Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 76
  1. #1
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Still much work to be done, but districts with "safe" polling leads, or leads outside the margins of error, break 217-198 in favor of Democrats. A remarkable 19 seat lead.

    Based on 63 polls of 48 districts of 1,000 likely voters each, they will
    show Democrats currently ahead in the House by 19 seats, 224-205, or the
    exact, 19-seat margin of the Republican Majority after the 2002 elections.
    It is also a significant increase from the 219-214 seat lead for Democrats
    found in the Majority Watch polling from late August and early September.

    This 19-seat lead will not even include seven compe ive, Republican-held
    districts that are currently being polled, and six districts that are
    currently tied. In fact, perhaps most stunningly, the districts with
    "safe" leads outside the margins of error break 217-198 in favor of
    Democrats. The previous set of polls actually showed Republicans ahead on
    safe seats, 205-199. Further, since TX-22 was not polled, that means
    Democrats already have the magic 218, outside the margin of error, with
    between 19 and 26 more races in the "toss-up" category. This is a looming
    landslide.

    Update: Here are the results (PDF). I'll keep adding more as fast as I
    can. Polls showing Democratic pickups are in bold:

    * NY-26: Davis (D) 56%--40% Reynolds (R)
    * OH-15: Kilroy (D) 53%--41% Pryce (R)
    * NY-24: Arcuri (D) 53%--42% Mieir (R)
    * OH-18: Space (D) 51%--42% Padgett (R)
    * PA-07: Sestak (D) 52%--44% Weldon (R)
    * NM-01: Madrid (R) 52%--44% Wilson (R)
    * NC-11: Shuler (D) 51%--43% Taylor (R)
    * NC-08: Kissel (D) 51%--44% Hayes (R)
    * PA-06: Murphy (D) 52%--46% Gerlach (R)
    * MN-06: Wetterling (D) 50%--45% Bachmann (R)
    * IN-02: Donnelly (D) 50%--46% Chocola (R)
    * AZ-01: Simon (D) 50%--46% Renzi (R)
    * OH-02: Wulsin (D) 48%--45% Schmidt (R)
    * FL-13: Jennings (D) 47%--44% Buchannan (R)
    * WI-08: Kagen (D) 48%--46% Gard (R)
    * IA-02: Loebsack (D) 48%--47% Leach (R)
    * KY-03: Yarmuth (D) 48%--48% Northup (R)
    * IL-06: Duckworth (D) 47%--47% Roskam (R)
    * CO-07: Perlmutter (D) 47%--47% O'Donell (R)
    * MN-01: Gutknecht (R) 48%--47% Walz (D)
    * VA-02: Drake (R) 48%--46% Kellam (D)
    * NJ-07: Ferguson (R) 48%--46% Stender (D)
    * NY-03: King (R) 48%--46% Mejas (D)
    * WA-08: Reichert (R) 48%--45% Burner (D)
    * KY-04: Davis (R) 49%--46% Lucas (D)
    * VA-10: Wolf (R) 47%--42% Feder (D)
    * ID-01: Sali (R) 49%--43% Grant (D)
    * CT-05: Johnson (R) 52%--46% Murphy (D)
    * CA-04: Doolittle (R) 52%--44% Brown (D)
    * IL-14: Hastert (R) 52%--42% Leasch (D)
    * IL-19: Shimkus (R) 53%--36% Stover (D)

    Every seat I have listed is held by a Republican and was polled from
    October 8-10. One Democratic district, TX-17, was also polled. It showed
    Edwards (D) 55%--38% Taylor (R).
    Link

  2. #2
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it.

  3. #3
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    I know, but I have to report it.

  4. #4
    "Have to check the film" PixelPusher's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    3,396
    (Yonivore furiously searching rightwing blogs for fantasy scenarios involving Republicans keeping their majority)

  5. #5
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    GOP Redirects Funds From Faltering Races
    By Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Friday, October 13, 2006; Page A01


    Faced with a deteriorating political climate, Republican Party officials are hoping to keep control of the House and Senate with a strategy aimed at shoring up enough endangered in bents to preserve their majorities, while scaling back planned spending on races that now appear unwinnable.

    In recent days, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has given back television time it had reserved in Democratic-held districts in West Virginia, South Carolina and Ohio -- apparently concluding that those races are beyond reach unless something dramatic changes the national political environment in the 25 days before the Nov. 7 election....

