Video
(Click Picture)

Money As Debt


The Money Masters

Care to comment on the "Political Parties?"  Let Us Know!

In my not-so-humble opinion, the two party political system foisted on this nation is a masterpiece of misdirection. Some time ago I followed a hunch and researched the amount of time each of the two parties (and their original forbearers) held power over the nation and what degree of influence they held, by majority, in the House, Senate and Presidential offices. What I found may surprise and interest you, though it wasn't all that surprising to me:

To see how I came up with these figures, the tables (historically verifiable data) are listed at: Distribution of Political Power In America. Keep in mind that I did this in 2006 and the data has changed slightly... in the Democrat Party's favor.

Distribution of Political Power In America 1789 to 2006; Part 1

 SSRsi's Who's Running This Puppet Show?

 With a congressional election coming up this year, and a presidential election in 2008, the party hacks are hard at it on all channels. Finger pointing, name calling, bad mouthing, blame gaming, dirt digging, dirt manufacturing, surrogate slinging and back-stabbing ad nauseum. Quite a circus. Everyone has an opinion on which party is better and which party is worse - and why they hate the other party so much.

Rarely do you hear anyone saying "I like my party because ..."

It's not about liking who you are voting for - it's about hating who you are voting against. That's really not the way it is supposed to work.

In a Constitutional Republic, which is what we are supposed to have (not a "democracy"), the idea is that we vote for people who will represent their constituency in accordance with the doctrine established within the Constitution. The idea behind this is that we choose people who we know and trust to represent not just our wishes, but what is best for their constituency and their Nation. The reason we elect representatives is so that we don't have to immerse ourselves in the details of every decision regarding every issue that we demand the government to look into or solve. If each of us had to be fully informed on every issue, there would be no time to earn a living, raise a family, etc. So we elect others to do the dirty work for us.

Our government is out of control, and there is no one to blame but the voters - and those who fail to vote - who have allowed it to happen. The problem with our government is not the Democrats or the Republicans, it's the Democrats AND the Republicans.

If you are unhappy about the way things have gone over the last 218 years of the American Republic, then take a look at the table above. While the Democratic party has held power slightly longer, and in a slightly stronger political manner than the Republicans, it's pretty easy to see that both parties have held power essentially equally!

The Presidency of the United States of America is not as important to America as it is to our enemies and allies. Most Americans don't realize this essential fact. The Executive branch of American government may set goals and standards, but their only ability (aside from bureaucratic manipulation) to change anything in America is through the use of the veto and Executive Orders (covered in the US Presidents section). A presidential veto can be overridden.

A Public Law may be enacted over a President's veto, when Congress is successful in its attempt to override the President's veto. Upon reconsideration and debate, the President's veto may be overridden by a two-thirds vote in the chamber of origin of the bill (a quorum must be present). If the President's veto is not overridden, the bill does not become law.

If the vote succeeds, an endorsement is made on the back of the bill affirming that one chamber has overridden the veto, and it is sent, with the accompanying message, to the other chamber for its action. If it is likewise reconsidered and passes with a two-thirds vote in the other chamber, the Presidential veto is again overridden, and the bill is similarly endorsed. When both chambers thus override the Presidential veto, the bill is enacted into law. It is not presented again to the President, but is delivered directly for deposit in the National Archives and Records Administration. It is printed, with the attestations of the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate to its passage over the President's veto. 

Likewise, an Executive Order by the President may be challenged in a court of law, either in part or in its entirety. The challenge may be brought by pretty much anyone, but it takes a bit of clout to get a court to consider such action.

It is often argued that the Executive branch also has a huge impact on the Judicial branch (and through the power, the laws of the land) by right of choosing Judges for Federal Courts. Yet we have all seen how the Legislative branch may hem and haw and delay confirmation of the President's Judicial nominees. This is not an exclusive power, and - as we have further recently witnessed - not a particularly lasting power. The President, through his appointed Attorney General, may relatively easily remove previous Presidential appointees.

On the other hand, the Executive Branch has more power than the Judicial or Legislative branches when it comes to dealing with matters OUTSIDE our Nation. (Though neither the Judicial nor Legislative branches are all too happy about that). The Constitution establishes that the President of the United States shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. As such, the President is the constitutional head of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, commissions all officers in the armed forces and appoints all high-ranking military leaders, such as the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. More significantly, while the Congress has the authority to "Declare War," Presidents since Washington have "made war" without explicit congressional cooperation.

Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's "Chief Diplomat." In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

Towing the Party Line = Keeping The Country Divided = Controlling the Masses

The "common" charges by the two parties used to rally their bases are:

Democrats: Republicans are heartless warmongers! and,
Republicans: Democrats are big government spenders!

Let's examine these claims. "Republicans are heartless warmongers!"

Are you surprised by the facts? The Democrats have a clear advantage in warmongering and use of the military to implement foreign policy.

