Hawken can explain that..

[kraft-t]

Ha! another fair and balanced report. Bush's deficits was because he did not stand up to democrat spending.!

You fail to mention that almost all legislation was passed by a majority of repubkican votes and a few blue dog democrats. Bush had almost complete cooperation from republicans aolng with a few blue dogs and you call it democrat spending.

You relluy got  foggy memory of the real life situation as it occured. Me thinks you have been getting too many "facts' from selected sources.

[r3020]

Then you agree spending is out of control.

[GreaTOne_65]

No, you fool, it's the failure of spending more than we take in, it's the revenue, stupid!

[r3020]

Has anyone proposed a tax rate that will remove anothe 1.5 trillion/year from the economy? What is that tax rate?

[Nebrfarmr]

It wasn't Democrat spendig, it was spending increases, by all of Congress.

If you wish to say I am wrong, please tell me how many spending bills Bush Vetoed in the first 6 years of office?

[kraft-t]

Certainly! bring the troops home and slash the defense budget!

[kraft-t]

The repubs were pushing Bush's agenda. That is why he didn't veto. He wanted the spending!

[r3020]

---

@kraft-t wrote:

The repubs were pushing Bush's agenda. That is why he didn't veto. He wanted the spending!

---

So much for change.

[Democratforlife]

Across the board spending cuts, will do the trick. Not just defense. All spending must come in below revenue. That is how government can get to a balanced budget.

[Jim B. in Iowa]

---

@kraft-t wrote:

Certainly! bring the troops home and slash the defense budget!

---

At least you've come to realize it IS the spending thats the problem, not the revenue.  Thats a good first step Don.