New Jersey & You

[XtremeJibber2001]

They've done a great job of balancing the budget and cutting back on the size of government.

http://news.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGBV37QNEPE.html

From the above link;

Surprise Tax Revenue To Shave $100 Billion Off U.S. Deficit

"The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses"

Wait how can this be, the Dems and the main stream media has been reporting for the past 6-1/2 years that the "Corporations and the "fat Cats are getting all the tax beaks and arn't paying their fair share, I'm so confused. They'll never get it, cutting taxes Always results in increased tax revenues, the God of the Dem's John F Kennedy knew this why don't they ever get it. Oh well

.... "stock market profits" .... I thought the market was horrible right now?

Note: G-Smashed managed to bring in GWB & Sean Hannity AND the Republican controlled House/Senate in a discussion about a democrat governor in the state of NJ. Hows that for defending your peoples.

Leave it to a Lib to defend a Dem Gov's actions by refutting to GWB and friends.

[Cityskier]

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit,"said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed."

I've altered the quote you've cited and changed it to how it should read.

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit,"said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed. To fix the deficit, we should tax those that are successful, use those funds to pay off the deficit, and then redistribute the wealth to those of whom who are less successful."

Either way, it's better that estimates are wrong and we spent even less then we had anticipated. It's a win for all taxpayers, amidst one of the largest deficits in History.

"How it should read"?!?!?!

Who the hell do you think you are, other than some uninformed, ignorant kid.

The Bush administration made a choice to go to war and we all must pay for this decision. I don't know how many history classes you have taken, but wars and tax cuts don't exactly work well together. The leadership this country has received every step of the way since this conflict began has been abominable. We were insulted by estimates that this conflict would cost some 50-60 billion dollars at the outset and now of been reading that the congressional budget office is estimating the cost to be 1.27 trillion dollars before it is all said and done. Yet people make a big deal that the defecit is less than projected.

There's more to what's going on than the headlines you read. If you could think for yourself you'd realize you're just getting suckered.

[yeti]

I always get a kick out of it when one Jerseyite asks another, "what exit are you off of?"

[XtremeJibber2001]

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit,"said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed."

I've altered the quote you've cited and changed it to how it should read.

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit,"said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed. To fix the deficit, we should tax those that are successful, use those funds to pay off the deficit, and then redistribute the wealth to those of whom who are less successful."

Either way, it's better that estimates are wrong and we spent even less then we had anticipated. It's a win for all taxpayers, amidst one of the largest deficits in History.

"How it should read"?!?!?!

Who the hell do you think you are, other than some uninformed, ignorant kid.

The Bush administration made a choice to go to war and we all must pay for this decision. I don't know how many history classes you have taken, but wars and tax cuts don't exactly work well together. The leadership this country has received every step of the way since this conflict began has been abominable. We were insulted by estimates that this conflict would cost some 50-60 billion dollars at the outset and now of been reading that the congressional budget office is estimating the cost to be 1.27 trillion dollars before it is all said and done. Yet people make a big deal that the defecit is less than projected.

There's more to what's going on than the headlines you read. If you could think for yourself you'd realize you're just getting suckered.

Kid? I won't give you that. Ignorant? You may have a case there, depending what subject you pick.

Lets start here ....

"Bush administration made a choice to go to war"

- No, congress voted and passed legislature that allowed GWB to wage war. Overwhelmingly passed it, if you recall.

"I don't know how many history classes you have taken, but wars and tax cuts don't exactly work well together."

- No, they don't work well. The war was inevitable IMHO, which is shown by what politians were saying on both sides of the fence given the pre-war intelligence. That being said, we're involved in a war, how would you stimulate the economy ... raising taxes? Please share this secret with me because I am but ignorant.

"The leadership this country has received every step of the way since this conflict began has been abominable."

- Agreed. With some reservations.

"We were insulted by estimates that this conflict would cost some 50-60 billion dollars at the outset and now of been reading that the congressional budget office is estimating the cost to be 1.27 trillion dollars before it is all said and done."

