I lay the blame of fiscal irresponsibility squarely on the repubs because they took over a sound fiscal house, balanced budget, low unemployment, low inflation economy, and they have really messed it up. They have produced huge budget deficits over the last seven years, decimated the dollar, which has run up the price of oil, gold, silver, copper, etc. Since they controlled the white house, senate, and house, who else should we blame? The fiscal job done by Clinton was the best in 40 years.

Private industry has failed to solve or deal with the health care problem, so who exactly does that leave. 100 years ago, Dr. weren't all rich, and they'd take care of a surgery for a cow next year. That system went the way of the buffalo, its gone. That leaves govt., or just letting poor folks suffer or die prematurely because they happened to be born disadvantaged and couldn't make their way into the system. I don't think poor people should have to die prematurely because they don't have money. Do you? What other alternative do you propose?

I agree we should simplify the tax code, and close those loopholes the rich and corp. america use to avoid paying their fair share.

The same tax rate for Buffet and Gates is not appropriate for folks making 1 million a year, we probably need 2 more tax brackets. But if Buffet says he should be paying more in taxes, do you think he is wrong?

I am willing to accept large govt. spending programs if the solve large problems better than any other alternative that is being proposed. The number of uninsured has grown under Bush, the system is not working. Got a better idea?

We spend 1/2 of all the money spent in the world on the military today, after the cuts in the 90's, begun under Bush 1. We can do with a little less on the military.


But we are down in the weeds, you have cherry picked my reply and omitted responding to the basic intent.

My basic assertion is that Bush has passed legislation favoring the rich at the expense of the middle class, and at the expense of fiscal responsibility, and this has produced the highest increase in the deficit in a seven year period, and decimated the value of the dollar to the detriment of the whole nation, with higher prices at the gas pump, for commodities like gold, silver and copper, health care, housing, college tuition, and food.

Clinton did take some actions that will hurt the middle class in the long run, such as changing the calculation of inflation to understate it, reducing the long term increases in social security, but that did not help the rich, and it would help all americans by helping balance the budget and keeping the nation on a sound fiscal footing.

TigerWins, I have to thank you for doing your best to squash this jibberish before I could get to it. It's astonishing that so many Americans are so un-informed when it comes to issues such as these. Listen peeps I'll make it real simpler. If you don't PAY taxes, then you don't get a TAX CUT. But of course the damn left wing idiots want everything to be FREE and they sell this crap to everyone and all they(the sheep) hear is "free stuff" not understanding where it comes from. For crying out loud does Sean Hannity not get air time in Louisiana? If not I'm glad I moved. It absoultely amazes me that the people of this country have done 3 of the dumbest things I've ever seen in my life. Those being electing Jimmy Carter once, and Slick Willie Clinton twice.

What's that got to do with this thread?

Maybe you can show a Bush tax proposal that would hit the rich harder than the middle class.

Or show how the repubs demonstrated their fiscal responsibility the last 7 years?

Let's see, how effective was the Bush tax cut for the rich, at say, stimulating an economic recovery?

http://www.cbpp.org/8-30-05pov.htm

Now by 2003, Fed Funds rate had been dropped to a 40 year low of 1%. Why? We were in the 3rd year of an economic recovery. The answer is that the Bush tax cuts in 2001 did not work to stimulate a recovery. The recovery we were experiencing was like recovering from a cold, your body is strong, and if you wait long enough and do nothing to help it, it will probably heal itself.

Then, Greenspan playing ball with Bush dropped interest rates to the floor in order to boost the economy, in order to win reelection. A much smaller cut in rates would have been better, by not creating the housing bubble, but it would have taken too long to take effect and Bush would have lost the election like his Dad did (remember "It's the economy, stupid"). So, we did the irresponsible thing, and over stimulated just so Bush could get reelected.

But the tax cuts did not work.

Who got what, from the Bush 2001 tax cuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

My post above showed that the tax cuts did a poor job of stimulating economic growth 3 years later, and why was it so important that someone earning $1.25 million for the year be granted a $58,000 tax break (other than simple greed, and taking care of the folks that got you elected, the rich people).

the point is, I'm by no definition "other than a dem" "rich" and I'm doing okay. In fact I'm active duty military and live comfortably. Maybe I am just really smart at managing my money but I highly doubt it. I know my taxes are down and I like it that way and I'd like it to stay that way. Should any of the front running clowns from the jack ass party get in, I can't see it staying that way.

You are basing your whole argument that Dems are better than Reps on what Bush has done. You'll find very few republicans who thinks he has done a good job. Just like you'll find very few Dems who thinks Carter did a good job, who was a disastrous President, too.

It's not about individual Presidents, it's about one's philosophy. I'll never support big government programs and higher taxes for those of us who work our ass off to provide for ourselves and our family while others take the easy road.

