Topic: Republican wins Massachusetts Senate seat.

[Ecosse]

If anyone requires heart medication please take it before reading this, or read it at your peril.


I agree with ED about true conservative values. 

  bobby you made my day, thanks.

generally speaking the left and right (excluding nuts of course) value liberty and i think we should be able to come together on that. i'm talking the citizenry here.

[edbikerii]

HAHA!!!!  I'm still feeling a shooting pain down my left arm!   

If anyone requires heart medication please take it before reading this, or read it at your peril.


I agree with ED about true conservative values. 

[MRieck]

One thing is for sure is Scott Brown's election has had a major impact on the national scene. The current Health Care bill is basically gone as at least 8 people in the House will not support it. It is amazing how scared these politicians are. If you really believe something is righteous you would stand by it even in the face of adversity (adversity being getting your a$$ unelected). I personally cannot fathom how this Health Care bill can be paid for....union people exempted from the 40% Cadillac Tax, taxes aimed at tanning salons, employers downgrading health plans but passing along the savings to employees via a raise (which will generate money via personal income tax) That last one is a complete mystery to me. When was the last time that happened? If you have a business you say costs are down and profits are up......ZANG.   In the end anyone making 50,000.00 or couples making 100,000.00 will bear the brunt and it will hurt. Unfortunately you will be denied services to address your pain issues.

[BeSeeingYou]

Republicans as fiscal conservatives what a joke.   These numbers show the percentage of increase or decrease of the national debt as a percentage of  GDP during each presidents 1 or 2 terms.  This is an accurate way of measuring the debt as it takes into account inflation, growth in the economy and population.  Just measuring dollar amounts is totally inaccurate.  It seems the last fiscally conservative Republican was Nixon while all the Democratic presidents were fiscal conservatives.  The patron saint of the conservative, Ronald Reagen has the worst cumulative total.    You have to hand it to the Republicans though, they have done an incredible snow job selling this big lie.  I have asked this before and have never gotten an answer but where was all the conservative's concern over fiscal matters during Republican presidencies?  I don't recall hearing much complaining.  All of this "conservative" concern and outrage wears the stink of hypocrisy like a bad suit.

Eisenhower  -10.8%         
                  -5.4%

Kennedy      -8.2%

Johnson       -8.3%

Nixon          -2.9%
Nixon/Ford   +0.1%

Carter         -3.2%

Reagen        +11.2%
                  +9.2%

Bush 1          +13.1%

Clinton         -0.6%
                  -8.2%

Bush 2          +6.9%
                  +11.2%

Here is a chart of using the same method of debt as a percentage of GDP

[Duke McDukiedook]

Reagan did have a spend-happy congress, you have to admit that.

Dubya was a joke, period.
Ed is spot on about him, all he was was a corporate welfare punk.

[MCRider]

As I've often said, it is one of the characteristics of our system and human nature that Pres get credit and blame for whatever happens at the time whether they deserve it or not.

As to your analysis of debt to GDP, our Constitution provides that only the Congress can spend money and assess taxes. The President can scream bloody murder but cannot ultimately control what gets spent and what gets taxed. Except within their limited powers of veto (no line item veto, can't veto the pork and let necessary spending proceed).

So your analysis would be more complete if it included which party controlled Congress during those time frames. Very often it was the other party. This was particularly Reagan's problem though I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you are saying.

I am just saying that without analysing who controls Congress at the same time, your data and argument is hollow.

[MRieck]

Reagan did have a spend-happy congress, you have to admit that.

Dubya was a joke, period.
Ed is spot on about him, all he was was a corporate welfare punk.

Yes, Democrats were the majority. It takes 2 to Tango. I remember many changes were made to Social Security during that time. The "Double Dipping" law was born. If you pay into a state pension system (school teacher, firefighter, cop) AND pay into SS through another job (part time for example) you cannot receive the full SSI monthly check you would be normally entitled to upon retiring. This effects me as I've been paying into SSI for 36 years but also work in a school system (24 years). An interesting tweak.  
 I think it would be thoughtful to show a graph of overall tax increases under various administrations and compare it to the national debt at that time.
 I will not post anything else as I learned a long time ago to avoid talk of politics and religion.

