Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Hungary Jack]

Now if you want to look at history to really see which presidents have been more fiscally responsible and which have been less, read this:

Lyndon Johnson (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 25%
Increased Spending by 24%
Net % increase/decrease = +1%

Richard Nixon (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 17%
Increased Spending by 21%
Net % increase/decrease = -4%

Gerald Ford (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 11%
Increased Spending by 22%
Net % increase/decrease = -11%

Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 20%
Increased Spending by 13%
Net % increase/decrease = +7%

Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 15%
Increased Spending by 25%
Net % increase/decrease = -10%

George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 17%
Increased Spending by 18%
Net % increase/decrease = -1%

Bill Clinton (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 35%
Increased Spending by 9%
Net % increase/decrease = +26%

George W. Bush (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 10%
Increased Spending by 25%
Net % increase/decrease = -15%

To me, the most remarkable number in all of that is that under Bill Clinton spending only went up 9%. He and Carter were the least spendy Presidents over he past 40+ years, yet somehow the Republicans always warn us of how much Democrats love spending, and they use Clinton and Carter as their examples. It's a completely bogus and dishonest argument.

Clement, I was thinking about this earlier this morning. Can you tell me where you got these numbers?

Remarkable figures. It is amazing how the Democrats have been branded as spenders in the face of this data.

[wart57]

Now if you want to look at history to really see which presidents have been more fiscally responsible and which have been less, read this:

Lyndon Johnson (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 25%
Increased Spending by 24%
Net % increase/decrease = +1%

Richard Nixon (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 17%
Increased Spending by 21%
Net % increase/decrease = -4%

Gerald Ford (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 11%
Increased Spending by 22%
Net % increase/decrease = -11%

Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 20%
Increased Spending by 13%
Net % increase/decrease = +7%

Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 15%
Increased Spending by 25%
Net % increase/decrease = -10%

George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 17%
Increased Spending by 18%
Net % increase/decrease = -1%

Bill Clinton (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 35%
Increased Spending by 9%
Net % increase/decrease = +26%

George W. Bush (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 10%
Increased Spending by 25%
Net % increase/decrease = -15%

To me, the most remarkable number in all of that is that under Bill Clinton spending only went up 9%. He and Carter were the least spendy Presidents over he past 40+ years, yet somehow the Republicans always warn us of how much Democrats love spending, and they use Clinton and Carter as their examples. It's a completely bogus and dishonest argument.

Clement, I was thinking about this earlier this morning. Can you tell me where you got these numbers?

Remarkable figures. It is amazing how the Democrats have been branded as spenders in the face of this data.

But every one of the Dems increase revenues....how much of that was from increased taxes?

[ghostrunner]

But every one of the Dems increase revenues....how much of that was from increased taxes?

Some, but there are only three things you can do to reduce the debt and the deficit. Grow revenue through taxes, grow it through increased GDP which also helps tax revenue, and reduce spending. Clinton got lucky in some ways because the economy mushroomed under him. That's the biggest factor in his increased revenue. But it's notable if in fact he only increased spending that much, given all that revenue. Supposedly Democrats are the big spenders.

When it comes to the deficit, I don't care that much if taxes are raised a little. Republicans seem to think all you have to do is give tax cuts, but that doesn't work by itself. They like that because it's popular and they don't have to touch the spending they like. You can argue tax cuts help the economy but that's cyclical. Clinton did raise taxes and the economy grew anyway. Bush cut them and it shrank. I'm not arguing those are related, but it's not cut and dry. The bottom line is that you can't expect to make sustained inroads on debt if you're not willing to raise taxes and/or cut spending.

I've never voted for a Democratic president before yesterday, but I've changed on that because Republicans don't deliver on these fiscal issues.

[maddash]

Now if you want to look at history to really see which presidents have been more fiscally responsible and which have been less, read this:

Lyndon Johnson (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 25%
Increased Spending by 24%
Net % increase/decrease = +1%

Richard Nixon (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 17%
Increased Spending by 21%
Net % increase/decrease = -4%

Gerald Ford (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 11%
Increased Spending by 22%
Net % increase/decrease = -11%

Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 20%
Increased Spending by 13%
Net % increase/decrease = +7%

Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 15%
Increased Spending by 25%
Net % increase/decrease = -10%

George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 17%
Increased Spending by 18%
Net % increase/decrease = -1%

Bill Clinton (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 35%
Increased Spending by 9%
Net % increase/decrease = +26%

George W. Bush (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 10%
Increased Spending by 25%
Net % increase/decrease = -15%

To me, the most remarkable number in all of that is that under Bill Clinton spending only went up 9%. He and Carter were the least spendy Presidents over he past 40+ years, yet somehow the Republicans always warn us of how much Democrats love spending, and they use Clinton and Carter as their examples. It's a completely bogus and dishonest argument.

Clement, I was thinking about this earlier this morning. Can you tell me where you got these numbers?

Remarkable figures. It is amazing how the Democrats have been branded as spenders in the face of this data.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'd like to see what kind of Congress the President worked with for those numbers as well.

[ghostrunner]

Now if you want to look at history to really see which presidents have been more fiscally responsible and which have been less, read this:

Lyndon Johnson (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 25%
Increased Spending by 24%
Net % increase/decrease = +1%

Richard Nixon (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 17%
Increased Spending by 21%
Net % increase/decrease = -4%

Gerald Ford (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 11%
Increased Spending by 22%
Net % increase/decrease = -11%

Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 20%
Increased Spending by 13%
Net % increase/decrease = +7%

Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 15%
Increased Spending by 25%
Net % increase/decrease = -10%

George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 17%
Increased Spending by 18%
Net % increase/decrease = -1%

Bill Clinton (Democrat)
Increased Revenues by 35%
Increased Spending by 9%
Net % increase/decrease = +26%

George W. Bush (Republican)
Increased Revenues by 10%
Increased Spending by 25%
Net % increase/decrease = -15%

To me, the most remarkable number in all of that is that under Bill Clinton spending only went up 9%. He and Carter were the least spendy Presidents over he past 40+ years, yet somehow the Republicans always warn us of how much Democrats love spending, and they use Clinton and Carter as their examples. It's a completely bogus and dishonest argument.

