Can this decade be over any sooner?

Andy, the problem wasn't just the increase in spending, it was the fact that it wasn't paid for in anyway. We started this decade with a system called "paygo", which meant that any spending bill had to be funded before it could be come law. Republicans didn't like this because they would have to raise taxes to pay for this pork, and they would lose votes if they did this. There were massive tax cuts during this decade, the problem is that you and me didn't see much of this at all. These were "trickle down economics" tax cuts based on the highest earners, so they can keep more money and "invest" that money and grow the economy. The reason you are still paying 20% is because your tax bracket wasn't a target. Ever wonder why a multimillionaire vice president of the United States only paid 9% in taxes when he complained about the 35% tax bracket? Republicans think that cutting taxes ALWAYS helps the economy, and this is another example of where it does for a short time, but hurts the economy in the long run. If these tax cuts were so effective then please explain to me why it is that we are ending this decade no better than we were ten years ago (if not worst)? Lets talk about deregulation. How did you like paying $4.50 for a gallon of gas? Do you think that had anything at all to do with the collapse of our economy? How about the fact that your pet dog was more regulated than your mortgage broker? Do you think there is any way that an act that was repealed in 1999, Glass-Steagll (with $200 Million spent by the banking industry to congress), had anything to do with our economic collapse? Sub-prime mortgages did have a horrible effect on our economy during this decade, but it was just a piece in the pie. If you look at the number of default mortgages, you will see the sub prime is high, but in many cases prime mortgages were going under as well. Please show me one case where the government FORCED a mortgage company to give someone a sub prime loan? The Fed asked banks, and congress to create new ways to allow for more people to purchase houses, and they kept interest rates low so more people could at lower prices. That was a horrible mistake in many ways, and has a lot to do with what is going on in this country now. If you look at the last three decades, you will see a difference in all three. Two were run with "trickle down" economics, by republican leaders, and one was run by a democrat. The 80's ended in a five plus year recession, and the largest national debt in our nations history. The 90's ended with growing economy, and the lowest national debt in our decades. The 2000's ended with the worst economy the country has seen in 70 years, and with again a record national debt. So please explain to me how it is that deregulation, and tax cuts are such a great idea when history shows us it isn't? Please, explain this to me like I am a four year old, because this makes no sense at all to me.

Republicans didn't like it? Maybe you have forgotten the Republicans actually tried to pass a constitutional amendment that said if the budget is not balanced, then congress doesn't get paid. Do you remember who shot that rule down? It was the democraps in the 1995 budget battle. So you can quit the partisan crap, where you pretend your party are all saints, and the others are all devils. Both parties over spent. Oh and about that Paygo rule, maybe you forget who originally broke that rule. It was Democrats in 2002 who pushed through the Farm Subsidy bill. Remember the Republicans in the late 90s, ended government subsidization of agriculture. In 2002, as a pay back to super wealthy corporate farmers like Ted Turner who helped them retake congress, Democraps pushed The Farm Security Act of 2002. The Democraps themselves admitted that the act violated the PayGo rule. So who didn't like PayGo? Maybe democrats paying off political supporters, just as much as republicans? Sorry, but that partisan garbage doesn't fly with me. Especially when the people you support are just as dirty as the rest of them. Of course the worst part is, PayGo doesn't work to begin with. Lestist, and politicians, seem to have this nutty idea that congress can simply change how much money they make. Not true, anymore than you can decide you want a luxury car, and just walk into your bosses office and say "I want a Lexus, so you'll need to pay me $20K more this year". Paygo doesn't mandate that they *HAVE* the money to pay for a bill. It simply requires that they have a deficit neutral balance on paper. There are two ways to do that. First, if you want to spend $100 Billion on Medicare because the program is going broke, you can cut $100 Billion from Farm Subsidies. That works, but again it's all about spending. The other way is you can write a bill that increases taxes by $100 Billion. Here's the problem. You can't increase taxes by a $100 Billion, even though they claim too. You can increase the *RATE* of taxes and then assume that economic activity will remain the same, but it never does. Say you have the lemonade stand. You can make a cup of lemonade for 90¢, and sell it for a dollar. You sell 1,000 cups a day. Now the government comes in. They pass a bill that spends $200 dollars a day for food given to unemployed union workers. In order to pay for that they look at your business and think, if we just raise $200 in sales taxes, that will pay for this program. So they put a 20% sales tax on your lemonade, assuming you will still sell it for $1, and still sell 1,000 cups a day. What's the problem? Well, at $1.20 a cup, you will not sell as many with a higher cost. Further, since you are selling fewer cups, you'll have to raise your prices to earn enough to make it worth it. The price will increase even further. So even fewer cups will be sold. The result will be, only a fraction of the money required, will be collected in taxes. This is the nutty idea of the left that taxes have no effect on the economy. That you can simply say "we need $100 Billion in taxes" and that will magically become how much is collected. In 1992 Bush Sr passed a tax hike, and immediately the economy went into recession. Have we learned nothing from the past?? So it's always about spending. Always. If you earn $100 this week, and spend less than $100, you'll have a surplus. If you spend more, you'll have a deficit. If you earn $10K dollars, and spend $15K, you'll have a deficit. If you earn a million dollars, and spend a million plus, you'll have a deficit. Income is never the real issue. Spending is always the real issue. I'll determine if I want to respond to the rest of your comment later.

