What We Democrats Need To Do

[ACPlayer]

First of all, a trained monkey could have balanced the budget in the economy of the late 90's. NO ONE could balance the budget in the post-9/11.

Specially not the untrained monkey. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[johnd192]

Maybe you forgot that little incident in Bosnia and Somalia.
Maybe you forgot that the economic downturn started during the last years of Clinton's presidency.

[jakethebake]

McCain is a dirty socialist liberal, regardless of which party he is part of.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
The democrats need to do one of two things with regard to the Presidency: Find a candidate that appeals strongly to the minority, like Bill Clinton, or find one that has some 'testicular fortitude', Hillary Clinton will do fine here.

[/ QUOTE ]You're right. Her testicles are larger than Kerry's. The Socialist Bitch.

[jakethebake]

This is hilarious! Clinton should get ZERO credit for any of this. If you want to give credit, it should go to Greenspan and Congress. Oh, and Bush inherited the recession. He didn't cause it.
[ QUOTE ]
Bush - Record Deficit
Clinton - Turned a record deficit left by W's father into a surplus

Bush - 4 years of debt, unemployment, and war
Clinton - 8 years of peace and prosperity

What more can I say?

Republicans try to make people happy by cutting taxes, but then they run up huge deficits and a bad economy. Democrats raise taxes a little, and end up with a balanced budget and a good economy.

Thank you, but I'd rather have a job and slightly higher taxes, than no job and lower taxes.

-Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, a trained monkey could have balanced the budget in the economy of the late 90's. NO ONE could balance the budget in the post-9/11.

[/ QUOTE ] EXACTLY!!!

[ QUOTE ]
That said, both Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally flawed when it comes to balancing the budget. Republicans cut taxes (which is GOOD for the economy) but usually won't cut spending (and as GWB showed will occassionally spend more).

[/ QUOTE ]Are you serious? If it weren't for the war, I guarantee W would try to cut spending. It's the Socialist Left-Wing programs that keep spending up. Reagan wanted desperately to cut spending but Congress prevented it.

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats raise spending but are loathe to cut taxes and afraid to raise taxes to fund their programs because raising taxes isn't popular and is a short-term fix for budget shortfalls anyway (since raising taxes slows economic growth). I vote libertarian for this reason, except when a Democrat that's VERY fond of raising taxes/spending money runs for president...then I'm forced to vote Republican just to make sure that the Democrat doesn't win.

[/ QUOTE ] EXACTLY!!! Up with Libertarianism!

[jakethebake]

As much as I agree with the first premise, that IS pretty funny, Player. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, a trained monkey could have balanced the budget in the economy of the late 90's. NO ONE could balance the budget in the post-9/11.

Specially not the untrained monkey. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[adios]

Of course you're right. I think it's time for another adios analysis of the Federal budget post. We'll get a view of the magnitude of the problem and where it would be most advantagous to cut expenditures. I'm sure that growth in Medicare/Medicaid expenditures contributes a great deal to the problem with the deficit. If a big time entitlement grows in expenditures faster than the economy is growing, there will be no way to balance the budget FWIW. In the last analsyis I posted Medicare/Medicaid would consume 70% of the budget expenditures by the year 2020 if the growth rate in expenditures continues is it has under Bush if memory serves. This is the main reason IMO that the idea of capping punitive damage awards in medical malpractice cases is on the table. The belief is that limiting these damages will reduce malpractice insurance premiums. Wheter or not they will is open to debate. I've heard the arguement that there isn't that much paid out in malpractice damage awards but I'm fairly certain that part of the problem is the risk of potentially monsterous payouts which is what insurance companies have to account for. Now I don't now if capping the awards will actually bring about the desired results and I don't know if it's a smokescreen to help the insurance industry but I think this idea needs to be debated and scrutinized because this country needs to bring these costs inline. I've posted many times before that during Mr. Clinton's administration the government was very successful in holding these costs inline and we might look to Mr. Clinton's policies that effect this. If memory serves Mr. Clinton's administration was tough on Medicare/Medicaid fraud, did a lot of jaw boning about standardizing the costs of medical care, and wanted government to take a bigger role in medical research.

We also have to decide what an acceptable level of deficit spending is in the short run and the long run.