- You work in a publicly traded company, right? Hell, you could work for a private firm or a non-prof company. How many projects have you been on that ran over budget? Just last year a project I was part of ran $13 million over budget. Considering how poor DC is fiscally, is this REALLY shocking?

"Yet people make a big deal that the defecit is less than projected."

- We're going to save $100 billion on the deficit. That's not a big thing to you? What is a big thing to you .... $200 billion of the deficit? The deficit sucks either way, I'm happy we saved what we did.

Now I know I already asked you how to wage an active war and stimulate the economy without tax cuts .... but cutting back to the real issue, just what do you think this comment means:

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed."

If this doesn't mean Reid wants to tax the rich and give to the poor in addition to getting rid of the deficit, then why bring up the rich?

[XtremeJibber2001]

http://www.brandens.net/files/Sounds/FX ... RICKET.WAV

[Cityskier]

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit,"said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed."

I've altered the quote you've cited and changed it to how it should read.

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit,"said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed. To fix the deficit, we should tax those that are successful, use those funds to pay off the deficit, and then redistribute the wealth to those of whom who are less successful."

Either way, it's better that estimates are wrong and we spent even less then we had anticipated. It's a win for all taxpayers, amidst one of the largest deficits in History.

"How it should read"?!?!?!

Who the hell do you think you are, other than some uninformed, ignorant kid.

The Bush administration made a choice to go to war and we all must pay for this decision. I don't know how many history classes you have taken, but wars and tax cuts don't exactly work well together. The leadership this country has received every step of the way since this conflict began has been abominable. We were insulted by estimates that this conflict would cost some 50-60 billion dollars at the outset and now of been reading that the congressional budget office is estimating the cost to be 1.27 trillion dollars before it is all said and done. Yet people make a big deal that the defecit is less than projected.

There's more to what's going on than the headlines you read. If you could think for yourself you'd realize you're just getting suckered.

Kid? I won't give you that. Ignorant? You may have a case there, depending what subject you pick.

A funny thing happens to people, XJ. The more you learn, the less your realize you know. The world expands into something you didn't comprehend in your youth. You act like a kid so I deal with you like one. Maybe if you're lucky someday you'll understand what I mean.

Lets start here ....

"Bush administration made a choice to go to war"

- No, congress voted and passed legislature that allowed GWB to wage war. Overwhelmingly passed it, if you recall.

"Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.

The intensive war planning throughout 2002 created its own momentum, according to "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not be removed from power except through a war and CIA Director George J. Tenet's assurance to the president that it was a "slam dunk" case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction."

You have an amusing way of abdicating presidential power when it serves your purposes. I certainly don't deny that congress authorized action, but questioning the impetus behind what came about is quite a sad display. Just for laughs:

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate



March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH




"I don't know how many history classes you have taken, but wars and tax cuts don't exactly work well together."

- No, they don't work well. The war was inevitable IMHO, which is shown by what politians were saying on both sides of the fence given the pre-war intelligence. That being said, we're involved in a war, how would you stimulate the economy ... raising taxes? Please share this secret with me because I am but ignorant.

Your opinion doen't carry a whole lot of weight around here. Your leap to tha fact that we're involved in a war skips a crucial part of the process I was attempting to discuss. You can be patronizing all day long. It simply makes you look foolish. That being said, the interesting aspect of this war is an administration attempting to keep it business as usual on the homefront while their decisions abroad are a cancer to the economic health of the nation.

"The leadership this country has received every step of the way since this conflict began has been abominable."

- Agreed. With some reservations.

"We were insulted by estimates that this conflict would cost some 50-60 billion dollars at the outset and now of been reading that the congressional budget office is estimating the cost to be 1.27 trillion dollars before it is all said and done."

- You work in a publicly traded company, right? Hell, you could work for a private firm or a non-prof company. How many projects have you been on that ran over budget? Just last year a project I was part of ran $13 million over budget. Considering how poor DC is fiscally, is this REALLY shocking?