Now Let's take a look at the republican's rallying cry:

01/22/2008   $9,191,074,962,157.16  George W. Bush - Rep Increased S/H
09/29/2000   $5,674,178,209,886.86  Bill Clinton - Dem Increased
09/30/1992   $4,064,620,655,521.66  George H. W. Bush - Rep Increased
09/30/1988   $2,602,337,712,041.16  Ronald Reagan - Rep Increased
12/31/1980     $930,210,000,000.00* Jimmy Carter - Dem Increased
12/31/1976     $653,544,000,000.00* Gerald Ford - Rep Increased
12/31/1973     $469,898,039,554.70  Richard Nixon - Rep Increased
12/31/1968     $358,028,625,002.91  Lyndon Johnson - Dem Increased
12/31/1963     $309,346,845,059.17  John Kennedy - Dem Increased
12/30/1960     $290,216,815,241.68  Dwight Eisenhower - Rep Increased
06/30/1952     $259,105,178,785.43  Harry Truman - Dem Increased
06/30/1944     $201,003,387,221.13  Franklin Roosevelt - Dem Increased
06/30/1932       $19,487,002,444.13  Herbert Hoover - Rep Increased
06/30/1928       $17,604,293,201.43  Calvin Coolidge - Rep Decreased
06/30/1922       $22,963,381,708.31  Warren Harding - Rep Decreased
07/01/1920       $25,952,456,406.16  Woodrow Wilson - Dem Increased
07/01/1913         $2,916,204,913.66  Federal Reserve Created
07/01/1912         $2,868,373,874.16  William Taft - Rep Increased
07/01/1908         $2,626,806,271.54  Theodore Roosevelt - Rep Increased
07/01/1901         $2,143,326,933.89  William McKinley - Rep Increased
07/01/1896         $1,769,840,323.40  Grover Cleveland - Dem Increased
07/01/1892         $1,588,464,144.63  Benjamin Harrison - Rep Decreased
07/01/1888         $1,692,858,984.58  Grover Cleveland - Dem Decreased
07/01/1884         $1,830,528,923.57  Chester Arthur - Rep Decreased
07/01/1880         $2,120,415,370.63  Rutherford Hayes - Rep Decreased
07/01/1876         $2,180,395,067.15  Ulysses Grant - Rep Decreased
07/01/1868         $2,611,687,851.19  Andrew Johnson - Dem Increased
07/01/1864         $1,815,784,370.57  Abraham Lincoln - Rep Increased
07/01/1860              $64,842,287.88  James Buchanan - Dem Increased
07/01/1856              $31,972,537.90  Franklin Pierce - Dem Decreased
07/01/1852              $66,199,341.71  Millard Fillmore Whig Increased
07/01/1849              $63,061,858.69  Zachary Taylor - Whig Increased
07/01/1848              $47,044,862.23  James Polk - Dem Increased
07/01/1844              $23,461,652.50  John Tyler - Whig Increased
01/01/1840                $3,573,343.82  Martin Van Buren - Dem Increased
01/01/1836                     $37,513.05  Andrew Jackson - Dem Decreased
01/01/1828              $67,475,043.87  John Q Adams - DR Decreased
01/01/1824              $90,269,777.77  James Monroe - DR Decreased
01/01/1816            $127,334,933.74  James Madison - DR/DR/DR Increased
01/01/1808              $65,196,317.97  Thomas Jefferson - DR/DR/DR Decreased
01/01/1801              $83,038,050.80  John Adams - Fed/Fed/Fed Decreased
01/01/1796  End      $83,762,172.07  Washington - Federalist/Fed/Fed Increased
01/01/1791  Begin   $75,463,476.52

SOURCE:  BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

So what do we have here? Democrats reduced the National debt with 3 presidents and increased the National debt with 12 presidents. Republicans reduced the National debt with 5 presidents and increased the National debt with 11 presidents. ALL of the Democratic Republicans reduced the National debt, with the exception of James Madison, who doubled it. One Federalist increased the debt while the other decreased it slightly. As far as the donkeys and elephants are concerned, it's virtually a tie.

What does this tell us? Not much - but you may note that, since the creation of the Federal Reserve, the National Debt has been MASSIVELY increased, and only 2 of the 16 Presidents since then have managed to reduce it. Both Republicans, neither of which ever receive much credit for anything.

You might also note that, with the exception of Thomas Jefferson, we never hear or read or are taught much about the OTHER presidents who decreased the debt. When we talk about Grant, we talk about his performance during the Civil War. Decreasing the debt, while it may not be controversial, is apparently not "sexy" enough to be considered a "great" president. Who are "the greats?" Washington(+9%), Madison (+51%), Lincoln (+280%), Teddy Roosevelt (+22%), Wilson (+890%), FDR(+1020%), Kennedy (+7%), Nixon (+32%), Reagan (+180%) and Clinton (+39%) - all big spenders who INCREASED the National debt while in office.

Yet, all LEGISLATION (spending bills) originates in the Congress - so, aside from the "War" presidents, they really can't be blamed for the National Debt except for their failure to exercise the Veto option or to make their veto stick. To get a more perfect picture of who the big spenders are, we need to look at which party had control of the two houses of congress that created and authorized all the willy-nilly spending.

