No doubt. On the other hand, you are making the opposite conclusion that if the D's are in the majority, Congress becomes "leftist-dominated" -- which is especially silly when one realizes that the number of actual leftists (as opposed to liberals) in Congress can be counted on one hand.

"What does? That the Democrats didn't like the Republicans stealing their biggest issue, and worked against it on that issue, largely... and of course claiming it didn't go far enough."

Neither was the case. Their objections were that the lack of ability to negotiate prices made the program welfare for the pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as the blatant lying by the Administration as to the cost. Both of which have certainly been shown by the workings of the program.

And..

Which of course explains why the largest increase in discretionary spending of the Bush Presidency (the prescription drug benefit) was passed with zero Democratic support. Or not.

Of course it doesn't. What does? That the Democrats didn't like the Republicans stealing their biggest issue, and worked against it on that issue, largely... and of course claiming it didn't go far enough.

Let's see --
Senate 2007-08 D 49, R 49, I 2 (both caucusing with Democrats, although Lieberman seems to be going out of his way to compel the Democrats to change that), House D 233, R 202 = "leftist-dominated congress"

Senate 2005-06 R 55, D 44, I 1 (caucusing with Democrats), House R 232, D 202, I 1 (caucusing with Democrats) = "slim nature of the majority Republicans"

Nope, no inconsistency there.

"Thirdly, there was an understandable, if misguided desire on the part of the Repubicans not to too badly annoy various leftie groups over one government giveaway program or another."

Which of course explains why the largest increase in discretionary spending of the Bush Presidency (the prescription drug benefit) was passed with zero Democratic support. Or not.

"democat party"

I am still laughing about this typo.

Let me know when you want me to take you seriously

LOL. Dude, if you took me seriously I would question my sanity...

Then why do you think they did not do so between 2003 and 2006, when there was a war on, and the Republicans had undivided control of Congress?

First, given the slim nature of the majority Republicans had in both houses, I question your qualification of "undivided'. All it took to turn votes to the Democrats was an Olypia Snowe, or a John McCain to turn a vote to the left. And they had far more than a few. Further, as an example, I've been saying since 2000, GWB is not a conservative, for all that he calls himself a Republican... he is a centrist and not enough to tip the scale back to even the center... it still tipped left in total.

Secondly, and as an extension of the first, that very slim majority provides an environment that tends to foster a lot of go-along to get along type of politics, which invariably will add to government growth. I stood up to a lot of flack from libertarins who suggested through that timeframe, that such a slim majority amounted to gridlocked government. This was supposed to be a good thing. And had there been an actual balance, I might have agreed. Trouble was, it wasn't, and I said so at the time that the slim majority amounted to nothing of the kind, unless there were no liberal Republicans. Guess who was correct?

Thirdly, there was an understandable, if misguided desire on the part of the Repubicans not to too badly annoy various leftie groups over one government giveaway program or another. This attitude was brought on by a combo of the thin majority and it's consequences as I described above, but also wanting to maintain PR; they didn't want to be seen as the ogres the Demos had been projecting them as, lo, these many decades. That many of the peopole involved were not operating from conservative principles didn't help matters, any.

IMV such things both individually and collectively, played directly into the democat party's hands.

(Aside; The only combo that's not been tried since the civil war, is a strong... and I mean strong majority of Republicans... strong enough that it's not beholding to it's own left wing.)

I see you're not, but rethorically, I'll tell you not to blame conservatives for the Republican failure through that period. The trouble was, there were not enough Republicans in elective office who WERE conservative. I said so at the time, And alas that's still true, up to and including the current Republican nominee.

"I suggest that wouldn't be a problem under a Republican Congress; They'd understand that social spending takes a back seat to the war effort."

Then why do you think they did not do so between 2003 and 2006, when there was a war on, and the Republicans had undivided control of Congress? Instead, they increased spending, including adding a new program to spend on (prescription drugs).

"This is a perrception issue. Spending is actually lower than the perception would suggest."

Taxes, too, as I have said before.

You are promoting the notion of a free lunch

An interesting argument, given wer're being told pretty much that higher tax rates are without negative consequences in terms of economic growth and thereby tax revenue.

That's one reason why the Bush Administration prefers to use supplementals for war spending, it exempts it from any pesky rules like PAYGO which would require either reducing other spending or raising taxes to pay for it

I suggest that wouldn't be a problem under a Republican Congress; They'd understand that social spending takes a back seat to the war effort. As it is, such nonsense would devlve into months of bickering, while we get defeated by the leftist-dominated congress.