    ***

    Democrats, meanwhile, are juggling pleas for financial assistance from candidates in House districts once considered second-tier opportunities. The Democrats have ordered up polls in a dozen or more of these long-shot districts and now face a critical choice: whether to place bets on a few of these districts in the hope of expanding the field of compe ive seats, or concentrate advertising dollars as planned on the roughly 20 to 25 districts where the odds appear most favorable....

    ***

    Democrats need to gain 15 seats next month to recapture the House. Strategists believe the goal is now attainable, because of high disapproval ratings for both the Republican-controlled Congress and for President Bush, as well as public dissatisfaction over Iraq and the fallout from the Mark Foley page scandal.

    Some top Republicans privately talk about losing a minimum of 12 seats, leaving them with a barely workable majority, and as many as 25 or 30 seats. Democratic strategists see the range of potential pickups in almost identical terms...
    Washington Post

  6. #6
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Will the Levee Break?
    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: October 13, 2006


    The key point is that African-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic, are highly concentrated in a few districts. This means that in close elections many Democratic votes are, as political analysts say, wasted — they simply add to huge majorities in a small number of districts, while the more widely spread Republican vote allows the G.O.P. to win by narrower margins in a larger number of districts.

    My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that because of this “geographic gerrymander,” even a substantial turnaround in total Congressional votes — say, from the three-percentage-point Republican lead in 2004 to a five-point Democratic lead this year — would leave the House narrowly in Republican hands. It looks as if the Democrats need as much as a seven-point lead in the overall vote to take control.

    ...

    But what’s that howling sound? Every poll taken this month shows the Democrats with a double-digit lead in the generic ballot question, in which voters are asked which party they support in this election. The median Democratic lead is 14 points.

    And here’s the thing: because there are many districts that the G.O.P. carried by only moderately large margins in recent elections, a large Democratic surge — one only a bit bigger than that needed to take the House at all — would sweep away many Republicans holding seats normally considered safe. If the actual vote is anything like what the polls now suggest, we’re talking about the Democrats holding a larger majority in the House than the Republicans have held at any point since their 1994 takeover.

    So if the Democrats win, they’ll probably have a substantial majority. Whether they’ll be able to keep that majority is another question. But be prepared to wake up less than four weeks from now and learn that everything you’ve been told about American politics — liberalism is dead, whoever controls the South controls Washington, only Republicans know “the way to win” — is wrong. (Are we seeing the birth of a new New Deal coalition, in which the solid Northeast takes the place of the solid South?)
    NY Times Select

  7. #7
    Gotta Fly, to Old to drive. BIG IRISH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    753
    Yep Manny/Dan The democrats will win it because youall got them white religious voters now.




    October 12, 2006
    Religious Whites Disproportionately Shift Away from GOP
    Change could reflect impact of Foley situation


    by Frank Newport

    GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

    PRINCETON, NJ -- An analysis of USA Today/Gallup poll trend data indicates that while Democrats have made gains across the board on the generic Congressional ballot in the latest Oct. 6-8 survey, the change has been greater among religious whites than among less religious whites and among non whites. At this point, religious whites are equally as likely to say they will vote Democratic as Republican, a marked change from their strong tilt towards the Republicans in surveys conducted June through September.

    For the purpose of political analysis this year, Gallup has divided the American population into three groups based on race and church attendance: Religious whites (defined as whites who self-report attending church weekly or almost every week), less religious whites (defined as whites who self-report attending church monthly or less often), and all others.

    The chart below tracks the trends in congressional voting intentions across these three groups from June to the present, showing the net percent of registered voters planning to vote for the Democratic candidate in their congressional district (% voting Democratic minus % voting Republican). For June/July, August, and September, the figures represent aggregated data from all relevant surveys conducted in each of those time periods. The data for October are from the latest Oct. 6-8 survey only. The graph represents the difference in the percent voting Democrat and the percent voting Republican.


    (The full data are presented below the graphs
    click on the link for the graphs
    http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24946

  8. #8
    Gotta Fly, to Old to drive. BIG IRISH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    753
    Last edited by BIG IRISH; 10-13-2006 at 02:11 AM.

  9. #9
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    I've got my fingers crossed and a bottle of champagne ready to go for Super Tuesday!

  10. #10
    Gotta Fly, to Old to drive. BIG IRISH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    753
    How about a prayer

  11. #11
    The Great Eight Ocotillo's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    4,029
    As you may or may not know, I drive all over the state in my job and generally listen to talk radio which in large swaths of Texas is right wing. Anyway, got to hear some Hannity and Limbaugh this week and I guess the writing is on the wall in the Republican war room.

