Redstate

...principally COWARDLY.

They just don't really care. They forget what the meaning of a consistent fiscal conservatism is.

Anyone have the list of who voted which way?

"Don't call me Shirley."

"The government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." ~ Ronald Reagan

I'm thinking this would be a great fall to take up hunting.  I think deer season starts here in Maine Nov 1st.  Wonder when RINO season opens?

November.. ;)

Please do not use this website to (even in jest) advocate the systematic hunting and/or murder of your political opponents.

Thank you in advance for your compliance in this matter.

Moe "RiNO" Lane

I think a more accurate statement would have been

"The SENATE is now principally moderate, if not liberal!" exulted Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), after the Senate -- including a majority of Republicans -- approved his budget-busting amendment to spend an extra $7 billion on domestic programs.

And the President when it comes to spending, but we knew that back in 1999.

It must be part of a plan to get more votes in November.  Don't give in to pessimism! George Will said you guys are much more optimistic than us downer libs, come on!

I can see it now.  Use these entitlement programs and pork projects to secure the 60 votes in the Senate in November, and then it's open road to dismantling the Great Society, New Deal, etc.

In seriousness, I hope there's really some semblance of a plan to all of this.  Because otherwise those tax cuts aren't going to get paid for anytime soon, and the debt just keeps going up.  I frankly don't know why the GOP congresspeople have yet to really take up entitlement reform (nevermind all the pork and other domestic spending increases) except to think that they either a) don't really have the stomach for it or b) don't really believe in it.

Yes, there is the threat of filibuster from the Democrats, but I personally think the need of Democratic cooperation is more a desire for political cover than procedural problems.  Are we just going to keep running up the debt until the American people are "ready" for entitlement reforms?

Or congress could repeal the bush tax cuts that don't benefit any of us anyways....

<ducks and covers>

...What if we just wing 'em?

...he cut could all of those wasteful spending programs that none of us benefits from anyway.

I like my idea better.

Because otherwise those tax cuts aren't going to get paid for anytime soon

The tax cuts have already paid for themselves with the increased revenue they led too.  See also: Curve, Laffer.

Is not a way to win in 2006. It is a way to lose. So, no, it is not part of some grand strategy.

And there isn't a threat of a Democratic filibuster, there is a guarantee of a Democratic filibuster. Not that it matters anyway since we probably don't even have to votes... there are enough RINOs in the Senate to put support for any real cuts below 50 votes. The house isn't much better... the margin there is much smaller than the RINO count.

We couldn't even get drilling in ANWR when oil was $70/bbl. That is a walk in the park compared to spending cuts.

I bet those 5 million people who have jobs now that didn't have them before the tax cuts might disagree. I guess those 10 consecutive quarters of greater than 3% GDP growth are nothing. And I disagree as an investor as well.

Jobs are growing? Unemployment is at all time record lows? You must be mistaken, I haven't seen anything in the press about the economy being good. Things are awful, just ask the NYT.

Get your facts straight please :-)

please stuff a sock in Specter? And officially change his d*mn party affiliation.

Senate Vote

Nay votes (27): Allard, Allen, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, DeMint, Ensign, Enzi, Graham, Gregg, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, Martinez, McCain, McConnell, Sessions, Shelby, Sununu, Thomas, Vitter

Notable Yea votes: Baucus, Santorum, Talent

I'm obviously not going to win a debate on the Laffer Curve here, and frankly I don't have the background or the desire to debate it.

So I'm admittedly being simplistic, but we have a very large deficit and are still increasing spending.  And we also recently cut taxes.  Whether they've paid for themselves or not, something is putting us into the red even outside of the war and Katrina.  So by the same simplicity, if we're not going to make up the difference through more revenue, then the only other option it seems is to make up the difference by cutting spending.  So when is it going to happen?

Congratulations to Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming for supplying two nay votes each.  

...at least we have ONE Republican from North Carolina in the Senate...

with this Republican congress and its propensity for unrestrained spending, you know that if the Democrats were in control the spending would be that much worse.  Not to mention all of the bad legislation that would also result, such as the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, among others.  I think I'll stick with the devil I know, thank you.

Cutting spending is of course a good idea, something most if not all of us here agree on.  I was just responding to the talking point of "unfunded tax cuts", as it is a 100% falsehood.  Reversing the tax cuts would also reverse the economic boost they provide, thus the end result of raising taxes would be bringing in less revenue, not more.

