Republicans talk a good game about fiscal responsibility whenever Democrats are
in power. When Republicans are in power the slogan changes to: "Reagan
proved that deficits don't matter"--Dick Cheney
Democrats may at times give lip service to LDS values, but until I see them
embrace and promote self-reliance, I can't take them seriously. Just
saying the words "self-reliance" in this forum is enough to make some
Democrats howl.In the same way, I can't believe Republicans
when they talk about fiscal responsibility. When they had the presidency and
both houses, they spent like drunks."By their fruits ye shall
know them." If you want my support, you're going to have to show me
you really mean it.
"I was disappointed that one LDS value, that of frugality, was missing.
"It was under a Democratic president that we last balanced the
budget and began to pay down our vast debt, which was then about $5 trillion.
But then a Republican took office and claimed this money to be "your
money" and started giving back tax revenue, especially to his wealthy
friends. That same administration increased spending as much as his Republican
mentor did twenty years earlier which returned us to the borrow and spend
tactics of the 80's that got us where we are today. That is the difference
between Republicans and Democrats, regardless of what their stated platform is.
News Flash: Republicans love Big Government too. They have found it works for
them. They are also not frugal.
Dale - frugality isn't a "republican" value alone either. It is
the prioritization of where to spend, and where not to that the two don't
agree upon. There are both Red and Blue states that have balanced budget
requirements, that were created under the framework of both parties control.
The city I live in because it is highly influenced by higher education is a left
leaning city. But at the same time, the city spends huge amounts on attracting
business to the city. It is about balance, who should burden the
cost, and who should sacrifice the cuts. At the national level, while the
Republicans run constantly on a platform of reduced spending, the reality has
been more an anti taxes platform rather than a reduction in real spending
platform. No Republican administration has actually reduced spending nor
balanced a budget.The differences are less so the "what" ,
but are in the "how". Even on the issue of abortion, more than 70
percent of Democrats are against abortion on demand, and more than 50% against
liberalizing abortion rights according to Pew research. The fringes
(ie Barney Frank, Limbaugh) like to amplify the differences to promote
themselves, not the country.
I personally know Crystal and her husband and family. You couldn't ask for
kinder people. If all of the democrats I knew were like them, then I would be
supporting their efforts more. Work on weeding out the ones that have hijacked
the party with their extremists views, and you would see the party gain
I assume the Democrats do the same as the Republicans, hold their noses at
things with which they disagree.I cannot recall any Republican
candidate with whom I have been in 100 percent agreement. Same with the
national platforms. So, I assume my Democratic brothers and sisters will do the
same.Will it be easy for them? Probably not in some cases.But, especially in a year in which there is an LDS candidate on the Republican
side, showing a little diversity in political views is probably healthy for the
church and for its image (that we are not all in some sort of lock step).So . . . I wish them well. Perhaps it can also lay some groundwork for
increased dialog and cooperation in the future. We will need that.
Being "frugal" doesn't mean you throw the poor under the bus to
save the cost of their transportation.
Re: "The line about Democrats 'strengthening families, helping the poor
reach self-reliance, etc.,' caused me to ask myself if Democrats really
believe and strive to practice those things?"It's not that
LDS Democrats don't believe those things -- most do -- it's that the
Party doesn't. The spin required to convince themselves and other people
that the Party will stand up for things they believe in is what makes it so
difficult for LDS to be Democrats.Honest LDS Democrats admit the
Party has simply lost its way. We wait patiently for the day it can be shamed
back into reality, but, in the meantime, we vote something other than Democrat
-- particularly on national issues and candidates.Whenever you hear
an LDS Democrat mouthing the old saw, "I'm a Demcrat because I'm a
Mormon," you can rest assured he/she is a Democrat for some other reason --
family tradition [my excuse], political necessity [can't get elected other
wise], economic necessity [job depends on being Democrat], etc.
Nate, if you're looking for "fruits" to use as a metric for belief,
then look at the job growth rates of Democratic administrations vs. Republican
administrations.Also, compare rates of growth in overall federal
spending, and overall growth of the total federal deficit among Democratic vs.
