pretty well. There was a serious dip in 1990, which was more or less rectified by the Kuwait War.

 
Clinton became president in 1993 and stayed for the longest period of economic growth in US history. This began to falter around the time Juniorbush was selected.

The economy has been adequate for investors excepting the period between 09-11-2001 and early 2003, when things began to pick up again.

The economy has a life of its own, and although a president and Congress can cause it to falter, they cannot ensure that it continues to grow unabated. There seems to be a need of an inflation rate of between 3 to 5% for the economy to continue growing.

Mostly, the bit about how Republican presidents are more responsible and cause the economy to prosper more than the Democrats is a myth. It is true that the richest individuals and the largest corporations tend to do better under the GOP, however.

If you want to invest your money and make it grow to the max, your best bets at the moment are emerging markets, Latin America, Energy and National resources and some Largecap Funds.

[Cynthia]

The REpublicans were resopnsible financially up to more or less the Eisenhower administration. The chief advocate of a balanced budget was Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, who was the son of President/ Supreme Court Justice Taft and the father ofd another Senator Taft. The family owns Taft Broadcasting and Kings Dominion amusement parks and is loaded with money.

Sen. Taft LOST the nomination to Eisenhower.

During the Kennedy and Johnson administrations the GOP bitched and stewed about government waste and borrowing, but the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations set new records for pissing away money and running up the debt.

The budget was slightly closer to being balanced under Carter and Clinton.

The 1970's, which began with Nixon in office (1968-1975, Ford 1975-77) were noteworthy for stagnant economic growth.Carter was president from 1977-1981. Nixon devalued the dollar and demonetized it (it can no longer be exchanged for silver). He instituted price controls, which were not very successful, and failed to end the Vietnam war, which drug on past his impeachment and resignation. In 1981, Carter advocated "zero-based budgeting".  Reaqan and his handlers (the one who wrote the aged actor's scripts) ruled from 1981 until 1989, and handed the economy over to Olebush, who was President until 1993.

From 1982 to 1989, the economy did pretty well. There was a serious dip in 1990, which was more or less rectified by the Kuwait War.

 
Clinton became president in 1993 and stayed for the longest period of economic growth in US history. This began to falter around the time Juniorbush was selected.

The economy has been adequate for investors excepting the period between 09-11-2001 and early 2003, when things began to pick up again.

The economy has a life of its own, and although a president and Congress can cause it to falter, they cannot ensure that it continues to grow unabated. There seems to be a need of an inflation rate of between 3 to 5% for the economy to continue growing.

Mostly, the bit about how Republican presidents are more responsible and cause the economy to prosper more than the Democrats is a myth. It is true that the richest individuals and the largest corporations tend to do better under the GOP, however.

If you want to invest your money and make it grow to the max, your best bets at the moment are emerging markets, Latin America, Energy and National resources and some Largecap Funds.

Once again, Thanks.

So, when they say that our nation's economic stability/growth etc is in good shape during a particular president's stay in office, has that really anything to do with the man in office at the time?
It seems that there is a bit of an overlap of sorts with the history of presidents and policies/management etc.

Nixon comes into office "after the fact"  of the start of the Vietnam war...and some folks say he was responsible for ending the war. Other folks say he could have stopped it earlier...but the war was "started" in the early 60's or late 50's from what I have read. Yet, Nixon gets that blamed for bombing Saigon and not getting us out?
hmmmm. ok...

Then, the 80's saw an economic stability/growth in the 80's but was that due to Reagan or just the overlap of the 70's. (Carter)

9-11 comes along and Bush is blamed for not stopping the terrorists cold.

But....Clinton having had his  head in the sand according to folks like myself ....indeed, could he have prevented 9-11?? He would shake his finger at me  for that comment.

All in all aren't we blaming the president who is currently onboard for mistakes that
(a) were out of his control at the time (Clinton, and Reagan, and Nixon,  etc)?
(b) are the result of prior administrations or just plain bad luck  9-11 for example?

Then when rhetoric raises its ugly head and fuels the fire of the particular individual's need to find blame based on party stance....isn't it a cop out to blame in the end.

My point is that it seems to me that there is more to this world of politics than the cyclical blame game, and refusal to come together with ideas that work...sans the party line.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Nixon comes into office "after the fact"  of the start of the Vietnam war...and some folks say he was responsible for ending the war. Other folks say he could have stopped it earlier...but the war was "started" in the early 60's or late 50's from what I have read. Yet, Nixon gets that blamed for bombing Saigon and not getting us out?
---------------------------------------------------
You mean bombing Hanoi, not Saigon.
Nixon said that he had a secret plan for getting the US out of Vietnam in 1968, and he didn't. His plan was never revealed. He lied. He didn;t get us out. Ford did, and it was a flaming disaster, a more humiliating defeat would have been hard to imagine.

I am gonna blame Nixon for not getting the troops out by 1970. It could have happened, but it didn't. His buddies selling arms made out like bandits, and maybe 20,000 Americans died and many more were wounded as a result.