Yes, being wrong by a factor of 25 when the starting point is $50 billion ($50,000,000,000 for you visual people) is shocking, not to mention apalling. I'm pretty sure I'd be relieved of my duties if I turned a $50,000,000,000 liability into a $1,250,000,000,000 (1.25 TRILLION) liability.

Budget overruns...they just happen!

"Yet people make a big deal that the defecit is less than projected."

- We're going to save $100 billion on the deficit. That's not a big thing to you? What is a big thing to you .... $200 billion of the deficit? The deficit sucks either way, I'm happy we saved what we did.

A big thing to me would be fiscal responsibilty. We had Geroge himself announcing this windfall as if it were some huge administration success. You can bet your bottom dollar that he wanted nothing to do with the reporting of the deficit number at other times during his reign.

Now I know I already asked you how to wage an active war and stimulate the economy without tax cuts .... but cutting back to the real issue, just what do you think this comment means:

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed."

If this doesn't mean Reid wants to tax the rich and give to the poor in addition to getting rid of the deficit, then why bring up the rich?

I'm more than happy to debate you XJ, but I refuse to do your homework. The distribution of wealth in this country has been shifting at an alarming rate. While you can view this as the American Dream Come True, the issues go deeper. Look at who has benefited most from GWB's tax cuts. You can rest assured it hasn't been the working poor. Our government is charged with protecting all of it's citizens, not just the highest bidder. In an age where only the wealthy can successfully attain office in our government maybe it would be wise to be a little more hesitant in your glee to let go of whatever small impact you may have.

[XtremeJibber2001]

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit,"said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed."

I've altered the quote you've cited and changed it to how it should read.

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit,"said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed. To fix the deficit, we should tax those that are successful, use those funds to pay off the deficit, and then redistribute the wealth to those of whom who are less successful."

Either way, it's better that estimates are wrong and we spent even less then we had anticipated. It's a win for all taxpayers, amidst one of the largest deficits in History.

"How it should read"?!?!?!

Who the hell do you think you are, other than some uninformed, ignorant kid.

The Bush administration made a choice to go to war and we all must pay for this decision. I don't know how many history classes you have taken, but wars and tax cuts don't exactly work well together. The leadership this country has received every step of the way since this conflict began has been abominable. We were insulted by estimates that this conflict would cost some 50-60 billion dollars at the outset and now of been reading that the congressional budget office is estimating the cost to be 1.27 trillion dollars before it is all said and done. Yet people make a big deal that the defecit is less than projected.

There's more to what's going on than the headlines you read. If you could think for yourself you'd realize you're just getting suckered.

Kid? I won't give you that. Ignorant? You may have a case there, depending what subject you pick.

A funny thing happens to people, XJ. The more you learn, the less your realize you know. The world expands into something you didn't comprehend in your youth. You act like a kid so I deal with you like one. Maybe if you're lucky someday you'll understand what I mean.

You're probably right.

Lets start here ....

"Bush administration made a choice to go to war"

- No, congress voted and passed legislature that allowed GWB to wage war. Overwhelmingly passed it, if you recall.

"Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.

The intensive war planning throughout 2002 created its own momentum, according to "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not be removed from power except through a war and CIA Director George J. Tenet's assurance to the president that it was a "slam dunk" case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction."

You have an amusing way of abdicating presidential power when it serves your purposes. I certainly don't deny that congress authorized action, but questioning the impetus behind what came about is quite a sad display. Just for laughs:

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH


The President had plans to go to war. Still doesn't explain why congress voted overwhelmingly for it ... especially when the intelligence was supposidly questionable. The same intelligence that many previous admins also used and concluded Saddam had WMD's.

"I don't know how many history classes you have taken, but wars and tax cuts don't exactly work well together."

- No, they don't work well. The war was inevitable IMHO, which is shown by what politians were saying on both sides of the fence given the pre-war intelligence. That being said, we're involved in a war, how would you stimulate the economy ... raising taxes? Please share this secret with me because I am but ignorant.