    Hannity is coming across as desparate in his GOTV efforts on the radio. He tries to portray himself as optimistic and positive but it rings shallow. Limbaugh is now playing the expectations game. He is trying to overstate what the Democrats will accomplish so that when they fall short, he can launch into a "they came up short" argument.

    The truth is despite the gerrymandering that has taken place to protect Republican seats, the house is going to the Dems. The Senate is too close to call but the Dems will pick up seats there and most certainly narrow the margins from what they are today. Control of the Senate will come down to what happens in three races, Missouri, Tennesee and Viriginia. If (and it is a big if) the Dems can sweep those three races, Harry Reid becomes majority leader.

  12. #12
    Spurs love forever RobinsontoDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Post Count
    3,000
    If (and it is a big if) the Dems can sweep those three races, Harry Reid becomes majority leader.
    That would suck, I hate Reid, not only does he have abmramoff ties and the vegas property scandal to deal with, but the man is also prolife.

    Piss Poor democrat

  13. #13
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    I dislike polls but I am hopeful we will get to see 5 deferrment and Rummy under oath. That would make my year ..to see those 2 under the bright lights of a Congressional investigation!

  14. #14
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it. Please don't jinx it.
    Dang Manny! That's pathetic.

  15. #15
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    (Yonivore furiously searching rightwing blogs for fantasy scenarios involving Republicans keeping their majority)
    I'm becoming concerned over your obsession with me.

  16. #16
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    I dislike polls but I am hopeful we will get to see 5 deferrment and Rummy under oath. That would make my year ..to see those 2 under the bright lights of a Congressional investigation!
    This is why I doubt Democrats will be successful in these mid-terms; they've put their personal priorities of punishing all the demons they've fantasized about, over the past 11 years, ahead of:

    1) Securing our nation against terrorism;

    2) Winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;

    3) Addressing the very serious threats in North Korea and Iran; and,

    4) maintaining the economic boom ushered in by the Bush policies.

    Yeah, retribution, raising taxes, and surrender are excellent planks in an already stellar platform.

  17. #17
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,406
    I doubt it will be a landslide, but their non-plan for the future looks about as attractive to the average voter as any Republican plan, which is hilarious and sad all at once.

  18. #18
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    This is why I doubt Democrats will be successful in these mid-terms; they've put their personal priorities of punishing all the demons they've fantasized about, over the past 11 years, ahead of:

    1) Securing our nation against terrorism;

    2) Winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;

    3) Addressing the very serious threats in North Korea and Iran; and,

    4) maintaining the economic boom ushered in by the Bush policies.

    Yeah, retribution, raising taxes, and surrender are excellent planks in an already stellar platform.
    Well Yoni to some folks taking a country to war is the ultimate act of President. It has become obvious that this administration chose to go to war on less than accurate information. What it also apparent the administration decided to withold information that contradicted the justifications they used for the war. Some people have a problem with that and would like to know if they were lied to when making the case for war. The GOP Congress never bothered to ask anything about those discrepancies that came to light after the war started so people have been biding their time. The only way to find out if anyone lied is to get them under oath. I am surprised that you have not figured out that if this did happen Bush could be completely vindicated when everything shakes out in the end. Retribution? No accountability is all we ask for.

    Again Yoni they are talking of reversing the tax cut for the top 2%.. which means the majority of Americans get to keep theirs.

    As far as addressing the NK and Iranians.. Bush has zero credibility and a new team could not do any worse..


    The not fighting terrorism card is getting a little old don't you think? Enough of the campaign slogans Yoni.. do you just cut and paste those as well?

  19. #19
    They hate us - but they want to be us!
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Post Count
    6,140
    If people are stupid enough to vote in the Democrats as the majority party, then God help us all! However, it won't take long for those stupid people to realize that the Democrats aren't the answer. They'll be pissing and moaning when their taxes go up and en lement programs hit high gear. But, they will deserve whatever happens because they were too stupid to understand what is really going on!

  20. #20
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    If people are stupid enough to vote in the Democrats as the majority party, then God help us all! However, it won't take long for those stupid people to realize that the Democrats aren't the answer. They'll be pissing and moaning when their taxes go up and en lement programs hit high gear. But, they will deserve whatever happens because they were too stupid to understand what is really going on!

    Didn't the GOP take over Congress in 1994? So why are you worried about en lement spending going up now? It has since 1994 ..oh wait your a partisan hack with only political slogans to use as a defense.. never mind

    http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-02-04-2.html


    Republicans Become the Party of Big Government
    by Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven

    Chris Edwards is director of fiscal policy and Tad DeHaven is a research assistant at the Cato Ins ute.

