Originally Posted by Broncojef
I wish liberals would study economics 101. Obama was schooled on stage in front of America and it was embarrassing seeing just how little he understands the economy. He has been and continues to be in waaaayyyy over his head. Some of you seem stuck on his ideological misbeliefs and learned nothing while Romney was speaking last night. Lower taxes, grow the work force with legislation that actually helps business and people will be hired. With the larger work force more money comes in and we can avert making the middle class shoulder the tax burden going forward. Grow the economy not the tax rate....
The gloss that has worn off is Obama's tired rhetoric of division and his misguided policies. Those who think Obama was off his game last night are wrong...THIS IS HIS GAME. He didn't have a teleprompter or a media asking him softball questions and had to look America and a real person in the eye and he couldn't do it. Obama has sold liberals on his BS or 30 second smear ads and when you actually hear the truth from Mitt you disregard it as lies because the state run media tells you what to think. You don't have to settle on an idiot in the White House, we've tried that for the last four years. Most of you on here are struggling with the fact your Mesiah is a fraud.
Facts are broncojef's kryptonite...
The GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility......NOT!
“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” – Dick Cheney[i]
“This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”
– David Stockman, former Reagan Administration Budget Director[ii]
Republicans are “fiscally responsible” – they care about balancing budgets and keeping spending under control. Democrats, on the other hand, are reckless spendthrifts who waste taxpayer dollars on expensive programs, heaping up a horrible burden of debt for future generations.
The reality – and the irony – is that Democrats have been consistently more conscientious and competent in managing budgets than Republicans.
75% of all balanced budgets since the end of World War II have been proposed and signed into law by Democratic presidents. The last Republican president to balance the federal budget was Dwight Eisenhower in fiscal year 1961. Since then, Democratic presidents have done it five times, most recently in fiscal year 2001.
And then there’s the matter of debt, which fiscal conservatives claim to care about above all things. During the same time frame – the end of WWII to the present – under Republican presidents, the national debt (calculated as a percentage of the economy as a whole) has increased by an average of 4.7% per term. During the same period, under Democratic presidents, the national debt has decreased by an average of 6.5% (this number includes projected figures for Barack Obama’s full term, based on estimates for fiscal 2012 and 2013).[iii]
Ronald Reagan, considered the paragon of conservatism, increased the national debt by 300% after thirty years of relatively constant levels of debt (adjusted for inflation). That’s worth stating again: for thirty years, the federal debt stayed more or less the same, and then, over a period of eight years, Ronald Reagan tripled it.
Democrat Bill Clinton showed considerably more budgetary restraint, presiding over the smallest increase in the national debt since the presidency of another Democrat, Jimmy Carter. Mid-way through Clinton’s second term, the debt actually started to decline as the annual budget went into surplus for the first time since the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, another Democrat. Clinton balanced the budget four times in a row and left his successor an annual budget surplus that exceeded $200 billion.
The inheritor of this surplus, Republican George W. Bush, immediately canceled it by enacting tax cuts during his first year in office, and then again in his third year. By the time he was done, Bush had increased the national debt by 91%, saddling his successor, Barack Obama, with the largest annual budget deficit – $1.41 trillion – in the history of the United States (and, for that matter, the world).
Republicans have a long-standing tradition of ignoring fiscal reality while claiming to care deeply about it. Even now, in the Summer of 2012, four years into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, GOP leaders in the House and the Senate have pledged themselves to extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which have already cost the U.S. economy $5 trillion in lost revenue and would cost another $4 trillion over the next ten years. At the same time, they refuse to cut – or even freeze – military spending and Medicare, or to reform Social Security. So how do they propose to make up the short fall? They don’t. Evidently it’s not their problem.
On the other hand, they claim to support balanced budgets, which raises the question of how you can do that while extending tax cuts for the wealthy and refusing to cut spending on the military or popular entitlement programs. The answer is: you can’t – unless you cut everything else. And by “everything else” I mean literally everything else.
The entire U.S. government would be reduced to collecting just enough tax revenue to fund the military at current levels, pay for mandatory entitlements, and cover interest payments on the massive national debt built up by Republicans over the past thirty years. Obviously this is not going to happen – which means that Republicans are either lying, or they’re really bad at math.
Not only have Republicans failed to cut spending in order to off-set their tax cuts – they have engaged in massive levels of additional spending. With the enthusiastic complicity of Republican majorities in the House and Senate, the George W. Bush administration concealed the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the American people.
Instead of including war-related expenditures in the annual budget, they funded the wars entirely through a series of supplemental “emergency” spending measures. This was an accounting gimmick. It ensured that the real cost of the wars, which by now have cost U.S. taxpayer’s upwards of $3.5 trillion,[iv] would not be recorded in the annual budget and remain invisible to the public.
Even if you support everything about the wars and how they were waged by the Bush administration, it is simply not credible to describe funding processes and accounting procedures designed deliberately to conceal their actual cost as “fiscally responsible.”
WHAT EXPAINS THE DISCONNECT?
Republicans talk a big game
They talk incessantly about balanced budgets and spending cuts without ever doing anything about it. And they have derided Democrats as “Tax and Spend Liberals” so consistently, for so long, and with so little coordinated pushback from Democrats, that the name has stuck, despite the fact that Democrats have a much better record of fiscal responsibility than Republicans. The last time federal expenditures actually decreased from one year to the next was in 1965, when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of congress.
We’re often told that actions speak louder than words, but the GOP has proven that that’s not always the case – all too often, the opposite is true. Democrats actually balance budgets, while Republicans only talk about balancing budgets. But who gets the credit for being fiscally serious?
Tax-cut mania does not equal fiscal responsibility
Republicans confuse anti-tax ideology with fiscal responsibility, as though the two things are one and the same, when they are actually distinct and, in many respects, mutually exclusive.
By railing against taxes at every opportunity, Republicans create the impression that they are concerned with budgets – but this does not logically follow. All it means is that they’re concerned with low taxes. But, if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you are not being fiscally responsible – you’re actually being the opposite.
When you fund new programs – or wars – without raising taxes or cutting existing levels of spending, you unavoidably create deficits and increase the debt burden on future generations. That’s exactly what Republicans have been doing consistently for the past thirty years.
Republicans are hawkish about cutting things that cost virtually nothing, while ignoring real expenses
Republicans have consistently refused to be serious about cutting spending in any significant budgetary measures. They rail against foreign aid, arts funding, earmarks, “waste and fraud,” creating the impression that they are spending hawks. The problem is that even if you cut 100% of these things, it would amount to little more than 1% of the annual federal budget and have no impact at all on the ever-increasing national debt.
Earmarks amount to about $20 billion per year. Many actually go to worthy projects and programs, but even if you did away with 100% of them, you would be trimming a grand total of two-thirds of one percent (0.67%) off the federal budget.
The truth is that over 80% of the federal budget is non-discretionary: Defense (about 20%), Medicare and Medicaid (about 20%), and Social Security (about 20%), other mandatory spending (about 17%) and interest on the debt (about 5%)[v].
Democrats believe in government and in paying for it. They seek reasonable and equitable tax policies to fund programs that benefit Americans, and which Americans largely support, without building up unsustainable levels of debt.
Republicans have demonstrated that they are dedicated above all to short-term political gain by proposing lower taxes without controlling spending in any meaningful way. They use accounting tricks and distracting, deceptive rhetoric (“eliminate earmarks!” “cut foreign aid!”) to obscure their consistent record of fiscal delusion, hypocrisy and recklessness.