I've said it before and I'll probably continue to say it, W isn't a conservative, he's a right-leaning moderate. Which is acceptable to many people, even a staunch conservative such as myself. The problem is that leftists have so poisoned the popular language that right-leaning moderates run as conservatives.

I frankly don't know why the GOP congresspeople have yet to really take up entitlement reform...

Because Republicans have a longer memory than you do. Dems handed them their heads on a platter when Newt tried to cut entitlements. Republicans have no desire to experience that again.

Instead, they push tax cuts (which do pay for themselves, just not a lot more than themselves) while spending continues to increase. This limits the ability of Dems to increase social spending if they ever do get back into power, because Dems WILL raise taxes while they increase spending, which will kill the economy and kick them back out of power.

Republicans keep nominating Specters, Chafees, and Collins's and telling conservatives 'We need them to elect the Majority Leader and Speaker' instead of running a clean fight in the primaries. If Specter weren't in charge of an important committee his amendment probably would never have seen the light of day.

Chafee is about to find out if Republicans still want him when he gets a nasty primary fight.  And I don't mean whether the Republican establishment in D.C. still wants him (which they do), but whether Joe Sixpack is willing to take the chance to deep six him and hope for the best in November.

All arguments of the Laffer curve note that it only applies to when you lower taxes below somewhere around 70-80%, any tax rates below that are already on the left side of the curve making the point moot.

As for job growth, 3 million jobs in 5 years is hardly anything to applaud, especially since so many of them are part-time jobs with no benefits.

The population of the US grows by over 3 million a year.  The current job growth rate cannot even keep up with population growth and represents a growth rate of about 1.2% a year, which is historically very very low, and definitely not something to brag about.  Sure, the 2 million jobs added last year were better than the absolutely dismal first 4 years, but thats like saying a guy batting .260 is an excellent batter because he's been batting .220 for the last 4 years.

There were 22 million new jobs under Clinton and yet you brag about 3 under Bush.

Many prominent economic think tanks have also shown that a majority of those few new jobs have come not from the tax cuts, but from the increase in Federal spending.  That mounting debt is what pays these new workers much more so than any benefits from the tax cut.

I'd say toss the lot of them over the transom even if it meant a 80% Democrat Senate. But we are at war and I do not want it in the hands of a Democrat.

but please take your TalkingPoints™ with you when you leave.

Actually, in the last 60 years, the debt has grown under only 3 presidents. (measured in terms of % of GDP).

Reagan,

Bush

W. Bush

There is no historical accuracy for your statement that it would be worse under the Dems.

Also remember that it was Newt's policy of earmarking millions upon millions to home constituents to secure re-election for GOP members of Congress that has led to ballooning spending.

Reagan once vetoed a bill for having 170 earmarks, yet Bush lets one with 6,000 slide right by.

Anything to get re-elected...even your principles.

After all, isn't that why the GOP refuses to cut the tax loopholes that allow the 15,000 companies with headquarters in the same building in the Cayman Islands to keep on going?

Its like that Idaho congressman who got more funding from the Cayman Islands than from his own district.  He won't vote to close those loopholes, its what got him his office.

The GOP will sell out to anyone to stay in office, but what's the point if you're not going to even advance your own supposed principles while you're there?

Wheres the GOP party that wanted to stay out of my private life and and act fiscally responsible?

I liked Ike.  Can we please go back to that?

The Democrats controlled the House (the place that actually holds the purse strings) for 40 of them and the executive branch has been crippled ever since Nixon in terms of having any real ability to cut things out of the budget.

OK, I checked Gross numbers as well.  Its not just when measured as a percentage of GDP, the gross debt has also grown only under 3 presidents in the last 60 years.

Reagan

G. W. H. Bush

G. W. Bush

Of course, that is no surprise.  The whole idea was that if you got the debt to be completely out of control, there would be no choice but to cut social programs.

there is no way politically you can cut programs that help the poor unless you first turn the US into such a financial disaster that you have no choice but to.

Its a well documented plan promoted by the likes of Grover Norquist.  This is exactly what he was talking about when he said, ''The goal is reducing the size and scope of government by draining its lifeblood."

Lucky for him (and Bush), the likes of Osama are helping us drain that lifeblood even quicker than they ever thought possible, and people wonder why we still haven't found Osama Bin Forgotten.

fighting the war on terrorism.

It leaves out the biggest deficit-expander of all: FDR.

Its a well documented plan promoted by the likes of Grover Norquist.  This is exactly what he was talking about when he said, ''The goal is reducing the size and scope of government by draining its lifeblood."

Or maybe he just meant cutting taxes.  He said "starve the beast", your amusing fantasy-world implies "fatten up the beast then get it a gastric bypass".

Since we have run a deficit in 42 out of the past 50 years it seems extremely unlikely that the debt somehow got smaller under all but 3 presidents.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=200&T
opic2id=20&Topic3id=23

So do you think we can eliminate the deficit through further tax cuts?  Why doesn't Bush push that?  It would be a win-win for him.

I don't believe I said anything close to that, did I?

Perhaps we could, but we also might be just about at the break even point right now. That is the marginal tax rate which maximizes government collections. Personally I think we could cut a little more, but not much. No one who understands economics doubts that there is a Laffer curve, the only debate is where is the equalibrium point?

  Lets put it this way, if you have a tax of zero then you get zero collections, but if you have a tax of 100% you also get zero collections. Because you will drive all economic activity underground.

all of the good economic evidence I have seen puts equilibrium at between 25% and 36% marginal rates. I am sure it varies according to people's expectations and the overal health of the economy. If you push marginal rates up to even close to 50% you will see a recession like the kind we have not known since Jimmy Carter,

BTW, put down your Paul Krugman and learn something.

I really do not know that it would be much worse under Democrats. I think the taxes would go up and I think that the spending priorities would change, But there is simply no imperical evidence that Republicans can control spending better than Democrats. Sorry, I really am Sorry, but that is the simple truth.

with your theory is that Presidents dont control spending, congress does. During all three of those presidential administrations congress was controled at least part of the time by democrats, and the other times by very slim margins.

      Unfortunately I couldn't agree more with you. As a conservative/libertarian the Republicans have done exactly three things right. They have continued to press the attack against radical Islam, cut taxes and appointed VERY good Supremes(except Miers). They can do a lot better.

Morgan

Would take into account all taxation. Even if you are in the 25% bracket you are probably still paying half your income to various taxes (FICA, State income tax, state sales tax, excise taxes, etc) at various levels of government.

....as the population increases and as citizens live longer and as pretty much every social catagory of people increase in numbers there is a need for increases in infrastructure across the board.  I mean everything from Hiways to hospitals to social security applicants and on and on and on.  So someone explain to me how it's possible to decrease these expenditures please.

Now I know there is huge room for fiscal reponsibility and the proper spending of out tax money but all in all no matter how tight we are the cost IS going to increase.

All together now...

Chafee (RI)...    Yea

Collins (ME)...   Yea

DeWine (OH)...    Yea

Hagel (NE)...     Yea

McCain (AZ)...    NAY

Snowe (ME)...     Yea

Specter (PA)...   Yea

Voinovich (OH)... Yea

With the exception of McCain, we need to be prepared to throw this vote back in these RINOs faces when they inevitibly cite their "concern for the deficit" as the reason for voting against, just as an example, fixing the AMT this year.

What. A. Disgrace.

It is FDR's fault.

chance to exercise control. Dems controlled govt from 65-69, 77-81 and 93-95 and got, respectively, 2 economic disasters and an attempt to socialize health care and a large chunk of the economy. They saw the dem congresses kill Reagans domestic budget cutting measures and the GOP congresses pass budgets that kept domestic spending level.

I think FOX ran a story today documenting all the additional spending propopsed by Dem amendments the GOP has killed.

We have some empirical evidence, but I dont need such evidence to know that my teenage son would spend more than his Dad, if the son were given control!

    Why wait ? The Chuck Hagels and Mel Martinez' of the world could feed many poor kids in NO.

Morgan

     The idea of "paying for tax cuts" comes from two types only. First off it comes from the political left. They HATE the idea of tax cuts.

     Secondly it comes from the "peripherally informed" who get their information from the nightly news. Do you think the Republicans will have the juevos to back the FairTax ?

Morgan

       Supporting him was one of W's biggest mistakes. It comes right after signing McCain-Feingold and deciding NEVER to veto bloated spending bills. Does anyone believe in limited government anymore ?

Morgan

Hello.  This is my first post on this site.

It seems some of you are confusing "liberal" with "fiscally irresponsible".  If we were talking about LBJ then I'd be right there with you.

