which party is for less laws?

[GoodAnarchist]

Im having trouble figuring this out. when all the conservative judges voted for medicinal pot recently, that just clouded my judgement more.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Neither party is that great but in general the more power that states have, the more freedom people have. Why? To remove an unjust state law you have to persuade voters just in your state. To remove an unjust federal law, you have to persuade voters in all 50 states. Based on the medical marijuana decision it is easy to see which judges support the 10th amendment and state's right. Jeez, even Clarence Thomas voted for the pot heads.... I am sickened that Scalia used the interstate-commerce clause to vote for federal involvement in this issue.

Ask yourself this:
Which party wants to lower taxes and which party wants to raise taxes? Less money for the govt equals less power over the people. The Liberty Caucus of the republican party is made up of ex-libertarians who are trying to move the republican party towards more social freedom.

Hold your nose and vote republican.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither party is that great but in general the more power that states have, the more freedom people have. Why? To remove an unjust state law you have to persuade voters just in your state. To remove an unjust federal law, you have to persuade voters in all 50 states. Based on the medical marijuana decision it is easy to see which judges support the 10th amendment and state's right. Jeez, even Clarence Thomas voted for the pot heads.... I am sickened that Scalia used the interstate-commerce clause to vote for federal involvement in this issue.

Ask yourself this:
Which party wants to lower taxes and which party wants to raise taxes? Less money for the govt equals less power over the people. The Liberty Caucus of the republican party is made up of ex-libertarians who are trying to move the republican party towards more social freedom.

Hold your nose and vote republican.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you're, like, into civil liberties.

[BeauKooJack]

Republicans want to lower taxes? Then why do they spend worse then drunken sailors? Why was it the Dems who paid down the deficit? If you pay your mortgage on a credit card instead of cash are you lowering your "household taxes"? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
Bush approved of every spending bill put in front of him while Tom Delay says pork is GOOD. Wise up.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Republicans want to lower taxes? Then why do they spend worse then drunken sailors?
************************************************** **
Generally it is the Democrats who spend like drunken sailors.
I say this based on the last 75 years of American political history.

Bush43's "Compassionate Conservatism" does spend WAY too much money and the Tom Delay Congress is more about giving Bush43 political victories than following conservative spending principles. Bush does deserve blame for the spending in his two terms is office.....BUT AGAIN.....the last 75 years of political history show Repubs fight to keep govt smaller. This "compassionent conservatism" is nothing more than 'Democrat-Lite'. I hope it is a passing fad...


Why was it the Dems who paid down the deficit?
************************************************** *****
No it was not the Democrats. Two many politicians try to claim credit for good economies when the truth is they ALMOST never deserve this credit.

Healthy economies are a product of:
1. Strong entrepreneuerial traditions.
2. A healthy business climate (little corruption and lack of punitive business laws).
3. Businesses making good decisions.

Factor #2 is where govt have the most influence. Removing punitive business laws, lowering taxes, and generally staying out of the way is the best thing govt can do.
Factor #3 is a wildcard because businesses can have streaks of good years then do bone head things like invest in Junk Bonds and expanding capacity when it is not warranted.

The credit for the lowered deficts belongs to American businesses and some credit to the Gingrich congress which tried to keep spending down. If you recall Clinton submitted a budget with too much spending and the Repubs shut the govt down. How can Clinton claim ownership over lowered deficits when he wanted to spend more money while Newt Gingrich shut the govt down to try to stop Clinton from spending too much.

The belief that presidents/political parties can heavily influence the economy is VERY OVER RATED. Reagan was able to fill the govt coffers ( DOUBLED Revenue) just by lowing taxes and removing regulation. Then he sat back and let American business do what it does best... Of course the Democrat controlled congress outspent the DOUBLED REVENUES and REAGAN's Veto pen. And I'm sure you remember from your American govt classes that it is Congress that controls the $$$. All the president can do to stop spending is use his veto pen (which Reagan did a lot). Bush has not used his veto ONCE and he deserves a lot of blame for that.


Bush approved of every spending bill put in front of him while Tom Delay says pork is GOOD. Wise up.
************************************************** *****
Poker teaches you to play the odds. The odds do NOT guarantee that you'll win only that in the long run you will win. The last 75 years show Democrats are big spenders and Repubs are more fiscally responsible. This compassionate conservatism is nothing more than Democrat-Lite. I hope more true conservatives can gain office (Conservatism = Smaller Govt, Liberalism = Bigger Govt). 20% of the republicans are true conservatives while ZERO% of democrats are conservatives. Since 20% is bigger than 0%, then our only chance for a smaller govt is to vote Republican.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Generally it is the Democrats who spend like drunken sailors. I say this based on the last 75 years of American political history.

