Look out, The Democrats are out to raise taxes again. But you do not have to worry they just want to add a 1% tax on those making over 500,000 and couples making over 1,000,000. Forget the fact that these people already pay a majority of taxes lets just add a new surcharge. Democrats have proved again and again they are incapable of making the tough decisions of choosing between programs that work and dont. Instead they just want new taxes to fund new programs while not having to cut anything. The lack of Respect that the Democrats show these taxpayers is out of hand. They pay a majority of the taxes and the democrats take pot shots at them while they are doing it. This is just the latest effort of the Democrats to strip away the American Dream and replace it with a handout state.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 49
Bruce.
It is time we cut spending and failed programs.
It is also noted that this country did function well without an Income Tax back when we used other ways to collect revenue.
For instance it is noticed a National sales tax works better than Income tax.
Also we use to have programs set up where Fire Depts would help out only those who paid into a Fire Insurance fund, and a Firemark was placed on the homes of those who paid into the Insurance fund (if you paid into the fund, the Fire Dept was able to help if your House caught on fire).
Is it me or has income also increased since the 16th Ammendment was made the law of the land? You failed to answer my question. Should the vanishing middle class pay for the current military operations with both cash and lives? Who do you think should pay the bill?
Bruce.
Good idea. Please point out the $520,000,000,000 we have in earmarks to cut out. $314,000,000 per day, so if you want to stay in this war on terror, please indicate where the cuts need to be made to finance that too.
Bruce.
Military funding is a whole other issue.
That does cost a lot less than the effect of another 9/11 like attack to our Country and economy.
Except when it comes to corporate welfare spending, massive, over-reaching federal "security" programs, and endless illegal wars of aggression, right?
The fact is, democrats seem to be the only party capable of providing fiscal responsibility. Republicans are too busy borrowing and spending on every idiotic, pointless weapons system and every moronic privatization scam imaginable.
Btw, the middle class IS shrinking, and the percentage of those living in poverty is RISING. This has been the case ever since Rancid Redink Ronnie invented homelessness and launched the neocon war against the middle class, abated only temporarily during the 90's.
What happens when you create policies that allow massive wealth to be concentrated at the very upper tiny fraction of a percentile, while at the same time shattering unions and shipping middle class jobs overseas? The upper 1% amasses yet more massive wealth, the middle class collapses, and the poor rise in numbers. It's predictable, because it's happened every time, in every society around the world, in which these policies have been enacted.
There is a very good reason why the neocons want to cripple the middle class. They fear them. The middle class is a powerfully motivated segment of society that's educated and fully capable of seeing when they're being screwed, and aren't afraid to rise up in complaint, to enact change. That doesn't bode well for the masters.
There have been two periods in American history in which there has been a powerfully strong middle class. The first was during the 1760's, and it gave rise to the American Revolution. The second was in the 1960's, and it gave rise to the civil rights movement. The masters dare not allow it to happen again, and they're doing what they feel they have to do in order to prevent it.
Strip away union power, since that serves to provide middle class incomes and benefits that empower the middle class.
Ship middle class jobs overseas.
Strip away funding for education and create standardized programs that create dumber graduates, so that they're far less likely to excel and succeed.
Create boogeymen for the middle class to fear, in order to divide the masses and prevent them from uniting in opposition. Use powerful media outlets to distribute propaganda designed to keep the masses uninformed, and thus unempowered.
When the masses are struggling just to exist, they don't have time or energy to focus on what the corporate masters are doing, and thus are highly unlikely to unite and rise up in opposition.
"Why dont we elimiate the earmarks in the budget and we can pay for the program? "
The fact is, earmarks are a tiny part of federal spending, and, if they did not exist, the money would be spent anyway, but would simply require additional legislation.
A better question would be "Why are we spending $1 trillion per year on the military industrial complex?" Particularly when much of that spending goes to support gluttonous, wasteful, downright foolish programs that will serve no purpose other than to enrich corporate campaign donors.
Missile defense? How many trillions have been wasted on that bullshit program since the 1960's? Yet, even though a viable system has never been developed, and even though the very idea of it has been obsolete for decades, and in spite of the fact that literally hundreds of billions of dollars have simply "vanished" in this idiotic program, the republiCONs simply cannot seem to wean themselves from this colossal failure of spending.
