Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
How can you make this claim when the DEMs controlled Congress for roughly 15 of those 25 years? You can't. The fact is that both parties are out of control on spending, which I can't see stopping as long as the country is so divided, unless there is another extraordinary event, like the Contract.
|
Because ultimately I think that the president -- at least a strong president -- has more power than you seem to think. Reagan managed to push through spending cuts when he wanted to, and tax increases when he needed to. It wasn't the dem-controlled congress that prevented him from balancing the budget; it was his tax-cutting (until even he -- unlike Bush 2 -- realized that you gotta pay for at least some stuff you want to buy) and his military spending. Those who disagree, please identify all years in which Reagan submitted a balanced budget to congress for approval.
Dems controlled congress, and we had deficits. Repubs control congress, and we have deficits. Repubs control the white house, and we have deficits, regardless of whether it's a dem congress or a repub congress, regardless of whether it's a recession or economically flush times. Dems control the white house..... and there's no more deficit. Draw your own conclusions (mine is that Clinton actually meant the fiscal prudence he preached -- and knew that he had to perform, because otherwise Ross Perot would run again on a platform that was largely about dealing with the deficit).
I don't dispute that "tax-and-spend" is a label that can be applied to Dems, if you are using an extremely broad and general brush. But, as I've said before, that's a hell of a lot better for the country than "borrow-and-spend."
