How do you feel about the new congress' proposed budget legislation?

It would require ALL tax cuts to include spending cuts. Do you like this idea? If not, why? Are you surprised to see fiscal responsibility out of the dems? And finally, what is your party affiliation?How do you feel about the new congress' proposed budget legislation?I think it is a good idea.



Yes, it's still a good idea.



No, I'm not surprised. We were running balanced budgets when Clinton left office.



I am unaffiliated with any party.How do you feel about the new congress' proposed budget legislation?
Democrats = increased taxes. Did anybody think anything different was going to happen?How do you feel about the new congress' proposed budget legislation?Well it would be ok if it had mandatory budget cuts.... but it doesn't. All this ensures is higher taxes, because do you think the Dems really favor cutting social programs?How do you feel about the new congress' proposed budget legislation?
I think Madam Speaker Pelosi put it best when she stated, "pay as you go".



Green Party.How do you feel about the new congress' proposed budget legislation?I think it is long overdue. If I ran my finances like the govt. did, I would be bankrupt and then some. The Dems have always been more fiscally responsible. The budget defecits got out of control when Reagan and Bush Sr. were president, got balanced under Clinton, and got out of control again under Bush, Jr.How do you feel about the new congress' proposed budget legislation?
I see it is business as usual in Washington.

Time will tell if any of these brilliant ideas so the light of day.

But going on Speaker Pelosi's past voting record - I don't see any tax cuts on the horizon just alot of new spending in pretty wrapping..



Mrs. Pelosi has consistently voted against welfare reform, including the 1996 bill signed by President Clinton and its re-authorization. In 1998, she opposed a constitutional amendment to permit school prayer in the classroom. In 1999, she opposed allowing state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments on public property, including schools. She has voted against education IRAs. In 2003, she opposed a $10 million program for school vouchers in the District of Columbia. That same year she voted against the 10-year $400 billion Medicare prescription-drug bill because she preferred one that was twice as expensive. Mrs. Pelosi has repeatedly voted for tax increases and opposed tax cuts, even the 2001 bill that doubled the child tax credit to $1,000, among other cuts. She voted to end Radio Marti broadcasts to Cuba. She voted to reduce funds for the B-2 intercontinental bomber, which performed superbly in the 1999 Kosovo War, in 2001 in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Mrs. Pelosi has repeatedly opposed anti-missile defense, even as a nuclear-armed North Korea has tested ballistic missiles.
The proposal doesn't make as much sense as it seems as first because tax cuts change behavior. Done right, tax cuts stimulate economic activity and result in higher revenues, not lower. This has recently been proven, again.



It honestly distresses me that the Democrats seem to have missed this basic economic principle. I'm very sorry to hear it.



I have asked my own question - what spending cuts they have proposed.



Truth be told, it seems in part like a game of "chicken" is being played. Reagan and Bush 41 agreed with the Democrat Congress to raise taxes, conditioned on using it to reduce the deficit. The Congress instead spent over a dollar for every dollar of tax increase! Then Gingrich and Clinton worked to balance things, then Bush 43 and the Republican Congress broke the bank again. if people are terrified that the budget is so unbalanced, when are they ever going to cut spending? (hint: never!) And a prescription drug plan on top of it? AND the opening of Social Security to illegal aliens?



Can we settle for "rough justice?" No tax cuts without spending cuts, and no tax INCREASES without ALL of the remainder going to the deficit! Again, it doesn't work perfectly from an economic standpoint, but we're talking politics.



Also, the size of the deficit should be measured as a PERCENTAGE of the budget and GDP, not raw numbers. I'd rather owe $50,000 and make $250,000 a year than owe $25,000 and only make $100,000 a year. (Round numbers.)



Or, we could just try it this way and then see what happens. But if I think it's wrong I should fight it rather than let the country suffer to prove me right.



Time will tell. I'm glad sometimes that I'm not a young man. God help us.



PS I'm still thinking about this. Why, if one wants to start taming the budget beast, do you start with THIS rule? Why not say "we will make sure the deficit is no more than x%?" Or "we will cut the deficit by y% each year?" Or "z% of every budget has to go to deficit reduction?" Or any one of a hundred different rules!



To me, this screams "NO TAX CUTS!!!" To those who think the tax cuts were bad, they must be delighted. But to those who think the cuts were good, it's very scary.



Yes, the Republicans screwed up, yes I lost and yes I am somewhat mischaracterizing the message. But the Dems are making it harder to cut taxes - as a first, symbolic and important step.



I'm not too happy . . . :(



PPS Please tell me that this is just one small piece of a bigger program! Including caps on raises in spending, and no increased spending or new programs without paying for existing programs first!



Please don't tell me I'm living in a country where the government says "we're making it harder to lower your taxes!!!" and people cheer. PLEASE tell me that's not true!



%26lt;sigh%26gt;



PPPS YES, they did also enact "pay as you go" with respect to new spending, not just tax cuts. I feel somewhat better now. :)



If they can stop the crazy spending better than the Republicans, then great! My concern with tax increases is that, among other things, they have usually, if not always, resulted in increased spending and not debt paydown.