Bush to reduce deficit with domestic cuts?
85019
Grrrrr....\n\nEDIT: Don't bash Clinton! He eliminated the deficit, and we had a surplus for a short time. All the while we survived and the economy was good. Bush blew it. He saddled us with that deficit. what's it up to? Eight TRILLION plus? Who's paying for the Iraq war? Who's paying to rebuild the place? Where is the Iraqi oil money? They are selling oil. Where do you think that money is going? Hmmm....
1043739
This is how the "tax and spend liberal" phrase was born. Republicans "borrow and spend". Then a democrat takes over and is left with the bills. So they need to raise taxes. Happened after Reagan/Bush Sr and it'll happen again after Bush Jr. Since Bush Jr has taken office, the debt ceiling has been raised 5 times in 5 years. Why can't these people work within their budget like most Americas do? \n \nBack 30 years ago, Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility. Now it's the Democrats. You should be concerned. This debt is no just going to vanish. The Republican tax cuts, which few average Americans saw, are a large contributor to this debt. So, in effect, most Americans will be forced to pay more taxes in the future to pay for these tax cuts, now.\n\n\n\nFor an interesting graph, check my link:\n77-80 democrat - steady debt\n80-92 republican - rising debt\n92-99 democrat - declining debt
733674
No it's not.    You forgot "raise tax rates" even though cutting them actually BOOSTED federal tax revenue.
433720
Our annual trade deficit has ballooned to $726 billion and our federal budget deficit in fiscal 2006 is $423 billion -- an alarming 3.2 percent of gross domestic product, or national economic output. Workers' wages have been stagnant for 20 years and now they are actually declining. Employer-provided health care is shrinking and 46 million people -- most of them from working families -- have no health care coverage.\n\nOur nation is headed in the wrong direction, and now is the time to take steps to turn it around.\n\nInstead of giving more tax breaks to the wealthy and allowing multinational corporations to ship our best jobs offshore, we have to repeal the Bush tax cuts and insist that Congress repeal federal tax laws that reward corporations that send jobs offshore!$6.592 trillion: Federal debt on June 26, 2003, the day Josh Bolten became director of the Office of Management and Budget.\n\n$8.364 trillion: Federal debt today.\n\nIn the Bush administration, this is grounds for a promotion. On January 26, 2006, Bush said in one of his carefully crafted press conferences, "Our economy is growing, it is strong. This economy has created millions of new jobs, yet it's an economy that is changing rapidly." The jobs being created are a result of unconstitutional looting of the people's treasury by Congress for votes. These are government jobs which lure the people into more and more dependency upon mother government. With our major job sectors destroyed because of NAFTA and GATT, Americans are desperate for any sort of decent paying jobs. It will get worse now that Congress and Bush sold us out again with CAFTA. Sadly, Americans are taking jobs with the Nazi, draconian and worthless Department of Homeland Security. Once those pay checks start rolling in, they will not bite the hand that feeds them. This is how slaves are made. The late, great American, Ezra Taft Benson, wrote in his work, An Enemy Hath Done This, that America will be destroyed from within by Americans. His prediction so many decades ago is materializing right before our eyes.
1096854
1996 to 1999, the US Goverment led by President Bill Clinton generate the first Surplus's in 30 years.  President Clinton even began paying down the National Debt.  2001 - 2006, President Bush and the Republican lead Congress double the National Debt from 4 TRILLION to OVER 8 TRILLION DOLLARS with no decrease in sight.  Their solution?  Cut more taxes for the Ultra rich, get rid of estate taxes for the ultra rich.  They cloak their agenda by calling Estate Taxes - death taxes; however, only about 5% of Americans will ever have to pay any Estate Tax.  Thomas Jefferson was a strong proponent of having wealth being disappated at the time of one's death so that we do not have wealth staying in the same family from generation to generation by indicating that the dispersal of wealth is a strong contributor to a strong democracy.  Therefore, whenever, you hear the Republican mantra of 'it's your money'; think more about how the meager tax cuts on most of us benefit those with the most and sacrificing benefits for the rest of us.  Vote for the Party of WE (Democrats) and not the self centered selfishness of the Party of ME (REpublicans).
