Do democrats actually believe in only spending without worrying about the deficit?

Question

I'm a democrat on social issues, but when it comes to the economy, i tend to lean more with the balanced budget. However, i do not support big business.

Answer 1

For years it was the Republicans who believed in smaller government, lower taxes and a balanced budget. Then Reagan came along with his idea that we could balance the budget by spending -more- and taxing -less-. As you might imagine, it was a spectacular failure. In his first term Reagan more than doubled our entire national debt. Well into his second term, though, Reagan was still insisting that his tax cuts would stimulate the economy enough to pay for themselves.

GHW Bush had originally called Reagan's idea 'voodoo economics'. But when Bush ran for president himself in 1988, he pushed the same agenda. More big tax cuts, more increases in spending. Bush also promised that he could balance the budget in 3 years!

Along comes Clinton. Clinton was the ONLY president since 1980 who actually (1) made goverment smaller (2) significantly lowered govt. spending and (3) lowered YOUR taxes if you make less than about $200,000 per year.

GW Bush, once he got into office, COULDN'T WAIT to do another big tax cut, giving away the prospective Clinton surplus. Of course his cuts, like those of Reagan and his dad, went disproportionately to the rich. NOT COUNTING the war in Iraq, Bush is the biggest spending president in our history, the one who has grown government the most, the one who has piled up the biggest deficits, and probably the most corrupt to boot.

The Republicans have completely abdicated their position as the party of fiscal responsibility and small government. I don't know how they can even pretend that they are doing a better job of this than the Democrats.

Answer 2

It seemed llike Bill Clinton's administration was moving toward a balanced budget era. In real life, not the fable that the right wing talk show bozos rave on about, our 'unbalanced' budgets were due almost entirely to the spending felt needed during the Cold War. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but unbalanced budgets were never the fault of phoney issues like 'social programs'. I don't know what 'democrats' you've been talking to, but I seriously doubt if anyone at anytime hasn't been concerned about the deficit....for the fifty years from the end of WW2 spending on the military was considered a necessary evil..an evil that was both real and hype with no real daylight between the two. Since the advent of the Bush Junta spending has gone way out of whack with reality, again spending borrowed money on an already bloated military. As long as this crew or one like it is in office this borrow and spend cycle will continue and they'll blame the democrats. Same old story!

Answer 3

Wow, I'm not sure where you get that information but it is VERY skewed. When it comes to the economy, this administration has done more harm than any in recent history. The war alone has cost I believe 750 Billion Dollars! Holy smokes, that's a lot of payola, huh? Where's this money coming' from? Taxation! I'm all for it-for schools, health, libraries, you name it, I have no problem paying taxes, it's not a sin. Spending the next generations' money/future on a horrible war...well, what can one say. And NO, I did not vote for Kerry. WE must get past this NeoCon/Liberal thing, and realize it's US and Them, and THEY control most everything and have most of the money while the rest of us are just trying to make ends meet. Balanced budget? You are kidding me right? You'd better write to some of your Republican friends in Washington like tonight!

Answer 4

the Republicans are far worse when it comes to deficit spending than Democrats heve ever been.

Under Reagan,the deficit incurred was greater than all the presidents before him combined.Under Bush 41,this was topped.

Under the current Bush,and particularly when he enjoyed a Republican majority in Congress,the surplus budget of the Clinton years has been replaced not only with a sagging deficit,the national debt has exploded to almost 10 trillion dollars,an almost 6 trillion dollar increase in six years.

You should be referencing this to the GOP.

Answer 5

annoying call. no person might desire to’ve predicted in basic terms how obstructionist Repubs may be. Like babies, they folded their arms and block & stalled & filibustered each little thing to dying, slowing the financial restoration lots the previous 2 years. The Repubs gave us a credit downgrade, filibustered each jobs bill, the record is going on. yet, we'd desire to recollect that the deficit has long gone down. And that Obama presented much less NEW SPENDING than any President in a protracted time.

Answer 6

Neither party deserves much credit on the budget. However, there are deficit hawks in both parties. The Concord Coalition (one of the leading groups working for a balanced budget) was formed by key former Senators from both parties (Warren Rudman and the late Paul Tsongas).

Answer 7

what?? I don't understand your question? Are you suggesting that only republicans balance budgets? If so WHEN??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

maybe this will provide some insight - because right now you seem a little confused my friend... the 109th (republican led) congress handed out countless blank checks to GW like 'money ain't a thang'

Answer 8

Democrats are threatening new ways of taxing the people almost every day. They have no idea how to balance a budget.

Answer 9

Do you know what the Bush administration has done to our deficit? Compare that to Clinton's record. One thing that politics is not is black and white. Everyone from one party is not the same as everyone else.

Answer 10

well Clinton was a democrat = record surplus

Bush republican = record deficit

any other questions?

ya sure -thor-tor- Clinton signed the bills that he wanted - do you think the current democrat congress could get Bush to sign anything he didn't agree to?
certainly you're not that ignorant