[smacintush]

We have heard for years now…and rightly so…about how irresponsible George Bush and the 6 years of his Republican congress have been with spending. They maintained significant deficits for the entire time of his administration and even though I think we can forgive the time after 9/11, they seem to have had little regard for fiscal responsibility in the years since.

Now this year we should be able to expect at least a $400+ billion shortfall…an that’s not including the effect of the current economy or whatever the bailout will end up costing this year. Next year may well be worse.

In light of all this I have two questions for you:

1. Don’t you find it to be irresponsible to propose $200 billion in NEW spending per year? In order to balance that budget (something that Republicans have been repeatedly blasted for not doing, and something that the next congress still won’t do) we would need to come up with SIX HUNDRED BILLION to pay for it. We’re already borrowing more than that from Social Security this year.

2. Isn’t it hypocritical to support Obama’s spending ideas while at the same time criticizing this administration for it’s spending habits?

[tie]

I'd certainly prefer someone who proposed less spending. But it is McCain versus Obama. McCain proposes spending just as much, but he'll spend it on bombs and on tax cuts for the rich, while he increases taxes on the rest of us by taxing our health care benefits. All his campaign advisors are corporate lobbyists and his running mate is from the land of earmarks.

Over the last sixteen years, Democrats have just proven themselves to be vastly more fiscally responsible than Republicans. Additionally, some of the major costs right now relate to foreign policy, for example Iraq and the cost of bailing out the financial system (including many foreign banks). We didn't have to pay for the first Iraq War because Bush wisely convinced the Saudis and Kuwaitis to cover us. His son's idiotic foreign policy has made this impossible and is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars now. Similarly, in normal times Europe and Japan would help out in the bailout, but Bush has made it easy for them to ignore our appeals for help. McCain will be more of the same.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by tie 

Over the last sixteen years, Democrats have just proven themselves to be vastly more fiscally responsible than Republicans.

No matter how many times you repeat a lie it won't be true. For example, it was an idealistic Republican Congress that forced a shutdown of government before Clinton relented to reforms that delivered a balanced budget.

People believe Barack Hussein Obama when he says he'll soak the rich and redistribute the wealth to give them all sorts of new Social(ist) welfare programs AND give this mythical tax cut to 95% of the population. He doesn't seem to know anything about the Laffer Curve. He doesn't know that soaking the "rich" will just cause them to hide more of their money or work less so that they will suffer less in taxation. The question is, are there enough gullible people out there to get this dangerous radical elected?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No matter how many times you repeat a lie it won't be true. For example, it was an idealistic Republican Congress that forced a shutdown of government before Clinton relented to reforms that delivered a balanced budget.

...And that's the only example you have. Try giving me any example of fiscal responsibility from the Republicans, either Congress or the president, in the last eight years. I can't think of anything. The party has self-destructed and no longer cares about budgets or economics. Most Republicans still believe in trickle-down economics, that lower taxes increase revenue, and that anyway budget deficits don't matter. The party needs a revolution to return to its roots, but unfortunately McCain isn't it.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by tie 

...And that's the only example you have.

Yeah, and that alone invalidates your claim.

Try giving me any example of fiscal responsibility from the Republicans, either Congress or the president, in the last eight years.

Yeah, Bush has a terrible record in that regard. He's a big government Republican. However, he did have to tackle the dot-com bust and the War on Terrorism, neither of which excuse his spending record but do put it in some context. And for two of the six years, Congress has been controlled by the Dems. They haven't exactly been fiscally responsible, now have they?

Most Republicans still believe in trickle-down economics, that lower taxes increase revenue, and that anyway budget deficits don't matter.

Trickle down is a convenient left-wing mislabeling of supply side economics. And focusing on the supply side of the equation worked well for President Reagan.

The party needs a revolution to return to its roots, but unfortunately McCain isn't it.

1. How do you know that? 2. What makes you think a fiscally absurd policies of Hussein would make things any better?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie 

I'd certainly prefer someone who proposed less spending. But it is McCain versus Obama. McCain proposes spending just as much, but he'll spend it on bombs and on tax cuts for the rich, while he increases taxes on the rest of us by taxing our health care benefits.

From what I've seen this is not true. Using CBO numbers his plan would leave overall taxes at about the same as they are now in terms of % of GDP. Same with his spending cuts.

Over the last sixteen years, Democrats have just proven themselves to be vastly more fiscally responsible than Republicans.

Even if this were true…which it is not…the Democrats have only had congress for 4 of those years so it's hardly fair to say. Especially since those four years encompass the last two and the first two of Clinton. Both were/are HORRIBLE congresses. Besides that there is only Clinton with whom there was a Republican congress who deserves at least as much credit for the budget. I'd say more with all of the pressure they put on Clinton to sign a balanced budget but we'd likely disagree on that. Even before with the Democrat congresses we've seen massive spending. Both sides do their share of throwing money around, the only difference is WHERE they throw it.

Additionally, some of the major costs right now relate to foreign policy, for example Iraq and the cost of bailing out the financial system (including many foreign banks). We didn't have to pay for the first Iraq War because Bush wisely convinced the Saudis and Kuwaitis to cover us. His son's idiotic foreign policy has made this impossible and is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars now. Similarly, in normal times Europe and Japan would help out in the bailout, but Bush has made it easy for them to ignore our appeals for help. McCain will be more of the same.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but repeating a campaign slogan won't make true either.

[Rumor]

Republicans: Cut taxes, spend, borrow.

Democrats: Increase taxes, spend, possibly borrow

Either way screws us.

[mduell]

I'd rather see a candidate cut spending by $600b, to give us a path to repay the national debt in a century.

[Chongo]

Obama's "Tax Cut" is a replay of George McGovern's "72 one time $1000 give away. It will not be a reduction in rates. You can't lower rates on some one who is paying next to nothing or nothing now. I have posted the tables from the IRS time and again. the top 5% (35% tax bracket) are paying over 60% of the taxes now, and that is up from the 56% they paid under Clinton, when the top bracket was 39.6%. The top 50% are paying 97% of taxes now. The only place to get the money he wants for all the new programs he wants is the middle class.