1152018
Everyone should pay their fair share, but no one should be forced into poverty by the government.  Whatever the percentage is, it should be enough to cover the expenses that the government incurs.  \n\nThe current policy of allowing the national debt and budget deficit to run out of control while pushing tax cut after tax cut is irresponsible and foolhardy.  If you ran your own personal finances the way the Bush administration runs our government's, you would either be bankrupt or in jail in the wink of an eye, probably both.
326881
I am a Republican voter.  A good thing they have done is cut taxes.  Unfortunately, cutting spending is supposed to go along with cutting taxes, at least in my ideal world.  I wish they would have secured the border.  Also, I wish that they would have given control of education back to the states instead of increasing the federal government's control of education.
835474
Some changes that the new Congress will attempt, per Pelosi and Reid:\n\nAttempting to get the US out of red. The national debt has doubled to nearly 9 trillion during the Bush administration, and there has been a huge deficit each year.\n\nMaking the Alternative Minimum Tax more fair to the middle class, preventing the repeal of the Estate Tax (over 21 billion per year would be lost from the US treasury), requiring that new tax cuts be matched with new revenue and new tax cuts be matched with new spending cuts. \n\nSome type of lobby and/or campaign finance reform bill. \n\nA plan for peace in the middle east. A list of objectives for the Iraq war including a schedule for the draw down of troops.\n\nReducing illegal immigration - probably some plan very much LIKE Bush's which includes border patrol and fencing, agricultural worker permits, and path to citizenship for many who are already here.\n\nhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110900953.html
951582
Democrats cut taxes?!  ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
1152192
The United States is running a huge balance of payments deficit by spending more overseas than it exports, which I take it includes its expenditure in Iraq. Also, all Governments borrow and presumably Bush is mortgaging the United States' future.\n\nAs an Englishman I am all too conscious that the United Kingdom's power in the world was ruined by its debt funded expenditure on the First and Second World Wars. The Cambridge historian Correlli Barnett wrote a series of books (e.g. "Audit of War") to point out that in the end there is no point in exercising miltary power at the expense of capital investment.
756149
Economy isn't working for Bush because the media puts their spin on every story they do on the economy.\n\nCheck this out:\n\nThe number of jobs increased between April 2005 and March 2006 not by 5.8 million but by 6.6 million.\n\nThe federal budget deficit has been cut in half in three years, three years faster than George W. Bush called for. Why? Tax receipts were up 5.5 percent in FY 2004, 14.5 percent in FY 2005, and 11.7 percent in FY 2006. That's up 34.9 percent in three years. And that's after the 2003 tax cuts. When you cut taxes, you get more economic activity, and when you get more economic activity, the government with a tax system that is still decidedly progressive gets more revenue.
892380
Good question, and I've thought the same but for different reasons. Since this is a mid-term election, I think we may be better off letting the Dems take control of the house and senate... then we can see what kind of laws they'd attempt to pass while they got a chance and by 2008, we'll be pleading to get another repub in the white house and give the house and senate back!\n\nI'll address your highlighted points, though, from my perspective:\n\n*if we pull out without a better alternative plan, we loose the war totally and give terrorism a booster shot.\n*spending is not as bad as it seems. Rate of increase to our GNP is higher than the rate of increase to our deficit, netting a positive trend in our debt.\n*agree with the safety net totally. The Dems will probably win control of house/senate but nowhere near enough to override presidential veto with a 2/3 vote.\n*agree with Dems doing no better as well.\n*not really an opinion on evangelicals.\n*I believe Bush IS conservative... just not extreme right wing conservative. I don't think moderation is bad because we do need to find some common ground with the liberals. We're too evenly divided not to.\n\nMy 2 cents. Good question!