Your opinion doen't carry a whole lot of weight around here. Your leap to tha fact that we're involved in a war skips a crucial part of the process I was attempting to discuss. You can be patronizing all day long. It simply makes you look foolish. That being said, the interesting aspect of this war is an administration attempting to keep it business as usual on the homefront while their decisions abroad are a cancer to the economic health of the nation.

We would have went to war with Iraq despite the fact that the president was Democrat or Republican, IMHO. I asked before, how do you stimulate an economy during a war? For sake of your point, how would stimulate the economy even if there wasn't a war going on that you had to pay for? In either case, I'd guess your answer is to lower taxes.

"The leadership this country has received every step of the way since this conflict began has been abominable."

- Agreed. With some reservations.

"We were insulted by estimates that this conflict would cost some 50-60 billion dollars at the outset and now of been reading that the congressional budget office is estimating the cost to be 1.27 trillion dollars before it is all said and done."

- You work in a publicly traded company, right? Hell, you could work for a private firm or a non-prof company. How many projects have you been on that ran over budget? Just last year a project I was part of ran $13 million over budget. Considering how poor DC is fiscally, is this REALLY shocking?

Yes, being wrong by a factor of 25 when the starting point is $50 billion ($50,000,000,000 for you visual people) is shocking, not to mention apalling. I'm pretty sure I'd be relieved of my duties if I turned a $50,000,000,000 liability into a $1,250,000,000,000 (1.25 TRILLION) liability.

Budget overruns...they just happen!

Maybe you're right that you would personally lose your job. Look at Microsoft, Vista is being delayed time and time again and their stock is taking a huge hit. I'm willing to bet they're over double their original estimates they made in 2001 with Longhorn (now Vista). This stuff happens is my point as you put above.

"Yet people make a big deal that the defecit is less than projected."

- We're going to save $100 billion on the deficit. That's not a big thing to you? What is a big thing to you .... $200 billion of the deficit? The deficit sucks either way, I'm happy we saved what we did.

A big thing to me would be fiscal responsibilty. We had Geroge himself announcing this windfall as if it were some huge administration success. You can bet your bottom dollar that he wanted nothing to do with the reporting of the deficit number at other times during his reign.

I don't think it's a "huge" success, but it's better than an extra $100 billion in debt, don't you agree?

Now I know I already asked you how to wage an active war and stimulate the economy without tax cuts .... but cutting back to the real issue, just what do you think this comment means:

"Let's not boast about a $300 billion deficit," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Any statistic you look at recognizes the rich in America are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed."

If this doesn't mean Reid wants to tax the rich and give to the poor in addition to getting rid of the deficit, then why bring up the rich?

I'm more than happy to debate you XJ, but I refuse to do your homework. The distribution of wealth in this country has been shifting at an alarming rate. While you can view this as the American Dream Come True, the issues go deeper. Look at who has benefited most from GWB's tax cuts. You can rest assured it hasn't been the working poor. Our government is charged with protecting all of it's citizens, not just the highest bidder. In an age where only the wealthy can successfully attain office in our government maybe it would be wise to be a little more hesitant in your glee to let go of whatever small impact you may have.

...newly released IRS data refute the charge that the Bush tax cuts favored “the rich” and instead show that all income groups benefited from the reforms.

...New IRS data for the 2002 tax year … provide a window into the effects of the initial Bush tax cuts on taxpayers, broken down by income. The results clearly show the across-the-board nature of the tax reductions and refute claims that the changes benefited higher-income taxpayers to the detriment of lower-income households.

...the average rate of taxation for those earning under $75,000 dropped by 2.1 percentage points between 2000 and 2002, while the rate for those earning $75,000 or more declined by only 1.6 percentage points.

... [For households making $200,000 or more, the] average rate of taxation was practically unchanged at 30 percent in 2002 compared with 29.9 percent in 2000.

The first round of Bush tax cuts thus was unquestionably equitable. ...it still managed to spread the benefits of lower tax rates to all income groups in roughly equal measure.

