IndyHubby said:
Oops.. 42 of 54 and during 4 of those years the houses were divided. Point stands.
Actually for the second time you ignore my point. You state that democrats have control of congress, we both know that's not true without a 60 vote filibuster or veto proof majority in the senate.
IndyHubby said:
Mandatory spending comprises 58% of the federal budget and has grown 759% since 1965. Discretionary spending comprises 42% of the budget and has grown 152% since 1965. The bulk of the growth in federal spending has be due to social programs which run on autopilot. The war in Iraq increased military expendatures from 3% of GDP to 4%. Expendatures have increased uniformly under both dems and reps. The spending increases have accerlerated during the past 2 years but that's not an issue. I stand by Republicans spent like Democrats. That infers "social" spending.
The growth of 759% of "mandatory spending" since 1965 is a meaningless stat. Choosing 1965 as a start year, the first year of medicaid, is highly selective and designed to skew the rate of growth numbers by its' selection. In addition the 58% of the budget figure reflects interest payments on the national debt which are approximately 8% of the budget.
Growth of discretionary spending of only 152% since 1965 is an interesting fictitious number . Bush and the Republican congress increased discretionary spending in his FIRST TERM ALONE by 40% and at an annualized rate of 8.8% for defense and 7.1% domestic. Entitlements in that same time period (Bush's first term) annualized growth was 4.7% - hardly close to the growth in discretionary spending. At the same time taxes were cut and deficits soared.
Since you like GDP for the defense budget, let's look at deficits as a percentage of GDP. Exorbitant deficits , as expressed as a a percentage of GDP, are almost exclusively a Republican phenomena if the actual figures are read dispassionately -
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/sheets/b79.xls
My point remains that republicans were and are fiscally irresponsible. As you state, mandatory budget increases are happening, a war is happening, cutting taxes is stupid economics, period.
IndyHubby said:
Revenue as a percent of GDP has remained a constant regardless of tax rates. Top rate in 1960 was 91%. Revenue as pct of GDP was 7.9%. Top tax rate dropped to 28% in 1998, rev as pct of GDP was 8%. Increased to 39.6% during Clinton, rev as pct of GDP 8%. Drop to 35% in 2003, rev as pct of GDP 7.7% and in 2007 it was 8.5%. Tax revenue in dollars was declining and began increasing following tax cuts in 2003, peaked in 2006 and is off slightly but up over 25% since 2003. TAX CUTS DO NOT REDUCE FEDERAL REVENUE AND TAX INCREASES DO NOT INCREASE FEDERAL REVENUE. Social spending by BOTH parties is our problem.
Tax revenue during Reagan's term increased approximately 67% and he supposedly cut taxes and reduced spending, correct?(although , in fact, he reversed his tax cuts in the latter years of his administration in order to raise revenue,lol) During Clinton's term , tax revenue increase by 67% and he raised taxes and balanced the budget at the same time, correct?
Tax revenue increased by only 34.2% during Bush's term, as of 2007, the last year accurate figures are available for and we have a huge deficit and incredible economic problems to show for it. Correct.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
The reverse is also true - TAX CUTS DO NOT INCREASE FEDERAL REVENUE AND TAX INCREASES DO NOT REDUCE FEDERAL REVENUE - of course, the rule of diminishing returns applies. And anytime you radically increase the budget deficit via excessive tax cuts and/or excessive spending, you threaten our economic stability.
IndyHubby said:
Believing that one person should pay a geater percent of income because he or she earns more is socialism. Either you think that's OK or you don't. The more OK you think it is, the more freedom to improve you financial condition you are willing to sacrifice. If people pay no income tax and get "earned income credit" that's unfair redistribution of income.
Read "The Fair Tax".
My financial condition is just fine, thanks,lol
You believe that the progressive tax system that we've used for the past 95 years (since McCain's hero Teddy Roosevelt) is socialism ?? And you believe that Ronald Reagan, who substantially increased the EITA was a socialist also?
And you beleive that a national sales tax is a Fair Tax system?? LOL
IndyHubby said:
I gave you enough names and information to get the rest of the facts if you wanted them. Obviously you would rather pretend it doesn't matter. I don't have any friends who belonged to terrorist organizations and place bombs in my country. I don't have any friends who belonged to a socialist group funded by the USSR. I didn't work for a Saul Alinsky group or teach his socialistic theories in college. I never taught people how to disrupt businesses to force them to make unsound loans. I would not sit in a church for 500 sermans from someone who expoused the vile garbage of Rev Wright. If all of that is OK with you, then I cannot appeal to your values because they are foreign to all that I cherish.
I've read both sides of the stories. You may not beleive this, but I am quite well informed. I guess my acquaintances, business and political associates aren't limited to ones I agree with so I don't think associations define me nor anyone else for that matter. Both candidates have associations that I find distasteful. I mean Cheney just endorsed McCain,lol.
I can't possibly be that judgemental or prejudicial in my opinions of individuals. Should we total up all of a candidates past associations to determine their fitness for office? Should we count McCain's post-war trips to Vietnam as cavorting with socialists and aiding the enemy? It's ridiculous, isn't it? Selective judgement of a candidates qualities based on past associations are ridiculous.
Unless you have evidence that Obama endorses terrorism, hates, America himself, is in fact leading us to socialism, or wants to surrender to Iran, these past associations are just meaningless drivel and scare tactics.
I'm still not voting for either one, but bullshit is still bullshit.
IndyHubby said:
And I don't see anything in there about redistribution of income. "Promoting the general welfare" is not referring to redistribution of income. Reading the federalist papers might help you and many others understand all of this better. It's equal opportunity, not equal results.
Spare me the 'redistribution of income' crap, please. We've been redistributing income in this country for the past century. It's not a new concept initialized by Obama,lol.
And my point remains that so-called Libertarians and strict constitutionalist alway miss the phrase "Promoting the general welfare" when reading the Constitution. I've read much of the Federalist papers and so has the Supreme Court for the past 230 years. I'll go with their interpretation, not one that wants to pretend the less fortunate are all lazy, deserve their fate and as a country or a human being we don't have responsibility to them.
IndyHubby said:
This statement acutally made me angry until I considered the limits of your knowledge and experience. You see, living, working, talking with, the people enables you to understand the effects of socialism. Seeing both sides of the border, ours with open fields and theirs with machine guns, razor wire, minefields, anti-vehicle ditches etc. all built to prevent escape is an education you'll never get.
And I've not been to Iraq but I have friend who have, and I'm sure they "get it" much more that what you learn from our liberal press. My friend who served as a civilian advisor to the Afgan army relates how the press is clueless and how poorly they are regarded.
I know socialism. I've witnessed it. You can insult, or take a haughty attitude all you want, but I get it. Apparently you, like many others don't. But you will... It's a slippery slope.
You have no knowledge of my experiences , travels or whom I know and have gained knowledge from
You may have a friend that has been to Iraq, I have sons who have been there. You may have a seen the border of East and West berlin. I have friends that lived on both sides of that wall, in the USSR, and in Poland during the times of communist tyranny. This has no relevance to the presidential campaign,lol.
You didn't witness socialism, you witnessed communist tyranny. Believe me, that doesn't mean I support socialism. I didn't reach my financial status by being a socialist. My point remains that your experience in Berlin has no relevance to the presidential campaign or your ability to spot creeping socialism whether it angers you or not,lol.
I know the diffference between communist tyranny, socialism and the 'slippery slope' threat of a tax cut expiring that McCain vociferously opposed in the first place. I suggest instead of lecturing me on matters you know little of and assuming my life experiences, that you learn the difference between the three.