    Even before the release of the new federal budget, President Bush's budget chief Josh Bolten has begun the damage control. On one flank, the president is trying to ward off the increasing despair in his conservative base caused by his huge spending increases and big deficits. On another flank, the mainstream media are beginning to run front-page stories on the administration's fiscal irresponsibility.

    Bolten took to the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal in December to defend the administration's fiscal record. His excuses for high spending and deficits are not convincing. First, he says deficits have been caused by declining revenues from the sluggish economy. That was a good argument two years ago, but the economy is growing strongly again and the government should have made adjustments in response to the leaner revenue picture. When revenues fall, the government should cut spending to balance the books just as any business would do.

    The administration's other argument is that spending has been driven by defense and national security needs. That was also a good excuse for awhile, but the administration should have been working on reform ideas to cut domestic spending to offset defense increases. Defense is certainly a high-priority spending area, but the administration has not identified low-priority spending areas that could be cut. Indeed, Bush has signed every spending bill that crossed his desk while his veto pen has collected dust.

    Bolten argues that the president hasn't vetoed a single spending bill because "he hasn't needed to." It's more likely that the president hasn't vetoed any spending bills because he hasn't wanted to. Each spending bill that has come to his desk has represented a new vote-buying opportunity, whether it was the big education bill in 2001, the big farm bill in 2002, or the even bigger Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003.

    The drug bill is the largest en lement expansion in 40 years. Its advertised price tag of $400 billion is actually a big understatement of the true cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill could cost taxpayers as much as $2 trillion in its second decade because of the rapid increase in the number of elderly in future years. Besides, Senator Ted Kennedy called it only a "down payment" for future drug program expansions.

    In stark contrast, the Republicans sought cuts to Medicare in the 1990s because they were rightly concerned that the program's cost will spin out of control when the baby boomer generation retires. Unfortunately, today's Republicans, led by Bush, have made the coming elderly spending time bomb that much more explosive.

    After increasing 24 percent in the past three years, the budget is in desperate need of cuts to get federal finances under control. But cuts are not a policy option that the current White House considers very much. At the time of this writing the new budget figures are not available, but it looks like the administration will request a 3 percent increase next year for non-defense, non-en lement programs. In some years, 3 percent may seem like a reasonable increase. But we currently have a roughly $450 billion deficit. Shouldn't the administration be calling at least for a freeze in federal spending to get the giant deficit under control?

    In addition, the White House seems content to call for cutting the deficit in half in five years. That is remarkably timid. In the 1990s, the Republican Congress battled against all deficits and forced President Clinton to embrace a plan to completely eliminate the deficit over a period of years. Non-en lement spending actual fell in 1996, a truly rare event in federal budgeting.

    The administration's spin on today's fiscal situation is not very convincing. In the Journal op-ed, Bolten wrote:

    In the last budget year of the previous administration (FY '01), domestic spending unrelated to defense or homeland security grew by an eye-popping 15%. With the adoption of President Bush's first budget (FY '02), that number was reduced to 6%; then 5% the following year; and now 3% for the current fiscal year.

    The first thing to notice is that Bolten chooses to exclude at least four-fifths of the federal budget from his statistics. Federal spending is of two basic types: discretionary and en lements. Discretionary spending is determined annually through the appropriations process and amounts to about two-fifths of the budget. Defense accounts for about half of discretionary.

    The other three-fifths of the federal budget is interest and en lement spending, chiefly Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Bolten leaves en lement spending out of his figures. En lements are often said to be on autopilot because it takes a law change to reduce spending on them. As a consequence, politicians often act as if they aren't responsible for the rapid spending increases that occur in en lements. For example, Medicaid spending has grown at an average 11 percent per year the last three years while the administration and Congress have looked the other way. In truth, Congress can cut en lement spending anytime it wants. After all, Congress just changed the law to massively increase Medicare spending for the prescription drug bill.

    Nonetheless, let's zero in on the one-fifth of the budget that is non-en lement and non-defense. Bolten claims that the administration has been fiscally responsible in this area of spending. Actually, he carves even more spending out the equation, only looking at non-defense spending that is "unrelated to homeland security." It is on this small fraction of overall spending that Bolten says the administration has not overspent. But even here, the administration figures are suspect. Indeed, some areas like education spending have seen huge increases.

    Politically, it must be frustrating for the Republicans who have worked hard in the past to cut government to see today's Republican president become one of the biggest spenders in decades. When the GOP gained control of Congress in 1994, they promised to eliminate the deficit and reduce wasteful spending. In their Contract with America in 1994, Republicans committed to "restoring fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses." For several years, they did modestly curtail spending growth, and they balanced the budget in 1998 for the first time since the 1960s.