My point was that the public perception is that we are at record spending levels, and average tax levels, rather than average spending levels and low tax levels. Without the war spending, we'd be at low-average spending levels and low tax levels.

If I'm reading you right, we tend to agree. This is a perrception issue. Spending is actually lower than the perception would suggest.
You see, I don't regard military spending as discresionary.

When taxes are cut, revenues decline. Over the next few years, assuming taxes are not cut again, they will rise along with economic growth and inflation. But the tax cuts did not necessarily cause the subsequent revenue increases, while they unquestionably caused the initial revenue declines.

You can't ascribe all economic growth to tax cuts.

And again... no one ever used to believe this fantasy. There is a difference between the belief that taxes are sometimes too high and ought to be cut and that notion that taxes are always too high.

You are promoting the notion of a free lunch. And conservatives used to understand that there are no free lunches in this world.

Which, one may assume, that sans the war effort, would seem to suggest that both spending and taxes are far lower."

Spending, yes. Taxes, no. That's one reason why the Bush Administration prefers to use supplementals for war spending, it exempts it from any pesky rules like PAYGO which would require either reducing other spending or raising taxes to pay for it. Another (and likely more important) reason is that it keeps the war spending out of the deficit figures you are citing. When you add in the two wars and other off-the-books spending such as FEMA, we are running $500 billion annual increases in the national debt (as I cited yesterday). And if you don't count the redirection of the Social Security Trust Fund to reduce the debt, it's closer to $750 billion.

"Assuming the growth in spending to which you refer, we'd be spending at a rate far higher than the average, no? As it is, even WITH the war, we're only at average spending levels."

I don't understand this. Please clarify. My point was that the public perception is that we are at record spending levels, and average tax levels, rather than average spending levels and low tax levels. Without the war spending, we'd be at low-average spending levels and low tax levels.

The Sun may sometimes use correct facts, but it is clearly a partisan rag. Not much of a source.

LOL!
So now the only sources you will accept are the ones that back your position... and you exclude as a matter of that, the official (and need I say it, bipartisan) accounting? A cute move, Bernie.

Let me know when you want me to take you seriously.

Assuming you meant "driver", not "diver"...

(Weak grin) I Told you I was tired...

1. The current level of spending is approximately the average of that nearly half-century period.

Which, one may assume, that sans the war effort, would seem to suggest that both spending and taxes are far lower. Assuming the growth in spending to which you refer, we'd be spending at a rate far higher than the average, no? As it is, even WITH the war, we're only at average spending levels.

While I'm here... (And I recognize this is not complete, but last night put me off what I wanted to do...) let's start with the most recent example of tax rate cuts generating more revenue:

Let’s start with the most recent example of tax rate cuts fueling tax take increases. From the WSJ, last October:

Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

This was a point even the New York Times had to admit in July of 05

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year.

Bill Frist agrees, saying, based on the CBO reports, in USA TODAY:

Ever since the Senate approved the last major tax relief bill, in 2003, revenues have increased every year. In 2004, they went up 5.5%. Last year, they rose 14.5%, the largest increase in nearly 25 years.

Total government collections, in fact, increased more after President Bush's 2003 tax cuts than they did after President Clinton's 1994 tax hikes.

Now, that's just the most recent example. I have older references to hand (Bush 41, Regan, Kennedy, etc) and will be tossing together some notes. But I'm sure we'll be busy with the denial on this long enough for those to come out.

Have at it.

"So, the only diver of national debt, is income, and increased spending has nothing to do with this?"

Assuming you meant "driver", not "diver"...

If you compare the level of Federal taxes and spending to GDP since 1960, you see two things:

1. The current level of spending is approximately the average of that nearly half-century period.
2. The current level of taxes is near its lowest point.

In other words, we are maintaining the Great Society programs while taxing as if we never expanded the government in the 1960's. It's a pity that the general talking point is that the opposite is true, and we have typical levels of taxation and runaway spending.

What we are seeing is the legacy of the Telecommunications act of 1996 (a Clinton, not a Bush, screwup).

As a result, the sharks ate all the minnows, and now the MSM, as the right is so fond of pointing out, is kind of a joke. Unbridled capitalism at its best. Thank God for the internets...