However, just look at the track records of our last four presidents.  Of the three in the red, all three were Republicans.  Of the one in the black, well, yeah, HIM.

Times have changed.  If fiscal responsibility was your chief concern, you might want to evaluate candidates not on what party flag they run under, but based on their actual track records.

Are you trying to steal my tagline?

The one thing different if the Dims held a house of Congress is that President Bush would veto the spending bill...

While from a budget purpose one can make a claim that it would be better if the Dims held the House (since gridlock reduces spending), it would be a mess in a national security point of view.  

The problem is that leftists have so poisoned the popular language that right-leaning moderates run as conservatives.

"Conservative" is the word that everyone wants to hear, and "liberal" is a dirty word, and you are saying that this is the result of leftists poisoning the popular language? Does that mean you think Rush Limbaugh is a leftist?

that the primary challenge to Chafee will result in the Democrap Party to take this seat.  Either Chafee will lose to Laffey, or he may well be sufficiently weakened that he may lose in the general.  I'd say this race is a tossup right now. (It would be lean Chafee if there was no primary challenge).  

As long as we don't lose more than one net seat other than this one(i.e. we still have 53 seats or more), then as far as I'm concerned Chafee can go, and we might as well send a message to the remaining RINOs by voting for Laffey.  There is really not that much difference between Chafee and a Democrap, unless the vote is needed to retain the majority.    

That depends on your definition of fiscally responsible.  If its "raise taxes until the numbers work", then, well, we're in disagreement.

Huh?  W's tax cuts were initially funded by the Clinton's surplus, and now are funded by our future taxes.  

I would go ahead and say that fiscal responsiblity = pay as you go, and fiscal irresponsibility is paying later.  What's your take?

that tax cuts have already paid for themselves and increased revenue.  If you believe that, you may well believe that future tax cuts would do likewise.  If tax cuts increase revenue then they reduce the deficit.

What did I miss?

I was joking, and I feel bad that you took me seriously.

I would add to your comment that everyone who knows economics knows that we are nowhere near the point where tax cuts increase revenue.  

Witness for example, Greg Mankiw, one of the few serious academic economists willing to work for this administration, saying there is

""no credible evidence" that "tax revenues ... rise in the face of lower tax rates."  He goes on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts could pay for themselves to a "snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure.""

http://www.cbpp.org/3-19-04tax.htm

The purpose of my comment was to illustrate my view that although senior Republican leaders periodically claim to believe that tax cuts pay for themselves, they know it's not true.  If they really believed it, they would be pushing for another huge round of tax cuts now, to pay off the deficit.  If, like you, they held the more nuanced position, that some tax cuts pay for themselves, they would have to explain how they determine which ones do - which would illustrate the lack of substantive economic analysis behind their claims.

Tom

First of all, as has been said many times in this thread, the tax cuts are funded by the tax cuts.  When you cut taxes, there is more money in the economy, the economy grows as a result, and thus the government collects more revenue.  The treasury department has taken in more money since the tax cuts then it ever did before them.  I hope you're not too shocked to learn that your Pelosi-esque talking point was bogus.

Secondly, the pay as you go principle is just a small part of fiscal responsibility.  The main component is how much the government spends and why.  Spending trillions on entitlement programs, as long as you're sure to raise taxes enough to stay in the black, is NOT fiscal responsibility.

Losing weight is generally considered good for your health.  Losing so much weight you become anorexic is accepted as not being good for your health.  As Kyle said in response, the idea of the laffer curve is to find a sort of sweet spot where the most benefits are reaped.  Just cutting taxes to the bleeding edge doesn't accomplish this.

Don't you think there are lots of spending bills proposed by Republicans that have also been killed? If you want to add in killed Dem bills to the equation, you'd better also add in killed Repub bills. Did Fox News do this?

I don't know why McCain is on the list.  His voting (CFR excepted) is very good.  Whenever the RINO roll call is taken, the comments here seem to look like this.  Specter, Snowe, Collins, etc... voting against us, McCain voting for us this time.  

Judges, spending, abortion, McCain votes with us.  When he is listed with your RINOs, and a large sample of votes is examined, it is clear that one of these is not like the others.  

Someone else was complaining about the "McCain/Graham" wing of the party a few weeks ago, but that wing of the party held firm on this vote, while Santorum did not.

I agree with the sentiment towards the others on your list.