    The Republican emphasis on spending restraint at the time also seemed to move President Clinton to the political center. In his 1995 State of the Union message, Clinton proclaimed: "Let's change the government -- let's make it smaller, less costly and smarter -- leaner, not meaner." In his message for the 1996 budget, Clinton argued: "Except in emergencies, we cannot spend an additional dime on any program unless we cut it from another part of the budget."

    In the 1990s, many Republicans tried to revive the emphasis on spending reform that had been an early focus of President Reagan. For example, Reagan fought to eliminate the departments of Education and Energy. In May 1995, the House approved a budget plan calling for the elimination of the departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy. At the time, the House determined that each of these departments was wasteful, ineffective, and uncons utional. Indeed, the GOP presidential platform in 1996 stated: "The federal government has no cons utional authority to be involved in school curricula ... this is why we will abolish the Department of Education."

    It's true that many of the budget cuts of Reagan and of the GOP in the mid-1990s did not last very long. But at least they were pushing in the right direction. By contrast, President Bush has sought large spending increases for the Department of Education, for example. Education outlays increased from $36 billion to $61 billion in just the last three years.

    A sharp contrast is evident when comparing Reagan and Bush on spending. While both boosted defense outlays during their first three years in office, Reagan offset that increase with a 13 percent cut in real discretionary nondefense spending. By contrast, Bush has increased nondefense spending by more than 20 percent in real terms.

    Reagan was not able to follow through on many of his cuts because of solid opposition by the Democratic House. In the 1990s, President Clinton was an obstacle to many cuts, despite his conservative rhetoric. But today, Republicans have the White House and a majority in Congress and should be moving ahead with these long-sought reforms.

    Instead, they have moved in an anti-reform direction in many cases. For example, they have turned their back on past Republican efforts to reform agriculture subsidies. The farm bill signed into law by President Bush in 2002 represented a reversal of the Republican 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. The 1996 Act had sought to finally wean farmers off federal price supports and subsidies. But the new farm bill embraced price supports and boosted farm subsidies.

    The culture of spending seems to have prevailed over the current Republican Party. In his initial budget plan in 2001, President Bush noted: "For too long, politics in Washington has been divided between those who wanted Big Government without regard to cost and those who wanted Small Government without regard to need." Three years later it is clear that Bush has embraced Big Government without regard to cost.

    Looking ahead, Republicans need to rediscover the reforming spirit that they brought to Washington after the landmark 1994 congressional elections. For their part, fiscally conservative Democrats should challenge the big spending Republicans, and work to cut unneeded defense and non-defense programs. To begin getting the budget under control, an immediate freeze should be imposed on discretionary spending. That should be followed by eliminations of low-priority domestic programs, cutting waste in the defense budget, and implementing reforms to the elderly en lements to diffuse the fiscal time bomb that is waiting to explode on the coming generation of young taxpayers.

  21. #21
    They hate us - but they want to be us!
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Post Count
    6,140
    Again Yoni they are talking of reversing the tax cut for the top 2%.. which means the majority of Americans get to keep theirs.
    That talking point is getting soooo old! The top 1% pay over 34% of the taxes! How much more do you want them to pay? And the top 25% pay almost 84% of the taxes. I'm sick of hearing about tax cuts only for the rich. The bottom 75% of wage earners in this country only pay 16% of the taxes! How much more can their taxes be cut - I guess you'd be happy if the top 5% paid 100% of the taxes, huh?

    Dems slogan should be:

    Give the slackers at the bottom more money to buy cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets!

  22. #22
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    I guess you'd be happy if the top 5% paid 100% of the taxes, huh?
    That's a start.

  23. #23
    Ain't over 'till its over MaNuMaNiAc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Post Count
    12,900
    If people are stupid enough to vote in the Democrats as the majority party, then God help us all! However, it won't take long for those stupid people to realize that the Democrats aren't the answer. They'll be pissing and moaning when their taxes go up and en lement programs hit high gear. But, they will deserve whatever happens because they were too stupid to understand what is really going on!
    because "what's really going on" has been obvious to the public these last 6 years?

  24. #24
    They hate us - but they want to be us!
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Post Count
    6,140


    I really hope that's a joke - if not, you're a very scary person.

  25. #25
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751


    Scary person? The idea of multibillionaires paying millions taxes SCARES you?

    I hope that's a joke.


    And yes, I was being partly facetious.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •