What political group is more financially responsible?

I dunno. Both groups (D, R) are too big and varied to really be able to answer that.

Certainly, Bush has proven to be jaw-droppingly IRresponsible, though.

Republicans used to be known for taxing and spending, while the Democrates were more apt to borrow and spend. There doesn't now seem to be any distinction regarding the source of funds.

The Classic Republican goal of ridding the U.S. of as many entitlement programs as possible seems close at hand.

What?

Does this sound that far fetched? Perhaps, but witness an administration who has unashamedly increased the national deficit to record proportions. Remember the debate on what to do with the budget surplus at the very beginning of the present administration? (Actually it was part of the last Presidential election campaign)

We have seen, since Jan 2000, the invasion of a couple of countries, some nation building, a "government sponsored" drug bill for the elderly, No Child Left Behind, Aids relief for African countries...All good stuff... right? Sure, but given the "no such thing as a free lunch" mentality that Bush's party has repeatedly (and correctly) tried to instill in the collective national thinking, how is this "lunch" to be paid for?

Apparently by tax cuts all around. Well, kind of... but certainly an overall reduction in government revenues! It would seem this administration's answer to this question has less to do with "how" and more to do with "whom". They would seem to expect to capitalize on the collective American ignobility of passing this cost onto future generations. Great strategy! For two reasons.

First, by the time the American public figures this out, the Bushies will no longer be in power. Second, no matter who is in power they will be forced to cut government expenses (read educational subsidies, Medicare, Social Security, National Science Foundational Grants for Research, Head Start Program...).

Given the GOP in power: forget any effort directed towards the salvage of any such programs so considered as "entitlements" (Given present republican disregard we might expect a cut in veteran benefits). They would, of course revert to "fiscal responsibility" and not only rule out such an outflow of funds but would eschew any such revenue enhancements effected by additional taxes (except perhaps those "poor man" tax increases, such as those on gas, retail sales, alcohol, and cigarettes.

Contrarily, any Democratic ensconced efforts would be hard pressed to legitimatize themselves. Any action to preserve any such social programs would be considered "irresponsible" due to the crushing national debt originally incurred by the current Bush administration. Pointedly, such a Democratic admin's attempt at revenue enhancement (increased or additional taxes) would merely validate the GOP claim of the Dem party as that of a "Tax and Spend" entity and the Dems continued fiscal irresponsibility.

JM

Spot on. IMO, this admin is intentionally setting the stage for forced cuts and Greenspan is the only one being honest about what is looking to be an inevitability.

I second that.

I don't think either party is clearly more responsible with our tax dollars. I see different ways of spending that you could see as unnecessary on both parts.

As far as entitlement programs go. I do see a definite need to trim a lot of this up. My pet peeve is SS Disability. I have seen way too many on the list that are able to work. This list of disabilities is unreasonable. Trim it up to those who are truley unable to work. That list is so bad that it could probably be cut in half with a ton of savings. I am not in favor of getting rid of this program altogether.

Another one I didn't like was government paid preschool only for the so called poor that qualified for food stamps held in a public school. When I went to school, kindergarden was not a necessity. Preschool is a luxury and expensive. Get rid of it! If it is in a public school, everyone should be able to use this program, not just those who qualify for food stamps when many working people cannot afford to send their children to preschool.

I'm very sure if I took a look at many entitlement programs, I wouldn't be too happy. I am also not too happy with too much administrative costs where little money trickles down to the intent of the program, like maintaining our roads. How many employees does this realistically take?

I have to balance my checkbook. I feel government should start doing the same, but they don't. Who is really to blame, both Democrats and Republicans for different reasons.

I have worked extensively with those getting SSI and SSDI, and believe me, it is difficult to get benefits, and difficult to keep them once you have them. I'm not sure where you got any information to the contrary...source?

