Republicans make the mess -- Democrats are handed the shovel...

[kentuck]

It is all one big passion play. The Repubs get elected or "selected" and their job is to cut taxes, run up huge deficits, increase military spending, and stagnate the economy and put people out of work.

Then the Democrats get elected, they have to raise taxes because of the huge deficits. They have to cut spending, even military spending. But they put people to work and get the economy back on a path of growth. This is the way it's been working since the days of Jimmy Carter and the Repubs are perfectly OK with this system.

But the Repubs have an easier job. They cut taxes, mostly for the wealthy, which in turn, creates huge deficits, which in turn drag our economy down in the long run. In the short run, their deficits are like Keynesianism Gone Wild. It does spur the economy - in the short run.

But just as Reagan's taxcuts came back to haunt GHWB, Dubya's deficits will probably create some growth in the short run? However, his deficits are so huge that it may not take 8 years for the economy to hit the fan under W? But they will continue to give all the gravy to their wealthy friends and the next Democrat will be handed the shovel to clean up the mess.

The end result is that there are never any social programs enacted for the people. Every time a Repub is elected, he runs up the huge deficits with taxcuts and military spending and by the time the electorate comes to their senses and votes in a Democrat, then the entire agenda of the new Democrat is to bring down the deficits and cut the excess spending of the previous profligate Republican.

It was the strategy under Reagan and it is the strategy under Bush. Create deficits and cut taxes and leave a fiscal mess for the Democrat that follows you. So far, it has worked like a charm for them. How could the Democrats turn the table?

[ComerPerro]

1. The worst part about this is

That when the Dem comes in and restores most taxes to their origional levels, the economy gets better and unemployment goes down. When that happens, the Republicans have the nerve to say that the tax cuts and corporate handouts were the cause of the economic upswing, even though it happened two years after they last cut taxes.

[kentuck]

2. Yeah, they've got a good scam going...

No doubt about it.

[SoCalDem]

3. A cartoonist could make a great cartoon

Bush, Nixon, Reagan leaving a stinky litterbox full of "stuff" ( all labeled with their failings).. and behind them with a gigantic liter scooper, Carter,Clinton and the 8 candidates(question marks for faces), each with a scooper..

Caption.. They fill up the litter box, Dems always have to clean up their messes

[rucky]

4. How can we turn the tables?

Keep corporate welfare, but only distribute it to owner-operated businesses & farms. Drop the cap on the payroll tax and redistribute the burden. Create a "living wage" pay rate above minimum wage & offer businesses tax incentives when they meet that rate. Keep defense spending, but use the $ to raise pay & benefits for the troops and modernize the VAs.

Then when the Repubs try to redistribute that money back to the wealthy, then they'll be spending more and/or taking money out of working families to do it.

[kentuck]

5. Good idea...

As it is, we get nothing and they get everything...

[snippy]

6. You ask: "How could the Democrats turn the table?" Easy.

Get their shit together and make sure that every American over the age of 12 knows this:

Federal Deficits

Since Kennedy was president, republican presidents have always run higher federal deficits in current dollars, in constant dollars and as a percentage of GDP, than democratic presidents, except for 1968. In the 42 years since Kennedy's first budget, the US has accumulated roughly $3.5 trillion in federal deficits. Over $3.2 trillion of this debt piled up in the 22 years under republican presidents. less than $300 billion piled up in the 20 years under democratic presidents.

Republican presidents $3.2 trillion in deficits
Democratic presidents $300 billion in deficits

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z3.xls

Note that the estimates in the table for 2003 and subsequent years are no longer applicable. The current estimates are much higher. Also, the numbers for the first year of a presidential term are from the budget of the preceeding term.

[rucky]

7. Deficits aren't tangible...taxes are

tax cuts will win every time

you cover the deficits by creating more taxpayers

it's all about jobs next time around.

[snippy]

8. I'm not sure about the tax cuts.

I agree about the importance of jobs but disagree about the importance of deficits. The republican party has defined the democratic party as the "tax and spend" party and most Americans believe that. Perot's initial support was due to harping about the debt and deficits.

Concerning jobs, this is another area where the democratic party has allowed the republican party to define the democratic party as preventing or hindering job creation. Another lie not exposed.Job Creation

Republican presidents are always, always, always bad for job creation. Since the 1920's, the annual rate of job creation under republican presidents has always been lower than under democratic presidents. Bush is much worse on job creation than the typical republican president.

Since the depression, not a single republican president has had a better rate of job creation than any democratic president. The highest rate of job growth under a republican was 2.2% per year during Nixon's time in office. The lowest rate of job growth under a democrat was 2.3% per year during Kennedy's time in office. Bush has had a -0.7% annual rate which is the first negative number since the depression.

Since WWII ended, a total of 57.51 million jobs were created during the terms of democratic presidents which is an average of 2.054 million jobs per year. During the terms of republican presidents a total of 31.11 million jobs were created which is an average of 1.003 million jobs per year.