Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Trust ‘mom’ with money more than GOP ‘dad’

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Posted on Wed, Apr. 06, 2005

Trust ‘mom’ with money more than GOP ‘dad’

It was the TV talker Chris Matthews, I believe, who first labeled Democrats and Republicans the “Mommy Party” and the “Daddy Party.” Archaic as these stereotypes may be, they do capture general attitudes about the two parties. But we live in the age of the one-parent family, and it is Mom, more often than Dad, who must play both roles.

It has not escaped notice that the Daddy Party has been fiscally misbehaving. But it hasn’t really sunk in how completely the Republicans have abandoned allegedly Republican values – if, in fact, they ever really had such values.

Our text today is the 2005 Economic Report of the President. I did this exercise a year ago and couldn’t quite believe the results. But the 2005 data confirm it: The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn’t even close.

The values I’m referring to are widely shared. We all want prosperity, we oppose unemployment, we dislike inflation, we don’t enjoy paying taxes, etc. They’re Republican only in the sense that Republicans are supposed to treasure them more and to be more reluctant to sacrifice them for other goals, such as equality or clean air.

Statistics in the Economic Report back to 1960 tell the story. A consistent pattern over 45 years can’t be explained away by shorter-term factors, such as war or who controls Congress. Maybe presidents can’t affect the economy much. But the assumption that they can and do is so prominent in GOP rhetoric that they are stuck with it.

Consider federal spending (aka “big government”). It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president’s policies to take effect (so, for example, President Clinton is responsible for 2001 and George W. Bush takes over in 2002), Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.

Leaning over backward even further, let’s start our measurement in 1981, the date when Ronald Reagan took office on a platform of shrinking government and many Republicans believe that life as we know it began. The result: Democrats still have a better record at smaller government. Republican presidents added more government spending for each year they served, whether you credit them with the actual years they served or with the year that followed.

Now look at federal revenues (aka taxes). You can’t take it away from them: Republicans do cut taxes. Or rather, tax revenues go up under both parties, but only about half as fast under Republicans. This is true no matter when you start counting, or whether you give a president’s policies that extra year to take effect. It’s the only test of Republican economics that the Republicans win.

That is, they win if you consider lower federal revenues to be a victory. Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenues by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenues are good because they will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending.

The numbers in the Economic Report undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.

Oh yes, almost forgot: If you start in 1981 and if you factor in a year’s delay, inflation under Republican presidents averages 4.36 percent, while under Democrats it’s 4.57 percent. Congratulations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kinsley is the editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.

Posted by: MonsterMark

I always start to read your postings and then halfway thru I start to gag and then have to scroll down to the bottom to see who had wrote the drivel. No surprise here...Michael Kingsley of the LA Times.

So what Michael is saying is that all Democrats should be Republicans and vice-versa. Good thing we live in a 50-50% divided country. We're interchangeable according to this mental midget.

Posted by: barry2952

Not interchangeable, just indistinguishable.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

So what Michael is saying is that all Democrats should be Republicans and vice-versa. Good thing we live in a 50-50% divided country. We're interchangeable according to this mental midget.

No, what he's saying is that Democrats ARE better for the people and the economy, while the Republicans just SAY they are better for the people and the economy and thus are just full of s-h-i-t.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

that Democrats ARE better for the people and the economy

That is so categorically untrue as to be laughable. If Democrats had their way we would be living in a total socialist society where anyone that had bettered their position in life would have any excess taken away and given to people who are 'needy', ie: lazy. Oh, wait! That's what the Dems still try to do now. Instead of enabling people (let them keep more of their own money) to take control of their own futures, they would rather disable people (taxation/legislation) to keep them dependant on the government for handouts because the government took all their money away from them.

The day I believe your quote is the day that Saddam is elected president of Iraq.

Posted by: FreeFaller

You know, the thing that gets me on this whole article is how liberals love to describe a family (i.e. "Mommy" Party, "Daddy" Party) as some sort of competition. Rather than the group effort it should be. I know this has nothing to do with economics but definately shows what people like Chris Matthews think a family should be like...

Am I the only one who saw the underlying amoral values in this message...

Sorry for the diversion... just a little

action.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeFaller

Am I the only one who saw the underlying amoral values in this message...

No. They would rather see the 'Mommy' family consist of 2 Mommies and the 'Daddy' family consist of 2 Daddies. I think it is fairly safe to say we can make a distinction there.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeFaller

Am I the only one who saw the underlying amoral values in this message...

Sorry for the diversion... just a little

action.

Actually, when I first read the article I was going to reply along the lines that most families have a mommy AND a daddy. Neither of them are bad individually. Yet this country needs both in order to have a balanced and stable future. Too much of one and not the other would be detrimental. But I decided then not to reply, as it may be perceived as trivial. But since you mentioned it, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

p.s. I know that it is possible for perfectly adjusted children to come out of single parent homes (like me

), so I'm not making a political statement against single parents. I just know it's much harder.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

), so I'm not making a political statement against single parents. I just know it's much harder.

Valid points. I must also add that children are NEVER better off with TWO parents if one of them is a crack-head, drinks like a sailor, raids the household savings to go gambling or is abusive / oppressive.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Stop the presses. Johnny and I agree.

Posted by: pepperman

Bryan and Johnny agree , the event of the Century.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Shazbot! I guess even a blind squirel (sp?) finds a nut eventually.

Posted by: barry2952

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Shazbot! I guess even a blind squirel (sp?) finds a nut eventually.

That is an apt description of Bryan.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Shazbot! I guess even a blind squirel (sp?) finds a nut eventually.

Now the only question is which one of you two is the blind squirrel, and which is the nut?