Republican administrations during the last 50 years.Democrats
choosing to invest in national infrastructure, our children's health and
education, tax fairness and the well-being of our nation's poorest citizens
_is_ in fact an act of frugality, because we know that failure to invest in
those things is a guarantee for a very expensive and extremely unpleasant
"Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and I'll tell
you what you value."If Republicans value frugality, their
actions sure haven't proved it. Both parties like big government, when
they are the one in power. Both parties clamor for smaller government when they
are the minority.
Regardless of the party affiliation, it all boils down to which candidate
delivers the goods needed by the state or by the nation. Right now Mr. Obama
has overwhelmingly been all talk and no action as evidenced by the last four
years. Let's get real and go with the best evidence we have to work with
if we want to save America. Mr. Obama has such a far left agenda he could not
undo the damage he has done. He neither wants to nor has the ability to undo
the disaster America now faces created by his far left big government and big
spending record. Mitt has the track record and he will fix the disaster he must
tackle. As Governor he did what was needed, with the Olympics he did what was
needed, at Bain he was amazing. You may not like ridding a company of dead
wood. That's just how it goes. As Governor, his state had the highest
rated education performance in the nation. America must go there in order to
catch up. Mitt will get it done.
The surest test of what works and what does not work: Research the relative
financial solvency of the states with largely Republican leadership versus those
managed by Democrats. I won't give you the answer. Find it for yourself.
Blue writes "and overall growth of the total federal deficit among
Democratic vs. Republican administrations during the last 50 years."Admittedly, I have not gone thru and done the math. i assume that you
have.But I would bet that if you take out the last 3.5 years that
your whole premise goes out the window.Would you take that bet?
"Honest LDS Democrats admit the Party has simply lost its way."I think that is a given. The question is can honest Republicans also
acknowledge that their party has been equally been hijacked? It is for that
exact reason that you now see that the largest single voting block, even in
Utah, are independents. It is not they these people, I am including myself
here, are wishy-washy can make up their mind types. Rather it is that neither
party represents their core values. Most people, if they will honestly look at
either party, will find areas that they don't agree with.Yet in
today's world of "RINOism" and I am not sure whet it is called on
the left-ism, you are excluded from the parties processes if your don't
support the parties most stringently defined platforms. And therefor, many,
like myself decide to lend their support to neither. When the parties start
accepting a duplicity of people, stop insisting on signing "packs", stop
always voting along party lines, then they will again see a vibrant American
government again... of the people, by the people - not a a single party.
Repubicans? Frugal?HaHa, hardy har-har!Holy Cow!Look at the out of control spending of every single Repubican President
going back to Nixon...They SAY they don't like spending, but as
ECR so sell ponted out -- Bill Clinton was the ONLY one who cut spending, cut
the Decifiet and Balanced the Budget.Obama COULD have, but for 2
reasons....1. Bush played a Nero - light the economy of fire and
fiddle as it burned to the ground.2. The Republicans in Congress has ONE
goal, and One goal ONLY for the last 4 years --- Trash AMERICA and make Obama a
one term President. [Treason as far as I'm concerned].Save the
schtick about Repubicans being frugal for AM radio programs.
Procuradorfiscal: I'm a democrat because I'm mormon. Not because
family tradition (all republicans), not political necessity (I'm not a
politician), and my job does not depend on me being a democrat (defense
contractor)But there are other reasons, like you said: I want what's
best for this country, I know that supply-side economics is a dismal failure,
and I prefer the small gains in employment and the economy over the huge losses
from the result over the Bush years. There are lots of other reasons I am a
@procuradorfiscal -- I'm not a Democrat for any of the reasons you
mentioned. I used to be a Republican and I left the party when it became clear
that the candidates I liked were deemed to be RINOS by the current crop of
Republicans. My disillusion with the party began when I heard Rush Limbaugh
call 12 year old Chelsea Clinton a dog and I thought, this isn't a nice
guy. Then he became the de facto leader of the party and all Republicans began
to genuflect to him and his radical, mean brand of politics. That isn't
me. I don't like the rhetoric and I don't like the Ayn Rand worship
that I see in the party. I also saw that Republicans ran up debt when they were
in office, but railed against debt as a means to obstruct when they were out of
office. When the neo-cons started pushing for wars against everyone in the
middle East, it was the last straw. Republicans just don't represent me.
There are no moderate Republicans any more, but there are moderate Democrats, so
that's what I am.