How about weapons systems that were designed to fight cold war enemies, and which now have absolutely no purpose whatsoever, except to increase the revenue of those contractors that have the contracts to build them?
How about the fact that the Pentagon has openly admitted to "losing" trillions of dollars? And, this was BEFORE the illegal republiCON occupation of Iraq, in which hundreds MORE billions of dollars were "lost."
How about a $40 billion annual budget for a completely bogus federal nonsense program called "DHS?"
The republiCONs increased federal spending by a whopping 25% from 2001 until they were finally booted out of office in 2006. Imagine that. And, most of that gluttonous expanse of the size of the government was done with debt, which means that our children and their children will pay the bill.
Where do you get off blaming democrats for this unimaginable debt spending over the past 3 decades? When Redink Ronnie took office, the national debt was just under $1 trillion. By the time Bubba took office in 1993, it was over $5 trillion. He actually started to bring that number down, but, once again a republiCON entered the white house and drove the nation deeply into debt. In his disastrous 7-1/2 years of terror reign, Bush has nearly doubled the national debt. A stunning achievement by any standard. He has added more debt than all other presidents combined.
Yet, you have the gall to blame excess spending on democrats? You seem to be under the delusion that you're amongst persons who haven't a clue. You've allowed yourself to be duped into believing the utter nonsense that your propagandists spew on a daily basis.
Wasteful spending, probably, but not earmarks. Earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall budget.
Excuse me, but exactly how was it that our gluttonous, wasteful military spending prevented 9/11?
I am against Corporate Welfare, Farm subsidies, and Handouts.
If congress actually was held to the constitution their would be a lot less spending because most of their actions are unconstiutional.
We were fine before the 16th amendment and our country was doing well. Now we are taxing everyone to death. The original income tax only taxed the top 1% and at a rate of 1-7% We did just fine then.
you mean a successful attack, right? Didn't Bush say he would be hit again? Maybe the open borders have helped?
Bruce.
That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard!
Any foot soldier of any army has heard of a flanking maneuver.
"Omar, I order you to attack the American homeland"
"I can't, I am pinned down by enemy fire"
If anything, this war has left us more vulnerable. We have made Iraq a fertile breeding ground for terrorists.
I would be happy to pay 1% percent more in taxes if I made half a million a year. Somehow I don't feel sorry for those paying 1% more, heck I am happy for them.
How about the tax breaks big oil got, where's the trickle down?
Now, who's the fool who said "Read my lips, no new taxes"
Who's the bigger fool for believing that LYING Republican.
In what way have we taken the fight to them. Iraq did nothing, Afghanstan did nothing. Most of the named hijackers were Saudis, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?
BTW there is very strong evidence that that attack on the twin towers was a false flag event and perpetrated by our own government. I have heard of NO evidence against any country's official involvement. It was a criminal act the criminals should be tracked down a prosecuted.
1% tax on the very rich? I don't think they will object. Most of them are business people they will just pass it on down to us only it will be 2% by then. Taxes are a cost of doing business and so in order to make a profit those expenses are covered in the their cost anlysis and prices go up.
We hadn't been attacked at all on our own soil, by foreign terrorists, until we plopped a military base in the center of Mecca. Ooops.
"I think that is at least partially due to us taking the fight to them "
Excuse me, but Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. NOTHING. And, those who WERE allegedly responsible, we let slip away into Pakistan. Aside from those facts, every intelligence report on terrorism since 9/11 has pointed out that our illegal, unnecessary, idiotic "war" in Iraq has made us MORE likely to be attacked, not less so. Sorry, but your argument is pure bullshit, and you know it. You're merely regurgitating the same old, tired, disproven rightwing talking points that are based in nothing whatsoever even remotely factual.
"I am against Corporate Welfare, Farm subsidies, and Handouts."
Be specific. Are you willing to see the military industrial complex have its budget cut at LEAST in half? Are you willing to see poor families unable to purchase food items, because farm subsidies are lifted, causing food prices to skyrocket out of reach for millions? Are you willing to continue to see tens of thousands of people die each year as a direct result to having no healthcare? Are you willing to continue to see people dumped into the streets as their houses are foreclosed on? Be specific. Not all federal spending is wasteful and/or unnecessary, believe it or not.
"If congress actually was held to the constitution their would be a lot less spending because most of their actions are unconstiutional."
What do you think the phrase "promote the general welfare" means?
