Fox News: Biden Compares GOP Economic Strategy to Blaming Rape Victims

[Oversized Toddler]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/19/biden-compares-gop-economic-strategy-blaming-rape-victims/

Ratcheting up the rhetoric in the Washington budget battle, Vice President Biden on Friday compared the Republican strategy of seeking to slash federal spending while championing tax breaks for the wealthy to rape victims being blamed for the rape.

At a lavish Philadelphia fundraising luncheon that raised $400,000 for Democratic congressional campaigns, Biden began his attack on Republicans by crediting the 1994 Violence Against Women Act that he and former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter authored for changing society's attitude about blaming rape victims.

"When a woman got raped, blame her because she was wearing a skirt too short, she looked the wrong way or she wasn't home in time to make dinner," he said. "We've gotten by that."

Then Biden turned his focus to the current spending debate in which Democrats and Republicans are fighting over how much to cut from the federal budget.

"But it's amazing how these Republicans, the right wing of this party – whose philosophy threw us into this godawful hole we're in, gave us the tremendous deficit we've inherited – that they're now using the very economic condition they have created to blame the victim – whether it's organized labor or ordinary middle-class working men and women," he said.

:doh:

Is it wrong to wish Mr. Biden would have a horrible accident involving his vocal cords? I love that we get to experience so much humor at his expense, but seriously man? You say things like this, and wonder why your own party cringes every time you open your mouth?

Oh, and as always - blame the guys before you. It's a strategy that has never ceased to escape politicians. When in doubt, don't take credit for the things you've done. We get it, you inherited a pile of dung. We are all well aware of this. But when you do something that doesn't work, then you pile more dung on top of that to cover it up, that doesn't make it better. It makes you both wrong. My mom always told me two wrongs don't make a right, it's a shame politicians don't follow the same mantra.

Please try not to turn this into a Right vs. Left fight. They both suck, and the sooner we can all accept this, the better off we'll be.

*****Here to cut the head off the snake before all the nauseating and overdone "Faux News" references are made. It just happened to be the first one to pop up on my news feed. I subscribe to all the outlets.

[The 12th Commandment]

Actually, I think he nailed this one.

[DieselPwr44]

Ok Joe....so you guys inherited a terrible deficit and your answer to that was to ratchet up spending that much more??

For the Dems on this site, you guys might want to pitch in and buy Joe a muzzle.

*EDIT*

BTW Joe...

You guys had control of both Houses and the White House for two years. If the solution was raising taxes on the rich, why didn't you guys do something about it?

Spare me the self righteous bull crap now...........

[Oversized Toddler]

Ok Joe....so you guys inherited a terrible deficit and your answer to that was to ratchet up spending that much more??

For the Dems on this site, you guys might want to pitch in and buy Joe a muzzle.

Wait, you mean throwing money at money doesn't work?

I never bothered to do the research, but my grandfather has told me several times over the years that in the rest of the world, the great depression lasted a fraction of the time it did in the United States. He says it was because the rest of the world rode out the storm, and we threw money at the problem trying to make it go away. To save me the trouble of having to look this up while I'm still having my weekend coffee, can anyone with some knowledge of the situation confirm whether there is any truth to this? I freely admit that I don't particular know much about the great depression outside of the United States.

---------- Post added March-19th-2011 at 11:12 AM ----------

Actually, I think he nailed this one.

The only reason I don't think there is any validity in his statement on this, is because he is complaining about the inherited deficit, while pretending like the Democrats have done nothing but attempt to reduce the deficit. Fact is, regardless of which side you support, both parties have put us in this hole. The Republicans spent too much money, and they dug us a hole. The Democrats took power, and they dug the hole even deeper, while telling us that the only way to get out of a hole is to keep digging until you reach the other side.

I'm no economist, but nothing about that ideology makes any sense at all. Spending money to dig your way out of a hole created by spending too much money, makes about as much sense as throwing your clothes in a lake to dry them off.

