1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

When were you better off DEM or Rep.

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by smsnyder, Mar 14, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. smsnyder

    smsnyder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,830
    I was looking at my social security statememt over the last 25 year. Earned income. I made more money with the democrats in office but i am not one.
     
  2. birdogs

    birdogs TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,775
    You made more money but the Dems took more of it - and now they want even more! Net Loss.

    The real issue in these times of asymetrical threats to your safety and even existence is who will do more to protect you, your family and your country. Don't let the bs about "welfare for the rich" and other class warfare code words deflect you from concentrating on what is really the most important issue to you and your family - safety and survival!
     
  3. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,643
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    They can't save the economy. To hell with politics, time to get prepared for hard times. Tweedle Dum, Weedle Dee, or Rumplestiltskin, what difference does it make.

    HM
     
  4. dale t

    dale t TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    18
    fred

    no brainer is correct.I have always done much better with the dems in office,altho they are all a bunch

    of S.O.B.s

    Dale
    in Idaho
     
  5. claybustin hoosier 52

    claybustin hoosier 52 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    181
    I think Halfmile hit the nail right on top of the head!!

    John
     
  6. slide action

    slide action Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,917
    As far as economics, I have ALWAYS faired better with Republicans in office. Jimmy peanut almost destroyed the ecomomy. Taxes and interest rates soared and jobs were hard to find. With the Republicans I keep more of my own money. I don't think EITHER party at the present time is necessarily good for the American worker. The Dems want to tax them to death and keep a group of potential wefare voters on the rolls at tax payers expense. The majority of Republican politicians push cheap illegal alien labor(and I don't buy that "only jobs Americans won't take" crap! If the Dems do take total control, taxes will sky rocket, entrest will double, and inflation rates will soar. As far as the war goes when I hear how much the war COST, I am reminded that most people don't have a "CLUE" how much of the present ecomony runs on it. Don't get me wrong. NO war is good, but if we were to pull out abruptly, the economy would take a nose dive like in did in the early seventies after vietnam. When the Democrats promise to do an imediate pull out in the midle east, they are lieing through their teeth! Either way, we are headed for a major ecomonic down turn right now. With sky rocketing energy prices, a falling U.S. dollar, the construction buiness stagnating, and wages and benifits either reducing or remaining flat we are in for a rough ride, no matter who is in office.
     
  7. Bruce Specht

    Bruce Specht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,055
    Location:
    Near but not in chicago
    Well the dems wom the congress and look at the mess we are in! For my money the Republicans are the better choice for the economy. Anyone here old enought to remember the Jimmy Carter days runaway inflation home mortage rates at 16% not sure how we survied that
     
  8. Garry

    Garry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    534
    Here's a quote from the link below.

    "If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99".

    http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
     
  9. slide action

    slide action Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,917
    If you must know I am pushing 59 years old. I DO remember the so called GAS shortage, but it was in the CARTER years, not under Nixon. Ford didn't stay in office long enough to change much of anything.Personally I think Ford was much too much of a liberal and a RINO in my book. As far as the early 80's More people I knew were looking for work under the Carter years. Carter was an ecomomic disaster! Carter took over from Ford in the early 70's. I LIVED through those times and I know for a fact, they were bad news. Yes there were thin years in the early Regan years,but the Ragan tax cuts got the economy rolling again slowly and finally turned it around. Not to fear, your Democrat heros have already voted to raise taxes soon. That will drive another stake in an already slow economy. Remember the democrats want to TAX the rich.Problem is any family making 100,000 per year combined income is RICH to their way of thinking. The Republicans HAVE spent too much, but that will be nothing compared to the TAX and spending of the liberal democrats. We are in for a rough ride for a long time! The Democrats will rob us blind in taxes to pay for dead beat welfare bums, programs for illegal aliens,liberal social engineering, and more " freebe"social programs, that will drain the coffers dry!
     
  10. birdogs

    birdogs TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,775
    Garry,

    What you say is likely true but very misleading. Usually the Dems reduce spending on defense to the point of disaster. Then the Repubs come into office and have to correct this condition in order to protect the country. This is the principle reason for the difference in the numbers.

