feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

What Party Dominated Congress Past 40 Years?

(26 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by fairandbalanced
  • Latest reply from missing_kskd

  1. The Democrats controlled both houses for 22 years.

    The Republicans controlled both houses for 10 years.

    It was split between Republicans and Democratss for 8 years.

    If we divide the split years we have Democrats in control for 26 years and Republicans in control for 14 years.

    Therefore Democrats have been in control of Congress 65% of the time for the past 40 years.

    If it is disputed that the split years cannot be divided and added, then Democrats have been in control 55% of the time, Republicans 25%, and neither/both for 20% of the time.

    Democrat control of Congress has been close to twice that of Republican control the past 40 years.

    Calculations are based on this source:
    http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 03:03 PM #
  2. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,423

    edselehr had the definitive rely to this on another thread.

    I don't think anything else needs to be said.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 03:18 PM #
  3. No judgements have been made. Just providing some facts and figures.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 03:26 PM #
  4. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,423


    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 03:35 PM #
  5. So you admit to having no point. Nice to see progress is being made.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 03:52 PM #
  6. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,532

    A `troll' is an individual who enjoys creating conflict on the internet. He or she creates and fuels arguments which upset other members of the online community.
    Trolls thrive in the anonymous space that is the internet. Trolls crave attention from others, and they don't care whether the attention is positive or negative. For trolls, other users are not quite real people; they are abstract characters on the other side of a computer screen. Trolls don't feel bad about hurting the feelings of other people in the digital space.

    Trolls view chat rooms and newsgroups as a challenge where the winner is the user who creates the biggest argument, the user who upsets the most people in the most dramatic way. A troll wants to be the user getting the most attention.

    Troll behavior discourages many users and makes for a less vibrant online community. New users may not post because they fear ridicule. Established posters may leave an online community because the noise has overwhelmed the real discussion. Trolls can make an entire community paranoid, leading users to become negative or to accuse a user engaged in normal criticism as a troll.

    http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?boardstrolls

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 04:10 PM #
  7. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,120

    F&B: No judgements have been made. Just providing some facts and figures.

    You might as well add up the cumulative weight of each Democrat and each Republican who has served in Congress over the last 40 years and try to draw the same conclusion from that.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 05:35 PM #
  8. "You might as well add up the cumulative weight of each Democrat and each Republican who has served in Congress over the last 40 years and try to draw the same conclusion from that."

    I've seen it mentioned enough times here that the Republicans have dominated the past 40 years, so I think that notion can now be laid to rest, and it might be worthwhile to consider that congress controls the spending, and therefore Democrats have controlled spending 65% of the time the past 40 years.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 05:40 PM #
  9. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,134

    They (the GOP) certainly have "dominated" in piss poor decision making and terrible economic policy.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 05:47 PM #
  10. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,120

    We can say Republicans have dominated since 2001 when the budget went from surplus to huge deficit spending. There were 4.5 years of Republican President + Congress and only two years of Democratic President plus Congress - but while the Republicans inherited a budget surplus, the Democrats inherited a possible 2nd Great Depression and a $1.2 Trillion budget deficit the day Obama walked in the door...

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 05:50 PM #
  11. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,838

    F&B has a crisis!

    Okie Dokie buddy.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 09:38 PM #
  12. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,117

    What's the significance of "40 years", F&B? Just curious.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 10:11 PM #
  13. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,838

    It's because "those liberals" are always bitching about 40 years of regression.

    Rather than own up to that, it's far easier to try and shift the blame onto "those other people" You watch. Either he says nothing, or it will be some variation on that. Count on it.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 10:50 PM #
  14. PianoMan

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 522

    True, Republicans haven't dominated Congress for the past four decades, but it's safe to say that *conservatives* have dominated it since at least 1980, with the arguable exception of 2006-10. Reagan in 1980 achieved a working majority to pass nearly all of his agenda despite nominal Democratic control of the House. You have to remember that a generation ago, party identification wasn't based entirely on ideology like it is nowadays. There were once actually liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats (quite a few of the latter, especially in the South). The realignment of the two parties along strictly ideological lines is a relatively new development that began in the mid-'60s with the passage of major civil rights legislation and the Republican strategy of welcoming disaffected southern white racist Democrats into the party, but only in the past decade or so has this process been virtually complete.

    In the 30-plus years since Reagan's election, we've never really gone back to liberal consensus government as it existed from FDR to Carter. In particular, Reagan's lasting legacy has been an extraordinarily bloated military budget far out of proportion to any realistic threat we face, an aggressive foreign policy that is the natural result of and rationale for such expenditure, and a scandalously low top marginal income tax rate (less than half what it once was) that has encouraged all manner of greed, irresponsibility and white-collar criminality, in addition to distorting the career paths of millions of our brightest young people. These things persist no matter who is in power. The new liberal era I was hoping for with the retaking of both houses of Congress by Democrats in 2006 and the election of Obama in 2008 has yet to materalize. I'm not sure it will anytime soon, although I expect the latter half of this decade to be one of the most tumultuous times in U.S. history. There will either be a widespread rebirth of the labor movement as happened in the 1930s, or we will slide into a third-world corporate protofascist condition in which the vast majority of us will be forced to concern ourselves with everyday survival and will have no time, energy or resources for meaningful political engagement. I don't see any possibility other than these two.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 10:58 PM #
  15. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,838

    Well said, and I concur.