"We were fine before the 16th amendment"
Actually, we were fine before the neocons handed the reigns of the government over to the corporate masters.
"But, no attacks in 7 years is a start. "
Funny, but, prior to 9/11, which bush was specifically warned about over 50 separate times, before it happened, it had been over 50 years, and we weren't illegally occupying Iraq during that period.
Your statement is 100% nonsense, and you know it. There is NOTHING about our illegal disaster in Iraq that has prevented another attack, and virtually NOTHING that has been done since 9/11 to prevent another attack. In fact, we're far more vulnerable now than before, because our military is hog tied and our national treasury has been demolished, along with our moral authority standing in the world.
Bin Laden couldn't have possibly dreamed to have caused even a tiny portion of the colossal damage that your boyfriend in the white house has caused us since 9/11. There's not a thing that he could do that could even come close to the damage that Bush has caused.
Osama Bin Laden has endorsed John McCain for President. LoL!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Nothing left to say here after Bruce and Clark . . .
Be specific. Are you willing to see the military industrial complex have its budget cut at LEAST in half? Are you willing to see poor families unable to purchase food items, because farm subsidies are lifted, causing food prices to skyrocket out of reach for millions? Are you willing to continue to see tens of thousands of people die each year as a direct result to having no healthcare? Are you willing to continue to see people dumped into the streets as their houses are foreclosed on? Be specific. Not all federal spending is wasteful and/or unnecessary, believe it or not.
Farm Subsidies Clark benefit corporations. Let markets work and food prices will be set. The problem with your arguments Clark is that you leave out personal responsibility. On home forclosures people signed a deal and now cannot uphold it they can either pay up or lose thier investment and rent from someone. Should I get out of my bills because I cant afford them? I never said all federal programs were wasteful, there clark. But many can be downsized and refocused.
"If congress actually was held to the constitution their would be a lot less spending because most of their actions are unconstiutional."
What do you think the phrase "promote the general welfare" means?
Promote the general welfare is not a enumerated power. It is a clause that was historically used to give powers to enforce and legislate on enumerated powers. That was the view of the courts except when FDR made the court progressive. They redifined the constituion and I am confident now that a Roberts court will correct this error and refocus the federal government to a limited one. That is not to say some programs should not be handled by state and local governments but what is needed in West Virginia is not always what is needed in Florida.
Actually, that phrase in the Preamble, refers to promoting the general welfare of the states, as members of the federal union being established by the Constitution. It absolutely did NOT mean taking resources from the "wealthy" to give to the "poor". A modicum of research would have revealed that to anyone who really wanted to know.
The midget from Krypton has failed again to make an actual point that resembles anything close to reality.
You of course realize that over 70% of national debt has be foisted on us by whacked out conmen. Republicans. Pay off your damn debt.
Both parties are to blame for spending and the President (how you should always show respect to even if you dont agree by the way) are to blame. But, that does not mean we should not be responsible. It is not a party issue for me its an American one.
In some ways. They also benefit consumers. Do you HONESTLY think you'd be paying what you pay for bread, milk, and eggs if it were left solely to the ENRON's of the world? Dream on. Take away the farm programs, and watch food skyrocket even more than it already has with the republiCON-weakened US dollar. You obviously know nothing about the farm subsidy programs. Where they are unfair is in how the republiCONs have directed production funding to their wealthy corporate donors, rather than allowing equal distribution to all farmers, big and small.
"Let markets work and food prices will be set."
Yes, just like the markets took care of energy prices in CA, right? And, just like the markets have kept our fuel prices so low over the past few years. And, like the markets have kept our healthcare costs so low. And, like the markets kept potable water prices in Argentina so low when that infrastructure was privatized. Or, how about how the 'Free market" has worked so beautifully to dramatically lower our phone bills and cable bills?
Yes, the "free market." Nothing like it to keep prices low and service up. Works a charm, every time.
"On home forclosures people signed a deal and now cannot uphold it they can either pay up or lose thier investment and rent from someone"
Oh goodie...another subject that you know nothing about, yet choose to talk about. FWIW, genius, it wasn't the consumer that started trading mortages on the stock market, it wasn't the consumer that started shipping their own jobs overseas, and it wasn't the consumer that forced shady lending practices upon themselves. You need to do a little research before you open your big mouth, methinks. The entire mortgage debacle is 100% republiCON ponzi scheme, just as was the ENRON/TYCO/Global Crossings/etc debacle and the S&L debacle of the 80's. Same shit, different year. It's all the result of unwise deregulation and total reliance on the "free market' to govern itself. Doesn't work. Been there, done that, far too many times now. It's time to move on.
