Whatever Happened to the Tax & Spend Democrats?

[Wanker]

Oh yeah, they've been replaced by "Refund and Spend" Repblicans.

Who's going to end up paying to balance the budget? Or don't Republicans care about a balanced budget?


The Reps control both houses of congress and the executive branch, and yet the national debt is skyrocketing and they don't seem to have a plan to balance the budget.  

Well?

[Ripsnort]

Dec. 12, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's budget for the coming election year will chart a course for cutting federal deficits in half within the next five years, a top White House budget official said Friday.

Administration officials have been citing that as a goal for several months, even as government red ink has surged to record levels. White House budget chief Joshua Bolten has acknowledged that an unprecedented $500 billion shortfall is likely this year, making the goal a $250 billion deficit by 2009.

Bush's predecessor, President Clinton, presided over four straight years of budget surpluses.

The budget theme is emerging at a time when the Bush administration is under fire from conservatives for allowing spending to grow too rapidly, and for not being aggressive enough in dealing with the red ink.

In an interview, Joel Kaplan, deputy director of the White House budget office, provided few specifics about how the deficit would be cut in half.

Kaplan said Bush would achieve it ``by pursuing very aggressively his pro-growth economic policies, and by leading the Congress toward overall policies of fiscal restraint. And if the Congress adheres to those two programs, we'll be successful in halving the deficit from its '04 peak within that time period.''

Bush will unveil his 2005 budget in early February.

The president's economic growth policies will consist ``primarily'' of proposing again that tax cuts first enacted in 2001 be made permanent, instead of expiring as this decade ends, Kaplan said. That could cost $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years, according to congressional budget analysts.

In interviews this week, lawmakers, aides and lobbyists have said administration officials are trying to keep overall spending increases for agencies at very low levels next year, perhaps at or below the 4 percent range that Bush said last year should be adequate.

Because the economy is expected to continue its rebound, most budget projections in recent months have shown deficits peaking in fiscal 2004, which runs through next Sept. 30, and then gradually growing smaller.

Last July, the White House forecast a deficit of $475 billion in 2004, falling to $238 billion _ half the size _ in 2006.

In August, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected shortfalls peaking at $480 billion in 2004, dropping to $225 billion in 2006.

But such estimates assume lower rates of spending growth than have occurred in recent years and no major setbacks for the economy. They also do not take into account the cost of new tax cuts or unforeseen expenditures such as a major new war.

And the congressional estimates did not include the 10-year, $400 billion cost of the expansion of Medicare to include prescription drug benefits, which had not yet been enacted.

Conservatives have been angered by bills like Medicare and the year-end $373 billion spending package that the House approved this week and awaits the Senate when it returns in January.

``The big story is Republicans have become a big spending party,'' said Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for Growth. ``And I think the White House is really the ring leader of the spending spree.''

Administration officials have blamed the return to deficits on the 2001 recession and the costs of fighting terrorism, while Democrats have said Bush's tax cuts have made the situation far worse.

Last year's deficit was $374 billion. Until then, the worst shortfall was $290 billion in 1992.

next...

[myelo]

Originally posted by banana
Oh yeah, they've been replaced by "Refund and Spend" The Reps control both houses of congress and the executive branch, and yet the national debt is skyrocketing and they don't seem to have a plan to balance the budget.  

That’s the problem. It’s natural for whatever party is in power to want to spend money. That’s because they get to decide what to spend it on. On the other hand, the minority party is always opposed to spending because they don’t control where it goes.

Anyone that thinks republicans don’t want to spend money is so naïve they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. They just got that reputation lately because, until recently, they were the minority party. Now that they’re the majority, what do you have? Republicans bringing home so much pork they’re going to get trichinosis.

To summarize:
Dems in power: Dems try to spend our money.
Repubs in power: Repubs try to spend our money.

See the trend?

Politicians try to spend our money.

[mietla]

Originally posted by banana
The Reps control both houses of congress and the executive branch, and yet the national debt is skyrocketing and they don't seem to have a plan to balance the budget.  

Well?

Well what? You are absolutely right. Reps and Dems are really no different.

[Wanker]

Republicans bringing home so much pork they’re going to get trichinosis.

LOL, that's classic. So true, too.

[Toad]

Mickey, you forgot the part about "the more you give them the more they will spend." Either bunch, of course.

[Wanker]

Originally posted by mietla
Well what? You are absolutely right. Reps and Dems are really no different.

The difference, Mietla, is that during the last election you Reps were falling all over yourself bashing the Dems for their Tax & Spend ways. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you've had to come up with something else to cry about.

I am opposed to too much spending no matter which party is in charge. I haven't heard diddly from the reps regarding spending since Boosh was (s)elected.

The reason why, I suspect, is because it's really not the spending that bothers Republiclowns. As long as they are in charge of the money that allows them to give more corporate welfare checks to companies like IBM(who will layoff more than 4,700 American programmers this year and send the jobs to India and Asia), they are satisfied.

So, all that crying about the spending habits of democrats in the last election was nothing but a smokescreen.

How typical.

[kappa]

lol Rip...

President Bush's budget for the coming election year will chart a course for cutting federal deficits in half within the next five years

lmao dude.. is that the best you can do??  in half?? really?? have you sat and figured how much half is?? So does that mean the next 4 years the deficit will be given no attention?? lol Have you heard (conservative even) deficit figures for the last 2 years?

Have you figured what the national deficit was in 1999?? How about 1991 and then compare that to 1994....

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by banana
So, all that crying about the spending habits of democrats in the last election was nothing but a smokescreen.

How typical.

The difference is...giving taxes back stimulates the economy (proven), the Repubs GIVE money back to the people, the Dems TAKE money.

Also, we didn't see 9/11 coming, nor the subsequent spending associated with the Homeland defense and military spending (Afghanistan,Iraq)

Try again, banana.

I'm sure you'll find some flaw, hold onto to it! (4 more years!)

[Wanker]

Rip, are you saying that the war against terrorism couldn't have been fought without letting the national debt go out of control?

I don't believe it.

Furthermore, your insinuation that the Democrats take from the people and give nothing back in return is both naiive and ludicrous.

Next thing you're going to tell me is that all the corporate welfare given out by the Republiclowns is going toward making jobs for Americans! What a bunch of bull that is!

Nice try, though. I give you an "A" for effort!


P.S. I can tell you what's going to happen. The Democrats are going to eventually regain control of congress and/or the white house, where they'll be saddled with trying to repay the national debt. To do so they will end up cutting spending and raising taxes, and the Republiclowns will begin chanting their hypocritical "Tax & Spend" rhetoric again.

[gofaster]

So, if I understand this correctly...

Bill to cover prescription meds under Medicare passed - Bush looks like a hero.

Plans to make temporary tax cuts permanent - Bush looks like a hero.

But...

Where is the money going to come from to pay for the new Medicare plan?

The war in Iraq drags on.

Iraq reconstruction needs to be financed.

Economy still teetering as people are still losing their jobs.

... "pursuing very aggressively his pro-growth economic policies, and by leading the Congress toward overall policies of fiscal restraint."  Political puffery.

[Eagler]

don't worry .. it'll be all straightened out by '08 when a dumbacrat will have the chance at beating out the bush replacement republican

[midnight Target]

Didn't the last "Tax and spend Democrat" leave us with a ..... SURPLUS?

I wonder where that surplus went?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Didn't the last "Tax and spend Democrat" leave us with a ..... SURPLUS?

I wonder where that surplus went?

out the window with the bubble of an economy he left us too...

[gofaster]

Money doesn't go out the window unless there's somebody there to throw it out.