You keep referring to the poor as if they have no say in the matter. We provide free education in this country, yet many of them refuse to take advantage of it. We have mexicans doing whatever it takes to get into our country to do jobs many of our own won't consider doing. Why bother when they can live off of my tax dollars. Hell, we even have illegals living off me and the Dems love it.

I have no problems helping those who can't help themselves. But I'm sick and tired of lazy people mooching off of me and Dems who are quick to raise my taxes to give them more money. We've created a culture that allows too many people to not take responsibility for their lives because they know the gov't will be there for them. Don't have homeowners insurance when a storm comes or you make a bad mortgage deal? No problem, the gov't will save you. The Dems cater to this crowd and it pisses me off.

Change the culture in this country instead of thinking the gov't should save everyone. Throwing more money at the problem has proven to be ineffective.

It's the old chinese proverb ... Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

I heard it a different way, it said

"give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he spends the rest of his life in a boat with a cooler of beer."

Excellent post! Congratulations. This really is the nitty gritty. I understand your position, as it used to be my position. For president, I've voted for McGovern (I knew Nixon was a crook), Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Perot (protest vote), Clinton (superior to Dole), Did not vote (Bush was a run away in Texas, but I thought he was an idiot as a governor), Kerry.

I didn't abandon the republican party, THEY ABANDONED ME! They rejected fiscal conservatism in order to give windfalls to the corporate CEOs. I'd rather an illegal get $300 of foodstamps to feed his family, than a bunch of CEOs get an extra $5 mil a year off a govt. handout. There is no perfect govt., it just a question of whose gonna benefit from the rip off, and to what extent. The republicans have become fiscally irresponsible and allow corp. america to siphon up huge profits, at the expense of running up the deficits, decimating the dollar and putting hardship on all americans in indirect manner, most americans don't have enough financial savy to understand how they are being screwed. I'm 55, I've been an active investor for 25 years, and I've figured out most of the ways I've been screwed by the system by now, by govt, by stock option swindles in private industry, whatever.

Big govt. solutions work to solve big national problems, in some cases better than any other approach. Private industry can excel in some cases also.

When I look back at civil rights in the 1960's, the problem was improved greatly, by the supreme court, the US judiciary. It was not going to be resolved by ANY state court in La., Miss., Alabama, Ga., etc. It was not going to be resolved by congress. It was resolved by 7 smart guys with guts, who did not have to stand for re-election.

The interstate highway system has been great, and a big govt. solution for the military, after WWII, that has immensely improved interstate commerce. Good Job!

You think I act like all poor people don't have a choice to do better. I realize that some do and some don't have enough brain power to achieve a job that will pay them a living wage. You act like they all have that ability, and they don't.

Here's the rub. You say you don't mind helping somebody who needs it. I agree. How do you tell the difference? It's hard.

Ultimately, if you accept that you want to help all those who truly need it, then you must accept that you will get scammed on the way there. Some people will successfully beat the system. In my 55 years, I see no alternative. I will and must accept that truth in order to see that all those that legitimately need help will get it.

Now we move on to the question, what level of abuse are we willing to accept to help those who need it? This is where I diverge from dems and repubs, because I don't think we have ever spent enough on audit and enforcement of the rules of the program. For the billions being wasted on abuse, we could hire a thousand investigators and go after these folks. If you put enough of them in jail, you could spend $10 million on enforcement and probably save a few billion. My god, 60 Minutes can find folks flying in from the Dominican Republic to pick up welfare checks in NYC after a few weeks of gathering evidence, with video, and the govt. does nothing. This is my problem with the systems, there is no enforcement provided. Turn it over to a private agency and tell them they can keep 10% of whatever fraud they stop, and there'd be folks all over it. Food stamps, medicare reimbursements to fraud clinics, it's all over.

But go after corporate welfare also. The corporate welfare won't go, because these are the folks who pay for the campaigns and put the folks in office. They are gonna collect their piece of flesh. They will until the level of corruption exceeds the ability of the system to PRODUCE what it needs to survive and pay the corruption, in which case it implodes and you go through hard times until you can put a new system in place that is efficient enough to survive. It will grow, until it gets invaded and the cycle starts over. If you have a few months, read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, written back in the 1930's; it's kinda freaky actually.

You notice the welfare fraud because it happens out in the streets where you live, you don't notice the corporate welfare because it happens behind closed doors, and it is just as bad. IMO, the corporate welfare is worse because those guys don't need the money at all, they already have plenty. There is NO NEED THERE AT ALL. At least in the individual welfare, there are some people with legitimate needs who are helped, and that's good.

I remain,
A republican abandoned by his party.

Sadly true and by far the most accurate statement made in this thread. This really is not open to interpretation. You see this mindset permeate several cultures and tax brackets in this country.