Republicans: No new taxes!!!! Cut Domestic Spending!

Democrats No Cutting Domestic Spending!!! Raise Taxes on the wealthy.



This is why we have an ever increasing national debt.

Republicans won't allow taxes, Democrats won't give up domestic spending.

Neither has pursued military industrial waste and corruption with enough vigor.

So, we do the irresponsible thing, and borrow and spend.

Both sides of the debate need to get over it. Some programs need to be cut, some people need to pay more taxes.

What Republican tried to cut spending?

6 years of Rep control of congress and President = MORE SPENDING.

Reagan = MORE spending.

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Reagan tried to cull $15B in spending with the Big Dig alone. He was overruled by veto. Additionally, the Republican congress under Clinton cut spending. I will, of course, give some credit to Clinton as well.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

It isn't about raising taxes or cutting them, it's about finding the proper level that maximizes government revenue and gdp growth. You could raise taxes without affecting growth too much while raising revenue heavily, and you could also lower taxes to improve growth heavily and therefore rake in more taxes. This stuff isn't as cut and dry as people seem to think.

I'd agree that the national debt needs to be addressed and that would probably entail cutting a lot of government programs.

I agree with Danik; the goal should be efficiency.

The government should take steps, like any business, to collectively bargain, and to audit it's operations.

That's something we can all agree there is too much of: waste.

And I would agree, that tax policy should be discussed in terms of effectiveness and pragmatism, vs. ideology.

Reagan did succesfully cut spending on several social programs.
But overall spending never would have been reduced under Reagan, because he tried to spend as much as possible on the military.

Nothing is ever going to change the fact that Reagan's OMB submitted a Budget higher than the CBO passed on to Congress.

Diverting funds from one place to another is not cutting spending. It is just allocating spending to your own agenda.


Ixtellor

P.S. Reagan was a good President.

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Some spending is necessary. I won't blame Truman for increased defense spending nor FDR.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Its all a matter of opinion.
I personally believe that having about 6000+ nuclear war heads will keep us pretty safe.

I like having a strong military, but if they reduced the defense budget by say 8% and spent that money on terrorist investigative work, I think we would be "more safe"

But its all opinion.

Canada is doing OK.


Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

I agree totally and I'm glad we have such a strong military and I think it's important, but how many nuclear warheads do we really need? Isn't it a waste after you have enough to kill every human on the planet?

Seems like we took it a little too far. We could have spent that on equipping the troops better or something that would make a difference.

__________________
I May be Wrong but I Doubt It - Charles Barkley