Welcome Back America!!!!!!!!!

[SpanglerFan316]

The facts don't seem to make an impression on some of you. Which party controlled the House from 1994-2006? Under the Clinton administration, did the debt grow more slowly or quickly? Under the Bush administration, did the debt grow more slowly or quickly?

In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $125 billion, and then again in 2000 to $236 billion.[1] However, the budget has returned to a deficit basis, and the estimated U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2009 is $482 billion, the largest federal budget deficit ever recorded in United States history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_policy_in_the_United_States

On the other hand, I think we can agree on this:
The Government Accountability Office points out that without entitlement reform, deficits and the U.S. public debt will rise to unsustainable levels. Current debt has yet to approach levels seen after WWII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

[ABC]

Clinton deserve little to no credit for anything. The Republicans in Congress eliminated the deficit.

Bush deserves some blame for the increases during his tenure. But the Republicans in Congress deserve more blame. (Democrats just a little blame)

[SpanglerFan316]

The Republicans in Congress eliminated the deficit.

But the Republicans in Congress deserve more blame.

Is it just me or does this seem contradictory? According to this article, I guess you're right.

Having skirted budget restraints and approved nearly $300 billion in new spending and tax breaks before leaving town, Republican lawmakers are now determined to claim full credit for the congressional spending. Far from shying away from their accomplishments, lawmakers are embracing the pork, including graffiti eradication in the Bronx, $277 million in road projects for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and a $200,000 deer-avoidance system in New York.

"If you look at fiscal conservatism these days, it's in a sorry state," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of only eight House members to vote against the $286.5 billion transportation bill that was passed the day before the recess. "Republicans don't even pretend anymore."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080302218.html

I object to earmarks, even Bob Dole's earmark that started NIAR. At least NIAR produces useful results, unlike http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/000054.html.

Maybe "you" can tell me what a "conservative" is. Are there different "flavors" (e.g. "social" or "fiscal") of conservatives? Are there "flavors" of "liberals"? Do these terms "conservative" and "liberal" have any real meaning?

[ABC]

It isn't complicated.

The Gingrich Revoluation R's did a good job.

They got worse with time.

[SpanglerFan316]

It isn't complicated.

I'll accept your word on this here for the sake of argument. You can probably help me; which are the "conservative" members of Congress? If this list is too long (or short), try the members of Congress from Kansas. Is Brownback "conservative"? Roberts? Todd T? ETC.

[BenWSU]

You`ll always have a surplus if you raise taxes. 8)

[ShockerPrez]

It is really simplistic. The government is losing money, it needs to downsize in order to be profitable. It's the American way.

Clinton's term had a good economy because of a thing called gridlock. ie, the government wasn't doing anything and in fact shut down a few times. = Economic boom. It's proven that tax cuts increase money to the treasury.

The government has the duty of forming an Army, regulating interstate trade and foreign policy. Everything else should be left to the states. This is just freaking ridiculous what has been going, and it didn't just start in the past election. It's been going on since the great depression.

[WuDrWu]

We still have the Bush tax cuts (e.g. the federal inheritance (or estate) tax - in 2010 all estates will be taxed at 0%). So is the economy in good shape?

The phrase tax cut is all relative. Taxes as a whole keep rising year after year after year.......


Explain to me why an estate should have ever been taxed? If the government has to redistribute wealth (and they do a crappy job at it) they should only get one bite at the apple.

It is sick that a family member that has paid a HUGE amount of tax over their lifetime must fork over a sizeable chunk to government yet again at the time of their demise.

I have a distant relative that is attempting to take care of his family. Am I deserving of his generosity? Probably not..........but I damned sure am more deserving than the government.

Multiple taxing must stop and never start again.

[SubGod22]

Multiple taxing must stop and never start again.

:clap:

[BenWSU]

Can you avoid the death tax by setting up a non profit charity & sending your money to it??? 8)

[SpanglerFan316]

It's proven that tax cuts increase money to the treasury.

After a great Shocker victory, I'm not sure why we are arguing. :lol: Your use of the word "proven" is unclear. If you mean there are examples in which a tax cut led to "increase(d) money to the treasury," then I agree with you. If you mean that tax cuts will always lead to "increase(d) money to the treasury," then you are wrong. Look at the Bush tax cuts; revenue to the treasury decreased.

[JohnnieBallgame]

Spangler and other "leftist" ,
I have noticed that your responses often site the "Washington Post"....nuf said. What a socialist fishwrap! I also notice plenty of conservatives like myself who are very disenchanted with the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan was challenged by Tip O'Neill on his plan to have a dollar for dollar cut for every spending increase. Reagan was begging for the line item veto to stop "pork projects" and could not get it passed. I'm not certain but I think Clinton may have had it for awhile then possibly it was ruled "unconstitutional" by the supreme court. Bush 43 spent money like a drunken sailor, he lost his veto pen, and were it not for his willingness to expend all of his political capital to keep us all safe, he would have lost any conservative base he had left. The Republicans had better figure out that moving to the left does not win elections for them, because when they do, the Democrats move even further to the left and then make empty promises and try to claim the moderate or centrist mantel. Spangler, you and I would probably have a great time at Shocker ballgames until we started talking politics. Do you ever disagree with a Democrat policy or action? Do you ever think that maybe...just maybe...the reason we have problems with our financial institutions now are because of policies that forced banks to make mortgage loans that were so risky they wouldn't be touched unless the government "co-signed" the note...Fannie & Freddy? Whose watch did those policies start on? Two years ago there were legislators pleading their case about how the numbers weren't adding up and that we were in trouble. Barney Frank & Chris Dodd claimed all was okay, and they were the guys in charge of the oversight committees. Fannie & Freddie also were very large donors to the DNC...kind of like their own publicly funded "piggy bank". Franklin Raines, one of BO's financial advisors pillaged about $90 million over 6 years but BO was never asked about this, nor was Mr. Raines held accountable. You seem to operate under the assumption that all mortgage brokers and bankers are greedy Republicans. I'm sure there are plenty who are, but I would guess that there is likely an equal or greater number who are Democrats. Why is it that 2 years go in the mid-term elections that large numbers of democrats ran as "blue dogs"...to get elected? Then they fell under the spell of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and govern way to the left. Congress' approval ratings were even lower than GWBs. Trust me, there is plenty of blame to go around, it would benefit every taxpaying American to call both parties on it. :(

[ShockerPrez]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

I would say that as long as the government doesn't spend more, the defecit would be gone fairly quickly if they just stood pat for a few years...

[double dribble]

Fannie and Freddie started a chain reaction in the financial sector which has killed our economy. Here is the irony, the Democrats are the ones that created the problem with Fannie and Freddy. Yet they, along with a willing liberal media, convince the voters that it was Bush's fault. So after the democrats screw up our economy, they get elected to fix it. Dont believe me? Watch this video where Republicans are trying to warn Congress about the problems at F&F and watch Barney Boy Frank deny that there were any problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

Oh and I can hear it now, the democrats buzz word talking points, "Deregulation deregulation!!!!!" Nice try, but we don't need regulation, we need oversight Barney, which YOU were in charge of!

[Shoxfan11]

Isn't it excellent to see Obama practicing what he preached? After all, he did call for unity..

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/