>>>>>>>Just scrapping by with $200K are you? Working on your autobiography?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When you are getting close to 60 and planning for retirement, it isn't. When you have kids you are trying to put through college it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I suppose that is one way to look at it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Another way is that sometimes when you spend a lot, you have a lot less than what you started with. But it doesn't change the fact that you started out with a statistically above average amount.
>>>>>
>>>>>My dad used to tell me, "it ain't how much you make, it's how much you keep". How true, if you spend your money like a drunken democrat, you'll be out of money, and wanting to spread other people's wealth around yourself.
>>>>
>>>>Given the last 8 years, shouldn't that be "spend your money like a republican without a brain"? Bush spend much more money than any president before. And he was supposed to be a "fiscal conservative". It really is beyond me that such myths still are going arround while the evidence clearly is the opposite.
>>>>
>>>>Wake up John.
>>>
>>>Uh, I think there was a war, and the Ds have been in control for 2 years. Otherwise, I agree. The Rs lost their way. They have been trying to become Ds. Our party needs to turn back to the principles of Ronald Reagan. Once that happens, we'll win.
>>
>>How would you explain this ?
>>
>>http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP-L.gif
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
>>http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
>>http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
>>
>>I can't find any evidence here that Ronald Reagan was a financial conservative. He did increate the national debt quite a bit.
>
>Ronald Reagan cut taxes, the democrats increased spending, after promising not to. Reagan started the good economy that not even Bill Clinton could stop (he was also helped by the Republican tax cuts).

Err... First of all before you complain about the proposed increase of capital gain tax of obama. He is proposing 20% which still is significantly lower than the 28% under Reagan which was decreased under clinton (Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997). Second, the current rate (15%) is expiring in 2011 and would automatically revert to 20% regardless of Obama's decisions.

Further on your 'favourate president clinton'... from wikipedia:
Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses,[36] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers.[37] Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years.

There is a lot of debates of the effect of the reaganomics by ecnomists (even by the ones who won the nobel prices). The fact is that the economy was doing bad at the early 80-ties, and it was doing much better and the end. But also at a significant cost: A huge increase of the national debt.

And then of course the famous 'Read my lips, no more taxes'. Bush was forced to increase taxes. who's fault was that? And did he buy his election with this?

Also a fact is that most tax cuts done by the republicans do nothing to the ordinary man, but help to increase the gap between rich and poor. Clinton

>The war and two years of democrat rule in both houses, and all those earmarks from both parties, coupled with Obama and his friends who were in control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (dang near bankrupting both) are the reason we have a problem today.

It was GBW in 2003 speaking at the university of Washinton who still promoted those two banks as the ones working with the government to let every US citizen to buy a house. It is silly to blame the democrats on this issue (as it is to put the blame on the R's) as it is too multifactoral.

To me, it looks like those who complain about tax increases by the D's, don't look at the big picture, but at their netto effect in their own personal wallet (a small percentage of the citizens). These often seem to be self proclaimed 'patriots'. Patriots for everything, excepts when it hurts their wallet directly. Instead they expect tax cuts and the government to go into ever increasing debt to finance it. Most want a smaller government, but want that smaller government to pay their tax cuts. Sorry but that aint flying with me. Reminds me about: 'Don't ask what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country'. Sure, as long as it does not cost me any money...

We have the same problems up here to... but then mirrored. Whenever the left is over spending and the government goes into increased debt, the right has to clean up the mess. In the US the roles seems just to be mirrored. You don't have to be an intellectual to see it. Just release yourself from the R bias and look at the financial (debt) facts. They don't lie.