Now let's look at a simple fact. Ready for reality? Ok here it is. The President of the United States has almost nothing to do with the economy. WOW! That's hard to believe huh? The better the economy the lower the debt goes. If you think the President does effect the economy, could you please tell me what Clinton did to improve the economy? Or any other President for that matter? There is only one thing that a president can do (with the help of congress) is give tax breaks which has been proven to help under Reagan and Bush. This unfortunately is only a short term solution. The economy goes up and down and there is not much anyone can do about it. If you're lucky to be in office when there is an upturn (AKA Clinton) than you reap the benefits. Keeping in mind that the economy was already on a downturn by the end of Clinton's Presidency. If he did something to improve the economy why didn't it continue?

BTW it's congress that does all the spending. The President only signs or doesn't sign the bills. Who was running congress under Clinton? I don't remember. One could also argue that it was Reagan and Bush Sr. that caused the good economy during the Clinton presidency. I won't.

The problem is everytime the Republicans try to cut or even maintain the spending on anything the Democrats start crying about starving the elderly or not educating our children. So with the help of the liberal media machine they successfully scare off any attempt. Or get it cut back to almost nothing. So what do you do?

Let's make it simple. If your daughter kept running up huge bills on your credit card. What would you do? If she kept promising to stop spending but time and time again she went over the limit. What would you do? You would take the credit card away. Wouldn't you? Or would you keep giving her more money until you were broke?

So what can we do to stop congress from spending our money year after year? The same solution applies - take the money away. Only way to do this is lower taxes revenue to the gov. Republicans have been trying to do this for years through tax cuts. Bush is succeeding. Granted it's not very much. But it's a start.

This President won't take the credit card away. Not one single veto in 5 years. Not one single spending cut worth it's salt. Only cutting taxes. So he not only didn't take the credit card away, he also took a pay cut.

You are absolutely correct. The President has absolutely nothing to do with the economy. But fortuitous circumstance is a little cicumspect when the declines took place under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Increases took place under Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes.

Blaming the huge deficits on the democrats is a specious argument. They have had no power, been a completely helpless minority for 5 years. They've been a whipped puppy since GW took office. The current Congress has passed out money like a drunken sailor, in the form of tax cuts and outright spending. Why have "bridge to nowhere" amendments doubled in the last 5 years? Where are the real conservatives? The guys who want to cut spending, cut government, cut waste? This Congress and Administration has overseen the largest growth in the federal government in history.

They talk the talk and that's all. They're worse than the democrats were in 92. Got to give them credit however, they did in 12 years of control what it took the democrats 40yrs in the house.

Your argument that declines took place under Kennedy, Johnson and Carter is misleading. Look at the actual numbers of the national debt in my post above. You also have to add in the fact that the economy has also grown greatly. Under Reagan and every president after. So you have to factor in the percentage of the GNP. Things are much more proportional.

I never blamed the huge deficits on the Democrats. Where did I say that? I said that the Democrats solution to problems is to spend more money. Tax more and spend more.

I agree with you that congress is spending too much money. What's the biggest expense the government has? The military. Then entitlements. I'm all for increasing money on the military. It's the one thing the gov. should be spending our money on. So let's cut entitlements! That's fine with me.

So let me clarify because we went off on a different tangent from my original post. I am all for cutting spending except for on the military and security of our country where I think it should increase. I am not happy with the spending going on in congress. And I partly blame Republicans for this too. But the Republicans have but a slim majority in the senate. There hands are pretty much tied. But it's no where near as bad as you make it out to be. As far as Bush's numbers on concerned it will have to wait till a year or two after he's out of office. I don't like dealing with projected numbers. Let's see what really happens. In the mean time, I think the tax cuts are great. Keep them coming! If we take away enough money then maybe the congress will stop spending. Maybe but I doubt it.

From data gleaned from Encarta.

I cannot find the chart comparing annual deficits to each administration. I came across it a couple of weeks ago and was stunned. I did however find this which compares Clinton (OMG CLINTON!) to Bush. I don't want to get in an argument about Clinton. My main point is that Bush/Republican congress have not done a damn thing a real conservative would. If they had, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat. At least the democrats tell you they're going to waste your money.

• http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964

In an earlier debate with mb, which I neglected to get back to, I argued also that entitlements should be whacked. Why is social security tax capped? (Huge tax break for the wealthy) Why is retirement age 62-65 when lifespan has increased by 10-15 yrs since the thirties? When the bboomers retire, the party's over. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid must be addressed. All the other programs, except for the military, are spit in the ocean. They are the 600lb gorilla.

As to control of the houses, Senate and Congress, it's been a lockstep. The democrats have been locked out of committees, agendas, and legislation. The republicans were a far more effective minority party than the democrats. I like split control. Republican president, democratic houses, Democratic president, republican houses. Everybody has to compromise.