"I never said all federal programs were wasteful, there clark. But many can be downsized and refocused."
I want specifics. Which ones would you cut, where, and what would the effect of those cuts be? You can't just start slash and burning every program that you don't like, just because you don't happen to like it. There are reasons for every spending program in place, and there would be repercussions from cutting any of them.
"Promote the general welfare is not a enumerated power."
You're correct, HOWEVER, there is an implied social contract within the context of American democracy, that demands and expects there to be a certain level of living standard that can be deemed an acceptable low level standard. That doesn't mean that we can let people die and rot in the streets, simply because they cannot afford to eat or house themselves. As a society, we deem that unacceptable.
Likewise, we collectively agree that, in order to be a productive, effective economic producer, we have to have a reliable power grid, communications grid, and highway system, and we funded each collectively in order to produce just that. A collective benefit for the whole of society.
Likewise with education. There is nothing written in the constitution mandating public funding for education, but we, as a collective society, are bright enough to recognize the benefits of having an educated society, as well as the disastrous outcome of ignoring such a need.
We have collectively chosen that it is unacceptable for citizens of the United States to be subjected to third world living standards, and as such, we have mutually accepted the responsibility to maintain that low level standard of living for all, regardless of socio-economic status.
We already have a system in which only those with wealth can afford health care. It results in 18,000 people dying each and every year that wouldn't otherwise die. Shall we extend this mindset to drinking water, sewage systems, education (already there to a large degree), safe roadways, etc? Where only those with wealth are afforded the luxury of safe water and food, safe highways and bridges, etc?
Is that the society that YOU would favor? Because, if it is, allow me to inform you that you're firmly in the minority on this. The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans recognize that the greatness of a society is not how much wealth the most wealthy among them have, but the level of the standard of living of the poorest of the poor among them.
Your mindset on this is not entirely unique, but, thankfully, is well unique enough that it will never, ever take hold in this country. If you wish to live in a land where the lowest standard of living is to have citizens dying and rotting in the streets, for lack of food, water, education, and healthcare, then I can assure you that there are a great plenty of nations available for you to choose from. You will never find your goals achievable here, as long as there are Americans who care still exist.
Actually, you're injecting your opinion, which is not, surprise surprise, the same as injecting "fact." While it's entirely true that this statement is written into the Preamble, the FACT, and a FACT that the SCOTUS has stood behind for centuries now, is that it pertains to all citizens, not states. The FACT that you people cannot seem to get through your thick skulls, for some unfathomable reason, is that, while all citizens ARE created equal, in the eyes of the constitution, not all STATES are created equal. Some have access to far more wealth than others, and thus would be able to provide a far better standard of living for their citizens than others, if the federal government didn't provide a leveling of the playing field.
You want only Californians, Floridians, New Yorkers, and Washintonians, for example, to have access to education, safe highways, and safe drinking water and food, while those unfortunate enough to be living in ND, SD, PA, TN, or elsewhere can just die and rot in the streets? How long do you geniuses think anyone would be willing to stay in those poorer states under those conditions? You wouldn't have a United States at all anymore. You'd have a handful of islands separated by massive expanses of desolate wasteland. Typical neocon thinking, to consider that a real vision of America.
Sorry, fool, but once again, it is YOU and your delusional wingnut bretheran that's been hitting the looney pipe hard and furiously.
The last time this was done, it caused great economic malaise for this country by the late 70's. Aside from that, this is the first war in human history in which a government has not only not asked its citizens for sacrifice, but that has actually lavished massive tax cuts on them, while driving the nation deeply into war debt. Idiotic.
You're absolutely correct. However, there are massive differences between the parties and their spending habits. Democrats "pay as you go." They don't like to go into debt, because they know that it cripples the economy later, and isn't fair to future generations. They're more fiscally responsible than republiCONs.
Also, democrats are wise enough to recognize that spending on infrastructure is INVESTMENT in the future that pays immeasurable returns.
RepubliCON's goal is not to invest in the future, but to destroy the existing infrastructure, so that the entirety can be privatized, and all of the wealth therin handed to the corporate masters. No amount of debt is enough for them, because the end goal is to destroy the middle class and the entire public infrastructure. Whatever amount of debt is required to accomplish this is perfectly fine with them.
