YourMomma wrote:Or live up to it when they take back power.
Yeah, but look at what I just posted. If that article and graph are accurate - and the source is apparently left-leaning, so possibly they aren't - Obama's discretionary spending accounts for a fraction of the long-term deficit.
Seems like what usually happens is the GOP takes power, lowers taxes and increases spending until the shit hits the fan, then the Dems take office and get saddled with the consequences of the Republicans' horrible fiscal policies.
This is just an example of neither side wanting to tell the people what really should be done if the deficit is to be drastically reduced. It's simple, cut the entitlement programs and repeal the Bush Tax cuts, and then there won't be a deficit. But those Tea Party Douches won't want to hear that they can't have their Medicare and Social Security.
Personally I'm all for it. If you're going to be the party of "fiscal responsibility", then be honest with the people and tell them no more entitlement programs or spending is what needs to be done to "fix" the deficit and the National Debt. But neither party wants to do this because the people don't seem to want it.
YourMomma wrote:That's right. When they should be cutting taxes but reducing spending at the same time. A pipe dream, I know.
I think it's fantasy that you could balance the budget by cutting taxes. Every time taxes are cut the deficits balloon. How about don't cut taxes but do reduce spending, and maybe the budget could be balanced?