The Democratic Party is the party of fiscal irresponsibility

I would suggest that all politicians belong to the "party of fiscal irrisponsibility". The Dems used to be worse than the Republicans but clearly that's not the case now. Plus you have to be totally naive to think that one party won't use this to attack another when they see the opportunity - Democrat or Republican.

Remember, politicians need to "do" stuff in order to raionalize their offices and to further their agendas. The only way they can really do anything is by spending money on their pet projects. The best politician, IMHO, would be one that locked up his/her office (maybe with the exception of a secretary who answered mail and the phone "he's not in may I take a message") and didn't do anything.

 

So just because some of us support the War in Iraq, we're all automatically apologists for everything the Reupblicans do? OK, right.

Look some of us can actually admit when the party we support doesn't live up to what we expected. There are many fiscal conservatives who already knew this and this article doesn't really do anything to change anyone's mind one way or the other.

It should tell you something about the state of the Democratic party when these same fiscal conservatives upset at the spending of the Republicans STILL won't vote Democrat.

Now, I shall return to the peanut gallery. Please do the same.

 

The problem though is that some fiscal conservatives don't see the Democratic party as any improvement. In fact, a case can be made that the debt would worsen under a Democratic administration.

Basically we have a system where it is political disaster to argue for tax-hikes (which probably do increase revenue in the short-term), political disaster to argue for defense cuts, and political disaster to argue for spending cuts of just about any kind. So tax cuts + increased spending =

 

Is anyone in the United States fiscally responsible anymore? My budget has been in the red ever since I got married.

 

The only way to force spending cuts is to have massive tax cuts that cause big deficits. No politician is going to cut programs without deficits forcing them to. Every program that money is spent on has people that support it, and cutting that program can cost the votes of those people.

 

This was the Bush theory. Of course, then instead of cutting programs, they changed to "deficits are no big deal and necessary in a recession" while at the same time saying "the economy is strong and growing".

People forget that you don't have to actually cut government - you just have to grow it slower than the economy. Which actually happened during the Clinton era w/ a Republican Congress - a divided government is the key to this, because then the only things that pass are the things that both parties agree on to some extent. Gridlock is great for controlling government spending.

 

Excellent, and this solution presents itself at a ballot box near the friendly voter during the '06 midterm elections.
Let's promote responsible government... vote for gridlock! Vote Democratic! Vote for fiscal sanity, forced upon Washington by divided government!

(Major, I saw your request for an e-mail from me. I meant to get back to you about it. Been kinda busy... well, distracted might be a better word. I'm intending to get another e-mail address for this sort of thing. The atmosphere here in Austin is making me increasingly cautious about possibly letting my identity get known. I have a close family member who has to worry about staying under the radar. Hope you understand, and I'll get to you when I think I've figured that stuff out. I'm e-mail challenged, I guess. )



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Send me an email through the board and I will send you a gmail invite.

 

When exactly was the last time this worked? Reagan tried it and it was Clinton who finally erased those deficits. Bush has tried it now and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight to the drunken sailor-like spending that the GOP is engaged in.