It was the essence of our founding and we never had the lowest standard of anything. The problem is when people started not to want to achieve the American Dream but wanted it handed to them. So slowly what private groups used to do like feed the homeless the government took over and slowly those that get government "assistance" are living better lives than those that work hard. So people instead now refuse to work and have more children to get more money. That is the problem we shoudl give temporary help. But, it is not our job to give the American Dream to everyone. FREEDOM!!!! that is what we were founded on
The real key is spending decreases. Less government is the only way our Country will survive. Our freedoms have been eroded year after year by big government and it needs to be scaled back.
That's correct. That is my point, precisely. The founders of this nation made a pro-active, consious decision to see to it that it became the greatest nation on the planet, by "providing the general welfare."
"The problem is when people started not to want to achieve the American Dream but wanted it handed to them."
Right. Like those pesky women and blacks, who were kept from voting and from getting equitable jobs and pay, as well as equal treatment in society. Damn them for being so damn lazy, right?
"So slowly what private groups used to do like feed the homeless"
Rancid Ronnie invented homelessness in this country. Prior to him, it wasn't an issue.
"the government took over and slowly those that get government "assistance" are living better lives than those that work hard."
Oh yes, the fraudulent "cadillac welfare queens" bullshit again. This is a complete falacy. I'll tell you what...how about YOU sell off everything you own, march your ass into a shelter, and start to "Thrive" on those government handouts, so that you'll have at least ONE subject that you can speak from experience on, instead of relying upon your tired, disproven rightwing bullshit talking points.
"So people instead now refuse to work and have more children to get more money. "
Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Where the hell do you people get this nonsense? It's bullshit, and you don't even have to be particularly well-read to comprehend that. All you have to do is use your fricking head. If your bullshit were correct, why wouldn't EVERYBODY quit their jobs, start popping out multiple brats, and collect their massive government handouts? Use your head.
"But, it is not our job to give the American Dream to everyone. FREEDOM!!!! that is what we were founded on "
Wrong again. The social contract that this nation was founded upon requires that each and every person be offered the same opportunities. Your policies only provide that to those with wealth. That is NOT what this nation was founded on.
"The real key is spending decreases. Less government is the only way our Country will survive. Our freedoms have been eroded year after year by big government and it needs to be scaled back. "
You talk like this, and yet you continue to vote firmly against your own interests. Why? After nearly 30 years of failed republican policies, it's become painfully obvious that it is REPUBLICONS who have been massively expanding the size and intrusive role of the federal government, as well as the astonishing debt produced by said massively expanded government.
What's your logic for continuing to vote against your own self-proclaimed best interests?
"yes taxes were cut and they spurned economic growth after 9/11"
Economic growth over the course of this disastrously failed presidency has been nothing short of pathetic, and the little growth that has occured has come at the expense of millions of good paying jobs. There is no such thing as jobless economic growth, but the fact that you people believe that there is speaks volumes as to why you wallow in such stark contradictions and defiance of logic and reality.
"They should have cut spending that is where they failed."
Name the last time a republiCON cut spending. Every republiCON president in my lifetime has GROWN federal spending by leaps and bounds. In fact, the only president in my lifetime to cut the size of the federal government was Clinton.
"We should also have been selling war bonds instead of giving all the money to 9/11 charities that stole most of the money anyway. "
WTF are you talking about now? Are you trying to infer that 9/11 charities are somehow responsible for the massive, gluttonous, wasteful spending, corruption, and rampant fraud that your republiCON defense contractors have engaged in since 9/11?
Step into reality for a bit. Your head HAS to hurt from all of the spinning you do, doesn't it?
James Madison stated that the "general welfare" clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand "to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare." If by the "general welfare," the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to "promote the general welfare."
The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to "promote the general welfare." What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the "general welfare" by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Writing about the "general welfare" clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was "that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please." Unlike public officials during Jefferson's time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.
Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the "GENERAL" (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like "national defense" and "interstate commerce". It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people, which logically means that it MUST be limited in scope, for the MORE a government undertakes, the more oppressive it becomes. Government MUST be ANCHORED in fundamental principles.
If you advocate for federal spending on social welfare programs, you are describing a redistribution of income (MY income) for the benefit of Specific individual citizens INSTEAD of (for example) a strong national defense. Which of those activities is the government LEGALLY REQUIRED to perform? (hint: Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution.)