I vote that we erase 2000-2012 from the history books. Just stick em in a box with the missing minutes of the Nixon tapes :pfft:

[Burgold]

So, for curiousity's sake. What would have been your strategy for fixing the economy, creating jobs, saving the banks, etc. without spending any money?

To me, your argument is like saying, "Whoa, your house burned down. I'm going to build you a new one, but I won't need any tools or materials. I'll just build it out of ash and soot."

[RedskinsFan44]

"You guys had control of both Houses and the White House for two years. If the solution was raising taxes on the rich, why didn't you guys do something about it?"

When the Bush tax cuts expired the Republicans had just won the 2010 elections. If I recall correctly, Obama and the Dems wanted to end the tax cuts for people making over 250k. Look at a historical chart of our national debt. You will see the mess we are in begin at a certain year. (and a pox on both houses).

[Larry]

Ok Joe....so you guys inherited a terrible deficit and your answer to that was to ratchet up spending that much more??

They didn't.

But don't let that stop you from claiming it.

---------- Post added March-19th-2011 at 12:11 PM ----------

When the Bush tax cuts expired the Republicans had just won the 2010 elections. If I recall correctly, Obama and the Dems wanted to end the tax cuts for people making over 250k. Look at a historical chart of our national debt. You will see the mess we are in begin at a certain year. (and a pox on both houses).

1812?

[alexey]

I'm no economist, but nothing about that ideology makes any sense at all. Spending money to dig your way out of a hole created by spending too much money, makes about as much sense as throwing your clothes in a lake to dry them off.

Obviously spending money to get out of debt is a viable strategy only if you are investing into things that will increase your revenue in the long run...

If you are talking about the stimulus, then the idea is also to prevent the snowballing effect of low demand putting businesses out of business, which further lowers demand, etc.

Ideally supposedly you could have both of these. Or you can give ****ing useless tax cuts.

[Bang]

The rich aren't complaining, so why should anyone listen?

~Bang

[GhostofSparta]

1812?

Hey now, Andrew Jackson eliminated the national debt during his presidency, and he was president well after 1812. So I think you're looking at around 1840, or more likely 1861-ish.

[Oversized Toddler]

So, for curiousity's sake. What would have been your strategy for fixing the economy, creating jobs, saving the banks, etc. without spending any money?

To me, your argument is like saying, "Whoa, your house burned down. I'm going to build you a new one, but I won't need any tools or materials. I'll just build it out of ash and soot."

I don't have a strategy. I openly admitted I'm ignorant when it comes to economics. Fortunately for me, it's not my job to figure these things out or worry about how to solve the problems, that's why we as a country elect these people to take care of exactly that. Using your own analogy, if my house burns down, I'm hiring a builder to rebuild it for me, not a fry cook.

All that aside, there is a simple solution to creating jobs that would boost the economy, and bring jobs back to the United States. It's called tort reform. Otherwise known as words of the devil to Democrats. Say what you want, but frivolous lawsuits are the cause of at least 50% of the problems we're facing with our economy and job situation. Ok, maybe not 50%, but it's a big problem. Think about it, if you owned a business, and a customer did something blatantly idiotic that resulted in injury, which of the following would you prefer?

1. Operating your business in a country that would allow that customer to sue you for millions, because of their Darwin Award candidacy?

2. operating in a country that would prevent someone from suing you because they did something so stupid that even a 5 year old child would know not to do?

Ok Joe....so you guys inherited a terrible deficit and your answer to that was to ratchet up spending that much more??

They didn't.

But don't let that stop you from claiming it.

They didn't? Are you trying to tell me that in spite of what every single person in the country knows to be fact, you somehow know something we don't, and you know it to be a fact that the Democrats didn't increase spending? Educate me please, I don't want to be left out of the loop. I'm being completely serious, I have heard it non stop from both sides that the Democrats have spent us into oblivion, and that's why the vote in November turned out the way it did. However, just as you said to Diesel, it might not be fact, but don't let that stop you from claiming it is.