Both Wildflower63 and sozobe have touched on and even briefly defined the current debate on SSI payments. I too have had experience with such recipients and although many may consider my experience merely anecdotal, the fact that, in my subjective opinion, many recipients are not totally deserving of said benefits points to the possibility of a small but significant population of recipients so undeserved. Simply put: There are individuals that should be dropped from these welfare rolls.

But given the admitted subjectiveness in such decisions how is it possible to fairly decide who gets the benefit of this societal largess? After all, this is a zero sum game. Those who receive benefits siphon off resources that could, arguably, be better applied elsewhere. But whether the extra cash is used to purchase better teaching materials or increase the value of my own personal 401K is the subject next in line for debate and provides us little insight as to the validity of individual SSI cases.

Sure, we could sink into a debate as to the merits of a society and its responsibility towards less fortunate members but that lends little towards a practical resolution. Such subjective decisions should be effected by medical professionals (nothing new here) and mandated and applied by those of our legislative and legal systems. The result of such decisions of a society to "give" monetary assistance to the less fortunate is to secure their self worth and contributions to the very society that affords them such an opportunity. Partial benefits require part time work in return. Those not showing up for work forfeit those hard won benefits.

This provides two possible outcomes, both desirable. We would see the production of self respect for those recipients who would so wish and view the situation. Contrarily, for those recipients feeling the sting of being so "under-employed" in a job that, perhaps, feels demeaning to them this would provide the opportunity to seek a more "fulfilling" vocation. Indeed, the "American Way" looks quite favorably upon those seeking a better life, as long as it is not at the expense of others. As a result we would see a lesser amount of beneficiaries languishing in part time jobs requiring little than sitting at home thinking about their woeful situations.

As to the value of pre-school, I have talked to a number of professionals who concur (off the record) with what I have found in my reading of studies on the subject. Anything so taught at this time to young children is easily made up in a matter of a week or two in kindergarten. Indeed, these same professionals see little value in the academic need for kindergarten for the same reason and results of that of first grade. Kindergarten seems more valid when viewed as an exercise in socializing the somewhat disparate young hordes than as an effort towards academic training. Any individual needing a significantly greater amount of time to come up to snuff demands a totally different set of educational efforts.

Most professionals sense a parental desire for cheap babysitting or daycare as the main reason for the trend in "early education" rather than that of an early attempt at an intense academic "leg up" for the little urchins.

JM

I strongly support a tax increase. I support social programs - better schools, universal health care, increased forign aid, etc. Higher taxes are neccessary to put these things into place.

I am not sure about what you mean by "financially responsible," though. Are you asking what sort of tax policy people support, or which political group is, or would be, most "responsible" with the tax dollars it controlled?

Real veterans understand the courage it takes our 43rd CIC to actually combat terrorism and tyranny while simultaneously promoting our American ideals and freedoms. Real veterans also understand who Kerry is because he showed us his immoral colors in Nicaragua. By the way, thankfully, his side lost and Nicaragua is now a vibrant democracy. Just as it took courage then, it takes courage now. Kerry's instincts were wrong then and are still wrong for America.

The issues in America are found amongst our public schools, our national defense, tax relief, Social Security and Medicare, healthcare, and our economy. I want you to be honest with yourself and the all the facts while you determine which of these two, the President George W. Bush, or his opponent, Sen. John Kerry, has actually accomplished and made progress on these issues.

The principals we strive to fight against in America are found amongst abortions or suicides, crime or smut, and lack of faith; read Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Now I ask you; are all these deaths and the misery associated with abortions or suicides necessary? Do we really need to allow for so much crime and smut and all of its pain and consequences? Do we have such little faith that we blame God for our poverty of morals? When choosing a leader to fight against these principalities, choose one well armed to take the fight to the enemy. Do you know in your heart were Sen. John Kerry stands and defends our collective morals? He and his party are aligned with the devil! They represent evil forces which are tearing apart our citizen's basic rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I encourage you to move away from gratifications towards responsibility and provide this President, George W. Bush, with your great vote.