Clement, I was thinking about this earlier this morning. Can you tell me where you got these numbers?

Remarkable figures. It is amazing how the Democrats have been branded as spenders in the face of this data.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'd like to see what kind of Congress the President worked with for those numbers as well.

Congress had a Democratic majority for 50 years before 1994, with a few interruptions. I'm certain some of Clinton's restraint was due to the GOP congress.

Even so, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Nixon and Ford all worked with an opposing Congress, and they increased spending more than Clinton if these numbers are correct.

Also, Clinton was the first President since Johnson to even submit a balanced budget (before Congress even got it's hands on it). He didn't do it until 1998, but he certainly didn't have to do it. Bush came in with a surplus and did it only once in his first year. Even taking out defense spending for both, he's outspent Clinton. He had 6 years of a Republican controlled Congress to show some kind of restraint and it didn't happen.

[PujolJunkie]

Is the election over yet?

Yep. It sure is.

McCain's Mountain of a Problem

In the wee hours of this morning, Public Policy Polling released data from Colorado and New Mexico. The toplines are strong for Obama, giving him leads of 10 and 17 points, respectively in those states. What's worse for McCain, however, is that PPP estimates that nearly two-thirds of Coloradans have already cast their ballots, as have 55-60 percent of New Mexicans, with large majorities of those votes going to Barack Obama. This is backed up to some extent by Michael McDonald's turnout statistics. In Colorado, the state had already processed approximately 1.3 million ballots as of Thursday, around 60 percent of the total 2004 turnout. In Bernalillo County (Albuquerque), New Mexico (statewide figures are not available), 145,000 ballots had been cast as of Wednesday, equaling 55 percent of 2004's total.

Should New Mexico and Colorado become safe Obama states, McCain's only realistic path to victory runs through Pennsylvania. Even if McCain were to win the Keystone, however -- say that Philadelphia remains in a collective stupor from the Phillies' win and that there is some sort of Bradley Effect in the Alleghanies -- Obama has a pretty decent firewall in the form of Virginia and Nevada, which had already achieved 53 percent of its 2004 voting totals as of Wednesday, and where Democrats have a 23-point edge in ballots cast so far in Las Vegas's Clark County (and perhaps more impressively, a 15-point advantage in Reno's Washoe County, a traditionally Republican area). The Kerry states less Pennsylvania, but plus Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and Virginia, total 270 electoral votes: an ugly, nail-biter of a win for Obama, but still one that would get him to 1600 Pennsylvania all the same

[wart57]

But every one of the Dems increase revenues....how much of that was from increased taxes?

Some, but there are only three things you can do to reduce the debt and the deficit. Grow revenue through taxes, grow it through increased GDP which also helps tax revenue, and reduce spending. Clinton got lucky in some ways because the economy mushroomed under him. That's the biggest factor in his increased revenue. But it's notable if in fact he only increased spending that much, given all that revenue. Supposedly Democrats are the big spenders.

When it comes to the deficit, I don't care that much if taxes are raised a little. Republicans seem to think all you have to do is give tax cuts, but that doesn't work by itself. They like that because it's popular and they don't have to touch the spending they like. You can argue tax cuts help the economy but that's cyclical. Clinton did raise taxes and the economy grew anyway. Bush cut them and it shrank. I'm not arguing those are related, but it's not cut and dry. The bottom line is that you can't expect to make sustained inroads on debt if you're not willing to raise taxes and/or cut spending.

I've never voted for a Democratic president before yesterday, but I've changed on that because Republicans don't deliver on these fiscal issues.

But I thought Obama was going to cut my taxes....

[ghostrunner]

But every one of the Dems increase revenues....how much of that was from increased taxes?

Some, but there are only three things you can do to reduce the debt and the deficit. Grow revenue through taxes, grow it through increased GDP which also helps tax revenue, and reduce spending. Clinton got lucky in some ways because the economy mushroomed under him. That's the biggest factor in his increased revenue. But it's notable if in fact he only increased spending that much, given all that revenue. Supposedly Democrats are the big spenders.

When it comes to the deficit, I don't care that much if taxes are raised a little. Republicans seem to think all you have to do is give tax cuts, but that doesn't work by itself. They like that because it's popular and they don't have to touch the spending they like. You can argue tax cuts help the economy but that's cyclical. Clinton did raise taxes and the economy grew anyway. Bush cut them and it shrank. I'm not arguing those are related, but it's not cut and dry. The bottom line is that you can't expect to make sustained inroads on debt if you're not willing to raise taxes and/or cut spending.

I've never voted for a Democratic president before yesterday, but I've changed on that because Republicans don't deliver on these fiscal issues.

But I thought Obama was going to cut my taxes....

He's stated up front that he's raising it on higher incomes, so the overall revenue would be greater. The levels will be what they were under Clinton, which is lower than what they were under Reagan.

[PujolJunkie]

Just for the record, the electoral vote plateau for Obama is now 406 electoral votes. I'm still saying it'll be in the 338 to 364 range, but 406 is the very top of the food chain.

[MrCrowesGarden]

I would just like to know whose idea it was to have Chris Berman interview John McCain and Barack Obama on Monday Night Football.