9-11 was the result of previous administrations, Olebush and Clinton, stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, some of whom passed out Bibles in Arabic, which is against several bas in the Koran. It was also blowback from the US efforts to force the USSR out of Afghanistan. We trained Bin Laden's guys to train the terrorists.

Clinton could have done something, but it happened on Juniorbush's watch with Condi the National Security Adviser who was unable to forsee the semi-obvious and convince the dolts of the dangers.

There was really nothing the voters could have done once the government officials were elected. Electing McGovern would have ended Vietnam sooner. Electing Gore would have prevented the Iraq War we are in now. Had Clinton withdrawn the troops from Dahrain and had Reagan and Olebush not left Afghanistan to fester, 9-11 would not have happened. Unquestioning support of Israel by every US president has also greatly contributed to the seething hatred of US foreign policy that Muslims have at the moment. Installing and supporting the nasty little Shah in Iran was another cause.

Please, they don't hate us "because they hate out freedoms".

They do hate the fact that we have given our state department, our military and Israel the freedom to kick them in the balls, and they have used it. It takes a lot for someone to agree to carry out a suicide attack. Observe that Bin Laden did not pilot any planes. He did, however, manage to convince some suckers to do this.


 

[The_Professor]

However, XO, if I am not mistaken, the Saudis et al invited us over there. It is not like we forced ourselves into those countries.

That being the case, as I have advocated previously, I do concur that perhaps we need to re-evaluate our commitments in these countries. I am simply not convinced the "pros" outweigh the "cons" on this issue.

Positioning troops in South Korea? Yep. Saudi Arabia and neighboring countries? Nyet.

[Cynthia]

Duh..Of course, Hanoi.

I was just a tiny tot in the early 70's.....so I forget stuff. 

Well, blame is the name of this game....I suppose. But, what's a nation to do NOW?

As for selling weapons to the Afghani's, how could we have forseen this end game?

Saudi's invited us over, according to Professor.

I was married to an Iranian during the Shah's exit from Tehran, and I know that women in Iran were on the verge of living with so many of the freedoms they deserved in life. I thought it was a shame that Iran fell in the late 70's. When I worked at the University Library as a  freshman in college, I remember hearing stories from Librarians who had traveled to Iran.They shared many stories of the positive changes that were occuring the culture with regard to women's rights......Then the regime from centuries ago came in like the jolly-ass green giant stamping its infected and battered in cement foot down on that hope. 

I really do believe that democracy will never happen in the middle east in this lifetime...and with that said, we will be in so much more danger. What's a girl to do?? ha! Seriously, there is too much hate right now.....you are correct there. Bush was wrong imo. Sorry, but I truly believe that now. (I guess I am still pissed at him for the NCLB). But, he has made critical mistakes with regard to the entry into that take over of Saddam. # of troops to begin with, planning, etc.

I realize that the issue of the middle eastern woman's rights is just one semi important to my own heart, but blaming the United States for the worlds problems still doesn't hold water for me, Xavier. With all due respect, I feel as though you are black and white on this issue of blame.

No, the terrorists clubs of the world don't attack because of a jealousy of freedoms, but they have it in their blood to kill, maim, rape, and suppress most of what life has to offer....and not just westerners!

The hate that is in this world is not the fault of the American government, but we sure as hell haven't thought things through....is that any reason to perpetuate the sentiment of anti- American?

I appreciate your post of thought, XO, I do...but is there not a tiny thread of anti-American sentiment there?

LOL..ok, ok...ducking now...but be kind....don't take that as an insult. I feel sometimes, that people who find a path back to the U.S.A in terms of blame do so because they must prove a point to win, instead of frankly look at all sides of the issue...blaming "Hate" as the culprit.... .....and power is the issue in this man's world more often than not....IMO
Not just in American government.
 Sure the abuse and misuse of power is clearly a reality in governemt, but our intent has never been to suppress to very right to live and breath.....the right to live as a decent human being.

 

[sirs]

To be bluntly honest Miss Cynthia, our Constitution mandates that the Fed protect this country.  There is no mandate for Universal Healthcare, like so many would want.  As such, Our CnC believed, (and given the intel at the time, rightly so) that Saddam's WMD in the hands of terrorists, which Iraq did have both direct & indirect ties with, and who had just murdered 3000+ people was an unacceptable risk.  So, unlike the previous administration that simply whined and did squat to go after these Islamic radicals, Bush did.  Now, his post-Saddam plans have been poor at best, and you would have thought there were plenty of contingency plans to impliment at a moment's notice, but war, being what war is, didn't listen to the planners.  And seriously, it would have been wholly immoral to have accomplished the mission of regime change, then left Iraq with this huge gaping hole, ripe for any element of Muslim Terrorists to bully themselves into power, with the nation cracked as it was.  Yea, we're spending a ton of money, but (as the left so likes to apply), it's an investment into OUR national security and defense.  And that IS the mandate of the Fed

IMHO, of course