First of all, as has been said many times in this thread, the tax cuts are funded by the tax cuts.

Sorry, have you checked the national debt lately?  Obviously, the tax cuts are not funded by anything.    Have you checked the spending ratio of entitlement programs to defense spending?  Guess which is bigger.

"Tax cuts pay for tax cuts" is hard to measure.  So are liberal ideas like "Education pays for education".  The only thing that's not hard to measure is the bottom line.

Consistent with what I've been saying, the national debt is increasing because spending is increasing.  The statement I made regarding tax cuts (and tax cuts alone) is that revenues increased despite taxes being decreased.  I have never, as you're suggesting, implied that cutting taxes is somehow a silver bullet that leads to financial perfection.  

However, as it seems you're getting at, raising them is not the solution either.  The government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.  The biggest mistake we can make is assume these problems are one in the same.

The National Debt has nothing to do with the tax cuts.  Look at revenue.  Tax cuts INCREASE revenue to the treasury. SPENDING increases the National Debt! Curtail spending, and the tax cuts will do their job. Curtail spending? Absurd!

Umm, let me try. The Defense Department plus DHS is less than half of the sum of SSA, Medicare and Medicaid. Was that the point you wanted to make?

these economists seem to disagree:

http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm

SSA and Medicare/Medicaid to be defense spending. It is only a matter of time before we unleash our elite corps of super senior citizen troopers on the unsuspecting world.

McCain is in the same camp as the RINOs on GWBs tax cuts.  So while perhaps lumping him in win the RINO lable is a tad unfair he is, in a sense, damned by the company he keeps on that issue.

With this vote, he alone retains any shred of credibility as having "concern for the deficit".  The rest are just tax/spend liberals, party affiliation not withstanding.

Cheers.

Taxes, global warming, "torture", redistribution of wealth and CFR are enough to get him fairly lumped into the RINO group.

...he just doesn't consider SSA/Medicare/Medicaid to be government spending at all since it's not subject to Congressional approval. And also, they'll tell you that every other agency has a huge amount of defense and military spending that doesn't get counted as military because it's not in the DoD budget. This is the kind of mendacity that lets these people claim that Defense is nearly half of the Federal budget.

about the tax cuts, definitely.  And given how important tax cuts are, (God created Republicans to cut taxes), that is a major strike against him.

Robert Greenstein

The Center's founder and Executive Director, Greenstein is considered an expert on the federal budget and in particular, the impact of tax and budget proposals on low-income people...In 1994, he was appointed by President Clinton to serve on the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. Prior to founding the Center, Greenstein was Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he directed the agency that operates the federal food assistance programs, with a staff of 2,500 and a budget of $15 billion.

Iris J. Lav

Lav is Deputy Director of the Center...Her work on federal and state budget and tax issues often is cited by the press, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Wall Street Journal. She has been interviewed on a number of radio and television programs, including NBC Nightly News, ABC World News Tonight, CBS Sunday Morning, National Public Radio, CNN, and the Jim Lehrer News Hour.

Isaac Shapiro

Shapiro is an Associate Director at the Center...Shapiro also has worked as a special assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Labor, for a Member of Congress, as a neighborhood organizer, and at the Congressional Budget Office. Shapiro is the author of numerous reports, articles, and op-ed pieces, is the co-author of two books -- Working But Poor: America's Contradiction and Protecting American Workers --

Susan Steinmetz

Steinmetz is an Associate Director of the Center...She is a former staff member of the House Government Reform Committee, where she staffed a subcommittee's oversight work on a range of public welfare and health issues. Prior to her work on Capitol Hill, she organized state outreach campaigns on school food programs for the Children's Foundation.

I haven't been following Martinez much since he was elected. What did he do to become a RINO?

I think there are certain instances where deficit spending (unbalanced budget) and growing the national debt may be acceptable. For example, a national crisis or emergency such as funding the Cold War, or GWOT. Therefore, increasing the deficit is not necessarily a bad thing.

However, when the budget is bloated with waste on entitlements and pork, that is simply irresponsible.

This distinction seems lost on those from the Left that criticize deficit spending. We need to look beyond how much is spent from one year to the next, and look at what exactly that money is being spent on.

little. I worked hard for his election here in Florida because I was convinced that he was an electable true conservative by the local party boss here in Ponte Vedra Bch., Fl. As soon as he did his best to water down tort reform and called for the closing of Guantanamo Bay, I really felt betrayed and used. I will work my rear end off for his inevitable primary challenger. That's for sure.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Do you honestly think every bill proposed by Republicans passes? Is there some kind of Republican hive mentality that I am unaware of?

