Can I remind you of the 2000 elections, when we were dealing with a budget SURPLUS?
Gore criticized the Bush tax plan as one that was heavily slanted toward the wealthiest Americans and that would endanger the years of economic prosperity and the budget surpluses that materialized during the Clinton administration.
Ah, the good old days!
Q: You pledged that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. How can you keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt?
KERRY: I'll tell you exactly how I can do it: by reinstating what Pres. Bush took away, which is called "pay as you go." During the 1990s, we had pay-as-you-go rules. If you were going to pass something in the Congress, you had to show where you are going to pay for it and how. Pres. Bush is the only president in history to [rescind pay-as-you-go]. I'm going to reverse that. We're going to restore the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s.
BUSH: I'll tell you what PAYGO means, when you're a senator from Massachusetts, PAYGO means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends. He's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending, and yet the so-called tax on the rich raises $800 billion by his account. There is a tax gap. And guess who usually ends up filling the tax gap? The middle class.
Source: [Xref Kerry] Third Bush-Kerry Debate, in Tempe Arizona Oct 13, 2004
BUSH: He's just not credible when he talks about being fiscally conservative. If you look at his record in the Senate, he voted to break the spending caps over 200 times. And of course he's going to raise your taxes. You see, he's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. He says he's going to raise the taxes on the rich-that raises $800 billion. Now, either he's going to break all these wonderful promises he's told you about or he's going to raise taxes. And I suspect, given his record, he's going to raise taxes.
Source: [X-ref Kerry] Second Bush-Kerry debate, St. Louis, MO Oct 8, 2004 We should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayers' dollars. In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years. Source: 2004 State of the Union address to joint session of Congress Jan 20, 2004 All of those charming tidbits are from here.
Ok. Reality check.
Check out this WaPo editorial;
During his time in office, President Bush has presided over a 46 percent increase in the federal debt, from about $5.6 trillion. By contrast, during President Bill Clinton's two terms, the debt grew from less than $4 trillion to $5.6 trillion, a 28 percent increase -- and during the last few years of his presidency, Mr. Clinton actually began to pay down the country's "real" debt, that is, debt held by the public, as opposed to the IOUs in Social Security and other government accounts.
Put another way, Mr. Bush has managed to rack up more new debt during his five years in office than the entire debt amassed by the United States through 1988.
But at least we are seeing SOME responsibility from Congress...
In twin setbacks for GOP leaders, the Senate voted 51-49 to add $3 billion to the budget for heating subsidies for the poor and 73-27 to add $7 billion for education, health and worker safety accounts. The moves broke through President Bush's overall "cap" on agency budgets to be funded later in the year through appropriations bills.
The underlying Senate budget plan is notable chiefly for dropping Bush's proposed cuts to Medicare and for abandoning his efforts to expand health savings accounts or pass legislation to make permanent his 2001 tax cut bill.
Unlike last year, when Congress passed a bill trimming $39 billion from the deficit through curbs to Medicaid, Medicare and student loan subsidies, Senate GOP leaders have abandoned plans to pass another round of cuts to so-called mandatory programs.
I doubt this is actually enough money to stall the damage from five years of Bush's tax cuts and out of control defense spending distracting from such failures as No CHild Left Behind, and lax inspections of dangerous industries such as mining. But it's better than the many cuts to education and Medicare that were proposed in Bush's original budget, and have been his policy throughout his presidency.
PS While looking for the quotes at the beginning of this article, I found this quote...
In the campaign, Bush criticized the Clinton administration policy in Somalia, where 18 Americans died in 1993 trying to sort out warring factions, and in the Balkans, where United States peacekeeping troops perform a variety of functions. "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building," Bush said in the second presidential debate.
Those examples are freaking hilarious!
Besides that you should not forget that the ones now in power are neoconservatives. Neoconservatives are in essence people who are not afraid of a larger government and who are willing to spend bigtime on an agressive foreign policy. They don't 'do' fiscal responsibility.
Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Cheney, they are all neocons. They couldn't care less about fiscal responsibility. It is simply not important to them. The only reason they are using it now and then during election time, is because they know it will earn them more votes.
Somehow the majority of the American people fell for it and if we are not careful (in other words: If the democrats are afraid of having an agressive campaign) the majority of the American voters will fall for it again during the elections for Congress ánd the Presidential elections.
I have my doubts that the majority of us fell for it, and I certainly hope that doesn't happen again. It just amused me because of how the neocons have still framed US as the bleeding hearts, throwing money at the problem with little consideration.
PS I keep meaning to ask and forgetting... I sent you an email a while back, from a new adress. I wasn't sure if it made it to your junk mail or anything. The adress is noliessautel.ange(or something close) just in case you happen to find it...
Democrats just need to speak the truth. If they do it, then people will listen. They need to get on tv and the radio and even go door to door.
Stop this craziness now!!!
So Kat, what are you waiting for?
;)
Oh, I do all the time. Are you saying I should run for office? (lol)
haha well maybe in the long run ;)
I was more talking about today. There are always ways to help the Democratic Party. I am sure your local democratic party could use your help, even if it is only for... 3 or 4 hours per month.
(look at me trying to make people active for the democratic party :D)
You're a good person Michael! I am pretty involved. But I've also sent some of my family to volunteer with other good qualified candidates. (They now believe I've gone way overboard here, but I'm so thoroughly disgusted with these current Republicans that I am no longer a moderate Republican but a fully activated progressive.)
My family doesn't know how to return me and get the old me back. ;)
wait... You're a republican?
;)
who me?
uh oh...
hehehehehe no, I just think we have better uses for our money than the ones that it is currently being spent on, and I'm amused at the doublespeak in the political arena.
http://rebellenation.blogspot.com/2006/03/earth-to-republicans.html
Thats because Clinton never went to war like he said he would. He promised he would take care of the people who killed our men over in the Middle East (was it Kosovo?), and what happened? Nothin.
And of course there was nothing for Clinton to do, he was riding off of the previous president's administration, who happened to do such a good job Clinton didn't have to do anything but take the china off the wall once he had to get out of office. Oh, and fornicate with staff interns. But we already know that.
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity"
-Albert Einstein
Let's face it. Every president since before before the great depression has increased spending. Most have raised taxes.
What's new here
I'm more conservative than liberal.
But I'll offer this to ya. I think the current level of BULL SHIT
on capitol hill before this next election will give rise to a new dominant party.
It won't happen during THIS election. And the new party won't blow both the old parties completely out of the water.
But I think in the next decade the libertarians or some unknown party will be perfectly capable of giving the republicans and the democrats a run for their money in national elections
My apologies the advice there was... Get onto your national leaders to give clear messages, and stand behind some true issues. If they do, they'll wipe the floor with the republicans in this coming election
The Republicans spend the same amount of money on junk as the Democrats, Clinton began to tone down the spendning near the time he was leaving, smart move on his part. Democrats tend to just spend the money more on welfare programs whereas, the Republicans spend it on economic infrastructure building and the Military. Other than that they both spend ridiculos amounts of money. Like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere. The Cadet is right about Clinton failing to defend Somailia, he went to Kosovo even though we didnt need to. In Somalia we were needed but then we left after a few offensive incidents aganist us.