You know ... I do have a "small impact" on society and the economy as a whole. That doesn't excuse me to wish high taxes on the rich because they're merely more successful then I. I'm sure you and I want the same conclusion, but I will never ask for a handout or any tax hike on any one/group individual(s) just because they make more. I make decent money now, but if I ever make $200K a year or $2 million a year I never want to be taxed purely to provide to those less successful/fortunate ... I'll give my money to those I feel need it or donate to the charity of my choosing. Why should I be taxed more just because I do well in life? I'm for a flat tax that is equal for all Americans, what are you for?

[Bubba]

Democrat wanting to take more of your money? shocking!

You see the more money they collect, the more votes they can buy from recipients of their programs, the longer they can stay in power - old play book - and they keep going back to it because they have no new ideas. Only thing keeping this party alive is the fact that the war in Iraq is being drawn out so long.

If you think it's only Democrats, you obviously haven't looked at what our Republican controlled US Congress (with a Republican in the White House) has been doing the past 5.5 years.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Democrat wanting to take more of your money? shocking!

You see the more money they collect, the more votes they can buy from recipients of their programs, the longer they can stay in power - old play book - and they keep going back to it because they have no new ideas. Only thing keeping this party alive is the fact that the war in Iraq is being drawn out so long.

If you think it's only Democrats, you obviously haven't looked at what our Republican controlled US Congress (with a Republican in the White House) has been doing the past 5.5 years.

Yea ... GWB is practically a Democrat considering his spending!

[Dr. NO]

I always get a kick out of people blaming this president and congress for the deficit spending, and then blame Regan for his deficit spending and how THEY are the cause for our National Debt to be so out of control. Maybe you should look at how the dept has grown over the last 70 years, since FDR. Prior to him, we had no or little Nation Debt. Since him, the Congress has been on a spending spree with all the FREE money we give them in TAXES. It wasn't Regan and it isn't Bush. It WAS the Dems and continues to be the CONGRESS, currently Republican, that spends all that money and creates DEBT.

And at the state level, Yep, they have to have a balanced budget, but they will balance it with "New Revenues" rather than attempt to reduce spending.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I always get a kick out of people blaming this president and congress for the deficit spending, and then blame Regan for his deficit spending and how THEY are the cause for our National Debt to be so out of control. Maybe you should look at how the dept has grown over the last 70 years, since FDR. Prior to him, we had no or little Nation Debt. Since him, the Congress has been on a spending spree with all the FREE money we give them in TAXES. It wasn't Regan and it isn't Bush. It WAS the Dems and continues to be the CONGRESS, currently Republican, that spends all that money and creates DEBT.

And at the state level, Yep, they have to have a balanced budget, but they will balance it with "New Revenues" rather than attempt to reduce spending.

To clarify myself ... GWB spends alot more then a typical republican IMHO ... not to mention he's broadening the power and size of the gov't, something typical of a Democrat.

I don't remember who said it in here, probably you Dr. No .... I think we should only be taxed to provide for a military and other basics. All these wasteful programs need to go.

[St. Jerry]

I always get a kick out of people blaming this president and congress for the deficit spending, and then blame Regan for his deficit spending and how THEY are the cause for our National Debt to be so out of control. Maybe you should look at how the dept has grown over the last 70 years, since FDR. Prior to him, we had no or little Nation Debt. Since him, the Congress has been on a spending spree with all the FREE money we give them in TAXES. It wasn't Regan and it isn't Bush. It WAS the Dems and continues to be the CONGRESS, currently Republican, that spends all that money and creates DEBT.

And at the state level, Yep, they have to have a balanced budget, but they will balance it with "New Revenues" rather than attempt to reduce spending.

To clarify myself ... GWB spends alot more then a typical republican IMHO ... not to mention he's broadening the power and size of the gov't, something typical of a Democrat.

I don't remember who said it in here, probably you Dr. No .... I think we should only be taxed to provide for a military and other basics. All these wasteful programs need to go.

I can easily think of a current "program" that is a waste of billions every month. I've calculated that it has personally cost me over $5,000 in taxes so far (with no end in sight).