Is that how we win arguments now?

This is a playground response.

This would ONLY be an attack if there was some reason to doubt the credibility of the center's objectivity.

All I did was take the executive board of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and include some of the biographical info about each board member! From their own website!

Are you saying there is some reason to doubt the veracity of the center?

This is a playground response.

SO, you are saying it is playground to fact-check? It is playground to investigate sources?

Well, I guess you've got me there. Certainly not up to the standards of say, the New York Times!

...of the CBPP. Most of those people have very little credibility except on the Left. DAMich only quoted some of the staff bios, but the directors are more obviously political. Pointing that out isn't an ad hominem attack, except perhaps on playgrounds.

I don't care who is responsible for killing the bills. All I am saying is that spending bills have been proposed by both Democrats and Republicans. Some of those pass, some don't.

Some subset (a) of all the bills in Congress were proposed by Democrats and subsequebtly defeated. Another subset (b) of all the bills in Congress were proposed by Republicans and subsequebtly defeated. And a third subset (c) of all the bills in Congress are those that passed.

Fox is comparing a to c, completely ignoring b. I am saying that that is a pointless comparison.

I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse. I have repeatedly pointed out that your initial claim was a completely meaningless fact, and your only reply has been to reiterate it, or supply evidence that it is a fact. I don't dispute that it is a fact that democrats have proposed spending bills that have been killed. I dispute that any conclusions can be drawn from that, unless you also bring killed Republican spending bills into the equation as well.

Unless you believe that NO Republican-sponsored spending bills have been killed, which is absurd, then there is no other conclusion than that FOX news is being imbalanced in its analysis.

If you honestly believe that every bit of pork proposed by Republicans is being approved just because it is proposed by a Republican, then you should be screaming at the top of your lungs to get the Republicans out of power. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility!

on dead bills

which was my meaningful point

He reappears ebout every 6 hrs, posts a comment and disappears again!

Money was not spent on killed Republican bills, either! So how is any of this meaningful?

If your whole point is that money is not spent on killed bills, that would fall more into the category of "obvious" rather than "meaningful."

You haven't said anything at all about killed Republican bills, which means you are either ignoring them (thereby not being "fair and balanced") or you believe there are none (in which case see above - the Republicans are being incredibly fiscally irresponsible).

I have said much about republican killed bills in this thread in replies to you. But let us rejoice that you have comprhended part of what I wrote and  recognized at least one  obviopus fact. The truth will set you free

from liberalism!

let us focus on the positive just now

rejoice

celebrate

more later

Most cock fights are late at night out in the country, in which the winner is usually pretty banged up,

then us roosters have to wake the world up in the morning, after which

it takes up to 6 hours for the hens to nurse our wounds!!

gameCOCK-a-DOODLE-DO!!!

I realized after I posted...not you, HIM!

But, I like your answer too!

I have said much about republican killed bills in this thread in replies to you.

In fact you have said nothing whatsoever about Republican bills, killed or not. You haven't said "much" about anything.

If you are truly ecstatic over making an obvious point, I'm happy for you. However, I didn't just "recognize the obvious," I realized that you had nothing to say that wasn't obvious. Or meaningful.

with half your brain tied behind your back--just to make it fair!

is your belief that the Bush tax cuts put us on the optimum point?

If so, how did you come to that conclusion?

Because the treasury department is seeing a massive surge in income.  Is there another indicator I should be on the lookout for?  Seriously, how many times does this need to be rehashed?

Gross federal debt has increased under EVERY administration since (and including) Kennedy. Not a single one of those presidents finished their term(s) with lower gross national debt than they began their term(s) with.

Gross federal spending has increased every single year since 1965. The only years in that range in which discretionary spending fell slightly or stayed static were 1969, 1992, and 1996. The only year in which entitlement (non-discretionary) spending fell or stayed static was 1984.

Those bios weren't even biased. You had one person being a Clinton appointee.... is that the smoking gun? This is a credible source that does tend to lean slightly left but is still very respected. How about you disprove them as economists instead retreating to the tired line of "they're liberal!"

This site has them leaning slightly left:

http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?org=CBP100

but still listed as a reputable source.