I'm one of those people that likes to think I pay attention enough to know what's going on to an extent. But when all I hear is how much money the government is spending, then I hear one person claim they aren't, it gets me curious. I believe, just as I am sure you do, that a link to a source backing your claim does more than someone just claiming it to be true.

A quick google search turned up the following from CBS, which states that as of October of 2010, the debt has increased $3 trillion under Obama. I know things can me misworded, that's why I am asking you in all honesty to provide some information (not from a blog, I don't believe a word of any of them) that backs your claims. You could be right, I'm just saying I don't know.

The rich aren't complaining, so why should anyone listen?

~Bang

Ironically, from my personal experience, I know this to not be true. Due to certain members of my family, connections my wife has made in her career, and connections I have made over the years, my wife and I know quite a bit of wealthy people. I don't mean $250k earners, I mean multimillion earners. Every one of them that we know is currently hating everything about both political parties, because they here the arguments from both sides on tv making different claims about how well or poor the rich are doing, and they are all doing poorly financially and have lost a ton. Keep in mind, this isn't exactly an exact science, it could just be they are doing bad in this area, but nonetheless, the rich people we know have taken a bad hit the last few years and they're still taking hits.

That being said, I'd still gladly take their problems over mine :pfft:

[DRSmith]

Bush tax cuts for the rich sit in the banks not doing much

Money going into the lower and middle class gets spent and keeps the economy flowing but the mantra of the right was the poor do not give people jobs

[DieselPwr44]

They didn't.

But don't let that stop you from claiming it.

---------- Post added March-19th-2011 at 12:11 PM ----------

1812?

So Larry, just how much of the Stimulus did you get?

They had to pay you to spin that bad.

[Oversized Toddler]

Money going into the lower and middle class gets spent and keeps the economy flowing but the mantra of the right was the poor do not give people jobs

I've always thought this situation was a catch-22. On the surface, it sounds right, and I would agree completely with you. In reality though, it doesn't work as it should. If the money is being poured into the middle and lower classes in the form of tax cuts or whatever, they might be more inclined to spend more money. The problem is, if the people at the top are getting screwed, they still want their fat bonuses and hefty profit margins that they got during bloated economies, so they pass the difference on to the consumer, creating a stalemate. As a result, things stay the same.

This is precisely why I could never get into economics, everything about it drives me nuts. It's a lot of smoke and mirrors, and one thing doing the opposite of what it should. FWIW, I do not own a business, I do not own stocks, I do not have a retirement plan/401k or anything else, and I have never made $50,000 in a single year. (just in case someone misinterprets what I wrote as meaning I support the tax cuts, or that I'm a wealthy business owner :pfft:)

[DRSmith]

I've always thought this situation was a catch-22. On the surface, it sounds right, and I would agree completely with you. In reality though, it doesn't work as it should. If the money is being poured into the middle and lower classes in the form of tax cuts or whatever, they might be more inclined to spend more money. The problem is, if the people at the top are getting screwed, they still want their fat bonuses and hefty profit margins that they got during bloated economies, so they pass the difference on to the consumer, creating a stalemate. As a result, things stay the same.

This is precisely why I could never get into economics, everything about it drives me nuts. It's a lot of smoke and mirrors, and one thing doing the opposite of what it should. FWIW, I do not own a business, I do not own stocks, I do not have a retirement plan/401k or anything else, and I have never made $50,000 in a single year. (just in case someone misinterprets what I wrote as meaning I support the tax cuts, or that I'm a wealthy business owner :pfft:)

They can only pass on so much before people do not buy and smaller stores benefit

And because people are able to save and spend they can get the capital together to start their own shops

It also prevents someone from getting so large they control to much

[Oversized Toddler]

They can only pass on so much before people do not buy and smaller stores benefit

Again, this is one of those options that only work in theory. The idea of it sounds good, but rarely do people ever have the willpower to do this. If it worked, gas wouldn't cost what it does, food wouldn't cost what it does, Walmart would have shut down last year when they cranked up their prices, etc. Getting a large enough group of people to commit to doing this is something we have proven we are not capable of doing. The power is in the hands of the people, we're just not smart enough to realize it.

