So who do you want to run against Obama in 2010?

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

akuma587 said:

Kasz216 said:
That's all any politician does during a debate Akuma. Recite a script they've been prepped with.

McCain, Biden and Obama all did the same thing. It just wasn't as noticeable.

Every candidate is given a huge script before the debates. That's why debate prep takes so much time.

What you are saying is true, but you are looking at things in the abstract.  And Obama actually is advocating a tax cut for the majority of Americans plus a stimulus package.

But the fact that our national debt is over $9 trillion could be disastrous in the future.  It would be irresponsible to keep dropping taxes when the debt is as high as it already is.  If we had $0 in debt, I'd be all for a tax cut, but that isn't the case.

The reason republicans aren't fiscally conservative anymore is because democrats aren't fiscally conservative and it's a dozen times easier to get spending bills passed then it is to get spending cuts passed.

If you aren't getting a big piece of the pie your constitutiants are wondering why the blue disctricts are getting so much more of the national taxpayer money.

Republicans and Democrats fight over the budget... and aren't willing to compromise.  If the democrats are going to get so much money for their plans, the republicans want at least as much money for their plans or it looks bad on them.  Etc.

That's the problem.  For one party to be fiscally conservative they both do in the modern times.

I don't think the evidence supports this argument. 

The last time Democrats controlled the White House and both sides of Congress was 1993-1994.  They raised taxes and cut spending, enabling the balanced budgets and budget surpluses of the 1990s.  (Republicans hammered on the "raised taxes" part hard enough to win historic amounts of Congressional seats.) 

The last time the Republicans controlled the White House and both sides of Congress was 2001 and 2003-2007.  Um, do I have to say it? 

On a side note, I would guess that the blue districts get more money anyway because big cities trend Democratic.

I'm pretty sure the Balanced budget was around in the early Clinton Years.  When the republicans were in control.

I'm pretty sure in fact it was balanced then because I remember the White House almost getting shut down during the whole fiasco.

And I said a bigger percentage of the money.  Not bigger amount.

Nope, you're wrong.  I've had this exact same discussion before and I think it was with you. 

(Two minutes later)

OK, well, not the same discussion, but the post I made then is pretty much exactly on topic for this discussion as well. 

"Actually, the Democratic congress was not replaced until 1994.  This is largely because of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (AKA Deficit Reduction Act) which is credited with balancing the budget.  It raised taxes and cut spending.  Every single Republican in Congress (House and Senate) voted against the bill.  Republicans were able, IIRC, to hammer Democrats for raising taxes and swept into control of both House and Senate in 1994."

For clarity, I meant the 1994 elections, of course.  Democrats controlled the House and Senate up until January 1995. 

And I don't understand how "a bigger percentage" would be different from "a bigger amount compared to other places".  A bigger per capita amount would make a difference.  Is this what you mean?  If not, what do you mean?