Mrs. Young-Otterstrom sounds like a good, kind, decent lady. But she's
naïve or in denial if she thinks that today's Democrat party supports
the values she claims to hold as a member of the LDS Church.The
Democrats' "support" for many of her listed values is in reality a
corrupted version -- one which results in the exact OPPOSITE effect. The
Democrats implement many of her listed values through a form of government FORCE
which runs roughshod over individual freedom.This coercion destroys
private property rights, wealth, and the honest incentive to work hard and be
self-reliant. It also goes against the very free agency that Mrs.
Young-Otterstrom probably claims to believe in as a member of the LDS Church.
It's letter and comments like these from the radical right --That let
me thank God Almighty that MOST Latter-Day Saints are not Republicans, Not in
Utah, and not even Americans!
@WonderThere was ONE moderate Republican in the primary- Jon Huntsman.
But, unfortunately, Jon was too rational, sane & open to ideas for
today's Republican party copmprised of right wing whacko's &
extreme religious zealots.
Frugality is a wonderful concept. But let's look at reality. We have an
aging population, many of whom will soon retire and require help from Social
Security and Medicare to live in dignity and comfort in their declining years.
There's not anything we can do about this fact. But we can and should
reform these two programs, including means testing. We could also
cut defense spending by a rather large sum over time. For instance, do we really
need 700 to 800 military bases in foreign countries? Do we need 75,000 military
personnel in Germany or 40,000 in Japan and in Korea? In spite of
these items, spending is not really our main problem. Rather, we have chosen to
pay for necessary government services with debt rather than tax revenue. Taxes,
particularly on the wealthy, are at historic lows. The nonsense about penalizing
job creators is political rhetoric. If we want to bring the deficit back to
earth, we must increase revenues. And we can afford it.
It takes a bit of lawyering to ignore the values espoused by democrats that are
present in the bible, but people manage to do it.
LDS Liberal says: "They SAY they don't like spending, but as ECR so
sell ponted out -- Bill Clinton was the ONLY one who cut spending, cut the
Decifiet and Balanced the Budget."-------------As per the
Constitution, it is Congress, not the President, that cuts spending, cuts the
deficit, and balances the budget. Clinton had a Republican congress that did
those things during his presidency. That he went along with it speaks well of
him, but it was the Republican congress that held his feet to the fire.Although it is convenient to discuss history in terms of presidencies,
Congress and its legislation often have much more impact.
The difference between republicans and democrats is mainly the opinion of equal
opportunity. Republicans seem to believe that equal opportunity
ends at birth. Everything after that is the results of one’s actions.
Democrats would like to move the boundary of equal opportunity
further along the path of life, to include education, health, and general
welfare. Even to the point where all the survival needs are met and further
progress is totally dependent only on the persons actions. If life
were a footrace would we want all runners to start at the same starting line or
would we allow some to start further down the track because of their wealth,
race or other nature?Do Mormons believe that God wants all to have
equal opportunity or does he favor some.
Liberals, Democrats, don't care about self-reliance and frugality? Are you
kidding me? Those are absolutely central values for the national Democratic
party. I know some of you don't believe me, but it's absolutely true.
The idea that Democrats want everyone to be beholden to government, or some
other such nonsense, is a canard invented by right wing media. Food
stamps? A necessary bridge for people in desperate circumstances; the average
food stamp recipient receives them for four months.ADC? We FAVOR
strengthening work requirements, only President Obama does want governors to
have some flexibility, state by state, in implementation. But let's get
real; a single Mom with small children needs help with child care. Again,
TEMPORARILY!Education: who wants to spend more money on education? Who is
calling for higher standards? Democrats!You want to hear a Democratic
success story? A young couple, desperately poor, going on welfare for a short
period of time while finishing an education. Then going to become very
successful. Like, for example, George Romney did. Ignore Republican spin.
It's Democrats who have a realistic plan for job creation and deficit
reduction. Without cutting taxes for rich guys.
re:SSMDNice try. However you are conveniently overlooking:1.