And because people are able to save and spend they can get the capital together to start their own shops

Again, something that doesn't realistically work. If you need the stuff, you need it, so you buy it wherever you can if prices are too absurd. In an economy like this, who is really able to save enough money to start up a business? If they were able to save that much money, do you really think they would use it to start a business, or save it just in case the bottom falls out and they are in danger of losing everything? Even if they did save the money for the purpose of starting a business, the wiser ones would wait until the economy has leveled out a lot more before making that leap.

It also prevents someone from getting so large they control to much

This isn't always the case. Walmart is a perfect example. There is a point where you have so much money, that no regulations or fines matter anymore. I recall just recently that Walmart was going to build on or right at the edge of a battlefield. People fought it and eventually won, but only because Walmart had a change of heart, not because they couldn't do whatever they wanted.

[NavyDave]

I still don't understand why Walmart would want to build in DC. Why have a popular store in area where the demographic has double digit unemployment?

Its much better to remain jobless to show love for unions.

[Burgold]

Using your own analogy, if my house burns down, I'm hiring a builder to rebuild it for me, not a fry cook.

Ah, so your solution is to hire a builder (spend money) who will probably use quality materials (more money) and subcontract or hire crews (even more money.) The problem isn't that they spent saddlebags of money to stop the bleeding and try to get the economy back on its feet, the question is did they spend money wisely. Too much medicine can kill as surely as lack of it. I think the problem with the Dems is that they got greedy and there were way too many politics as usual backdoor deals and bribes put into the stim. The stim itself was unfortunately necessary considering where the economy was, the state of the banks, and the lack of lending and liquidity.

That said, I'll admit also when it comes to the economy I'm no Einstein either and I don't have the answer, but what the Dems did seems to me neither evil or dumb... though if you argued inefficient and corrupt I'd probably side with you.

and I know quite a bit of wealthy people. I don't mean $250k earners, I mean multimillion earners. Every one of them that we know is currently hating everything about both political parties, because they here the arguments from both sides on tv making different claims about how well or poor the rich are doing, and they are all doing poorly financially and have lost a ton. Keep in mind, this isn't exactly an exact science, it could just be they are doing bad in this area, but nonetheless, the rich people we know have taken a bad hit the last few years and they're still taking hits.

That being said, I'd still gladly take their problems over mine :pfft:

Yup. The wealthy for the past twenty or thirty years have really been taking advantage. The rich are growing richer and everyone else seems to be getting :censored:

[Bang]

I still don't understand why Walmart would want to build in DC. Why have a popular store in area where the demographic has double digit unemployment?

Its much better to remain jobless to show love for unions.

Because those people will jump at the chance to work a job that they don't realize will keep them in poverty, and then they will spend the meager money they make right back in Wal Mart.. including the money they will receive from welfare, since that is one of the perks of working for Wal Mart. (So wal mart double dips the community. they get a lot of money they pay out back, and they get government money that these folks collect to make ends meet.

They get to be "employers" and they suck at the taxpayer's teat while keeping the community down.

But everyone thinks they're a good thing because you can save a few pennies on shampoo.

(I use Wal Mart, won't lie. I'm not anti wal-mart, and they are this big because they do offer good value. But we pay for it elsewhere.)

I'm surprised ND,, for such a hardcore right winger you seem to have missed that most essential of planks the GOP has championed over the last ten years.. even if they tell you otherwise. This is a good decision for Wal mart becuase the little guy can be exploited, and profits can be maximized.

Unions have become self serving, for sure. But if anyone believes that leaving the welfare of their workers up to the companies themselves is a good idea,, well, enjoy paying for the government programs that Wal Mart employees use because they can't afford to live otherwise. The majority of big employers must be forced to treat their employees like they are people. Trusting otherwise is to gnore history and to really REALLY display bad judgment in hoping that you'll be treated fairly by an organization that has one purpose, and that's to make money.. at pretty much any cost. The well being of employees are typically not a priority.