[BobbyR]

One thing is for sure is Scott Brown's election has had a major impact on the national scene. The current Health Care bill is basically gone as at least 8 people in the House will not support it. It is amazing how scared these politicians are. If you really believe something is righteous you would stand by it even in the face of adversity (adversity being getting your a$$ unelected). I personally cannot fathom how this Health Care bill can be paid for....union people exempted from the 40% Cadillac Tax, taxes aimed at tanning salons, employers downgrading health plans but passing along the savings to employees via a raise (which will generate money via personal income tax) That last one is a complete mystery to me. When was the last time that happened? If you have a business you say costs are down and profits are up......ZANG.   In the end anyone making 50,000.00 or couples making 100,000.00 will bear the brunt and it will hurt. Unfortunately you will be denied services to address your pain issues.

Mike, you are right on the money. I am proponent of health care reform and this is 180 off course. I was envisioning an insurance pool in which the Fed and States paid for the poor which they will do anyway. The rest would be employer contributions based on their headcount, and individuals could afford to buy in.
I have Prostate Cancer and I am going for my pretreatment scans so they can map my insides and program the machine to fire the beams in the right place at the right intensities. My wife and I pay for our insurance and it would fall in the Cadillac class. I would be double paying and I say Bullsh1t.

The Politicians job is to get reelected, they really have no other skills and you are right, nobody "owns" their seat with a few exceptions. All they fear is the people, and they have good reason to, the people are pissed off. I think they will stay pissed off for some time. I expect a big turnover here in NY which is more like Mass than not.

[BeSeeingYou]

As I've often said, it is one of the characteristics of our system and human nature that Pres get credit and blame for whatever happens at the time whether they deserve it or not.

As to your analysis of debt to GDP, our Constitution provides that only the Congress can spend money and assess taxes. The President can scream bloody murder but cannot ultimately control what gets spent and what gets taxed. Except within their limited powers of veto (no line item veto, can't veto the pork and let necessary spending proceed).

So your analysis would be more complete if it included which party controlled Congress during those time frames. Very often it was the other party. This was particularly Reagan's problem though I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you are saying.

I am just saying that without analysing who controls Congress at the same time, your data and argument is hollow.

I did read that there was little or no correlation on which party was in control of congress.  As it had no effect I did not bother to save it and will have to see if I can find it again.  And remember the President has the veto power and seldom has either party had a 60 seat majority for any length of time recently.  The President is a full party to this and bears just as much responsibility.

[Frankenkit]

I say we resort to anarchy and Mad Max motorcycle piracy.

[BeSeeingYou]

I say we resort to anarchy and Mad Max motorcycle piracy.

As long as I don't have to be the pretty blond boy on the back.

[BobbyR]

I say we resort to anarchy and Mad Max motorcycle piracy.

Nah you don;t want that. There will be rape gangs and I am getting too old to fight off those women. 

[kpier883]

For clarity and brevity I have only copied part of MCRider's comment:

As to your analysis of debt to GDP, our Constitution provides that only the Congress can spend money and assess taxes. The President can scream bloody murder but cannot ultimately control what gets spent and what gets taxed. Except within their limited powers of veto (no line item veto, can't veto the pork and let necessary spending proceed).

I though I'd see what the analysis would look like to try to correlate the congress/pres/debt% of gdp and wars in a spreadsheet format.  
I can't vouch for the numbers 100% because I was eyeballing your chart and tyring to cross reference to the Pres/Congress information I found.  
The file is in pdf format and is attached.  I used green to indicate debt going down, red to indicate debt going up.  This is probably too convoluted for anyone else to understand, but I can't think of a better format with what I have.  

I have been up to long.  I can't see any kind of real pattern...

And since I can't - I say throw the bums out    

[paulages]

yeah, because we know that we had a eutopic country when bush took over. It was just like a coca-cola ad. get real.

of course we didn't, and clinton did all kinds of terrible things. i'll say this though: we had a surplus when clinton left office, then bush swiftly dove us into deep deficit. i always thought that was funny comsidering the dems get labeled as loose with the pocketbook... i guess a few pennies to the poor doesn't quite add up to billions in corporate welfare. 

[BeSeeingYou]

Well I looked at control of congress and guess what.

The Dems had both houses 1949-53 and the Repubs had both from 1953-55.
From 1955 thru 1981 Democrats controlled both houses and this seems to correlate with the lowest level of debt to GDP.  