Clinton's first year, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
(which raised taxes) without a single Republican vote and was a key factor in
balancing the budget. 2. Republicans dominated all 3 branches most
of Bush's tenure in office. "The truth is that the
federal surpluses resulted from specific legislation enacted in 1990 and 1993
that virtually every Republican opposed. In particular, taxes were increased and
tight budget controls were put in place that prevented taxes from being cut or
spending increased unless offset by tax increases or spending cuts. These budget
controls are commonly referred to as “paygo,” for pay-as-you-go.In 2002, Republicans got rid of paygo so that they could cut taxes and
increase spending without constraint.Thus we have a perfect test of
two economic theories: one (Democrats) that says raising taxes and imposing
binding constraints on spending will balance the budget, which was successful,
and another (Republicans) that says cutting taxes will starve the beast, which
failed spectacularly."(Bruce Bartlett, held senior policy
positions in the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations).
JoeBlow: Yes, I'll happily take that bet.Google a
Washington Post analysis, "Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama." Here's the summary:"Since President Obama became
chief executive, the national debt has risen almost $5 trillion. But how much of
that was because of policies passed by Obama, and how much was caused by the
ﬁnancial crisis, the continuation of past policies and other effects? For
this analysis, we worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to
attach a price tag to the legislation passed by Obama and his predecessor.
George W. Bush’s major policies increased the debt by more than $5
trillion during his presidency. Obama has increased the debt by less than $1
trillion."I urge you to read the entire analysis.Bush's tax cuts and two unfunded wars are the primary cause of most of
the debt incurred in the past few years, not Obama's presidency.
Re: "There are no moderate Republicans any more, but there are moderate
Democrats . . . ."Only a radical Party apparatchik could make
such a laughable assertion with a [no-doubt, well-rehearsed] straight face, at
least about the organizational Party.At national levels, you could
count them on one hand, since Larry Echo Hawk left. And there are certainly none
within the currently-serving Congressional leadership or DNC hierarchy.Therein lies the problem. Though real-people moderates comprise the bulk of
Democrat Party membership, Party leaders and organizational hacks/flacks are
nearly all extreme libertines, hard-line leftists, radical environmentalists,
unapologetic Big Labor, professional re-elect-at-all-cost panderers, or
anti-American internationalists. And they exercise such rigid "party
discipline," no normal person is allowed to influence or serve in the Party,
at least at national levels.While Republicans may be headed for
another extreme, rank-and-file members are still much more free to believe and
advocate as they choose, even to serve in national-level Party or political
positions.Look at Mitt Romney.
Blue, You win. I misread your post.We are arguing the same thing.
Namely that in the last 50 years, GOP administrations HAVE caused a larger rise
in the deficit than democrats.It never ceases to amaze me how Obama
and/or the dems get blamed for things that the GOP did also.And will
add my new favorite line " It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing
what you did."Now, I am not giving the Dems a pass. They are
big spenders. What I take exception to, as you did, is the notion that our
deficits are largely caused by dems. Facts don't support that.
re:procuradorfiscal"While Republicans may be headed for another
extreme, rank-and-file members are still much more free to believe and advocate
as they choose, even to serve in national-level Party or political
positions."Really? Up is down, black is white. Only someone with blinders on would agree with your comment. I wonder
what Bob Bennett, Mike Castle (DE), Tom Davis (VA), Richard Lugar (IN), and many
other moderate Republicans who were either defeated or chose to leave office
have to say about the freedom within the Republican party. Republicans have
even come up with a name--RINOS. On the other hand, the Democratic
Senate Majority Leader can be a Mormon, whose stance on abortion matches the LDS
Truthseeker:Nice try. However you are conveniently overlooking:The
Republican congress passed in 1997 a bipartisan balanced budget measure, packed
with several critical Republican tax relief items, including middle-class tax
cut.Congress also reduced the tax on capital gains from 28 to 20 percent,
decreased estate taxes, created the Roth IRA. Clinton signed these. Income
tax revenue soared, and the capital gains tax reduction generated billions of
dollars more. The Social Security Trust Fund was beginning to overflow, due in
large part to enactment of proposals by the Reagan created Greenspan
Commission. The end of the Cold War, courtesy of Ronald Reagan, also permitted
hefty cuts in military spending.(Paraphrased from reporter Alan Rhyskind.)