It is the employee's responsility to insure he's treated fairly, and that seems to me to be original conservagive thinking,, self reliance.It's baffling to me why you'd be against people standing up for themselves in principal, but I do understand why unions and how they operate needs to be addressed. They are way too political.

But what the hell.. these Wal Mart welfare recipients are working right? So yay for business!

Anyway, that's why wal Mart will build where no one has a job.

~Bang

[skinsfanindallas88]

Bush tax cuts for the rich sit in the banks not doing much

Money going into the lower and middle class gets spent and keeps the economy flowing but the mantra of the right was the poor do not give people jobs

The problem is lower and middle class people don't spend the money on goods that drive the economy

[Larry]

They didn't? Are you trying to tell me that in spite of what every single person in the country knows to be fact, you somehow know something we don't, and you know it to be a fact that the Democrats didn't increase spending? Educate me please, I don't want to be left out of the loop. I'm being completely serious, I have heard it non stop from both sides that the Democrats have spent us into oblivion, and that's why the vote in November turned out the way it did. However, just as you said to Diesel, it might not be fact, but don't let that stop you from claiming it is.

Well, since you asked to be educated . . .

(If your interested, I'm going to get all of my numbers from usgovernmentrevenue.com, and usgovernmentspending.com. And all the numbers I'm using have been inflation-adjusted to 2005 dollars.) (Really great sources.)

The biggest reason the deficit has increased (roughly half of the increase) is because federal revenues fell 16% between FY08-09, from $2,524B to $2,105B. ($400B of this $419B drop occurred in income taxes, which fell by 28%.)

Now, if everybody in the country knows for a fact that when Obama took office, the first thing he did was to pass a 30% tax cut, then obviously they need to educate me.

That accounts for $419B of the $865B increase in the deficit.

The next easy number to find from that source tells me that between FY08-09, the costs of paying unemployment went from $42 to $112. That's a spending increase, but Congress didn't do it. (The law didn't change.) (Yes, Congress did vote to extend unemployment benefits to people who were unemployed. But they did it in Dec of 2010. Near as I can tell, the law didn't change in FY09.)

This may be a surprise, but neither Congress nor the President decide how much money to spend on unemployment. Instead, they pass a law that says "anybody who gets laid off will get X dollars for Y months." If nobody gets laid off, then the government spends zero dollars. If everybody in the country gets laid off, then spending is astronomical. Yes, spending went up. But not one single person voted for it to go up.

That accounts for another $70B of the increase in the deficit.

Spending for what usgovernmentspending.com calls "Medical Service - Seniors", which I assume is Medicare, went up by $30B, again without anybody voting to increase it that I'm aware of.

Closest I can come, from that source, to finding Social Security spending is their category "Pensions, Old Age". But that category also went up by $60B.

I don't recall Obama and the Democrats passing any increases to Social Security in their first six months. Have you (and "every single person in the country") heard differently?

----------

Now, between FY08 and 09 (Which, I'll point out, started three months before Obama was elected. Six months before he took office), the deficit increased by $865B. I've accounted for $579B of that increase (67%), with absolutely nothing being done by the Democrats whatsoever.

(Frankly, it's not as hard as it looks. If there's one thing the Democrats are really, really, good at, it's doing nothing.)

Now, I'm not going to claim that the Democrats didn't help the deficit grow. For example, while you can argue about whether TARP was "owned" by W or not, it's obvious that Stimulus 2 was completely Democrat "owned". (You can argue about whether it helped or hurt. But it definitely increased the deficit, and it was definitely passed by the Democrats.) Just like their extending unemployment benefits in Dec of 10. (Might have been good, might not, but it's definitely "theirs".)

Yes, the deficit went up, hugely. But it wasn't because of anything that any politician did. It was because the economy stank. And when the economy goes down the toilet, then revenues fall, and spending increases, without any politician doing a thing.

The big villain in this "crisis" isn't a political party, it's the economy.

----------

Now it's y'all's turn. You know, you and "everyone in the country".

