the problem is this: “You Can’t Trust Republicans With Your Money”

you can’t trust either ‘private’ party with your money. or any party for that matter.

who do you trust?

why is there so much money going to DC in the first place?

and whats up with all this obama hype anyway?
i would like some insightful responses. obviously “change” is not a good response, and partially withdrawing troops from Iraq is not entirely sufficient (although a drawdown is better then an increase)…etc.

what kind of major national policies will he actually change?

Good times.

The FACT is that the economic downturn has adversely affected tax revenue, which is increasing the deficit.

And yes, it’s going to take longer than 18 months for Democrats to clean up the mess Republicans took 6 years to create.

“Quaker, my life is not so empty that I have the time to pour through Appropriations Bills to pick out the most egregious of the spending decisions.”

You certainly do seem to have the time to bend over backwards apologizing for Republicans, even though they’ve basically spent 6 years torturing, illegally spying, and destroying the economy.

Remember when Republicans were for SMALLER government? Me either.

“Also, it’s a bit disingenuous to complain about the deficit when you’ve spent the last 8 years saying:”

First, you complaining about someone being disingenuous is like Jessie Jackson complaining about someone else’s excessive rhyming.

Second, Dems calling for spending on those programs while complaining about Bush’s 8 years of deficits isn’t disingenuous because they would increase revenue by letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, they’d reduce spending on the war by drawing down troops, and other kinds of fiscal responsibility that are no doubt unfamiliar to you Republicans.

“Give up? Here’s a hint.”

Still nothing to back this up? Or are we ignoring that from here on?

Guess what. That number doesn’t include spending for the Totally Awesome and Entirely Necessary Iraq War.

Worst
Administration
Ever

You reflexively blame Democrats for something you admittedly “don’t have time to look up,” and you’re lecturing me about “disingenuous?”

Go away.

*He’s not spending enough on education!
*He’s not spending enough on Homeland Security!
*He’s not spending enough on Medicare!
*He’s not spending enough on Alternate Fuels!
*He’s not spending enough on Health Care!
*He’s not spending enough on SCHIP!
*He’s not spending enough on Arsenic Removal!
*He’s not spending enough on Embryonic Stem Cell Research!
*He’s not spending enough on FEMA!
*He’s not spending enough on Veterans!
*He’s not spending enough on Voting Equipment!
*He’s not spending enough on the Subprime Bailout!
*He’s not spending enough on National Parks!
*He’s not spending enough on Economic Stimulus!
*He’s threatening to not spend enough on Social Security!

It would. I won’t trouble you to look for the place where I said that. You won’t find it.

Nevertheless, whose name is on the budget?

Good for the goose…

And yet you’re certain that Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi are to blame? Please come back when you have something of substance to contribute.

Here’s here all week, folks. And try the veal.

But the facts (and the EXTRA $450 Billion over 2 years) speak for themselves.

1. The full magnitude of the “mortgage crisis” (which really should be called the “Collateralized Debt Obligation Crisis”) became apparent to everyone with eyes, including the many right-wing financial “experts” who for the last several years had been waving their arms saying this was nothing but a liberal red herring to try and undermine confidence in Bush’s surging economy. We have the added cost of necessary bailouts of key mortgage lenders and banks who have discovered that because of these crappy CDOs their houses are standing on shifting sand.

2. Thanks to Bush’s mismanagement of the economy and the war, the value of the dollar has dropped precipitously, so the “cost” of the money we must keep borrowing from China to keep paying for stuff like the war (which had, to date, been pretty much paid for “off the books) is getting much higher.

3. Contrary to established Republican governance policy, the current Congress is keeping more of these costs “on the books”, meaning that less of the real costs of the war and Bush’s other policies are being hidden from the American people, as they had been for the previous 6 years. Figured you’d want to penalize the Congress for being more honest with the American people, Farris.

So much for that. 2003:

(AP) President Bush’s goal of cutting in half a projected $500 billion federal deficit within five years is being dismissed as too timid by conservatives, unachievable by analysts and laughable by Democrats.

Mr. Bush will include the objective in the $2.3 trillion budget for 2005 he sends Congress in February, nine months away from the presidential and congressional elections. The goal is backed by many Republicans, but conservatives want a bolder move against the record deficits and big spending increases the administration has run up.

Or don’t you know? Sure you weren’t just finger-pointing.