A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
October 16, 2007Bush Only Cares About Deficits When Dems Are in PowerI think this is sad and funny: Bush only care about deficits when Democrats are in power. After six years of complete mislaying of the veto pen to keep deficits down, now, all of a sudden, now that Dems are in power, he's started issuing veto threats over deficits. That's so sadly funny. Does he just not want patronage to go out to the Dem side? The article speculates that he's trying to get some deficit cred, but it's a little late when 3/4 of your time in office is passed with you taking no action of deficits. This, by the way, is part of a thirty=year pattern of Republicans complaining about Democratic spending and taxes and then running big deficits when in power; the real thirty-year Democratic record is slightly lower spending (SCHIP is cheaper than military spending) and budgets much closer to balance. Well, if you think taxes are high if they're high enough to balance the budget, then Dem taxes are high, yes. I see no evidence of change from the GOP Presidential campaign rhetoric. Seeing this in my lifetime has done alot to keep me from even thinking about changing parties. Posted by Jon Kay at October 16, 2007 02:03 PMComments
this is why the U.S. will soon be a one party state. The Bush Administration has destroyed any crediblity that the Republicans could have on conservative issues. The collapse of the Bush Administration coupled with changing demograhics in the U.S. means that in the future, only the Democratic Party will be relevant to politics and that the Democratic primary will be the only relevant election. Well, this is one of the reasons that Bush's approval level is so low. Democrats can't stand him because, well, he's George W. Bush and he's a Republican. Republicans have lost faith in him for any number of reasons, but his refusal to challenge the Republican Congress on spending is most definitely a large factor. Looking at recent history, the only political combination we've seen work to help bring about a surplus is to have one party control the presidency and the other party control Congress. HOWEVER, all that said, I must still point out that the current budget deficit has been going down for the past several years, thanks largely to the rapid growth in federal tax revenues which began after the Bush tax cuts in 2003. Also, it is not inappropriate, despite his previous inaction, for the President to challenge the Democrats' spending. I remember their campaigns in 2006, and most of the ones responsible for the Dems taking the majority included as a key issue the Republicans' problem with deficit spending. They highlighted the deficit and pork, and then promptly dropped both concerns the moment they took office. I'd rather Republicans had a better, more consistent champion of fiscal restraint in office, but you go to politics with the President you've got... Posted by: PatHMV at October 17, 2007 08:32 AMRepublicans have lost faith in Republicans. The US will spend 2.7 trillion dollars this fiscal. That amount is so astronomical that an accurate auditing of that number would be impossible. Spending is out of control and no has the ability to control it or the ability to reform government. Danny L. McDaniel Pat, couldn't you look at the entire half of the last century and see that it isn't divided government, per se, that brings about a surplus? It's specifically a Republican Congress and a Democrat as President. The other way (a Republican President and a Democratic Congress) didn't seem to do much for the deficit either. Posted by: wj at October 17, 2007 12:43 PMIf we do become a one-party state, that's the end of the United States. It will be the end of democracy in this country. We spent several years with Republicans controlling two major branches of government. It's gotten us rampant earmarks and corruption. It will be no better if the first poster's prediction comes true. Posted by: JonBuck at October 17, 2007 06:28 PMI produced a very pretty chart over at Stubborn Facts last year showing clearly the rise and fall of the budget deficit each year and which party controlled the White House and the House of Representatives. If we limit ourselves to the past 50 years, the GOP hasn't controlled Congress long enough to be statistically significant... ;-) Posted by: PatHMV at October 19, 2007 12:04 AMI would call 4 trillion more in debt statistically significant. The tax cuts have not produced the jobs or economic growth that the supply siders have claimed that it could, rather, the deficit spending has been the engine of job creation, what little there has been compared tot he previous 8 year average. Nor has the heavy deficit spending produced more growth above what one would expect the average economic expansion would be which is in the 2-3% annual GDP growth. Clinton's '94 tax increase laid waste to the supply siders claim that tax increases reduce economic and job growth. What all the deficit spending has done is to lay waste to the American dollar and to make us more sensitive to the needs of the nations that hold our debt, including communist china. here's some ugly numbers today, 6 years late, more than $9,000,000,000 None of this debt OR the Reagan debt or the Bush 1 debt has ever been paid back. None. My daughter and many of her generation is going to thank the GOP every time they vote for a Democrat.
online casino | best online casinos | Best Online Casino | internet casino | besten online kasinos,bestes online kasino | casinos accepting US players Posted by: froomy at October 22, 2007 07:35 AM |
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Three Quotes
The Choice, Based on Iraq Policy Even More Of A Surprise Castro Bows Out Kosovo Declares Independence Will Obama Take McCain's Funding Dare? Global Poverty Act Preservation Friday Band Taking on Obama Electoral Results Came Out As Expected?!?
|