972847
actually, they won't cut a whole lot... unless they cut spending for the war.  their campaign was one of "create more social programs to spend the extra money that we will be taxing"
358357
BUSH IS TRYING TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THE ECONOMY IS GOOD, THE FACT IS HE IS DESTROYING THE ECONOMY AND WE ARE HEADED FOR THE BIG CRASH !!!Again, increased consumer income increases demand for production. But how does consumer spending increase, if consumer income decreases? It increases through credit and borrowing. Current consumer spending has been maintained through increased borrowing and credit card spending. To phrase this differently, it has been maintained by consumer "deficit" spending. And this is becoming an increasingly larger portion of consumer spending. A lot of this deficit spending has been financed by the artificially increased value of homes, and the resulting increase in home equity loans. Interest rates have almost a direct effect on the market value of homes. The higher the fraction of buyer's cost going to financing, the less the market value of the home. This is because the seller receives a smaller fraction of the total payment. If interest rates are low, the seller receives a higher fraction of the buyer's payment.\n\nLet me give a brief illustration. Let's say I want to buy a home. Let's say I am a perfect example of all potential buyers in my area. I'm willing to pay $300,000 total for a home. This includes all finance charges, as well as principal payment. Let's say the total financing costs $150, 000. That means the seller will get the other $150,000. That means the market value of his home is $150,000, because that's what he actually gets.\n\nLet's change the finance charges. I'm still only willing to pay $300,000 total for the home, including all finance charges. But the finance charges are only $50,000 now, because of a lower interest rate. The seller now gets $250,000, instead of $150,000. The market value of his home is now $250,000. The market value of his home has increased $100,000 because of a reduced interest rate. The reduced interest rate accounts for 100% of the increase in market value. This increases the equity, and increases the amount he can borrow off this equity.\n\nLowered interest rates have greatly increased home equity values. They have also greatly increased the amount of money that can be borrowed off this equity. This money has made a significant contribution to consumer spending during the last 4 years. Current estimates are that it contributes $200-300 billion per year to our $12 trillion GDP. This is 1.5 to 2.5% of our GDP. Borrowed money has prevented consumer spending from sinking. As interest rates rise, home equity values will decrease. Money borrowed from this reduced home equity will also decrease. The contribution to consumer spending from this money will also decrease.\n\nFrom this, it becomes obvious that consumer demand cannot be maintained by this consumer deficit spending. We are nearing the limit now. We are going to reach this limit in the near future. The home-refinancing loan bubble, and its contribution to consumer spending, is about to burst. When it does, consumer spending and demand will drop. And they will continue to drop, because this is also a self-perpetuating cycle. As consumer demand for production decreases, so will the demand for labor to provide that production. As a result, hiring will decrease and layoffs will increase. This will further decrease consumer income, and the spending that comes from that income. THE PROBLEM ON   THIS SITE IS PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET WHAT BUSH IS DOING !!!!
920113
Worse yet...its a lie.  By "cutting taxes" but participating in wreckless spending, the national defiict is 9 trillion and climbing. Who is going to pay this debt? By Bush's deficit spending folly, entirely supported by dittohead Republicans in congress, we are guaranteed to have to raise taxes to repay the debts accumulated.  Of course, when that happens, the republicans will blame Dems for "taxing"...and the beat goes on...