After that it goes back and forth a bit.   The Dems retained control of the house till 94 when the Repubs had it till 07 and the Dems from 07-?
The Senate changed hands more often and this does not take into account the margin as at times it may have been one or two votes so it could be considered marginal.
81-87 R
87-95 D
95-01 R
01-03 Split
03-07 R
07-09 D

And then we could look at job creation and guess what.  Seems the Dems come out on top here too.
Esinhower  +1.4
               +0.4
Kennedy               +2.6
Johnson                +3.9
Nixon        +2.2
               +1.7
Carter                   +3.1
Reagen      +1.5
               +2.7
Bush         +0.6
Clinton                   +2.6
                            +2.3
Bush         +0.002
               +0.3

total        +10.802    +14.5

Conservatives/Republicans must be so proud.  Group hug all around.

The Republicans/Conservatives have been masterful at spinning a huge lie over the years and it is to bad the Democrats are so lousy at getting the truth out.  They really need to grow a pair starting with Obama.  But it does not change the fact that they are better for the overall health of the economy than Republican/Conservatives.

[MRieck]

Reagan did have a spend-happy congress, you have to admit that.

Dubya was a joke, period.
Ed is spot on about him, all he was was a corporate welfare punk.

Yes, Democrats were the majority. It takes 2 to Tango. I remember many changes were made to Social Security during that time. The "Double Dipping" law was born. If you pay into a state pension system (school teacher, firefighter, cop) AND pay into SS through another job (part time for example) you cannot receive the full SSI monthly check you would be normally entitled to upon retiring. This effects me as I've been paying into SSI for 36 years but also work in a school system (24 years). An interesting tweak.  
I think it would be thoughtful to show a graph of overall tax increases under various administrations and compare it to the national debt at that time.
 I will not post anything else as I learned a long time ago to avoid talk of politics and religion.

[BeSeeingYou]

Dennis Miller said it best on Fox the other night:

"I knew it was going to be a bad night for Coakley when the DECEASED vote was even going for Brown 2:1.  As you know, the DECEASED are usually an integral part of the Democratic base."





I see we are bringing out the charts:



    

Like I said earlier, comparing the debt in dollar amounts is not very accurate.   A dollar from 1990 is not the same as a dollar from 2010 and likewise the size of the economy grows over time.  A 1 billion dollar debt in a 1 trillion dollar economy is the same as a 4 billion dollar debt in a 4 trillion dollar economy though someone could say that it is four times larger without taking into account that the economy is also 4 times larger.  Then look at the trajectory of the debt under the last administration.  It was going straight up through the roof and somehow this is supposed to be changed overnight?  How much of that 2009 debt is the Bank Bailout instituted under Bush?  You can take these numbers and make all sorts of pretty looking graphs but if you don't compare debt as a percentage of GDP it does not mean as much.
 
And again I ask where was all this concern under the last guy, Bush 1, Reagen?

As far as Croakley she was pathetic.  I think a mannaquin may have done better.  Jeez, to get beat by a naked guy with a pick-up truck who tried to auction his daughter off on TV.  What's the world coming to.

[paulages]

i think they all like to spend our money to the benefit of big business, but reagan's economists invented the deficit, believing that the deficit vs/ GDP did not matter in terms of nation wealth and economic growth. this is true if all your money goes to the caymans or china, but if you're in manufacturing or any of what actually makes up most normal people's income you're screwed in this model. even greenspan finally admitted this, and he was a die hard promotor of the deficit economics religion.

i've said it before: i'm not a republican or a democrat, but to label republicans as fiscally conservative is an unbelievable example of conceptual manipulation. it's like hearing someone complaining about how much someone else spent at mcdonalds while ordering the 7 course meal at a 3 star restaurant.

[TwoTired]

The Clinton regime was very good at PR and cooking the books.

"Hey look, we reduced the budget deficit!"

It didn't stop the runaway federal debt, as the Democrats just can't stop spending any more than the Republicans can.  The Dems are more creative with PR, and convincing Joe Shmoe to pay more fees and higher taxes, even having them believe it is a good thing.

Anyway, aside from party bashing, we pay interest on the runaway debt, not the budget deficit.  It is the lenders that wish this to continue, and it will, as long as the government "elected" continues to be complicit puppets for them.

I have a much better graph than below.  But, it is too big to post in this forum.  You can find it, (and much more) @:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://one-simple-idea.com/NationalDebtGraph1950-2009.jpg&imgrefurl=http://one-simple-idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm&usg=__Xf8tGxaajlImnLH8CsTIClE2pl8=&h=569&w=641&sz=270&hl=en&start=12&um=1&tbnid=akGbdVduK6-M9M:&tbnh=122&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dus%2Bfederal%2Bdebt%2Bgraph%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

[DammitDan]

I love hand-drawn graphs, they're my favorite!