Show me the vast, spending-increasing pieces of legislation that those evil Democrats passed, and spent, in their first six months of power. With actual numbers of how much they actually spent during those six months.

[Burgold]

The problem is lower and middle class people don't spend the money on goods that drive the economy

They don't? They don't buy coke, eat at McDonald's, buy tvs, and groceries? They don't buy laptops and cars or video games or movie tickets. Geez, I most have been on another world. I didn't realize every time I go to Target or a Dollar Store that it's only the rich that are buying.

[Larry]

They don't? They don't buy coke, eat at McDonald's, buy tvs, and groceries? They don't buy laptops and cars or video games or movie tickets. Geez, I most have been on another world. I didn't realize every time I go to Target or a Dollar Store that it's only the rich that are buying.

Perhaps his point is that your money at Target is supporting China's economy. But I'm not certain. (It's hard, sometimes. I think that "conservatives" are being taught to never actually say what their actual position is.)

[Burgold]

yeah, if the argument is shifting from the poor and middle class don't create jobs to the poor and middle class don't buy goods... I'm afraid very soon we won't even be speaking the same language.

[Oversized Toddler]

Yup. The wealthy for the past twenty or thirty years have really been taking advantage. The rich are growing richer and everyone else seems to be getting :censored:

You missed my point completely, but I see what you're saying. I was saying I'd hire an expert to rebuild my house, not someone that doesn't know anything about it. I was basically trying to say I'm an admitted dunce on economic issues, but I guess I worded it wrong :pfft: But if you're saying the Democrats had good intentions, and it was the execution that got bungled, then I agree 100% A lot of things look good on paper, but putting things into motion take a lot more than paper, and when reality got involved, we all found out things were way more complicated than they appeared on the surface.

Well, since you asked to be educated . . .

(If your interested, I'm going to get all of my numbers from usgovernmentrevenue.com, and usgovernmentspending.com. And all the numbers I'm using have been inflation-adjusted to 2005 dollars.) (Really great sources.)

The biggest reason the deficit has increased (roughly half of the increase) is because federal revenues fell 16% between FY08-09, from $2,524B to $2,105B. ($400B of this $419B drop occurred in income taxes, which fell by 28%.)

Now, if everybody in the country knows for a fact that when Obama took office, the first thing he did was to pass a 30% tax cut, then obviously they need to educate me.

That accounts for $419B of the $865B increase in the deficit.

The next easy number to find from that source tells me that between FY08-09, the costs of paying unemployment went from $42 to $112. That's a spending increase, but Congress didn't do it. (The law didn't change.) (Yes, Congress did vote to extend unemployment benefits to people who were unemployed. But they did it in Dec of 2010. Near as I can tell, the law didn't change in FY09.)

This may be a surprise, but neither Congress nor the President decide how much money to spend on unemployment. Instead, they pass a law that says "anybody who gets laid off will get X dollars for Y months." If nobody gets laid off, then the government spends zero dollars. If everybody in the country gets laid off, then spending is astronomical. Yes, spending went up. But not one single person voted for it to go up.

That accounts for another $70B of the increase in the deficit.

Spending for what usgovernmentspending.com calls "Medical Service - Seniors", which I assume is Medicare, went up by $30B, again without anybody voting to increase it that I'm aware of.

Closest I can come, from that source, to finding Social Security spending is their category "Pensions, Old Age". But that category also went up by $60B.

I don't recall Obama and the Democrats passing any increases to Social Security in their first six months. Have you (and "every single person in the country") heard differently?

----------

Now, between FY08 and 09 (Which, I'll point out, started three months before Obama was elected. Six months before he took office), the deficit increased by $865B. I've accounted for $579B of that increase (67%), with absolutely nothing being done by the Democrats whatsoever.

(Frankly, it's not as hard as it looks. If there's one thing the Democrats are really, really, good at, it's doing nothing.)

