If conservatives are so conservative, why can't the presidents they elect balance the budget?

Question

Bush Jr. has had six years of a Republican held congress. He has no desire to balance the budget, phony war or no phony war. Reagan and Bush Sr. had the the largest deficits in history until "What Me Worry? became president.

For those who want to spend more than they have, there is always an excuse.

Answer 1

The tax-cut Republicans won the battle with the deficit hawks.
(Old-school Republicans like my father are furious!)
The Bushies don't care about deficits. Their primary economic philosophy is the utterly discredited belief that low taxes on the wealthy drive growth.

Today's dirty little secret -- people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $90,000 of income. Someone who makes $1 million pays no more into Social Security than a couple who both hold perfectly common $45,000-a-year jobs.
The punchy line? EVERY economist, regardless of political stripe or affiliation, agrees that all the talk of a looming shortfall would be meaningless if those people simply paid the same percentage that you and I do. If the govwernment would lift the $90,000 cap, THERE IS NO SHORTFALL.

But, as Leona Helmsley noted, only the little people pay taxes.

Answer 2

Well, as I understand it the budget is close to balanced with one exception; the spending on the war in Iraq. Also, right now tax revenue is higher than at any time during the Clinton administration while having the Bush tax cuts. The budget deficit is comparatively small; I believe it’s less than 1% of our GDP. Now our overall deficit is large, in the trillions.

Im a conservative and without arguing the morality of the war, I understand the reason to spend during a war.

Here are some positives about Bush:

-Unemployment is at an historic low.
-Tax Revenue is up
-Taxes have been lowered
-Our economy nation wide has seen a boom
-Pulled us through a recession in 2001

While you ask these question, all I ask is you consider the positives that have occurred.

EDIT: After reading some of the comments I had to respond. With Regan and now Bush many people could assume a paradigm shift. That now Republicans have become "Tax and spend". That’s just not true. Yes during Reagan and now Bush, spending was relatively high but that money was going to the defense department. Conservative have a problem with "Tax and spend" when it comes to social programs, we see it as futile. However, spending on defense when needed is useful.

If we had not had the war in Iraq and Afghanistan we would have an enormous surplus much greater than what was seen at the end of the Clinton era. The budget would be balanced with many unnecessary government programs reduced or cut. As I see it, with the exception to the war, Bush has acted as a typical conservative.

The trick is not to get caught up into partisan politics! Our congress does enough of that for everyone already!

Answer 3

Um, you have made the classic and quite tiresome mistake of utilising 'conservative' and 'Republican' as synonyms. they are no longer. That being pronounced, sure, I do quite need the funds to be balanced. besides the undeniable fact that... a million. what's employer welfare? do no longer you realize that as quickly as a company will pay taxes, it is YOU who're paying those taxes? 2. No bid contracts are uncommon and while used needed. Halliburton is a solid occasion. are you able to think of of every person interior the middle East that had the kit, components and documents to do what Halliburton ought to do from day a million? No, you won't be able to, by fact such does not exist. 3. Our military is between the few government entities that works and does a solid job. we could decrease our government in a million/2, actually 50%, do away with a million/2 a dozen cabinet point departments and not observe a wit of distinction or be affected in any way negatively. guidance? Agriculture? branch of potential? wellness and human centers? Housing and city progression? those are all interior sight subject concerns wherein the federal government performs basically a unfavorable place. What have the feds executed that has benefited guidance, agriculture, housing or human centers in any way. those courses are state courses administered fantastically much completely via the state and mandated via the fed. the size, scope, authority and attain of the federal government into our lives and local subject concerns is out of freakin' administration. So, yeah. i'm extreme. intestine the mummy f**ker!

Answer 4

Bush would rather play on his Howdy Doody ranch then balance the budget. It's easier for him to count tumble weeds and hay stacks...

This just in: Bush wins cow chip tossing contest. News on Fox (fair and unbalanced). Sean Hannity was the MC. Alan Colmes was designated as part of the clean-up crew.

Answer 5

Because the crop of conservatives beginning with Reagan aren't fiscally conservative. That position has been taken over by the democrats contrary to the tax and spend talking points used by the right to smear them.

Answer 6

Now Chuck, you know the answer to that. The President, regardless of his political affiliation, does not create the budget. That is done by the Congress. The President only has the power to veto. Which, I will agree, should be done much more often.

Only Congress can balance the budget.

Answer 7

Even using $100.00 bills, the budget would weigh in well over one million pounds. I could not even purport to lift that, much less balance it. And forget balancing it on the end of a broomstick.

Answer 8

Absolutely

Answer 9

They believe in a much smaller government, small enough to fit into your bedroom to keep an eye on what you are doing. That however, is a bit expensive as Haliburton, KBR and all require no bid, cost plus contracts to watch us with our significant others, spouses or whatever.

~

Answer 10

Only congress has the power over whether or not the budget is balanced. You might want to read article one of the constitution.