Quote:
Probably not. But I think if the Democrats had been in power they'd have likely spent the money somewhere else other than tax breaks- I doubt they would have made any serious dent in our downward spiral of debt.

The tax breaks weren't a matter of spending money, they were a matter of borrowing the money to pay for the tax breaks.

The Bush "budget" is a joke. He presents his budget every year without including his biggest project, Iraq. This year, he failed to include any money for overhauling social security, his biggest domestic pet project. He then goes on include income from drilling in the artic national wildlife refuge, a propsal which has been shot down every year by a congress controlled by his own party. His budget director defended the ANWR drilling income by saying: 'the budget is the right place to present the entirety of the president's policies, so all of his proposals are reflected in there.' The absurdity of that comment is priceless, really.

Clinton, love him or hate him, balanced the budget. They may have been richer times, but it wasn't something trivial to do. I remember my mother being home from work because the federal government was shut down because Clinton wasn't signing an unbalanced budget.

I grew up being told that those big spending democrats would be the death of the country. The truth of the matter seems to be that the problem is not that the democrats want to spend more money, but that they want to spend it on social programs instead of the worlds largest standing army.

Matthew