I think you kind of answered the same way I did. It is the pork, and vote buying schemes that are causing the problems. Not tax cuts. It has been proven time and again that revenues are increased when the money is not being horded by government. Including under this President. Actually deficits were largely reduced a couple of years back due to more federal revenues. But the problem remains government spending. I know some of it's necessary. We are in a war after all. But if we cut out the pork and alot of the programs for the social services vultures, we would be alot better off.

I'm not talking illegals but they are part of it. I'm talking actual security as in stop baddies crossing the borders. On top of that it would also cut down on drug running. I agree with you on everything you've said.
The southern border is 1952 miles. After 6 years there is a bill that only covers 700 miles. As far as I know the funds haven't even been released yet.

I agree, the govt needs to secure the border, seriously.

Ok, an exception for you :smug:

Lets be realistic. The cost of pork isn't a pimple on 3.9 trillion dollars. This tax cut actually cost money. As far as war this is the only president in our history that gave a tax cut in time of war. According to Bush we should have a surplus by 2012. I can't say yay or nay. It depends on the following presidents. This one showed you can go from black ink to red ink in record time.

Here is an actual neutral look for this year.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22473.html

This is a look at 2007 slanted medical cuts:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38989.php

Here's a nifty look at things:
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Tax cuts costs no money whatsoever. The money does not belong to the government to begin with. The government does not create any wealth whatsoever. The people who risk capital do. The people who work do. The people who make investments do. A couple of investments I've made the last four years have grown to some degree. And they have expanded into real growth and real job creation for others. My risk into these ventures would not have happened without the tax cuts. And my gain from them (and subsequent increased tax penalties to the treasury) would not have happened without that economic activity. I have seen real growth from experience. Is it the same around the country? I can't answer that. But in real terms, it has been a boost for myself and a vast number of others who manage their finances wisely. And you can't take that away. Risk capital in the pockets of American citizens is the engine behind American entrepreneurism and economic growth.

"You have to pay to play"

Have you ever wondered how those pork barrel sums get distributed and to who?

Here's an eye opener: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Iso&refer=home

Whoops! I left out the first part ... they put this in the defense spending bill for servicemen and women who want alternate health care.

It might be a Republican (Alaska) that is King of pork but the Democrats are the champions of pork. They even used pork as bribes during the Legalize Illegals fiasco.

That is money that would have gone to the budget, deficit and national debt. It costs.

Not to harpoon the "sacred cow" of politics . . . however . . . the governments largest expenditure right now is on "mandatory" spending on programs that the majority of americans will not see . . . Social Security.
Unless we reform the system, it will grow to be an even larger percentage of the Federal Budget, and will force reductions in other expenditures, increase taxes, increase the national debt, or some or all the previously stated. Reduction in this expenditure over time, will reduce the federal budget and thus reduce the amount of taxes required to fund the federal government.
Also, with increased funding in work training, and worker assistance programs, we can continue to decrease money spent on Welfare and Unemployment.
Furthermore, why is there a Federal Department of Education when the Federal Government only operates DoD schools and Service Acadamies? Would the funding at the federal level be better used where the schools are ran, at the State and Local levels of government? And the current programs run under the Department of Education, do they really need a Cabinet level Department? Or can the operate under a smaller Federal Bureau?

I think this is the fundamental difference. The American people are the ones who decides the level of government funding through their elected reps. The assumption from Democrats is somehow that lower levels, decided by taxpayers, injures government. Of course, they never talk of government spending outlays in comparison. If the congress would reduce tax-rates that results in you paying $2000 less in one year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it??? Or is it the other way around? Is it government taking less from you?

The difference here is that the view is skewed. We don't cost the government money, the government costs me money! When it comes to government costs, they should prioritize, and cut their costs where they can to fund the important things. Pork needs to go. That's the costs they should worry about. Taking money out of the economic engine of America, and reducing capital for economic investments is not the answer. Democrats have it totally bass-ackwards. Tax-payers (through Congress) set the tax-levels. What costs the government is their irresponsible pork and vote-buying projects. Not cuts in tax-rates.

Here we go! The Democrat monster thing. When you don't know what to say bring out the old trusty Democrat excuse. :up: So typical.
Who had the surplus, a Democrat or Republican president?
Who spent that surplus plus ran up the largest national debt in American history? That wasn't a Democrat.

Actually no. You typically go into that crazy/combative mode when you've been shown you're wrong. And I think my response was adequate to adress your previous statements. "Democrat monster" never came from me. Saying they are wrong on tax policy is not the same as calling them monsters. What I state is typical of Democrat thinking. That is, the money belongs to the government, and we're just there to feed it all the money it needs for anything it wants. This thread is about Democrat/ Republican, and who you'll vote for. And when it comes to tax policy, the Democrats want to raise your taxes. Republicans want to reduce taxes. Unfortuanately, we have a hard time reducing the government spending. Again, that's where the problem lies. Not tax reductions.

:doh:

Please show where I'm wrong in anything on this thread.

Please show me where you're right. :doh:;)