We were told Obama had all the answers. Obama his own self said so: "Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."
we all weren't willing to work, fight or believe in it. maybe if republicans cared more about the american people than besting Obama, maybe more of this could've happened.
oh brother. Yeah, try austerity cuts, tell me how that worked out in the South Asian countries, and how it's working out in England and Greece. tallanvor, you talk in generalities. How would you reduce the deficit? Your solution isn't a solution. It's like saying "I'm going to keep to solve my money woes by winning the lottery." How would you tackle the deficit? You have no doubt seen some of my ideas--- cutting oil subsidies cutting military aid to Israel cutting military budgets cutting the nuclear arsenal cutting ethanol subsidies ending the war on drugs---legalize+regulate+tax+++much less prisoners ending mandatory minimum sentencing stop the contracts of private security firms (Blackwater) implement cap and trade higher inheritance tax close tax loopholes, especially corporate tax loopholes Those are specific ideas. Where are your specific ideas? Other than a vague "cut entitlements". But where, and how? Yeah, but way to skip over Eisenhower balancing the budget with 80%+ top marginal tax rates. And, let's face it, how many plaudits can you really give a Republican Congress who managed to balance the deficit for a few years that corresponded with the artificial and irrationally exuberant dot-com boom in the American economy, where even a monkey could have generated a surplus out of the artificial sense of economic optimism Dogs.com made?
Keynesian economics takes some time to blossom (which is why Reagen manages to steal credit for essentially what was a Keynesian recovery), and the President is well aware of that. Also, way to read into a campaign bit and imply he's Superman, I don't even think the naivest Obama supporter would have thought any of this was possible this early, especially with an obstructionist opposition on the other end.
If you want a more specific answer go start a new thread. I was vague on purpose. In the last 50 years Republicans have led Congress for 9. So the Republicans have managed to produce a balanced budget 4 out of the 9 years they led Congress. Not great, but better than the Democrats. In the last 50 years Democrats have led Congress for 33 and have produced 2 balanced budgets ('60, '69). Which party would you say is more fiscally responsible? Here are the exact numbers if you want: Spoiler President Dwight Eisnehower (Left office Jan. 20, 1961) 1960 Democrat YES $301 million 1961 Democrat No --$3.3 billion President John F. Kennedy (Assassinated Nov. 22, 1963) 1962 Democrat No --$7.1 billion 1963 Democrat No --$4.8 billion 1964 Democrat No --$5.9 billion President Lyndon B. Johnson (Left office Jan. 20, 1969) 1965 Democrat No --$1.4 billion 1966 Democrat No --$3.7 billion 1967 Democrat No --$8.6 billion 1968 Democrat No --$25.2 billion 1969 Democrat YES $3.2 billion President Richard M. Nixon (Resigned Aug. 9, 1974) 1970 Democrat No --$2.8 billion 1971 Democrat No --$23.0 billion 1972 Democrat No --$23.4 billion 1973 Democrat No --$14.9 billion 1974 Democrat No --$6.1 billion 1975 Democrat No --$53.2 billion President Gerald Ford (Left office Jan. 20, 1977) 1976 Democrat No --$73.7 billion 1977 Democrat No --$53.7 billion President Jimmy Carter (Left office Jan. 20, 1981) 1978 Democrat No --$59.1 billion 1979 Democrat No --$40.7 billion 1980 Democrat No --$73.8 billion 1981 Democrat No --$78.9 billion President Ronald W. Reagan (Left office Jan. 20, 1989) 1982 Split No --$127.9 billion 1983 Split No --$207.8 billion 1984 Split No --$185.3 billion 1985 Split No --$212.3 billion 1986 Split No --$221.2 billion 1987 Split No --$149.7 billion 1988 Democrat No --$155.1 billion 1989 Democrat No --$152.6 billion President George H.W. Bush (Left office Jan. 20, 1993) 1990 Democrat No --$221.0 billion 1991 Democrat No --$269.2 billion 1992 Democrat No --$290.3 billion 1993 Democrat No --$255.0 billion President William J. Clinton (Left office Jan. 20, 2001) 1994 Democrat No --$203.2 billion 1995 Democrat No --$163.9 billion 1996 Republican No --$107.4 billion 1997 Republican No --$21.9 billion 1998 Republican YES $69.2 billion 1999 Republican YES $125.6 billion 2000 Republican YES $236.2 billion 2001 Republican YES $128.2 billion President George W. Bush (Left office Jan. 20, 2009) 2002 Split No --$157.8 billion 2003 Split No --$377.6 billion 2004 Republican No --$412.7 billion 2005 Republican No --$318.3 billion 2006 Republican No --$248.2 billion 2007 Democrat No --$160.7 billion 2008 Democrat No --$458.6 billion 2009 Democrat No --$1.41 trillion President Barack Obama 2010 Democrat No --$1.55 trillion How anyone can look at those numbers and say ' Well I want to reduce the deficit, so my best bet is to vote Democrat ' is beyond me. They have set records the last three years, and that's not due to inflation. When given an environment where no Republican could stop them they produced a budget that tripled the last one in debt. Then they beat that the next year. Unbelievable. If you want a balanced budget, you don't want Democrats in office (but you probably don't want Republicans either).
Interesting why you didn't run a little further back to the 1950s, since that's right about when the Democratic-controlled Congress facing Eisenhower was throwing up surpluses like mad with...well what do you know, high marginal tax rates. Of course, conservatives always bring up the "well, the economy was roaring, demographic boom and blah blah blah, so you can't tell us nothing about the fact that one of the most balanced eras of American budgeting came when marginal tax rates were historically the highest!". Well, I throw this same argument to you. You just corroborated my claim that a Republican Congress is equivalent to a lucky monkey. Those 4 years match up EXACTLY with the dot com boom, where like I said, even a village idiot could have balanced the budget.
I didn't say the Republicans were fiscally responsible. In fact I said they aren't. What I did say was that the Republicans were more fiscally responsible than the Democrats. And the numbers prove it.
What, the out of context numbers that specifically go out of their way to omit when Democratic-led congresses were most successful at balancing the budget, and highlights the Republican-led congress and their ability to follow the wave of the dot com boom, as I must point out time and again?
Unemployment down by .4%? Way to go tea party! Austerity ftw! Austrian economics works much faster than Keynesian Economics!
I hear a broken clock. George W. Bush cut taxes several times while fighting two wars, an incredibly irresponsible act without precedent in United States history. What say you to that? George W. Bush cut taxes several times while fighting two wars, an incredibly irresponsible act without precedent in United States history. That fact is an enormous part of our current budget crisis. The same political party in power at the time, the Republican Party, constantly put spending bills larded with pork on his desk and Mr. Bush didn't veto one of them. What say you to that? You know what? You are an ignoramus posing as a joke. With all respect due.