If the Federal government MUST do certain things, and something is NOT EXPRESSLY STATED in the constitution as a duty of Federal Government, then HOW (or WHOM) should any other services be provided? (Hint: Tenth Amendment)
Promote the general Welfare, usconstitution.net
This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
I could go on, Clarkie, but I see no need to be cruel.
You want to call me a wingnut. Fine. I've been called a whole lot worse by a whole lot better.
What I really am is an originalist. I think the Constitution should be followed as it is written -- with the intent of those who wrote it being superior. You paleolibs always want to read policies into that wonderful document that aren't there. When you try, you need to be corrected.
Consider yourself corrected.
For you people it is all about no taxes. Clark is absolutely right the only goal is to destroy the social infrastructure of this society. Put more money into the monied hands and screw the little guy. You know my taxes went down to. Oh wait that's right because my salary also got cut in half.
BTW if Gore was president I don't think 9/11 would have ever happened. The fool in the white house was to busy playing cowboy to pay attention to the people who warned him. What was the title of that PDB... Oh yeah. "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US".
Now you go on your little hate Bush rant. Has the President made mistakes sure. 9/11 probabbly would have happened no matter who was in charge. We get thousands of threats on the us daily and it is easy to connect the dots afterward not so easy before you know which is real and what is not.
I am not about no taxes. Taxes are important to let congress carry out their enumerated powers. No taxes are the reason that the Articles of Confederation failed. But, taxes today are crushing Americans of all classes. Taxes used to be a very low percentage on GDP now they are over 20% that is a society that will trap people in social classes and not allow advancement. The American Dream is a great idea that is being eroded by the new Handout Society.
I remember late January 2001 C. Rice was asked a question about the terrorist prevention planning report that Clinton had put together. Her response, "If it was written by Clinton it does not deserve to be read". Now I can forgive him some foibles but he never had an anti terrorist meeting until after 9/11. Clinton had a briefing everyday.
I am all for reducing the spending. How many letters did you write to your congress critters while the Republcan Congress and Republican President were doubling the national debt? Not to mention that they frontloaded about 2 more TRILLION dollars of debt that will be inherited by the next president. Now I am really quite fiscally conservative and I gotta say there is not a real conservative in the republican party. Certainly not that dork from alaska with the bridge to nowhere. Of course he will be under indictment before to long. Before the Dems came back in charge there was never a question that the budget would be passed. It was increase spending on crap and screw the veterans and social services.
You are right on point
Another point you seem to forget. Nay fact. The ONLY way that the crook in the white house could have gotten the evisceration of the treasury passed was by providing a sunset clause. Now the very clause that Bushie put in there is being used against the fiscally responsible people in congress as a weapon. Get over it.
Do not forget that the last 3 REPUBLICANS have produced 70%+ of the current national debt. Who exactly is going to pay that off? The only president in recent memory to provide a balanced budget is Clinton.
You have encouraged some pretty good debating in this thread.
In viewing the comments above, it would seem to me that both Clark and Bruce have asked some serious questions, to which your answers have only skirted around the issues.
I am totally for reducing spending and waste, and the place to start is the "Golden Hammer" war machine. The pentagon has taken the concept of waste and perfected it to an artform. Nobody can waste my tax dollars faster than the military. We have heard about this waste for so long that we have been numbed to "expect it." Secondly, I don't like the idea of an offensive stance on foreign policy. I have no problem with a defensive policy, such as the war in Afganistan, in fact, I think we should be more aggressive in Afganistan, and we should have never stopped seeking to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. We should never have gone into Iraq. Sadam Hussein was a bad guy, but that was Iraq's problem, not ours!
I would like to see us leave Iraq, to stop wasting our tax dollars there.
I would like to see the defense budget cut in half - not by weakening our military, but by stopping the waste that offers nothing to make us stronger militarily.
And yes, we also need to cut our local pork barrel speding, as well. But neither Republicans nor Democrats have proven that they can stop this spending, as well.
Actually, Republicans have historically shown themselves to be bigger spenders than Democrats. So where is your argument, Modern? Please do not respond with your standard talking points about how Dems spend all my tax dollars and Repubs don't, because I can dig up proof that our debt has increased significantly under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
Thanks!!
JP
Jerry P. said it well!