[/ QUOTE ]

From The Washington Monthly : "Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.

[However,] Republicans produce great economic growth for all income classes in election years, and that's all that voters remember. They really are voting their pocketbooks."

[ QUOTE ]
Healthy economies are a product of:
- Strong entrepreneurial traditions.
...
- Businesses making good decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

For whatever it's worth, this is not how two of the strongest economies of the post-WWII period, West Germany and Japan performed their miracles.

[lehighguy]

Japanese governmental control is the economy is not like it is in Europe. It is in support of capitalism and free markets, though the government has tried to direct capital and investment in specific industries it deems essential. This approach worked very well during the developemental stages, but has led to problems in modern times. This has a lot to do with the fact that this kind of governmental direction is great when the people in power are right, and bad when they aren't right. Japanese tradition and governmental medling are partly to blame for the long nature of the current recession.

I would point out that Japanese governmental involvement was in a purely pro-business framework. The same can be said of SK and Taiwan, where the government was decidedly involved but on the side of business (knowing this would provide better living standards for their people in the long run). This is in contrast to the anti-business framework of modern day France or other european economies. Can you really see a 35 hour workweek in Japan? Or 6-week vacations? Or huge entitlement programs? Japanese economic success relied on effective government leaders helping to focus the efforts of thier business leaders in order to promote more effective capitalism, not crush it as you European's would do.

I can't speak about Germany since I don't know as much about their economy.

[MMMMMM]

What a poor argument cited in that paragraph by Washington Monthly.

It is Congress, not the President, who spends--and the party in the White House is often NOT the same as the majority party in Congress which determines the spending.

And how's this for a logical fallacy (in the same paragraph):

[ QUOTE ]
If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.

[/ QUOTE ]

So correlation = causation. Sheer wizardry [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
************************************************** *****
As I said before presidents get more blame and more credit than they deserve for the economic well being. I looked at the article and I don't give it any credibility. The Devil is in the details and he provides none of the details how he calculated this data. I have learned from the business world how unscrupulous people can "massage" data to get the answer they want. There is even a book called "How To Lie With Statistics". Pretty graphs with false data only fool the mathematical/statistical uneducated.

FDR (Dem): Lousy economy WW2 bailed out the USA economy.
Truman/Eisenhauer(Dem/Repub): Great economy but neither deserve credit for it. Thank WW2.
Kennedy: He cut taxes. Just like a Republican. No one bitched about "tax cuts for the rich" when he cut taxes. I concede that when DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS ACT LIKE REPUBLICANS by cutting taxes and regulations then the economy improves. This was in the days where the top earners paid a 90% income tax (less deductions).
LBJ: Good Economy does he deserve credit fot it?
Nixon: Good ecomony does he deserve credit fot it?
Ford: Inflation bug hits
Carter: LOL !!!! 21% interest rates. High unemployment, and a disasterous foreign policy. LOL This one Democrat president destroys the argument that democrat presidents are good for the economy. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Reagan: He cut taxes and Govt revenue DOUBLED. This was supposedly "VooDoo" economics but it worked. The democrat controlled congress managed to out-spend the doubled revenue.
Bush41: The Fool Raised Taxes and sent the economy into a minor recession. Yes when Republicans act like democrats and raise taxes it does hurt the economy. The economy did rebounded his last 6 months of his presidency and...
Clinton: ....Clinton took credit for the rebounded economy even though it occurred six months before he took office and it took him MONTHS to pass any economic legislation. It is 100% Chutzpah on his part to take credit for the economic rebound. In the second half of Clinton's presidency the economy goes into another recession (my 401K got smashed the last 2 years of his presidency).

[TomCollins]

Do you have a mortgage? Do you think that people who have a mortgage, make every payment, but occasionally spend their money into something recreational are drunken sailors?

I have a mortgage. I pay it off every month. I have a good interest rate. I could pay more every month if I wanted to. I do not have credit card debt.

Lesson- some debt good, some debt bad. LEARN TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE instead of repeating the sound bites you hear on tv.

Which Dems paid down the debt btw? Bill Clinton I'm presuming you are thinking of? Didn't know he had a seat in Congress.