Now, I'm not going to claim that the Democrats didn't help the deficit grow. For example, while you can argue about whether TARP was "owned" by W or not, it's obvious that Stimulus 2 was completely Democrat "owned". (You can argue about whether it helped or hurt. But it definitely increased the deficit, and it was definitely passed by the Democrats.) Just like their extending unemployment benefits in Dec of 10. (Might have been good, might not, but it's definitely "theirs".)

Yes, the deficit went up, hugely. But it wasn't because of anything that any politician did. It was because the economy stank. And when the economy goes down the toilet, then revenues fall, and spending increases, without any politician doing a thing.

The big villain in this "crisis" isn't a political party, it's the economy.

----------

Now it's y'all's turn. You know, you and "everyone in the country".

Show me the vast, spending-increasing pieces of legislation that those evil Democrats passed, and spent, in their first six months of power. With actual numbers of how much they actually spent during those six months.

Wow, I definitely appreciate the effort, and I can't argue against anything you stated, because it's all verifiable, and not opinion. The only thing (again, not trying to start a fight, just trying to get things cleared up) I can say, is the current arguments I've been reading about Democratic spending all point to the same things. Democrats are very intelligent when it comes to masking things. I'm not saying that to mean that they spend money and somehow hide it from the public, I'm saying they do a lot of things and call them something else. Here are the examples I can think of right off the top of my head....

Democrats love to tax, and deflect from that reality by calling it a "fee" or a "surcharge". My problem with that, is a tax by any other name, is still a tax. The example close to home I can think of with this, is when John Warner, then Tim Kaine were governing Virginia. Under both of them, fees increased for a lot of things, especially DMV related transactions. Registration fees nearly doubled, licensing fees were increased more than 100%, etc. Also, anyone traveling Blue Ridge Parkway can tell you how outlandish the fees on that have become.

The other thing I noticed, is my wife, my father and me used to love touring all the battlefields in the state every summer. We no longer do this, because it costs money now. Some are fairly priced (a few dollars per person) but some are overpriced (the $15 per person charge plus parking they instituted at Petersburg the first year of Warner's term comes to mind). In reality, these were all taxes masquerading as other things. This would never have been an issue with me, except the fact that they would both get on tv and gloat about how amazing they were, because they greatly increased the revenue in the state without raising a single tax. Seriously, lying to people and being deceitful is no way to do business.

That being said, along with what you posted, makes me wonder if they do the same thing when it comes to spending. Do they spend and cut like they claim, or do they spend and shuffle? It's really easy to list a bunch of money you spent on one side, then list an equal amount of money you cut on another side, resulting in a list that looks like neutral spending. I'm not saying at all that this is what's being done. but given how they do their taxing/fees deal, I wouldn't put it past them. Republicans, don't think you're exempt from this either, because you're just as dirty, you just aren't as good at deflection.

Here's a way I can describe what I'm saying.....

Say one party passed a bill that would increase spending by $500 billion. The next day, they announce they are cutting (insert program here), which will result in a budget cut of $500 Billion, therefor balancing it all out. What if the $500 billion they were cutting from the program, was never being spent for the program anyway? This happens a lot, local governments are notorious for it. they allocate x amount of dollars in a budget for one thing, then spend it elsewhere. So what I'm asking, is how do we really know that said funding was cut, and not just the title of a program? Until someone can point me to a source that verifies that the program and the money were cut, I'm not believing anything. The money has to go somewhere. if $500 billion gets cut, where do we see the break? The deficit didn't go down, the taxes didn't go down, and everything stayed the same. If that vast of an amount of money is being cut, wouldn't it have appeared somewhere else? You can't rob Peter to pay Paul, and call it deficit neutral, that's not a reality that I'm willing to accept. It's an illusion, a trick by people smarter than we are to make it look like they're saving us money.

I really sincerely appreciate the information you have given me though, because it is exactly what I asked for, and I have to applaud you for that. It's very informative, and sheds a lot more light than someone just saying, so and so cost us this, and he cost us that. The only issues I have with the information from your source, is that it is misleading. Just because money wasn't spent on something that was approved by Congress, does not mean the money wasn't spent. Every dime should be accounted for, not just the ones that went through the proper channels.