"Peter" wrote in message
news:6_YUb.234289$I06.2628540@attbi_s01...
John wrote:

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...

John it sounds to me like you will be happy whichever big party controls
the
oval orifice becasue they both intend to spend their way to relection...
denny

I always thought that neither governments nor families should go into
debt or live beyond their means. It is disappointing that neither
party is focused on managing the debt, as this will create much bigger
problems in the future.

Neither party may be sufficiently focused on it, but there's been a
substantial difference between Republican and Democratic administrations
in
this regard. Since WWII, Republican presidents have been in office for 31
years and during their terms the national debt has increased an average of
9.1% per year; Democrats have been in office 27 years and the debt has
grown at a much smaller 3.7% per years during their terms. There's a huge
difference between a growth rate of under 4% compared to over 9%.

Since WW2, the CONGRESS (the spending authority), Democrats have held the
CONGRESS for 32 years and the Republicans for 18 years. During that time the
enactment of NON-DISCRETIONARY spending has been 88% from Democratic
CONGRESSES, and 12% under Republican. During that same time the GROWTH
factor has been 6.7% under Dems, and 2.1 (until the past two years) under
Republicans.

The DEFICIT took it's biggest LEAP under the democrats and their baseline
budget process during the Nixon years (so they could maintain control of the
purse strings).

Every Dem administration since 1900 left a mess in it's wake that compounded
and INSTITUTIONALIZED the spending and deficits.