Truthseeker says:"On the other hand, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader
can be a Mormon, whose stance on abortion matches the LDS church
position."-----------On the other other hand, the Democratic
Senate Majority Leader can be a Mormon, whose stance on gay marriage does NOT
match the LDS church position.
Read the post by PGVikingDad (7:41 a.m.) and then do what he suggested.We have fifty states that serve as a testing ground for all government
policies. By looking at the fifty states and comparing what happens when
different ideologies are tried, it is easy to see what works and what does not
work.Utah is in fiscally good shape. It is the most Republican
state in the nation.Without spoiling the "ending", see for
yourself which states are in trouble and which states are fiscally in good
shape. No amount of arguing from Democrats will ever change
reality. They can tell us how great their ideas are. They can call us names
and tell us that we are just as bad as they are, but they can't rewrite
history.See for yourself, and then let's argue WHY some states
are in trouble and others are not.
Who was it that said;"Ask not what your country can do for you,
but what you can do for your country."A: John F. Kennedy -
DEMOCRATWho said 47% of Americans are dependant victims, unwilling
to work or take personal responsibility and care for their lives.orMy kind of People, the Have's and the Have's More.Mitt
Romney - RepublicanGeorge W. Bush - Republican And who's
playing class warfare, pretending to be frugal, and working for ALL
Americans?Turn off your AM radios, and listening to the little white
Millionaire liars hiding behind the curtains and telling you what to think.
Re: "I wonder what . . . moderate Republicans who were either defeated or
chose to leave office have to say about the freedom within the Republican
party."Whatever they say, it merely proves my point. They were
allowed to serve and continue to influence party politics.In my own
[Democrat] party, however, can you imaging a Zell Miller or a Larry Echo Hawk --
or me, for that matter -- being allowed to run for national office as a
Democrat? Or to serve on the DNC Steering Committee, Platform Committee, or as a
finance and tax-policy adviser?Even Harry Reid, the most hard-line
leftist Mormon I've ever met [and that's saying something -- I've
met many Mormons in countries whose governments are officially leftist] is
required to suppress what must be his real beliefs, and advocate laughably
erroneous, even palpably evil positions on a number of issues in order to serve
in Congressional Democrat leadership.Democrat "freedom" to
believe and espouse one's views is much more closely aligned with Taliban
"freedoms," than with actual freedom.
re:SSMDThe boom and improvement in the budget deficit preceded what was
done in 1997. Reagan (with Democrats in Congress) raised taxes 11
times. Reagan signed off on Social Security reform legislation
that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate,
required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their
benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate,
rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (opposed by Republicans)
raised the salary cap on Social Security. The federal deficit
ballooned under Reagan, primarily due to tax cuts and increases in defense
spending.re:MikeRichardsThe govt. and LDS church are the
largest employers in UT.
Who increased the defict by 50% in four years?Who took $49 BILLION
out of the treasury and gave it to the unions at G.M.?Who gave an
illegal $39 BILLION tax credit against future earning to G.M.?Who
allowed felons to vote in Minnestoa to swing the vote from Republican to
Democrat in their last senata race?Who called a midnight vote on
Obamacare as soon as Al Franken (illegally elected) was sworn in?Who
offered bribes to get senators to vote for Obamacare? (Mary Landrieu, Page 432
of the Reid bill, $100 million)Who is telling students that they
shouldn't have to pay for their college tuition?Who is forcing
an establishment of religion to provide birth control and to pay for
abortions?Who will not enforce DOMA?Who will not enforce
immigration laws?How long does the list need to be before people see
that Democrats have failed to uphold our laws and to abide by our laws?No person professing any religion could not, in good conscience, vote for
"more of the same".
Why would anyone vote Republican with all the moral decay that has happened in
their party? Can you be a good Mormon and a Republican in Utah? How long do we,
as good people, put up with this corruption in our State? Now is the time for
accountability.Moral decay and wickedness means breaking any and all of
God’s laws. Moral decay includes lying, stealing and cheating the public:
It is not defined by gay rights and abortion.Watching the politics in this
state over the years, I have come to realize the Republican Party has become the
party of hypocrites, self-righteousness, and everything in between. When President Clinton had an affair in the White House, the Republicans
wanted to impeach him and kick him out of office. They did impeach him mostly
down party lines. They wanted everyone to vote Republican to teach him and the
Democrats in Utah a lesson that the public was not going to stand for it. But
here in Utah, when Republican politicians have been inappropriate and immoral in
their actions, they have still been supported and given a standing ovation, as
if nothing happened. Isn’t this still moral decay?