Legislative Control Since the American Revolution:

01/01/1791  Begin @  $75,463,476.52. The Following table does take into account the political affiliation of the President, but does not concern itself (much) with presidential terms. Rather, it charts changes in Congressional power between the parties, so it will "appear" to provide different results (because of the congressional changes) than the presidential table. This is as it should be. Congressional power often changes during a presidency.

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Isn't this interesting?
Senate & House under Democrat Control: 13 Increases & 4 Decreases = (+9)
Senate & House under Republican Control: 7 Increases & 7 Decreases = (+/-0)

Senate under Democrat Control: 4 Increases & 1 Decrease = (+3)
Senate under Republican Control: 5 Increases & 4 Decreases = (+1)

Split Senate & Republican House: 1 Decrease

This data would seem to justify (to a certain extent) the claims of Republicans that Democrats have a tendency to increase the National Debt. Of course, this doesn't take into account the AMOUNT of increases or decreases. Let's see what happens with that:

Senate & House under Democrat Control:
 13 Increases $2,405,579,417,237.00 &
 4 Decreases $- , --- ,391,903,081.00 =
 Increase to National Debt: ($2,405,187,514,156.00) or $2.4 Trillion Dollars
Senate & House under Republican Control:
 7 Increases  $3,544,988,656,351.00 &
 7 Decreases $    16,627,796,474.00 =
 Increase to National Debt: ($3,528,360,859,877.00) or $3.5 Trillion Dollars

Senate under Democrat Control:
4 Increases $975,828,884,278.00  &
1 Decrease  $      269,394,923.00  =
Increase to National Debt: ($975,821,997,153.00) + Above =
Total Democrat Increase to National Debt: $3,381,009,511,309.00 or $3.4 Trillion Dollars

Senate under Republican Control:
   5 Increases $1,358,435,006,827.00  &
4 Decreases  $               6,887,125.00  =
Increase to National Debt: ($1,358,428,119,702.00) + Above =
Total Republican Increase to National Debt: $4,886,788,979,579.00 or $4.9 Trillion Dollars

CLEARLY, both parties are abusing their authority regarding fiscal policy. Equally clear is that it is the Republican Party that has a tendency to increase the National Debt more aggressively than the Democrats.

Are you shocked? The Republicans outspent (or, out poor-housed) the Democrats by $1.5 TRILLION dollars - nearly 50% more than the Democrats.

Obviously, the ploys both parties use to stir up the bases are patently false. We have seen that:

• Both parties have held power approximately the same amount of time
• Both parties use false inflammatory invective to gain or maintain power
• Both parties spend money with abandon and blame the other side
• Both parties start and prosecute wars - and blame the other side when things go bad
• Both parties aggrandize big spending presidents & ignore fiscally responsible leaders
• Both parties use big talk about cutting the deficit and National Debt, but neither really does

What more will it take before the American people wake up and abandon the 2 party system? It is almost impossible for a third party candidate to get on the ballot these days because of the laws and regulations the 2 dominant parties have created. It's outrageous!

The 2008 Presidential primary shows over 300 "Announced" candidates who have formed or announced a Presidential exploratory or campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission or filed a statement of candidacy. "Potential" candidates have publicly expressed an interest in a Presidential campaign or their interest has been suggested by the media. How many have YOU heard about?

Independents, Peace and Freedom, Prohibition, Green Party, Libertarian, Citizen's, American, American Independent, Native American, Constitution, United Fascist Union, Liberty Union, Reform and The Light Party all have one or more candidates together with a whole host of candidates with other/no party affiliation. Granted, a good number of them may be loopy or "prank" candidacies - but why is it that we only ever hear of the Republican and the Democrat candidates?

WHY AMERICA NEEDS A NEW POLITICAL PARTY by Stephen E. Ambrose & Richard D. Lamm. There is no divine right of political parties any more than there is a divine right of kings. Political parties were not part of the vision of our founding fathers, and are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. George Washington actually opposed the formation of political parties. They were necessary, however, as a way to focus political choice in the new republic. Being a pragmatic people, Americans needed some way to organize various philosophical and policy differences. Philosophical differences soon emerged as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Americans kept these two parties only as long as they played a useful function, and then easily developed new parties when the old ones ossified or failed to face the political needs of the country.

Purchase Links:  Food & Seeds    Gear    Medical    Tools   
                              Weapons & Ammo      Computer/Internet

US Military Gear:  Air Force    Army    Marines    Navy   
Also:  Coast Guard    Law Enforcement (Working on it)

(Purchasable Item links based on bug-out/preparation lists)

Please Read The Website Disclaimer!
Copyright 1986-2012, The Survival & Self-Reliance Studies Institute (SSRsi), All Rights Reserved
Site conceptualized, designed, created & maintained by MEG Raven
Snail Mail: SSRsi, PO Box 2572 Dillon, CO. 80435-2572