Can either Democrats or Republicans make a genuine case that they seek to balance the federal budget?

Look to the libertarians.Can either Democrats or Republicans make a genuine case that they seek to balance the federal budget?
Both are very wasteful. They are just wasteful on different things.





Remember when you vote this fall. It's Congress that actually controls the budget. Not the President. Congress can do a cut and paste on the budget. The President only gets to submit a wish list and sign or veto the ENTIRE budget. And the President is very reluctant to veto beacuse the budget is usually late when it arrives to be signed. To veto could mean many problems.Can either Democrats or Republicans make a genuine case that they seek to balance the federal budget?
I can make a case that having a balanced budget can be bad.





Shortly after the Gulf War in 1991, ';The Peace Dividend'; became a buzz-phrase that came up frequently during the annual budget battle inside the beltway, and it lasted for several consecutive years as I recall. Then, in the mid/late '90s, ';The Peace Dividend'; joined forces with an economic-boom-driven surge in tax receipts to create a budget surplus. What a bonanza, we all thought. Well, almost all of us, anyway . . .





A tiny minority of iconoclasts had one eyebrow raised, and one skeptical eye focused on the precipitous decline in national security's share of the spending mix. Their nagging questions: Was it wise to invest ';The Peace Dividend'; in everything except enhancing future peace prospects? Would objectors be audible in the midst of the mardi-gras-style celebration of Surplus-mania and ';fiscal discipline';? Answers: No, and No.





Fast forward five years. Our 1990's decision to reduce national security spending, i.e., our decision not to invest ';The Peace Dividend'; in enhancing future peace prospects, was a huge factor in the creation of the falsely-revered surplus. (Falsely-revered because it made only a small dent in our ho-hum debt burden.)





Would the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and Langley have used a reinvested Peace Dividend to successfully counter the asymmetric threats which subsequently destroyed embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killed seventeen servicemen on the USS Cole, or murdered thousands on 9-11-01? Maybe, maybe not; I'd like to think so, because I'm an optimist. But we'll never know.





What we do know is this: ';The Peace Dividend'; was not invested in the enhancement of future peace prospects; instead, it was invested in creating a political gold mine: ';The Surplus';鈥攚hich, in my opinion, would be more aptly named ';The National Security Disinvestment.';





I certainly hope we don't forget this lesson; if we do, we'll just have to relearn it the hard way sometime down the road.
The last president to balance the budget was a Democrat, Clinton. And a big reason he was successful in doing that was the 'paygo' system. Something the Bush administration eliminated almost immediately after taking office. Obama is talking about adopting a very similar system to paygo.
To educate a few, there was NO BUDGET SURPLUS during the Clinton administration. There was a ';projected'; surplus, but they found a way to spend it before it became real.





Somehow the media supressed that little fact. Gosh, the media never supresses info does it? ;-)





But to answer your question, neither has any intention of balancing the budget.
Getting rid of ridiculous governmental spending is the first step. I vote for the Dept of Education and Energy to be removed.





Removing revenues which is a side effect of raising taxes will not help anyone. Reduces money in your pocket and promotes sheltering of money - go read about the Laffer Curve.





Funny how the liberals have such a hard time understanding HOUSEHOLD incomes of over 250k is the target of Obama's taxes. But that is a lot more people that you realize once he tries to remove the Bush tax cuts.
Clinton left office with budget surpluses. One start to achieving a balanced budget is to follow Obama's tax plan for individuals with incomes over $250,000 and then concentrate on getting the economy back on track by doing the opposite of Bush neocon supply-side economics.
No they can not both are into spending more then they make. One just wants to raise taxes so income decreases.
Not unless they do away with entitlements.
Mac Cain wants to and Obama wants to tax more and give more stuff away. Peace
no.
Can't they just print more money?