    Take a chance with the Dems and you are gambling with your freedom and the security of the US. It is still a dangerous world; perhaps even more dangerous than it was with the USSR. There are several new nuclear powers and also threats from non-nation states. This added complexity requires MORE not less attention and investment. I don't think, based on their prior performance that the Dems have the stomsch for it or even recognize it.

    Tony C
     
  11. shadow

    shadow Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,445
    Ahhh Yes, Jimmy Carter. I remember him well. Things that stick in my mind are:21% interest rates,18%unemployment, Panama Canal giveaway, and the crowning touch of his administration---the Susan B. Anthony dollar !
     
  12. Garry

    Garry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    534
    President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security.

    Defense and homeland security spending is not driving the overall Bush
    budget bloat. George W. Bush has promised spending on guns and butter
    simultaneously,reversing a trend that has been the norm for most presidents over the past four decades.

    Throughout the past 40 years, most presidents have cut or restrained lower-priority spending to make room for higher-priority spending. What is driving George W. Bush’s budget bloat is a reversal of that trend. Once entitlement spending is taken off the table, presidents have two choices about where to allocate money in the budget. As budget watchers used to say, the federal government can either buy guns (by funding defense programs) or butter (by funding nondefense programs). George W. Bush has promised spending on
    guns and butter simultaneously, reversing a trend that has been the norm for most presidents over the past four decades. During the Cold War, presidents such as Ronald Reagan who wanted to increase spending on defense made room for it by cutting nondefense spending (or at least by spending money on nondefense at a rate lower than inflation). Presidents who were in office after the end of a war decreased defense spending in response to military demobilization and increased nondefense spending, as did Richard Nixon after the Vietnam War. Only two Cold War presidents after 1964, Johnson and Carter, presided over real increases in both the defense and the nondefense budgets.
     
  13. spritc

    spritc Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Indiana
    Careful guys, Deckart is a gun grabbing Democrat! Hopefully he'll just go away.

    Steve
     
  14. Landshark

    Landshark Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    445
    Not to worry. Negrodamus will save us.
     
  15. Paladin

    Paladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,396
    deckart/sammie said; "How do YOU think our 3 trillion dollar (and counting) budget deficit will be paid for???"

    Try asking YOUR people. Read the headlines, with emphasis on "Pork Lives"!!!


    "Tax Cuts Die, Pork Lives

    House, Senate pass $3 trillion budget plans

    Democratic-controlled Congress fails to renew Bush tax cuts, rejects McCain-led move for moratorium on earmarks".

    ASK THEM!!

    You were a failure in education, and you are a failure in comprehension. Period. You really need to go to 'liberalidiots.com' where you would fit in quite well, and leave this respectable site alone.

    Too bad you can't admit that. You are easily the worst poster ever.

    You are a dishonest trouble maker. You should be banned.
     
  16. Tripod

    Tripod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,354
    Location:
    Iowa man!!
    Tax cuts deckart, tax cuts. Its the only way
     
  17. Tripod

    Tripod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,354
    Location:
    Iowa man!!
    Besides, it was because Kennedy and Johnston got us in the war that Nixon and Ford had economic problems. Democratic congress, you know.
     
  18. JonP

    JonP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    123
    About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

    "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

    "The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

    1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 3. From courage to liberty; 4. From liberty to abundance; 5. From abundance to complacency; 6. From complacency to apathy; 7. From apathy to dependence; 8. From dependence back into bondage "

    Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

    Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million; Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000

    States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29

    Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1

    Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements living off government welfare..."

    Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency & apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
     
  19. shannon391

    shannon391 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,477
    At this point we are in so deep It's insignificant.
     
  20. aktrap80

    aktrap80 TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2
    Call me insensitive, but I’m just going to come out and say it. Economy not going so well? Get over it! I’m more successful today than I ever have been (which explains my shinny new K-80). Do I attribute my success to a Republican being in office or do I blame my previous less-so success on the Democrats? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO! I am where I am today because I have worked hard to make a better life for myself. People are so quick to look to others to blame rather than taking a good look in the mirror for their own misfortunes.

    That being said, the more money you put in people’s pockets the better. Even now, the amount of taxes taken out of EACH of my semi-monthly paychecks is greater than my monthly mortgage payment (and were talking just federal taxes). There’s just something very wrong with that when I’m work harder to pay off the government than to pay for my living expenses. If we vote a dem in office, that’s only getting worse.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.