Quote from: Pagan on September 30, 2010, 01:44:19 PM
Yep, check out the chart for pork spending by Administration -



I really get tired of the NeoCon excuse for 'Dubya when they say "Democrat controlled during his last two years".  Shit he was a bigger pork spender when the GOP controlled everything.

Only cuts where during Ronnie's first term.

I'd love to see a chart that includes Hussein, I know it would be off the chart. ;D

Quote from: Solar on September 30, 2010, 01:47:29 PM
I'd love to see a chart that includes Hussein, I know it would be off the chart. ;D

Just double 'Dubya's

Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 12:38:42 PM
BTW, Daniel, I'm still waiting for you to tell me if the aforementioned fellas were conservatives. ;)

I'm confident you can find fault in anyone. So what's the point of the exercise. I'll give you some names. You'll tell me I'm wrong. I'll say you're wrong. And then where will we be? We've been doing this dance for a couple of years. No need to do it again. I still remember how this one ends.  ;)

Quote from: Pagan on September 30, 2010, 01:44:19 PM
Yep, check out the chart for pork spending by Administration -



I really get tired of the NeoCon excuse for 'Dubya when they say "Democrat controlled during his last two years".  Shit he was a bigger pork spender when the GOP controlled everything.

Only cuts where during Ronnie's first term.

You are making a SWEEPING generalization by categorizing a chart titled "Regulatory Budget Dollar Increase Per Presidential Term" as a chart that shows "pork spending".

The one "constant" on this chart that I see is that spending increased during the Republican administrations because this country was involved in armed conflicts.  I don't know what excuses Carter and Clinton have for THEIR spending increases.

Quote from: Dan on September 30, 2010, 02:00:56 PM
I'm confident you can find fault in anyone. So what's the point of the exercise. I'll give you some names. You'll tell me I'm wrong. I'll say you're wrong. And then where will we be? We've been doing this dance for a couple of years. No need to do it again. I still remember how this one ends.  ;)

Yep, that puddle around your leg, ain't a spilled drink, and don't believe him if he claims it's raining. ;D

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on September 30, 2010, 02:04:57 PM
You are making a SWEEPING generalization by categorizing a chart titled "Regulatory Budget Dollar Increase Per Presidential Term" as a chart that shows "pork spending".

The one "constant" on this chart that I see is that spending increased during the Republican administrations because this country was involved in armed conflicts.  I don't know what excuses Carter and Clinton have for THEIR spending increases.

OK here's the figures for "discretionary" spending aka PORK

Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). Comparing Bush to his predecessors is instructive. Bush and Reagan both substantially increased defense spending (by 44.5 and 34.8 percent respectively). However, Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 11.1 percent while Bush increased them by 27.9 percent. Clinton and Nixon both raised nondefense spending (by 1.9 percent and 23.1 respectively), but they both cut defense spending substantially (by 16.8 and 32.2 percent).

http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/19/bush-the-budget-buster

Quote from: Pagan on September 30, 2010, 02:25:11 PM
OK here's the figures for "discretionary" spending aka PORK

Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). Comparing Bush to his predecessors is instructive. Bush and Reagan both substantially increased defense spending (by 44.5 and 34.8 percent respectively). However, Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 11.1 percent while Bush increased them by 27.9 percent. Clinton and Nixon both raised nondefense spending (by 1.9 percent and 23.1 respectively), but they both cut defense spending substantially (by 16.8 and 32.2 percent).
http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/19/bush-the-budget-buster

So you are saying that ALL "discretionary spending" is PORK?  That's quite a leap, especially considering that you have provided NO evidence to support your assumptions. 

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on September 30, 2010, 02:47:20 PM
So you are saying that ALL "discretionary spending" is PORK?  That's quite a leap, especially considering that you have provided NO evidence to support your assumptions.

Oh, really.  I guess bridges to nowhere, moving sidewalks, so called "No Child Left Behind", the prescription drug bill, etc. etc.

Get real  ::)

The Republican Party was at its inception and remains to this day the party of bankers, stock jobbers, paper aristocracy, and corporatists.  It is nothing more and nothing less.  It has and has never had any principles.  At its inception, it created alliances on the one hand with Southern hating abolitionists and on the other with African hating Free Soilers.  With than alliance, it was able to become the leading faction in control of the U.S. government by being elected as a regional and not a national party.  It launched a war of aggression against the Confederacy and systematically looted and plunder the South, not only during the war but also during Reconstruction and in the years afterward, right up, in fact to WWI.

The federal army became, in essence, the private army of the party, which, when through with the South, went on to exploit the Plains Indians with actions, in some cases, bordering on genocide, to facilitate the railroads, one of the most powerful set of corporatists among the elites controlling the party.

With only temporary interruptions from conservative Democratic administrations like those of Grover Cleveland, the Republicans pushed their aggressive agenda onto the international scene with the 1898 war with Spain, a war which made up a Caribbean  and a Pacific power, and with their expansion to Hawaii and to Central America.

After WWI, there seemed to be with Harding and Coolidge, a benign period of the Republican Party.  However, with the election of Hoover, actually a wartime-socialist Wilsonian, that changed.

The Republicans seemed in the years just before WWII and just after, particularly in the person of men like Taft, to show a different face.  Ike, of course, could have just as easily been a post-WWII Democrat as Republican.

Goldwater showed Taft-like qualities, but more populist in nature.  The Republican establishment abandoned him to run and win a Deep South campaign while losing the national election.

Along came Nixon with his Southern strategy to which the Republicans have been chained ever since.  Without the South, they could not have won a single election.  It is interesting, that even as the GOP, ever as disingenuous as before and ever as unprincipled, is still courting votes in the stupid South, their leadership is apologizing for the Southern strategy.  This should surprise no one.  The GOP is courting some new constituency and does not mind being allied, as was so at its inception with two or more very divergent constituencies.

The Democratic Party hates and loathes the South or what is left of it; and, I would suggest, the feeling is mutual; however, it would be nice if we Southerns could gain the insight necessary to abandon the disingenuous and unprincipled Republican Party.  What is left of us should go into our twilight a free people, at least free of the factions of Democrats and Republicans, and not be chained to slip into hell with the very party which initiated our destruction.

Liberals say you're greedy if you want to keep half of what you earned. Really?

I say it's far more greedy to spend you day counting other people's money and demanding that they subsidize a lifestyle you are incapable of earning for yourself.

Put the bong down you damned dirty hippie and get a job.

Just teasing Bama, but if you can traffic in nonrepresentative stereotypes then so can I.

Quote from: Pagan on September 30, 2010, 03:18:51 PM
Oh, really.  I guess bridges to nowhere, moving sidewalks, so called "No Child Left Behind", the prescription drug bill, etc. etc.

Get real  ::)

Of course discretionary spending is riddled with pork that should be cut. Pork that cannot be defended. We can all list our favorite examples of indefensible pork. But the question AF asked you was to prove ALL discretionary spending was pork and you can't prove thy point by listing some famous examples.

Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 07:15:09 AM
Fair enough, Solar, so I'll reiterate; when did these qualities first show themselves. Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? Hoover? Ike? Nixon-Ford? Reagan?, Bush One-Two?

I've always thought that rep roots came from Lincoln.  However, political ideals and/or ideas change over time, and parties change along with those ideals and/or ideas although the parties keep the well-known name.

Quote from: crepe05 on October 01, 2010, 03:10:49 AM
I've always thought that rep roots came from Lincoln.  However, political ideals and/or ideas change over time, and parties change along with those ideals and/or ideas although the parties keep the well-known name.

The problem, Dear Lady, is Mr Lincoln was certainly not a conservative, so any conservative roots acquired by PUBS, have had another source.

Personally my "republican" roots come from my Daddy.   ::) ::)

Although they look more like the Tea Party than the Republican Party.. ???

Quote from: bama_beau_redux on October 01, 2010, 05:29:22 AM
Whoa, that was close!  You mean I don't have to put the bong down and get a job?

Not as long as enough of you guys keep voting Democrat.