350898
Bush is spending our country into bankruptcy.\n\nGovernment spending has grown nearly 29% over the last four years.\n\nThe Bush administration has spent money twice as fast Clinton. (7.6% vs. 3.4%)\n\nFighting the Al Quaeda terrorists costs money, but the fiscally responsible solution is to cut back low priority government spending.\n\nPork-barrel Republicans in Congress have increased nondefense discretionary spending at a record rate of 36%. Bush has yet to veto one pork-barrel spending bill.\n\nIn just 4 years, the Bush administration has increased nondefense discretionary spending by 1/3 more than the Clinton administration did in 8 years.\n\nThe government’s 2.4 trillion dollar budget means government is now spending more than $20,000 dollars for every family in America.\n\nOut of control spending is causing deficits and government debt to balloon, mortgaging our future and the futures of our children and grandchildren with total liabilities of nearly $40 trillion dollars.\n\nThe Bush administration claims that it will run a $500 billion deficit. .\n\nThe Bush administration continues to use phony accounting to cover up how the government raids social security to pay for pork barrel spending. The true deficit to be over $700 billion dollars per year.\n\nThe total national debt, including what is owed to social security, has reached a record breaking level of $7 trillion.\n\nIf Bush is reelected and continues to borrow and spend, it will pass $10 trillion!\n\nThat will add to the national debt-a debt we are already paying over $200 billion in interest each year.\n\nThe long run problems are worse. The unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare are over $30 trillion dollars.\n\nBush’s prescription medicare benefit has put an already bankrupt program even deeper into the hole.
446844
* Deficit Reduction: Republicans have run up historic budget deficits and refused to put us back on a course of budget discipline.  Last year, the deficit reached $319 billion, higher than in any year before President Bush took office;\n\n    * Overtime Protections: Republicans have failed to support a measure to prohibit the Bush Administration from taking overtime pay away from an estimated six million workers.  During the Bush Administration, wages have stagnated or declined, even as the cost of health care, child care, and other essential expenses has continued to climb.  The Bush overtime regulations will mean millions in lost wages at a time when workers can least afford it;\n    * Minimum Wage Increase: For the eighth year in a row, Republicans have failed to raise the minimum wage.  Minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earn $10,700 a year, $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.  The current minimum wage fails to provide enough income to enable minimum wage workers to afford adequate housing in any area of the country; and\n    * Tax Credits For Employers of Reservists: Republicans have failed to provide adequate support to employers hard hit by the activation of military reservists to serve in Iraq.  For the second year in a row, Congressional Republicans blocked a bill that would have rewarded businesses that continue to pay salaries to their employees serving oversees.  This provision would provide a tax credit to employers continuing to pay activated National Guard and Reserve employees and provide an additional tax credit to small businesses to help them cover the cost of temporarily replacing an employee who has been activated.\n\nHealth Care\n\n    * Health Care Costs: Republicans have failed to pass legislation to hold down the unprecedented increases in health care premiums for American families.  Employer-sponsored health insurance increased by 9.2 percent in 2005 – more than three times the growth in wages and more than twice the rate of overall inflation.  Premiums for family health coverage are now $10,880, up from $6,348 in 2000.  These premium hikes are straining family finances, forcing businesses to drop coverage, and driving up the number of uninsured Americans;\n    * Covering the Uninsured: Republicans have failed to enact legislation to reduce the growing number of uninsured Americans, which now stands at 45.8 million.  The number of uninsured Americans has increased by 6 million since 2000.  People without health insurance have less access to health care, are in poorer health, and are at greater risk of premature death;\n    * Stem Cell Research: The Republican leadership has failed to bring to the floor a stand-alone bill to expand federal support for embryonic stem cell research.  Current funding restrictions, imposed by President Bush, are impeding promising research by preventing the use of federal funds on the best available stem cell lines;\n    * Prescription Drug Importation: Republicans have failed to enact drug importation legislation, which would give American consumers access to lower-priced drugs from abroad.  The price of commonly prescribed brand name drugs has been increasing in the United States by more than twice the rate of inflation, creating a barrier to accessing needed medications;\n    * Medicare Drug Coverage: Republicans failed to support Democratic efforts to address anticipated problems implementing the new Medicare drug benefit, such as transitioning some beneficiaries’ drug coverage from Medicaid to Medicare.  Also, Republican leaders continue to oppose legislation that would allow Medicare to use its purchasing power to lower drug prices;\n    * Medicare Premium Increases: Republicans have not responded to recent increases in Medicare Part B premiums.  Monthly Part B premiums have almost doubled since 2000 – from $45.50 in 2000 to $88.50 in 2006;\n    * Mental Health Parity: Republicans have failed to pass bipartisan leg