"Republicans didn't like it? Maybe you have forgotten the Republicans actually tried to pass a constitutional amendment that said if the budget is not balanced, then congress doesn't get paid. Do you remember who shot that rule down? It was the democraps in the 1995 budget battle." Yet wasn't it a republican president that requested the end of paygo so he could fund his war? "So you can quit the partisan crap, where you pretend your party are all saints, and the others are all devils. Both parties over spent." I am not saying that any party is a saint, I am just pointing out what caused this decade to be complete push, if not loss. "Oh and about that Paygo rule, maybe you forget who originally broke that rule. It was Democrats in 2002 who pushed through the Farm Subsidy bill. Remember the Republicans in the late 90s, ended government subsidization of agriculture. In 2002, as a pay back to super wealthy corporate farmers like Ted Turner who helped them retake congress, Democraps pushed The Farm Security Act of 2002. The Democraps themselves admitted that the act violated the PayGo rule." I understand that there were ways around paygo, but it did stop some bills from going through even if it was just a fear tactic to use in elections. "So who didn't like PayGo? Maybe democrats paying off political supporters, just as much as republicans? Sorry, but that partisan garbage doesn't fly with me. Especially when the people you support are just as dirty as the rest of them." All parties are dirty, it doesn't matter who you are talking about, I am just getting back onto the subject. "Say you have the lemonade stand. You can make a cup of lemonade for 90¢, and sell it for a dollar. You sell 1,000 cups a day. Now the government comes in. They pass a bill that spends $200 dollars a day for food given to unemployed union workers. In order to pay for that they look at your business and think, if we just raise $200 in sales taxes, that will pay for this program. So they put a 20% sales tax on your lemonade, assuming you will still sell it for $1, and still sell 1,000 cups a day. What's the problem? Well, at $1.20 a cup, you will not sell as many with a higher cost. Further, since you are selling fewer cups, you'll have to raise your prices to earn enough to make it worth it. The price will increase even further. So even fewer cups will be sold. The result will be, only a fraction of the money required, will be collected in taxes." This does make sense, but the problem is that history has proven this not to be on the government level. During the 90's the tax rate was increased under Clinton, and the national debt was paid down, and the economy exploded. So, history proves this theory is not always true. "This is the nutty idea of the left that taxes have no effect on the economy. That you can simply say "we need $100 Billion in taxes" and that will magically become how much is collected. In 1992 Bush Sr passed a tax hike, and immediately the economy went into recession. Have we learned nothing from the past??" WHAT? Congress increased taxes, but the economy was already in a recession from the Reagan years. The US economy under Bush Sr. was dismal, and many have said that the country was in a recession throughout his presidency. "So it's always about spending. Always. If you earn $100 this week, and spend less than $100, you'll have a surplus. If you spend more, you'll have a deficit. If you earn $10K dollars, and spend $15K, you'll have a deficit. If you earn a million dollars, and spend a million plus, you'll have a deficit. Income is never the real issue. Spending is always the real issue." Andy did you read any of my response to your original post? You didn't even enter the zip code of answering any of my questions. The only thing you did was try to explain basic economic theory, but I can show you FACTS where this theory is just that: Theory. Look at the last 30 years, and show me where supply side economics has NOT left the country with a huge deficit, and in the Bush case the same place (or worst) then when it started.

Lady, what kind of deregulation would you like to see? You mean like the deregulation of the electric grid like what happened in California in the late 90's (remember Enron?)? How about the lack of regulation and transparency in the Cheney energy bill that allowed for high prices for oil in 2008? How about the deregulation of the banking industry that almost destroyed the entire world economy? How many people in here think these were great for anyone besides CEO's and their golden parachutes?