    Was seriously hoping for that "consensus" government to return. Thought Obama was going to be a catalyst for it. Maybe next term, when he can take some risks, though I don't hold high hopes right now.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 11:05 PM #
  16. "a scandalously low top marginal income tax rate (less than half what it once was) that has encouraged all manner of greed, irresponsibility and white-collar criminality"

    What is "scandalously low"? What is the actual figure? And I believe that the top rate was 70% before Reagan took office--correct me if I'm wrong--but if so, that would be scandalously high, or outright theft.

    But are you also saying we need higher taxes to keep them honest?

    And it's interesting that although the Democrats have had two times since Reagan when they owned it all, that you continue to blame a man who has been out of office for over 20 years, though I don't see Reagan the same way you do. I think he's the best President any of us will have seen in our lifetimes.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 11:18 PM #
  17. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,958

    There will either be a widespread rebirth of the labor movement as happened in the 1930s

    The service sector is where it will happen. It'll be difficult to ship assisted living butt wipers overseas. These jobs are already difficult to keep filled.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 11:21 PM #
  18. "The new liberal era I was hoping for with the retaking of both houses of Congress by Democrats in 2006 and the election of Obama in 2008 has yet to materalize."

    God help us if it does.

    We're getting just a small taste of it now, and it's not very agreeable.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 11:31 PM #
  19. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,958

    God help us if it does.

    I didn't know God is on the side of assclowns. You're being selfish if you think God is taking sides here.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 11:33 PM #
  20. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,804

    God help us if it does.

    He didn't help while "DUH"bya was in office since his administration FUCKED up America like no other administration since Reagan.

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 11:35 PM #
  21. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,838

    We've not seen a taste of anything like what is being described.

    In fact, what we are seeing is that double down on regression, for the fear that people might actually see a little taste, not that they actually did.

    Absolutely NOTHING economically progressive has been passed in a very long time, who the hell are you kidding F&B?

    Posted on June 29, 2011 - 11:59 PM #
  22. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,804

    What has Obama changed since taking office in the way of taxes UF&UB????

    Posted on June 30, 2011 - 10:28 AM #
  23. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,532

    F&BS"correct me if I'm wrong"

    We've spent too much time already correcting all your mistakes.

    When are you going to try to not be an ignorant troll?

    Posted on June 30, 2011 - 10:49 AM #
  24. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,804

    Still waiting UF&UB.....

    Posted on June 30, 2011 - 08:00 PM #
  25. PianoMan

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 522

    F&B tiresomely asks: "I believe that the top rate was 70% before Reagan took office ... if so, that would be scandalously high, or outright theft. But are you also saying we need higher taxes to keep them honest?"

    {big, long sigh}

    High top marginal income tax rates (in fact, the very top rate was above 90% in the 1950s) were intended to discourage risky speculation and prevent the sort of destabilizing bubbles that occurred in the 1920s in stocks and in the 2000s in housing -- events that necessitated huge taxpayer bailouts to keep the entire economy from imploding. They also help prevent the kind of extreme social inequality that ultimately threatens the physical safety of the wealthy and their property. This wasn't even a controversial notion until the late 1970s, when memories of the 1929 crash and subsequent depression, with its violent labor clashes, had largely been lost to time. Even the most conservative mid-century Republicans implicitly understood the reasons for high marginal rates and knew better than to challenge them - until Reagan came along and made greed and rapacious business practices "respectable" again.

    No one I know of is opposed to wealth-building per se, but there used to be widespread recognition that it should be achieved by honest work and prudent investment over a period of years, not all at once through insider trading, real-estate flipping, subprime loan sharking or some other shady get-rich-quick scheme ("legal" or otherwise) that produces no value and has harmful, costly effects on society at large. Judging from the decades-long persistence of the Reagan tax cuts and the lack (so far) of a mass movement to repeal them, it's a lesson too many of us still haven't re-learned.

    Posted on June 30, 2011 - 08:35 PM #
  26. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,838

    Another thing about those high tax rates. They were on income.

    Pulling liquid dollars out of the business gets taxed. Simply growing the worth of it does not, and or can be done to avoid taxes for the most part.

    The impact of that was a much stronger incentive to build companies that are stable, profitable and competitive. Employment was longer term, business more stable, things like pensions made perfect sense, because it made sense to employ people for longer periods of time to gain the advantages from that.

    It's not theft at all, just a different operating model. Those owners still grew their wealth, as they do today, the difference being they did it with material investment, INNOVATION, and a longer term return, not the bubble like expectations we see today.

    Wall street had less impact on these companies as well, because private companies were more the norm, and not having to deal with Wall Street is a very significant advantage, the primary one being the owner isn't held accountable to the ugly revenue expectations, being able to invest and grow the business in whatever way they feel makes the most sense.

    It's not understood by most ordinary people, but public companies are seriously constrained in how they can make investments for the longer term. Taking less quarterly revenue, to make capital investments with cash or short term financing, for example, is not generally seen as favorable, with stock often devalued for failing to meet profit expectations.

    Private companies have no such worries, and actually can be well capitalized, running on a pure cash basis, if the owner so desires, freeing them from banks, share holders, investors, etc... which gives a ton of operating freedom.

    Using the word "theft" in this context reveals just how badly distorted our general economic expectations have become.

    The bottom line is the higher tax rates do not leave business owners destitute. It simply encourages them to be business owners, and reinvest in their businesses so they pay off for long periods of time, are stable, and growing nicely, delivering them a very high net worth, just fewer liquid dollars, which in turn makes for a more consistent, stable, productive domestic economy.

    Posted on June 30, 2011 - 08:47 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.