It's amazing to me the hate I see here. To we democrats, we simply
can't provide everything to everyone. Doing things to get votes has to
stop. There are practical ways to raise the level of decency and self reliance
without bankruptcy. While all or nothing seems good at the point there is enough
power to pass laws without consensus, it isn't a good idea to do so.To conservatives, especially you religious types, start acting the way
you preach. Saying "no" because affirmation brings some good to the
opposition is not ok.(this goes for democrats as well. Have guts to say yes when
it means we can take a step forward. We're not asking you to jump to the
top of the stairs. Just recognize that part which is good and worthy to consider
and move along. To all of us..." are we freakin nuts??"
isn't there some part of the climate in our country that makes sense?
Can't we just work together for a few minutes? Oh yes, and
being frugal is not a Republican ideal. Just read history.
Truthseeker,Your post makes one wonder why liberals hated Reagan so
much.Reagan's 1981 tax cut cut tax rates substantially. The 1982
TEFRA reduced loopholes, did not increase tax rates, so the average wage-earner
was spared. were not increased. Federal revenues nearly doubled.Reagan's
appointment of Volker to the Federal Reserve whipped inflation and stagflation.
The economy boomed.The defense spending did increase the deficit. One can
debate the worth of that, but (as part of the Navy during that time) I think it
was worth it. The Soviets were not able to keep up and threw in the towel.The
resulting peace dividend contributed to the boom of the 1990s. Reagan got
the formula right, but the Democratic Congress refused to reign in entitlement
and social welfare spending.
To "JoeBlow" you are wrong.From 1981 to 1987 Congress was
split and the debt increased by $1.3 TrillionFrom 1987 to 1995 Congress
was controlled by Democrats and increased by $2.6 TrillionFrom 1995 to
2001 Congress was controlled by Republicans, and the debt increased by $849
Billion.From 2001 to 2003 Congress was split and the debt increased by
$991 BillionFrom 2003 to 2007 Congress was controlled by Republicans and
the debt increased by $2.19 Trillion.From 2007 to the 2011 budget estimate
congress was controlled by Democrats and the debt increased by $6.19
Trillion.So, congress under a split control debt rises by $2.3
Trillion ($287 Billion/yr).Under Democrats it rises by $8.79 Trillion
($732 Billion/yr).Under Republicans it increased by $3 Trillion ($300
Billion/yr).So, judging by 30 years of history, the greatest
increases to the national debt occur when Democrats control congress.
re:SSMDFederal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988.
And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by
Reagan hagiographers all the time.But real revenues per capita grew
only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely George Bush
performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue
growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41
percent gain from 1992 to 2000.For the econowonks out there:
business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak
will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t
correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is
still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per
capita over some cycles:1973-1979: 2.7%1979-1990: 1.8%1990-2000: 3.2%2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zeroDo you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
(Paul Krugman)So what exactly did Republicans do between
2001-2007? I believe this is my last post.
I know a person who considers herself to be a good Mormon and a Democrat.She is, by the way, both a good Mormon and a Democrat.I
asked her what she would do if she was given $5,000,000 (lottery etc.).Would she give half of it to the government?Would she keep all of
it to share with those she chose?BTW, she chose the second
option.What would you choose?
Frugality in LDS land? So many can't use their own garages for all the toys
they buy. Foreclosures were high in Utah because the people over spend. Mormons
I see are not frugal tho most are cheap.
"So, congress under a split control debt rises by $2.3 Trillion ($287
Billion/yr).Under Democrats it rises by $8.79 Trillion ($732
Billion/yr).Under Republicans it increased by $3 Trillion ($300
Billion/yr)."Ok Redshirt... so what is your point here. You
can't claim the President isn't responsible only some of the time
(when he\she is a Republican), but in the case of Obama, he is responsible. How
does that work? I am not sure I am following the logic here.Either
Congress is Responsible or the President is. You don't get to flip back
and forth to suit yourself and what ever agenda you are promoting. Pick one, stick with it.